Next Article in Journal
Comparative Transcriptome Profiling Provides Insights into Plant Salt Tolerance in Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus)
Next Article in Special Issue
Soil Quality Assessment in Tourism-Disturbed Subtropical Mountain Meadow Areas of Wugong Mountain, Central Southeast China
Previous Article in Journal
Upregulation of VSIG4 in Type 2 Diabetic Kidney Disease
Previous Article in Special Issue
Soil Organic Carbon Mineralization and Its Temperature Sensitivity under Different Substrate Levels in the Mollisols of Northeast China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Carbon Pool in Mexican Wetland Soils: Importance of the Environmental Service

by
Sergio Zamora
1,
Irma Zitácuaro-Contreras
2,
Erick Arturo Betanzo-Torres
3,
Luis Carlos Sandoval Herazo
3,
Mayerlin Sandoval-Herazo
4,
Monserrat Vidal-Álvarez
2,* and
José Luis Marín-Muñiz
2,*
1
Facultad de Ingeniería, Construcción y Habitad, Universidad Veracruzana, Bv. Adolfo Ruíz Cortines 455, Costa Verde, Boca del Rio 94294, Veracruz, Mexico
2
Academy of Sustainable Regional Development, El Colegio de Veracruz, Xalapa 91000, Veracruz, Mexico
3
Wetlands and Environmental Sustainability Laboratory, Division of Graduate Studies and Research, Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de Misantla, Veracruz, Km 1.8 Carretera a Loma del Cojolite, Misantla 93821, Veracruz, Mexico
4
Department of Business Management Engineering, Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de Misantla, Veracruz, Km 1.8 Carretera a Loma del Cojolite, Misantla 93821, Veracruz, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2022, 12(7), 1032; https://doi.org/10.3390/life12071032
Submission received: 12 June 2022 / Revised: 7 July 2022 / Accepted: 7 July 2022 / Published: 11 July 2022

Abstract

:
Mexican wetlands are not included in Earth system models around the world, despite being an important carbon store in the wetland soils in the tropics. In this review, five different types of wetlands were observed (marshes, swamps, flooded grasslands, flooded palms and mangroves) in which their carbon pool/carbon sequestrations in Mexican zones were studied. In addition, it was shown that swamps (forested freshwater wetlands) sequestered more carbon in the soil (86.17 ± 35.9 Kg C m−2) than other types of wetlands (p = 0.011); however, these ecosystems are not taken into consideration by the Mexican laws on protection compared with mangroves (34.1 ± 5.2 Kg C m−2). The carbon pool detected for mangrove was statistically similar (p > 0.05) to data of carbon observed in marshes (34.1 ± 5.2 Kg C m−2) and flooded grassland (28.57 ± 1.04 Kg C m−2) ecosystems. The value of carbon in flooded palms (8.0 ± 4.2 Kg C m−2) was lower compared to the other wetland types, but no significant differences were found compared with flooded grasslands (p = 0.99). Thus, the carbon deposits detected in the different wetland types should be taken into account by policy makers and agents of change when making laws for environmental protection, as systematic data on carbon dynamics in tropical wetlands is needed in order to allow their incorporation into global carbon budgets.

1. Introduction

Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are at levels unprecedented in at least 800,000 years. Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have all shown large increases since 1750 (40%, 150% and 20%, respectively) [1]. Thus, wetlands are an option to help to mitigate the impact of climate change as they can regulate, capture and store GHGs [2,3] due to their dense vegetation, microbial activity and soil conditions.
Wetlands are transitional zones between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, areas of water saturated with soil that covers about 5 to 8% of the land surface of Earth [2]. They include floodplains with forest or herbaceous vegetation. Wetlands play an important role in the global carbon cycle; they have the best capacity of any ecosystem to retain carbon in the soil, as these ecosystems have a high capacity to limit the availability of oxygen to soil microbes and the decomposition of organic matter [4,5].
Decomposition of organic matter within wetlands involves aerobic and anaerobic processes. Organic matter decomposition (shrub residues, detritus, etc.) is often incomplete under anaerobic conditions due to the lack of oxygen [5]. The carbon accumulation formed over time is vulnerable when the wetland soil is affected by five factors, which includes pollution, biological resource use, natural system modification, agriculture and aquaculture [6]. These changes may have important repercussions on global warming. However, despite the fact that approximately 30% of the world’s wetlands are found in the tropics [2,7], only a few studies [7,8] regarding carbon sequestration in wetlands have been conducted and taken into account for the global carbon budget in the tropical regional zone of Mexico.
Of the total storage of carbon in the earth’s soils (1400–2300PgC (Pg = 1015 g of carbon)), 20–30% is stored in wetlands [2]. Some studies around the world on carbon sequestration have shown the importance of natural soil wetlands; for example, North American wetlands contain about 220 PgC, most of which is in peat [8]. Wetlands in the conterminous United States store a total of 11.52 PgC [9]. Another study suggests that the world’s wetlands serve as a net sink of 0.83 PgC/year, estimated from 21 wetland simulations that included Russia, Canada, Costa Rica, Botswana and the USA data on carbon sequestration wetland soils [10]. However, information of Mexican carbon pools was not considered in American data. The knowledge regarding carbon sequestration and storage in all the wetland soils is critical for successful pathways to global decarbonization and carbon budgets.
In 2022, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, known as theRAMSAR Convention or RAMSAR treaty, celebrates 51 years of efforts to conserve these crucial ecosystems. The treaty includes 2435 designated wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites), which involves 254,685,425 hectares of wetland soils around the world (172 contracting parties). Mexico is in second place with wetland Ramsar sites (142) after the United Kingdom (175), covering 8.7 million ha. Many of the priority wetland sites in Mexico are associated with coastal sites on the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean [11].
According to this, it is essential to know the Mexican wetlands. Thus, the main objective of this study is to describe the natural wetlands of Mexico, their uses, and soil carbon pool or carbon sequestration function.

2. Materials and Methods

The authors undertook a comprehensive search of the literature on carbon sequestered in Mexican wetland soils (mangroves, flooded palms, swamps, flooded grassland, marshes) based on the most important databases located in Mexican universities, publications of the Mexican carbon program (http://pmcarbono.org/pmc/publicaciones/sintesisn.php (accessed on 5 June 2022)), and the ISI Web of Knowledge (www.isiknowledge.com (accessed on 8 April 2022)) database. The keywords used were: (carbon-pool, -stock, -sinks, -sequestration, soil, wetlands, mangroves, flooded palms, swamps, flooded grassland, marshes using the booleans operators and/or (exclusively in Spanish and English). A total of 482 studies (from the year 2000 to 2022) were identified regarding carbon sinks for Mexican wetland soils; only 32 studies were selected based on studies in situ on carbon pools or carbon sequestration in Mexican wetlands because most were theoretical topics or reviews, of which 56 sites were analyzed because in some papers different types of wetlands were studied. The remaining percentage of studies was used for the introduction section, the justification of the study and the discussion of the data.
To provide context, it is important to mention that, in most cases, the method formeasuring the carbon sequestered in wetland soils consists of sampling points of soil profiles used to analyze carbon and bulk density. Organic carbon is obtained by analyzing the percentage of organic matter (OM) content and calculated as a portion of OM by using the conversion coefficient of 0.58 (Van Bemmelen factor) [3,7,10] or the factor of 0.50 proposed by Mitsch and Gosselink [2].
Statistical analyses to determine differences in carbon pools among wetland soils were performed with IBM SPSS Statistic version 22 for Windows (Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.). A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to check normality; data fitted no normal distributions; thus, the Kruskal–Wallis test at the 5% significant level was used to find differences in the carbon pools between different wetland types.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Importance of Natural Wetlands to Ecosystem Services

Natural wetlands are important areas in terms of natural resources and biodiversity. The publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [12] described a categorization for wetland ecosystem services with four types: (1) Provisioning ecosystem services include products obtained from ecosystems, such as food, water, timber, fiber, or genetic resources. (2) Regulating ecosystem services include air quality and climate regulation, water purification, disease/pest regulation, pollination, and natural hazard regulation. (3) Cultural ecosystem services include benefits that people obtain from ecosystems related to spiritual enrichment, recreation, ecotourism, aesthetics, formal and informal education, inspiration, and cultural heritage, and (4) supporting ecosystem services include basic ecosystem processes of nutrient cycling and primary productivity that may, in turn, lead to the other three services listed above.
Considering the ecosystem services described above, wetlands are known as “the kidneys of the landscape” and “ecological supermarkets”, and they provide a potential sink of carbon [2]. Despite the fact that a large percentage of wetlands occur in tropical latitudes, carbon sequestration from coastal tropical Mexican wetlands has not been extensively reported.

3.2. Wetland Types

Natural wetlands include marine, coastal or continental wetland types. The water that flows into the wetland could be freshwater, brackish or saline. According to the vegetation, the wetlands can have herbaceous vegetation or forest plants. However, some specific classifications are described:
Forested wetlands: these are wetlands dominated by trees in temporal or permanent flooded conditions. Wetlands dominated by halophytic trees growing in brackish to saline tidal waters are called Mangroves. Typical mangrove trees are Avicennia germinans, Laguncularia racemosa and Rhizophora mangle L. Wetland trees growing in freshwater conditions are called freshwater swamps. In this study, only the concept “swamp” was used. Typical freshwater swamp trees are Pachira aquatica, Haematoxylum campechianum, Ficus insipida, Taxodium distichum and Nyssa aquatic [2,13].
Herbaceous wetlands: these are wetlands dominated by emergent herbaceous vegetation adapted to saturated soil conditions. In wetlands with freshwater conditions, common species are Typha spp., Thalia geniculate L., Scirpus spp. and Pontederia sagittata. While common species of herbaceous wetlands growing in brackish or saline water are: Spartina alterniflora, Salicornia quinqueflora and Galaxias maculates [3,13]. In this study, these types of wetlands are considered as marshes (wetlands dominated by herbaceous plants, such as grasses, reeds and sedges [2,3]).
On the other hand, other types of herbaceous wetlands are the flooded grasslands: these wetlands are characterized by an abundance of grass (or sedges), as well as periodic flooding with fresh or brackish water or a high-water level during some months of the year, sufficient to influence the vegetation. Typical grasses include species of the Poaceae family or sedges with species of the Cyperaceae family [14].

3.3. The Carbon Cycle and Dominant Organisms in Wetland Soils

Carbon capture and sequestration is a physical process that involves the capture of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and its storage. In wetlands, the major components of the carbon cycle are illustrated in Figure 1. Various reactions utilizing carbon take place within wetlands. The key processes are respiration and photosynthesis in aerobic conditions, fermentation, methanogenesis, methane oxidation and sulfate, iron, and nitrate reduction in the anaerobic areas [15].
Photosynthesis (6CO2 + 12H2O + light → C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O) and aerobic respiration (C6H12O6 + 6O2→ 6CO2 + 6H2O + 12e + energy) dominate the aerobic areas (aerial and aerobic water and soil), with H2O as the major electron donor in photosynthesis and oxygen as the terminal electron acceptor in respiration [2].
The fermentation of organic matter or glycolysis for the substrate involved occurs when organic matter is the terminal electron acceptor in the anaerobic respiration of microorganisms. This forms various low-molecular-weight acids and alcohols, as well as carbon dioxide, e.g., lactic acid (C6H12O6→ 2CH3CH2OCOOH) and ethanol (C6H12O6→ 2CH3CH2OH + 2CO2). Fermentation represents one of the major ways in which high-molecular-weight carbohydrates are broken down to low-molecular-weight organic compounds, usually as dissolved organic carbon, which is, in turn, available to other microbes [2,16].
The methanogenesis occurs when certain methanogenic bacteria members of the Archaea domain use CO2 as an electron acceptor for the production of gaseous methane (CO2 + 8H+ → CH4 + 2H2O). Depending on the wetlands and type of archaea, hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis or acetoclastic processes occur. In non-fertilized soils, it has been observed that acetoclastic methanogenesis represents 51–67% of the produced methane [16]. On the other hand, methane oxidation is carried out by obligate methanotrophic bacteria, which are from a larger group of eubacteria; they convert methane gas in sequence to methanol (CH3OH), formaldehyde (HCHO), and finally CO2 (CH4→ CH3OH → HCHO → HCOOH → CO2)
Sulfate reduction: this metabolism is carried out by sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) when the redox potential (Eh) decreases to −120 mV. SRB use mainly sulfate as their terminal electron acceptor in the anaerobic oxidation of organic substrates and reduce it to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (2(CH2O) + SO4−2 2HCO3− + H2S). Sulfate reducers are capable of using formate, lactate and H2; therefore, they compete with methanogens for substrates [2,16]. In coastal sediments, distinct depth distributions have been observed, where SO42− reducers are abundant in the first few centimeters, but as SO42− is depleted, methanogens become more abundant at greater depths [17].
Iron reduction: this is a process carried out when the Eh descends to –47 mV. Several groups of facultative and anaerobic bacteria participate in it. Manganese-reduction and iron-reduction are relevant processes in those wetlands with high mineral supplies [16].
Denitrification: it is a respiration process in which the electron acceptor is nitrate, and it starts when oxygen concentration is <10 µM. The resulting denitrification products are molecular nitrogen (N2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx). Anaerobic Gram-negative bacteria performs this process; among them, the genera Pseudomonas spp., Clostridium spp., Bacillus spp. and Alcaligenes spp. have been reported [18].
Hydrology and radial O2 leakage have differences in the oxidation state of metals. Therefore, site mineralogy interacts with hydrology to shape the wetland microbial community. For example, wetland roots are often coated with iron (Fe) (III) and Manganese (Mn) (IV) oxides. Plants supply electron donors in the form of root exudates and oxidize metals through O2 leakage, supporting metal-reducing bacteria [19].
Soils of organic matter typically contain between 45% and 50% carbon. Organic soils formed from plant debris decompose slowly in very wet settings due to low oxygen conditions, also referred to as anaerobic. Organic soils are very black, porous, and light in weight and are often referred to as “peat” or “musk” [20]. Another process in wetlands is respiration, described as the biological conversion of carbohydrates to carbon dioxide, and fermentation is the conversion of carbohydrates to chemical compounds such as lactic acid, or ethanol and carbon dioxide. In a wetland, organic carbon is converted into compounds including carbon dioxide and methane and/or stored in plants, dead plant matter, microorganisms, or peat [15,16].
Microbial degradation of above-ground plant litter is likely to begin before the material enters the soil, and the role of fungi in wetlands needs more investigation. Some dominant organisms in wetland soils described in a mini review [19] include fungi (Chaetothyriales, Cantharellales), bacteria (Bacteroides, Planctomycetes, Chloroflexi, Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria), fermenters (Chloroflexi, Proteobacteria, Verrucomicrobia), iron reducers (Geobacter sp., Desulfovibrio sp., Anaeromyxobacter, Shewanella), sulfate reducers (Desulfarculales, Desulfovibrionales, Syntrophobacterales, Firmicutes, Desulfobulbaceae), methanogens (Methanoregulaceae, Methanosarcinaceae, Methanosaetaceae) and methanotrophs (Methylobacter, Methylocystis, Methylobacter).

3.4. Carbon Sequestration in Mexican Wetland Soils

Considering that the importance of wetlands in carbon sequestration as an environmental service to mitigate global warming was described by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [12], it is important to highlight that this regulating ecosystem service is scarcely perceived or recognized by the population.
Generally, provisioning and the cultural ecosystem services are the most identified because they are more visible or palpable [21], so the dissemination of this type of knowledge is important, and this study highlights such function, in which it is important to note that even though there are some global carbon balances, counts or earth system models, these do not include Mexican or tropical data [2,9,12,22]. However, in the last 20 years, measurements of the carbon storage function have been made in Mexico, including mangroves, swamps, marshes, flooded palms and flooded grasslands (Table 1).
Carbon sequestration in Mexican marshes oscillated between 16 and 110 Kg C m−2 (Table 1), while data of carbon pool reported for marshes of Old Woman Creek from Ohio were between 9 and 14 Kg C m−2. In Palo Verde, a national park in Costa Rica, only 6 to 7 Kg C m−2 were reported [23]. The carbon pool observed in the riverine marsh of Botswana, Africa, oscillated within 0.8–1.3 Kg C m−2 [24], underlining the importance of Mexican tropical wetlands in carbon storage, in addition to highlighting the importance of these data for the generation of regulations or public policies for their protection since these types of wetlands do not have extensive legal protection as in the case of the mangroves.
The flooded grasslands are sites with minimal attention regarding the function of the carbon pool. In Mexican regions, three studies were found between the states of Veracruz, Chiapas and Tabasco (Table 1, Figure 2), with carbon sequestered in the soil within 28 and 31 Kg C m−2. In the same regions, one of the studies mentioned above [25] claims that soil carbon concentration decreases in areas converted from swamps of forested wetlands to flooded grasslands due to decreases in carbon inputs, physical disturbances, and shorter hydroperiods, which enhance higher greenhouse emissions, so the changing land use negatively affects the ecosystem services as a carbon pool.
Regarding mangroves, in Mexico, they are the wetland type with the best policies and law enforcement for protection and conservation [3]. However, despite this importance, mangroves are being deforested. Throughout the twentieth century, 30–50% of global mangrove cover has been destroyed. Using previously published global models of carbon stocks and Mexico-specific carbon sequestration data and calculating gross deforestation, it was found that the current rate of deforestation will result in a social cost of USD 392.0 (±7.4) million over the next 25 years [26].
Thus, it is essential to follow up on the policies established in the country and avoid permits for land-use change in these ecosystems, considering that the values of carbon sequestered in mangrove soils oscillate between 7 and 93 Kg C m2 in almost all the coastal zone of the country (Table 1, Figure 2). The values reported are similar to data in inventories of soil carbon for natural and replanted mangrove forests from tropical and subtropical areas, including Indonesia, Thailand, China and Australia (28–56 Kg C m−2) [27].
Regarding swamps, these ecosystems have been recognized as treasures of the country, and some books have described the importance, history, science and policies of these wetland sites [2,3,28]. In Mexico, for example, some studies have reported their importance as a carbon pool, mainly in the coastal areas of Veracruz and Chiapas with values between 35 and 73 Kg C m−2, while in other tropical zones such as Costa Rica or temperate areas such as Ohio, the values reported for similar wetland types are lower (10–21 Kg C m−2) [10,23].
Flooded palms are a type of wetland that is less common; however, in Mexico, three sites with carbon pool data were identified in Veracruz and Quintana Roo (Table 1, Figure 2), with values of 1.5 to 16 Kg C m−2. These ecosystems are important as the fruits of the palms are widely used for the preparation of traditional recipes, and the stem of the palms is used for house construction [29,30]. At EARTH University, Humedal La Reserva, of Costa Rica, in the middle of the rainforest reserve on the university campus, there is a swamp palm dominated by Raphia taedigera with a carbon pool of 15.28 Kg C m−2 reported in the soil, similar to the maximum value detected for Mexican flooded palms.

3.5. Mean Carbon Sequestration or Carbon Pool in Mexican Wetland Soils

The use of natural ecosystems to accumulate carbon in the soil is one of the most cost-effective tools for reducing the net effect of greenhouse gas emissions and abating climate change [62]. Mexican wetlands have been studied mainly in the last 10 years regarding their high productivity in organic matter in the soil; the values reported were averaged according to the wetland type (Figure 3), finding statistical differences of (p = 0.011). The best wetland type for carbon sequestration in the soil was the swamp with 86.17 ± 35.9 Kg C m−2; this value was significantly higher than flooded grassland (28.57 ± 1.04 Kg C m−2; p = 0.017), mangroves (34.1 ± 5.2 Kg C m−2; p = 0.010), flooded palms (8.0 ± 4.2 Kg C m−2; p = 0.017) or the marshes (40.55 ± 11.5 Kg C m−2; p = 0.049). These values are very important for climate models of the carbon balance. Marín-Muñiz et al. [63] argued that wetlands should be considered as a sink of carbon in the 100-year time horizon. Thus, the importance of conserving and protecting these ecosystems is worth mentioning.
On the other hand, the carbon pool in mangrove soils revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) with respect to the carbon pool of flooded palm and swamp zones. Flooded palm soils sequestered a similar amount of carbon to flooded grassland (p = 0.100) but were different compared to the other wetland types. The carbon in marshes was statistically similar to the carbon pool in flooded palms (0.990) and mangrove soils (p = 0.447). The importance of the vegetation regarding the quantity of carbon sequestration in the soil has been documented in some studies [31,64]; similarly, other factors such as water level and flooded conditions are also important in the carbon pool in the wetlands [8,31].
Comparing the carbon pool of Mexican wetland soils with other reported values reported of wetlands in other countries or for the Mexican terrestrial ecosystems, it was observed that swamps, marshes, mangroves, and flooded grasslands can store almost 13, 7, 6, and 5 times more carbon in the soil than Mexican terrestrial ecosystems (Table 2), respectively. Only the carbon stored in flooded palm wetlands was similar to the carbon of Mexican terrestrial ecosystems. A similar situation was observed for values of carbon pools in wetlands in the USA and Canada. Comparing the carbon pool function in European and African wetlands with the values observed in Mexican wetlands, both were similar for mangroves, marshes and flooded grasslands. Regarding the carbon pool reported in Africa, this was lesser than that detected in Mexican wetlands (Table 2).
Given the importance of carbon storage in Mexican wetlands, it is necessary to continue promoting the importance of their protection and conservation, their environmental services, and the economic value of these ecosystems. Some authors [29,30,65] in Mexico have established community participation works to rescue traditional uses of wetland resources and festivals on the importance of wetlands as awareness and appreciation strategies. In addition to the climate change threats to wetlands of North and Central America [66,67], it is time to pay attention to conserving the existing wetlands as natural treasures for the well-being of humans.

4. Conclusions

Tropical wetlands are carbon-rich ecosystems. The Mexican carbon pool in the soil was reviewed according to the different wetland types, including swamps, mangroves, flooded grasslands, flooded palms and marshes. In Mexico, the mangrove has been the ecosystem with the most studies on carbon sequestration. This is probably due to the fact that they are the type of wetland that is protected under certain laws. New studies regarding different wetland ecosystems were found in which it was observed that swamps stored more carbon in the soil compared to other wetland types; however, the flooded grasslands and marshes presented a similar carbon pool to mangroves, so new public policies on protection and conservation of this type of wetland are needed. In the case of flooded palms, the average carbon pool of only three sites was 8 Kg C m−2; however, in addition to their importance and function as a carbon pool, such wetlands provide a social benefit due to the fruits of the palms in these ecosystems. Thus, this study claims that Mexican wetlands can be natural and cost-effective tools to store carbon in order to mitigate the effect of greenhouse gas emissions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L.M.-M. and S.Z.; methodology, M.S.-H.; software, I.Z.-C.; validation, L.C.S.H., M.V.-Á. and S.Z.; formal analysis, S.Z.; investigation, S.Z. and M.V.-Á.; resources, E.A.B.-T. and S.Z.; data curation, I.Z.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.M.-M.; writing—review and editing, J.L.M.-M. and S.Z.; visualization, E.A.B.-T.; supervision, M.V.-Á.; project administration, M.S.-H.; funding acquisition, L.C.S.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pachauri, R.K.; Allen, M.R.; Barros, V.R.; Broome, J.; Cramer, W.; Christ, R.; Church, J.A.; Clarke, L.; Dahe, Q.; Dasgupta, P.; et al. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p. 151. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2021).
  2. Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. Wetlands, 5th ed.; John Wiley and Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Humedales, Riñones del Planeta y Hábitat de MúltiplesEspecies; Editora de Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz: Xalapa, VER, Mexico, 2018; Available online: https://www.sev.gob.mx/servicios/publicaciones/serie_fueraseries/Humedales_Impresion.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2022). (In Spanish)
  4. Salimi, S.; Almuktar, S.A.; Scholz, M. Impact of climate change on wetland ecosystems: A critical review of experimental wetlands. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 286, 112160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sood, A.; Vyas, S. Carbon Capture and Sequestration- A Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2017, 83, 12024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Xu, T.; Weng, B.; Yan, D.; Wang, K.; Li, X.; Bi, W.; Li, M.; Cheng, X.; Liu, Y. Wetlands of International Importance: Status, Threats, and Future Protection. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Mitsch, W.J.; Nahlik, A.; Wolski, P.; Bernal, B.; Zhang, L.; Ramberg, L. Tropical wetlands: Seasonal hydrologic pulsing, carbon sequestration, and methane emissions. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 18, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bridgham, S.D.; Megonigal, J.P.; Keller, J.K.; Bliss, N.B.; Trettin, C. The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands. 2006, 26, 889–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nahlik, A.M.; Fennessy, M.S. Carbon storage in US wetlands. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Mitsch, W.J.; Bernal, B.; Nahlik, A.; Mander, Ü.; Zhang, L.; Anderson, C.J.; Jørgensen, S.E.; Brix, H. Wetlands, carbon, and climate change. Landsc. Ecol. 2012, 28, 583–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Available online: http://www.ramsar.org/ (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  12. Reid, W.V. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  13. Moreno-Casasola, P.; Infante-Mata, D.M. Conociendo los Manglares, las Selvas Inundables y los Humedales Herbáceos; INECOL-OIMT-CONAFOR: Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico, 2016; 62p, Available online: https://idoc.pub/documents/conociendo-los-manglares-y-selvas-inundables-vnd1j62p9wnx (accessed on 1 May 2022). (In Spanish)
  14. Joyce, C.; Simpson, M.; Casanova, M. Future wet grasslands: Ecological implications of climate change. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2016, 2, e01240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Kayranli, B.; Scholz, M.; Mustafa, A.; Hedmark, Å. Carbon storage and fluxes within freshwater wetlands: A critical review. Wetlands. 2010, 30, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Torres-Alvarado, R.; Ramírez-Vives, F.; Fernández, F.; Barriga-Sosa, I. Methanogenesis and methane oxidation in wetlands. Implications in the global carbon cycle. Hidrobiológica. 2005, 15, 327–349. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0188-88972005000300009 (accessed on 11 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  17. Wilms, R.; Sass, H.; Köpke, B.; Cypionka, H.; Engelen, B. Methane and sulfate profiles within the subsurface of a tidal flat are reflected by the distribution of sulfate-reducing bacteria and methanogenic archaea. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2007, 59, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Struwe, S.; Kjøller, A. Field determination of denitrification in water-logged forest soils. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1989, 62, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. A Yarwood, S. The role of wetland microorganisms in plant-litter decomposition and soil organic matter formation: A critical review. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2018, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Vepraskas, M.; Craft, C. Wetland Soils. Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification; CRC Press: Boca Ratón, FL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  21. Marin-Muñiz, J.L.; Alarcón, M.E.H.; Rivera, E.S.; Moreno-Casasola, P. Percepciones sobre servicios ambientales y pérdida de humedales arbóreos en la comunidad de Monte Gordo, Veracruz. Madera Bosques. 2016, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sjögersten, S.; Black, C.R.; Evers, S.; Hoyos-Santillan, J.; Wright, E.L.; Turner, B. Tropical wetlands: A missing link in the global carbon cycle? Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles. 2014, 28, 1371–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bernal, B.; Mitsch, W.J. A comparison of soil carbon pools and profiles in wetlands in Costa Rica and Ohio. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 34, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bernal, B.; Mitsch, W.J. Carbon sequestration in freshwater wetlands in Costa Rica and Botswana. Biogeochemistry. 2013, 115, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hernandez, M.E.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Casasola, P.M.; Vázquez, V. Comparing soil carbon pools and carbon gas fluxes in coastal forested wetlands and flooded grasslands in Veracruz, Mexico. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2014, 11, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kumagai, J.A.; Costa, M.T.; Ezcurra, E.; Aburto-Oropeza, O. Prioritizing mangrove conservation across Mexico to facilitate 2020 NDC ambition. Ambio. 2020, 49, 1992–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Alongi, D.M. Carbon sequestration in mangrove forests. Carbon Manag. 2012, 3, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Harvey, G.E.; Grünwald, M. The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. J. South. Hist. 2007, 73, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gonzalez-Marín, R.M.; Moreno-Casasola, P.; Orellana, R.G.; Castillo, A. Palm use and social values in rural communities on the coastal plains of Veracruz, Mexico. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 541–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. González-Marín, R.; Moreno-Casasola, P.; Orellana, R.; Castillo, A. Traditional wetland palm uses in construction and cooking in Veracruz Gulf of Mexico. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2012, 11, 408–413. Available online: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/14380 (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  31. Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Hernández, M.E.; Moreno-Casasola, P. Comparing soil carbon sequestration in coastal freshwater wetlands with various geomorphic features and plant communities in Veracruz, Mexico. Plant Soil. 2014, 378, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Campos, A.C.; Hernández, M.E.; Moreno-Casasola, P.; Espinosa, E.C.; R., A.R.; Mata, D.I. Soil water retention and carbon pools in tropical forested wetlands and marshes of the Gulf of Mexico. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2011, 56, 1388–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Sjögersten, S.; de la Barreda-Bautista, B.; Brown, C.; Boyd, D.; Lopez-Rosas, H.; Hernández, E.; Monroy, R.; Rincón, M.; Vane, C.; Moss-Hayes, V.; et al. Coastal wetland ecosystems deliver large carbon stocks in tropical Mexico. Geoderma. 2021, 403, 115173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Adame, M.F.; Kauffman, J.B.; Medina, I.; Gamboa, J.N.; Torres, O.; Caamal, J.P.; Reza, M.; Herrera-Silveira, J.A. Carbon Stocks of Tropical Coastal Wetlands within the Karstic Landscape of the Mexican Caribbean. PLoS ONE. 2013, 8, e56569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Paredes-García, S.S.; Moreno-Casasola, P.; Barrera, E.d.l.; García-Oliva, F.; Lindig-Cisneros, R. Biomasa y carbonoalmacenadoen un humedal continental enCuitzeo, Michoacán, Mexico. Tecnol. Cienc. Agua. 2021, 12, 416–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adame, M.F.; Santini, N.S.; Tovilla, C.; Vázquez-Lule, A.; Castro, L.; Guevara, M. Carbon stocks and soil sequestration rates of tropical riverine wetlands. Biogeosciences. 2015, 12, 3805–3818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Morales-Ojeda, S.M.; Herrera-Silveira, J.A.; Orellana, R. Almacenes de carbono en un paisaje de humedal cárstico a lo largo de un corredor transversal costero de la Península de Yucatán. Madera Bosques. 2021, 27, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hernández, M.E.; Campos, A.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Moreno-Casasola, P. Almacenes de carbono en selvas inundables, manglares, humedales herbáceos y potreros inundables. In Servicios Ecosistémicos de las Selvas y Bosques Costeros de Veracruz; Moreno Casasola, P., Ed.; Inecol ITTO Conafor INECC: Xalapa, VER, Mexico, 2016; pp. 121–129. Available online: https://www.itto.int/files/itto_project_db_input/3000/Technical/Servicios_Ecosostemicos_de_las_selvas_y_bosques_costeros.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2022). (In Spanish)
  39. Herrera, J.; Camacho, A.; Pech, E.; Pech, M.; Ramírez, J.; Teutli, C. Dinámica del carbono (almacenes y flujos) en manglares de Mexico. Terra Latinoamericana. 2016, 34, 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  40. Cáliz, E.M.; Peña, A.G.; Castorena, M.D.C.G.; Solorio, C.A.O.; López, D.J.P. Los manglares de Tabasco, una reserva natural de carbono. Madera Bosques. 2016, 8, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Moreno-May, G.; Cerón, J.; Cerón, R.; Guerra, J.; Amador, L.; Endañú, E. Evaluation of carbon storage potential in mangrove soils of Isla del Carmen. Unacar Tecociencia. 2010, 4, 23–39. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/2568197/Estimaci%C3%B3n_del_potencial_de_captura_de_carbono_en_suelos_de_manglar_de_isla_del_Carmen (accessed on 1 November 2021).
  42. Cerón-Bretón, J.G.; Cerón-Bretón, R.M.; Rangel-Marrón, M.; Estrella-Cahuich, A. Evaluation of carbon sequestration potential in undisturbed mangrove forest in Términos Lagoon Campeche. Dev. Energy Environ. Econ. 2010, 1, 295–300. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279903142_Evaluation_of_carbon_sequestration_potential_in_undisturbed_mangrove_forest_in_Terminos_Lagoon_Campeche (accessed on 25 November 2019).
  43. Kauffman, J.B.; Trejo, H.H.; Del Carmen Jesus Garcia, M.; Heider, C.; Contreras, W.M. Carbon stocks of mangroves and losses arising from their conversion to cattle pastures in the Pantanos de Centla, Mexico. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 24, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Adame, M.F.; Fry, B. Source and stability of soil carbon in mangrove and freshwater wetlands of the Mexican Pacific coast. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 24, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Moreno-Casasola, P.; Hernández, M.E.; Campos, A.C. Hydrology, Soil Carbon Sequestration and Water Retention along a Coastal Wetland Gradient in the Alvarado Lagoon System, Veracruz, Mexico. J. Coast. Res. 2017, 77, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Santiago, L. Estimación del Potencial de Captura de Carbono (c) del Bosque de Manglar de Tumilco de Tuxpan, Veracruz, México: Tesis Maestría en Manejo de Ecosistemas Marinos y Costeros. Universidad Veracruzana: Tuxpan, Veracruz, México, 2018; Available online: https://www.uv.mx/pozarica/mmemc/files/2020/02/LuisAlbertoSantiagoMolina.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2022).
  47. Bautista-Olivas, A.I.; Mendoza-Cariño, M.; Cesar-Rodriguez, J.; Colado-Amador, C.E.; Robles-Zazueta, C.A.; Meling-López, A.E. Above-ground biomass and carbon sequestration in mangroves in the arid area of the northwest of Mexico: Bahía del Tóbari and Estero El Sargento, Sonora. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Cienc. For. Ambient. 2018, 24, 387–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Valdés, V.E.; Valdés, J.I.; Ordaz, V.M.; Gallardo, J.F.; Pérez, J.; Ayala, C. Evaluación del carbono orgánico en los suelos de manglares de Nayarit. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Forestales. 2011, 2, 807–815. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-11322011000600005 (accessed on 28 October 2021). (In Spanish).
  49. Ochoa-Gómez, J.G.; Lluch-Cota, S.E.; Rivera-Monroy, V.H.; Lluch-Cota, D.B.; Troyo-Diéguez, E.; Oechel, W.; Serviere-Zaragoza, E. Mangrove wetland productivity and carbon stocks in an arid zone of the Gulf of California (La Paz Bay, Mexico). For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 442, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hernández, M.E.; Junca-Gómez, D. Carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions (CH4 and N2O) in mangroves with different vegetation assemblies in the central coastal plain of Veracruz Mexico. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 140276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Arias, X. Carbono, Nitrógeno y Azufre en Manglares de Paraíso Tabasco; Tesis Ingeniero en Restauración Forestal; Universidad Au-tónoma: Chapingo, Mexico, 2018; Available online: http://dicifo.chapingo.mx/pdf/tesislic/2018/Arias_Vel%C3%A1zquez_Xochitl_Rosario.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2021).
  52. Gutiérrez-Mendoza, J.; Herrera-Silveira, J. Almacenes de Carbono en manglares de tipo Chaparro en un escenario cárstico. In Estado Actual del Conocimiento del Ciclo del Carbono Y Sus Interacciones en México: Síntesis A 2014; Paz, F., Wong, J., Eds.; Programa Mexicano del Carbono; Centro de investigación y estudios avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, unidad Mérida y Centro de investigación y asistencia en tecnología y diseño del estado de Jalisco: Jalisco, México, 2014; pp. 405–414. Available online: http://pmcarbono.org/pmc/publicaciones/Libro_Merida_2014_PMC_ISBN-web.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021). (In Spanish)
  53. Herrera-Silveira, J.; Teutli-Hernández, C.; Caamal-Sosa, J.; Pech-Cardenas, M.; Pech-Poot, E.; Carrillo-Baeza, L.; Zenteno, K.; Erosa, J.; Pérez, O.; Gamboa, S. Almacenes y flujos de carbono en diferentes tipos ecológicos de manglares en Celestun, Yucatán. In Estado Actual del Conocimiento del Ciclo del Carbono y sus Interacciones en México: Síntesis a 2018; Paz, F., Torres, R., Velázquez, Eds.; Programa Mexicano del Carbono; Centro de investigación científica y de educación superior de Ensenada, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California: Baja, México, 2018; pp. 219–225. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ezcurra, P.; Ezcurra, E.; Garcillán, P.P.; Costa, M.T.; Aburto-Oropeza, O. Coastal landforms and accumulation of mangrove peat increase carbon sequestration and storage. Environ. Sci. 2016, 113, 4404–4409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Barreras-Apodaca, A.; Sánchez-Mejía, Z.; Bejarano, M.; Méndez-Barroso, L.; Borquez-Olguín, R. Carbono almacenado en la capa superficial de suelo de dos manglares geográficamente contrastantes. In Estado actual del Conocimiento del Ciclo del Carbono y sus Interacciones en México: Síntesis a 2017; Paz, F., Velázquez, A., Rojo, M., Eds.; Programa Mexicano del Carbono; InstitutoTecnológico de Sonora: Álamos, Mexico, 2017; pp. 258–264. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  56. Castillo-Cruz, I.; De la Rosa-Meza, K. Cuantificación de carbono en manglares en El Rabón, dentro de la RB Marismas Nacionales, Nayarit. In Estado Actual del Conocimiento del Ciclo del Carbono y sus Interacciones en México: Síntesis a 2017; Paz, F., Velázquez, A., Rojo, M., Eds.; (In Spanish). Programa Mexicano del Carbono; InstitutoTecnológico de Sonora: Álamos, México, 2017; pp. 252–257. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pech-Poot, E.; Herrera-Silveira, J.; Caamal-Sosa, J.; Cortes-Balan, O.; Carrillo-Baeza, L.; Teutli-Hernández, C. Carbono en se-dimentos de manglares de ambientes cársticos: La Península de Yucatán. In Estado Actual del Conocimiento del Ciclo del Carbono y susInteraccionesen México: Síntesis a 2016; Paz, F., Torres, M., Eds.; Programa Mexicano del Carbono; Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo: Campo de Tiro, México, 2016; pp. 336–343. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  58. Velázquez-Pérez, C.; Tovilla-Hernández, C.; Romero-Berny, E.I.; De Jesús-Navarrete, A. Estructura del manglar y su influencia en el almacén de carbono en la Reserva La Encrucijada, Chiapas, México. Madera Bosques. 2019, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Hernández, M.E.; Moreno-Casasola, P. Soil carbon sequestration in coastal freshwater wetlands of Veracruz. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2011, 13, 365–372. Available online: http://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.php/TSA/article/view/1336 (accessed on 25 May 2022).
  60. Alamilla, S. Gradientes de Carbono por Tipo de Suelo y Vegetación en Quintana Roo; Tesis Licenciatura en Manejo de Recursos Naturales. Chetumal, Quitana: Roo, México, 2018; Available online: http://risisbi.uqroo.mx/bitstream/handle/20.500.12249/1973/S590.2018-1973.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 1 October 2021). (In Spanish)
  61. Sánchez, E. Caracterización de tres Propiedades del Suelo en Humedales Transformados a Potreros, en el Municipio de Jamapa, Veracruz y su Entorno. Tesis especialista en diagnóstico y gestión Ambiental; Facultad de Ciencias Químicas; Universidad Veracruzana: Xalapa, Veracruz, México, 2015; Available online: https://cdigital.uv.mx/bitstream/handle/123456789/42319/SanchezGarciaEdgar.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y (accessed on 6 October 2021). (In Spanish)
  62. Bernal, B.; Mitsch, W.J. Carbon Sequestration in Two Created Riverine Wetlands in the Midwestern United States. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 1236–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Marin-Muñiz, J.L. Carbon balance in tropical freshwater wetland on the coastal plain of the Gulf of Mexico. Limnetica 2020, 39, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ji, H.; Han, J.; Xue, J.; Hatten, J.A.; Wang, M.; Guo, Y.; Li, P. Soil organic carbon pool and chemical composition under different types of land use in wetland: Implication for carbon sequestration in wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 716, 136996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zitácuaro-Contreras, I. Administración de Humedales Artificiales con Perspectiva de Género como Estrategia Sustentable para el Saneamiento de Aguas Residuales Municipales. Tesis de Doctorado, El Colegio de Veracruz, Veracruz, Mexico, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  66. Mitsch, W.J.; Hernandez, M.E. Landscape and climate change threats to wetlands of North and Central America. Aquat. Sci. 2012, 75, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Martínez, A.; Manzanilla, S.; Hidalgo, J. Vulnerability to Climate Change of Marine and Coastal Fisheries in Mexico. Atmosfera. 2011, 24, 103–123. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/atm/v24n1/v24n1a8.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  68. Vega-López, E. Valor Económico Potencial de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas Federales de México como Sumideros de Carbono. The Nature Conservancy-Mexico. Available online: https://docplayer.es/67251566-Valor-economico-potencial-de-las-areas-naturales-protegidas-federales-de-mexico-como-sumideros-de-carbono.html (accessed on 11 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  69. Crooks, S.; Rybczyk, J.; O’Connell, K.; Devier, D.L.; Poppe, K.; Emmett-Mattox, S. Coastal Blue Carbon Opportunity Assessment for the Snohomish Estuary: The Climate Benefits of Estuary Restoration; Report by Environmental Science Associates, Western Washington University, Earth Corps, and Restore America’s Estuaries: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chastain, S.; Kohfeld, K.E. Blue Carbon in tidal wetlands of the pacific coast of Canada: Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s (CEC’s) 2015–2016 project, North American Blue Carbon: Next Steps in Science for Policy. 2017. Available online: http://www.cec.org/publications/blue-carbon-in-tidal-wetlands-of-the-pacific-coast-of-canada/ (accessed on 20 May 2022).
  71. Raw, J.; Julie, C.; Adams, J. A comparison of soil carbon pools across a mangrove-salt marsh ecotone at the southern African warm-temperate range limit. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 127, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Abdul, D.; Marín, A.; Trombetti, M.; San Roman, S. Carbon Pools and Sequestration Potential of Wetlands in the European Union; European Topic Centre on Urban, Land and Soil Systems, Viena and Malaga: Catalonia, Spain, 2021; ISBN 9783200074330. Available online: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-di/products/etc-uls-report-10-2021-carbon-pools-and-sequestration-potential-of-wetlands-in-the-european-union (accessed on 1 June 2022).
Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing the major components of the carbon budget in a wetland and its carbon exchanges with the atmosphere (adapted from [2,7,10]).
Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing the major components of the carbon budget in a wetland and its carbon exchanges with the atmosphere (adapted from [2,7,10]).
Life 12 01032 g001
Figure 2. Location of the Mexican wetlands reviewed. Places represented by letters are referenced in Table 1. The number inside the circle is the number of studies in that state/site. The color of the circle represents the wetland type.
Figure 2. Location of the Mexican wetlands reviewed. Places represented by letters are referenced in Table 1. The number inside the circle is the number of studies in that state/site. The color of the circle represents the wetland type.
Life 12 01032 g002
Figure 3. Carbon pool in the different wetland types of Mexico. Lines over the bars are the standard error. Letter over the bars represents statistical analysis (different letters imply values significantly different (p < 0.05) form each other).
Figure 3. Carbon pool in the different wetland types of Mexico. Lines over the bars are the standard error. Letter over the bars represents statistical analysis (different letters imply values significantly different (p < 0.05) form each other).
Life 12 01032 g003
Table 1. Carbon sequestration in Mexican wetland soils.
Table 1. Carbon sequestration in Mexican wetland soils.
Forested Wetland TypeSite (Municipality or Area, State)Carbon Stock (Kg C m−2)Location in the Map (Figure 2)Reference
MarshesTecolutla and Vega de Alatorre, Veracruz25.9DMarín-Muñiz [31]
MarshesAlto Lucero and Tecolutla, Veracruz31.0DCampos [32]
MarshesVeracruz, Tabasco/Campeche, Chiapas110D, G, E, FSjögersten et al. [33]
MarshesYucatán Peninsula17.8HAdame et al. [34]
MarshesCuitzeo, Michoacán16.8KParedes-García et al. [35]
MarshesLa Encrucida, Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas33.7FAdame et al. [36]
MarshesYucatán Peninsula21.2HMorales-Ojeda et al. [37]
MarshesRío Blanco, Veracruz68DHernández et al. [38]
Flooded grasslandJamapa y Yagual, Veracruz28DHernández et al. [38]
Flooded grasslandVeracruz, Tabasco/Campeche, Chiapas27.1D, E, G, FSjögersten et al. [33]
Flooded grasslandEstero Dulce and Boquilla de Oro, Veracruz30.6DHernández et al. [25]
MangroveYucatán Peninsula28.0HMorales-Ojeda et al. [37]
MangroveVeracruz, Tabasco/Campeche, Chiapas93DSjögersten et al. [33]
MangroveOaxaca and Guerrero66.3M, LHerrera et al. [39]
MangroveHuimanguillo and Cárdenas, Tabasco64.7EMoreno et al. [40]
MangroveLaguna de Términos, Campeche25.2GMoreno-May et al. [41]
MangroveCarmen city, Campeche 11.7GCeron-breton et al. [42]
MangroveYucatán Peninsula66.4HAdame et al. [34]
MangroveLa Encrucida, Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas78.5FAdame et al. [36]
MangrovePantanos de Centla, Tabasco and Campeche45.8E, GKauffman et al. [43]
MangroveVega de Alatorre, Veracruz22DHernández et al. [38]
MangroveLa Encrucida, Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas28.4FAdame and Fry. [44]
MangrovesAlvarado, Veracruz 16DMoreno-Casasola et al. [45]
MangroveTuxpan, Veracruz14.7DSantiago [46]
MangroveAgua Brava Lagooon, Nayarit4.2CHerrera-Silveira et al. [39]
MangroveBahía Tóbari, Sonora7.9BBautista-Olivas et al. [47]
MangroveCuyutlán, Colima10.2JHerrera-Silveira et al. [39]
MangroveNayarit12CValdés et al. [48]
MangroveLa Paz Bay, Baja California17.5AOchoa-Gómez et al. [49]
MangroveCentral coastal plain of Veracruz37.5DHernández and Junca-Gómez [50]
MangroveParaíso Tabasco20EArias [51]
MangrovePenínsula Yucatán28.7HGutiérrez-Mendoza and Herrera-Silveira[52]
MangroveCelestun, Yucatán61.6HHerrera-Silveira et al. [53]
MangroveNayarit10CValdés et al. [48]
MangroveMagdalena and Malandra bay. Baja California22.5AEzcurra et al. [54]
MangroveSian Ka’an, Quintana Roo45IHerrera-Silveira et al. [39]
MangrovePuerto Morelos, Yucatán36HHerrera-Silveira et al. [39]
MangroveAguiabampo, Sonora3.5BBarreras-Apodaca et al. [55]
MangroveEl Rabón, Nayarit30CCastillo-Cruz and Rosa-Meza [56]
MangroveLa Encrucijada, Chiapas17.9FBarreras-Apodaca et al. [55]
MangroveIsla Arena, Campeche30.5GPech-Poot et al. [57]
MangroveCelestún, Yucatán22.4HPech-Poot et al. [57]
MangroveCancún, Quintana Roo26.4IPech-Poot et al. [57]
MangroveLa Encrucijada, Chiapas6.3FVelázquez-Pérez et al.[58]
MangroveLa Encrucijada, Chiapas140 Sjögersten et al. [33]
SwampLa Encrucida, Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas72.2FAdame et al. [36]
SwampJamapa, Veracruz39DHernández et al. [44]
SwampAlvarado, Veracruz60DMoreno-Casasola et al. [45]
SwampCampeche y Tabasco300E, GSjögersten et al. [33]
SwampTecolutla, Actopan, and Alto Lucero, Veracruz45DMarín-Muñiz et al. [59]
SwampAlto Lucero and Tecolutla, Veracruz52DCampos et al. [32]
SwampTecolutla and Vega de Alatorre, Veracruz35DMarín-Muñiz et al. [31]
Flooded PalmSian Ka’an, Quintana Roo6.5IAlamilla, [60]
Flooded PalmAlvarado, Veracruz16DMoreno-Casasola et al. [45]
Flooded Palm Jamapa, Veracruz1.5DSánchez [61]
Table 2. The carbon pool in the different wetland types of Mexico versus the carbon pool in other ecosystems and wetlands in other countries.
Table 2. The carbon pool in the different wetland types of Mexico versus the carbon pool in other ecosystems and wetlands in other countries.
EcosystemCarbon Pool (Kg Cm2)Reference
Mexican terrestrial ecosystem6.26Vega-López [68].
Everette USA7.81Crooks et al. [69].
Clayoquot Sound marsh soils Canada8.06Chastain and Kohfeld[70].
African Salt Marshes10.9Raw et al. [71].
Okavango Delta, riverine marsh, Botswana, África1.5Bernal and Mitsch[24].
Wetlands of Europe15–30Abdul et al. [72].
Swamps86.17This study
Flooded grassland28.57
Mangroves34.1
Flooded palms8.0
Marshes40.55
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zamora, S.; Zitácuaro-Contreras, I.; Betanzo-Torres, E.A.; Herazo, L.C.S.; Sandoval-Herazo, M.; Vidal-Álvarez, M.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Carbon Pool in Mexican Wetland Soils: Importance of the Environmental Service. Life 2022, 12, 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12071032

AMA Style

Zamora S, Zitácuaro-Contreras I, Betanzo-Torres EA, Herazo LCS, Sandoval-Herazo M, Vidal-Álvarez M, Marín-Muñiz JL. Carbon Pool in Mexican Wetland Soils: Importance of the Environmental Service. Life. 2022; 12(7):1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12071032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zamora, Sergio, Irma Zitácuaro-Contreras, Erick Arturo Betanzo-Torres, Luis Carlos Sandoval Herazo, Mayerlin Sandoval-Herazo, Monserrat Vidal-Álvarez, and José Luis Marín-Muñiz. 2022. "Carbon Pool in Mexican Wetland Soils: Importance of the Environmental Service" Life 12, no. 7: 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12071032

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop