Search
E-mail
RSS

Online submission Editor-in-chief Peer review Staff Login

Journal of Tropical Oceanography >

2024 , Vol. 43 >Issue 6: 27 - 36

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11978/2023182

Review

A prospectus for the theory, technology and application of seaweed negative emissions

  • YANG Yufeng , 1 ,
  • ZOU Ligong 1 ,
  • HE Zhili 1 ,
  • ZHANG Yongyu 2 ,
  • WANG Qing 1
Expand
  • 1. College of Life Science and Technology, Key Laboratory of Philosophy and Social Science in Guangdong Province, Jinan University, Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangzhou 510632, China
  • 2. Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266101, China
YANG Yufeng. email:

Editor: LIN Qiang

Received date: 2023-12-04

  Revised date: 2024-01-10

  Online published: 2024-01-19

Supported by

The Marine Economic Development Project of Guangdong(GDNRC[2023]38)

Fold

Abstract

Seaweed plays an important role as a primary producer in the ocean, contributing significantly to carbon capture and sequestration. It serves as an effective approach for achieving ocean carbon negative emissions. Seaweed has a vast cultivable area and a high capacity for carbon fixation and sequestration. Through the synergistic effects of biological carbon pump and microbial carbon pump, seaweed has the potential to become a vanguard for achieving negative emissions in the marine aquaculture. Based on the seaweed bioremediation technology, resource conservation technology, and ecological enhancement technology, it is possible to increase the resources of both cultivated and wild macroalgae, improve marine habitats, conserve fishery resources, and promote the development of ocean carbon sink fisheries. By utilizing seaweed green feed technology, it is possible to reduce greenhouse gas (e.g., methane) emissions from economic aquaculture and livestock animals. The large-scale cultivation and green, low-carbon utilization of seaweed can significantly contribute to the development of high-quality marine aquaculture and marine ecological security. Currently, although it is essential to focus on the theory of microbial carbon pump and negative emissions, as well as the development of carbon sequestration technologies in the seaweed ecosystem, we believe that it is necessary to establish accounting standards and methodologies for seaweed carbon sequestration and realize the value-added seaweed eco-products based on the full life cycle. The development of theoretical and technological approaches for macroalgae negative emissions is beneficial for implementing the national dual carbon strategy, and has important scientific significance and application potentials for achieving high-quality development of marine aquaculture and livestock based on coordinated land and marine development in China and the United Nations' sustainable development goals.

Key words： seaweed; ocean negative emissions; carbon sequestration theory; technology; application

Cite this article

YANG Yufeng , ZOU Ligong , HE Zhili , ZHANG Yongyu , WANG Qing . A prospectus for the theory, technology and application of seaweed negative emissions[J]. Journal of Tropical Oceanography, 2024 , 43(6) : 27 -36 . DOI: 10.11978/2023182

海洋占地球表面积的71%, 调节着全球碳、氮等元素生物地球化学循环及其动态平衡, 是地球气候和环境保持稳定的基础(DeVries, 2022)。随着人类与海洋有关的经济活动日益频繁, 海洋资源的过度开发和环境污染、海水温度与海平面上升、海洋酸化与生物多样性丧失等问题日益突出(Sala et al, 2021; Nguyen et al, 2023), 对海洋生态系统结构功能和人类社会可持续发展造成了严重威胁(Landrigan et al, 2020)。
碳在地球生命和气候系统中发挥着核心作用, 是生物体内化学能量的基本“货币”(DeVries, 2022), 并以二氧化碳(CO2)的形式成为大气中重要的温室气体, 导致海水变暖、酸化和低氧, 对海洋生物生存和生态系统平衡造成威胁(Kroeker et al, 2020)。在过去的2000年里, 大气中CO2浓度相对稳定(约280mL·m-3)。进入21世纪, CO2排放量逐年增多, 仅在2011—2020年间, 浓度增长率达2.43mL·m-3·yr-1, 较上一个冰河时代结束时快了约100多倍(Gulev et al, 2021)。至2022年, 全球大气CO2平均浓度达到417.2mL·m-3, 比工业化前水平(约278mL·m-3)高出50%以上(Global Carbon Project, 2022; Friedlingstein et al, 2022)。以化石燃料为代表的工业活动加速了地质库中碳的大规模释放, 改变了生物圈的碳循环过程(DeVries, 2022)。
海洋是地球上最大的碳库, 其碳含量大约是大气的60倍, 可相对快速地与大气交换CO2, 在全球碳循环中起着非常重要的作用(Solomon et al, 2007)。海洋也是全球气候的重要调节器, 在缓解气候变化中发挥了重要作用。海洋储存了人类活动产生的90%以上热量(Smith et al, 2021), 可吸收约四分之一的全球人为碳排放, 可有效缓解全球变暖等气候变化(Terhaar et al, 2021)。我国作为海洋大国, 提升海洋碳汇能力是2060年前实现“碳中和”的重要路径(焦念志, 2021)。
为了应对气候变化, 科学家们正致力于采用地球工程技术, 将大气中的CO2人为地封存在海洋中, 例如向海洋中添加碱性矿物提高海洋碱度、构建人工上升流增加海洋生态系统碳吸收、实施沿海湿地生境恢复增加蓝碳等(Zhang et al, 2022)。与工业减排相比, 海洋碳汇具有投资少、效益高的特点, 因而备受关注(Yu et al, 2023)。通过开发海洋碳汇技术, 预计到2050年每年可减少超过110亿吨CO2净排放(Hoegh-Guldberg et al, 2019)。因此, 要实现人类可持续发展的碳中和目标, 必须充分利用海洋的碳汇功能, 系统了解海洋碳汇的变化, 全面评估CO2等温室气体的清除方法(Gruber et al, 2023), 是目前缓解碳排放压力最经济的方式。

1 大型海藻负排放理论

1.1 大型海藻固碳潜力和优势

大型海藻是一类广泛存在的海洋植物类群, 包括16000个物种, 是海洋的重要初级生产者(Ould et al, 2022)。大型海藻具有高效的碳固定能力, 单位面积碳清除率高达2500~6000gC·m-2·yr-1, 是热带森林的5倍(García-Poza et al, 2022)。大型海藻栖息地覆盖了200万到680万km2面积, 是最具生产力的生态系统之一, 全球净初级生产力高达1.5Pg·C·yr-1 (Krause-Jensen et al, 2018)。大型海藻作为潜在的碳排放缓解方案受到广泛关注, 既可以作为碳储存, 也可作为温室气体排放的调节器(Roque et al, 2021)。
根据世界粮食及农业组织 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO) 的数据, 从2000年到2020年, 全球海藻产量(包括水产养殖和野生)从1180万吨增加到3600万吨, 增长超过了三倍(FAO, 2022), 其中97%来自于水产养殖。世界海藻产量中, 亚洲占97%。2020年中国大型海藻的产量占到全球总产量的58%, 其次为印度尼西亚(27%)和韩国(5%)。
由于大型海藻较高的净初级生产力, 它已成为新的“蓝碳”议程中缓解气候变化的有效工具(Duarte et al, 2017)。此外, 其重要的生态价值、对沿海经济的贡献以及大规模的栽培面积, 使得大型海藻成为基于自然的碳封存和碳增汇的有效解决方案(杨宇峰 等, 2021; Kwan et al, 2022; Ould et al, 2022)。大型海藻的规模化栽培及主动碳封存已成为美国国家科学、工程和医学研究院(National Institute of Science and Engineering Medicine, NASEM)倡议的基于海洋的CO2去除战略之一(NASEM, 2021)。

1.2 大型海藻碳汇过程

目前受到广泛认可的大型海藻碳封存形式主要是惰性溶解有机碳和埋藏两种形式, 前者由微型生物泵主导, 后者则由生物泵推动(Zhang et al, 2017; 张永雨 等, 2017)。大型海藻吸收海水中的溶解无机碳(dissolved inorganic carbon, DIC), 通过光合作用将其转化为有机碳, 即净初级生产力(net primary productivity, NPP)。据估算, 大型海藻碳封存量高达173Tg·C·yr-1, 占其净初级生产力约11%, 超过了以被子植物为基础的海岸带生境的封存能力(111~131Tg·C·yr-1) (Krause-Jensen et al, 2016), 在调节沿海生态系统碳循环中具有重要作用(Krause-Jensen et al, 2016; Raven, 2018)。大型海藻初级生产力固定碳的再矿化过程和效率, 决定了碳在自然界中保留的形式和时间(Handayani et al, 2022)。通过大型海藻光合作用固定的碳, 主要为生物量和向外界输出的溶解有机碳 (dissolved organic carbon, DOC) 与颗粒有机碳(particulate organic carbon, POC)等形式。输出的碳中, 约52%为DOC形式, 其余约48%为POC(Krause-Jensen et al, 2016)。在微生物的作用下, 大型海藻输出的活性有机碳会同化为微生物生物质, 或矿化为CO2、CH4等气体返回大气中, 而能抵抗微生物降解的惰性溶解有机碳将长期存在海洋中, 实现碳封存, 占总碳封存量的67.64%(117Tg·C·yr-1)。此外, 与红树林、海草床和盐沼为代表的海岸带植被生态系统不同(Macreadie et al, 2021), 大型海藻的沉埋主要发生在原栖息地之外的大陆架和深海, 其在栖息地的碳封存量(6Tg·C·yr-1)远小于栖息地之外的碳封存量(49Tg·C·yr-1)(Hill et al, 2015; Krause-Jensen et al, 2016; Kwan et al, 2022)。显然, 海洋环境和海藻碳封存的形式决定了海藻碳汇形成过程不会局限于栖息地, 而是更为广阔的深远海区域, 这为大型海藻碳汇的精确计算和碳汇交易提出了挑战。

1.3 基于大型海藻生物碳泵与微生物碳泵双驱动的负排放理论

微生物是海洋生物地球化学循环的主要参与者, 在海洋生态系统物质运输与能量传递中起着重要作用。微生物可通过多种途径影响大型海藻的营养交换、防御机制、生物活性物质合成、形态、繁殖和发育等(Ren et al, 2022; Li et al, 2023b)。大型海藻产生的有机物稳定性通常比维管植物更脆弱, 能够被消费者和分解者更有效地利用(Watanabe et al, 2020)。大型海藻能够通过增加水体溶解氧并释放有机物的方式, 影响微生物的生长、繁殖, 并改变藻体附着以及水体和沉积物中的微生物群落结构, 调控微生物群落功能(Ren et al, 2022; Xie et al, 2023)。此外, 大型海藻能够以POC和DOC的形式输出其净生产力的43%, 其中颗粒有机碳可到达深海的沉积区, 并封存在沉积物中形成碳汇(Krause-Jensen et al, 2016; Lovelock et al, 2019)。溶解有机碳则可通过与微生物的作用, 形成惰性溶解有机碳(recalcitrant dissolved organic carbon, RDOC)(Jiao et al, 2010)。此外, 大型海藻自身也可释放RDOC(Li et al, 2022, 2023a), 大型海藻生态系统产生的惰性有机碳是影响碳封存量的重要因素。据报道, 马尾藻场以RDOC的形式输出了5%~20%的大型海藻净生产力, 表明海藻场可以在其周围形成重要的碳汇(Watanabe et al, 2020)。在海带养殖水体中发现溶解有机碳中超过58%为RDOC, 其对微生物分解具有很强的抗性, 能够长久留存于海水中形成碳汇。对RDOC分子种类来源分析表明, 85%可能直接来自于海带, 另外15%来源于微型生物碳泵的间接贡献(Li et al, 2022)。在浒苔绿潮大规模爆发海域发现浒苔释放的DOC中约54%为RDOC, 77%的分子种类来源于浒苔藻体直接释放, 23%来自微型生物碳泵贡献(Li et al, 2023a)。此外, 大型海藻暴发还会改变海水DIC和碱度(Talk, total alkalinity), 对海洋无机碳库具有长期遗留效应, 发挥潜在无机碳汇贡献(Xiong et al, 2023)。除了生物泵(biological carbon pump, BCP)和微型生物碳泵(microbial carbon pump, MCP)外, 碳酸盐泵(carbonate counter pump, CCP)和溶解度泵(solubility carbon pump, SCP)在大型海藻生态系统碳汇和负排放过程中也具有重要作用, 上述“四泵”之间如何协同增汇和发挥负排放作用尚不明确, 开展四泵联动的海洋碳汇过程机制研究将是近期海洋负排放战略的重要任务。

1.4 基于全生命周期的大型海藻碳汇评估理论

CO2的永久封存量需要超过其生产过程的排放量(包括能源、运输、资源消耗等)才能达到净封存(Terlouw et al, 2021)。大型海藻收获后可能会通过加工或消费过程, 释放储存的CO2, 对碳封存量产生影响。全生命周期分析(life cycle assessment, LCA)指持续性地评估大型海藻生长、加工或消费等过程对环境的影响, 是评估大型海藻对CO2移出净效益的有效方法。已有研究报道了大型海藻资源利用和碳封存过程的生命周期分析(Chamkalani et al, 2020; Terlouw et al, 2021), 从生物资源回收和能量的可持续性, 对大型海藻生产加工全过程的碳排放进行评估(Pangestuti et al, 2021)。然而, 由于大型海藻种类和资源利用方式的多样性, 相关研究结果难以用于不同大型海藻规模栽培的准确估算。因此, 在大型海藻碳汇核算时需拓展新的指标和技术方法, 以实现准确评估。

2 大型海藻负排放技术

2.1 大型海藻生物修复技术

人类活动引起的近海环境污染已成为世界各国共同面临的环境问题, 以水产经济动物为主的养殖废水中含有的氮、磷和抗生素等物质会严重污染水环境, 导致近海水体富营养化并引发赤潮, 这将影响海洋生物的生存环境降低生物资源的可持续利用(Dai et al, 2023)。大型海藻具有较快的生长速率和对营养盐(氮和磷)的高效吸收利用能力, 使其成为近海环境生物修复和有害藻华防治的有效工具(Yang et al, 2015; Balaji-Prasath et al, 2022)。研究表明石莼属和江蓠属大型海藻在水产养殖中生物修复潜力巨大(Bews et al, 2021; Luo et al, 2022; Simon et al, 2022)。大型海藻除了可作为琼脂生产原料和人类消费的食物提供商业价值, 也可为其他高价值的水产养殖生物如鲍等提供饲料来源(Wayne et al, 2018)。大型海藻生物修复的理论基础是利用光合作用, 大量吸收营养盐, 通过高效固定CO2并产生氧气, 有效防治海水酸化和缺氧, 为生态系统的结构优化和功能稳定提供服务。
大型海藻的生物碳可通过物理沉降和海洋食物网再循环, 进入深海和沉积物中长期封存形成碳汇。大型海藻在通过光合作用固定CO2和氮、磷等营养物质的同时, 产生海藻多糖等功能成分, 实现了空气和水体中营养物质的“循环利用”和“资源化利用”。因此, 大型海藻的生物修复功能可以保护自然栖息地, 修复退化栖息地, 在海洋环境保护中发挥重要作用(García-Poza et al, 2022)。

2.2 海藻场资源养护技术

大型海藻场具有很高的初级生产力, 能够合成大量有机物供给消费者, 可作为多种海洋生物的栖息地, 在维持海洋生态系统健康中起到重要作用。受到全球变暖和极端气候变化等多种因素的影响, 全球范围内的野生大型海藻场面积衰退严重(Mac Monagail et al, 2017)。此外, 天然岩石海岸改造和沿海城市化(如海堤、防波堤、人工岛)都对大型海藻的附着和生长产生负面影响(Lai et al, 2018), 造成大型海藻场衰退, 不但影响海藻场生物资源保护, 而且导致野生大型海藻碳封存能力下降(Wernberg et al, 2019)。海藻场的恢复对于维持沿海地区的生物多样性和养护渔业资源至关重要。
规模化栽培大型海藻是增加海藻资源的有效方法, 也是提高大型海藻生物量和碳封存的有效方法(杨宇峰 等, 2021)。据估计, 全球适合大型海藻栽培的面积约为4800×104km2(Froehlich et al, 2019)。大型海藻规模化栽培潜力极大, 是一种可持续和环境友好的解决方案(Zhu et al, 2020)。大型海藻场可缓解富营养化和海洋酸化, 降低海水浊度, 提高浮游植物多样性(Chai et al, 2018; Jiang et al, 2020; Xiao et al, 2021), 还能降低海水流速, 固定泥沙以减轻海浪灾害, 防止海岸侵蚀, 保护海岸带环境。
此外, 大型海藻场可为水生生物群落提供庇护所和食物, 优化浮游植物群落结构, 维持生态系统结构功能稳定(Corrigan et al, 2022)。研究发现, 与野生种群相比, 大型海藻栽培海域的附生生物多样性水平更高, 规模栽培形成的大型海藻场可为附生生物提供新的栖息地(Visch et al, 2020)。此外, 构建的大型海藻场可为鱼虾贝类等海洋生物提供良好的栖息环境。与海草床相比, 大型海藻生态系统在热带地区能够为更多的幼鱼提供优良栖息环境(Eggertsen et al, 2017)。可持续的大型海藻资源养护可以避免渔业资源开发对海洋环境造成的压力, 保护海洋动物的生物多样性(Corrigan et al, 2022), 具有良好的生态效益、经济效益和社会效益。大型海藻规模化栽培和藻场构建对营造结构功能优良的海洋生态系统, 促进海洋动物的繁衍生息和渔业资源可持续利用具有重要意义。

2.3 大型海藻生态增养殖技术

鱼、虾、贝等水产经济动物大规模养殖产生的氮磷营养物质和有机废物输出到环境中, 引发海水富营养化和有机物污染, 导致微藻和一些微型生物类群过度繁殖。过多的有机物输入会消耗水体的氧气含量, 造成缺氧状况, 促进厌氧代谢途径和有毒副产品的产生, 进一步加剧富营养化(Sanz-Lazaro et al, 2020)。通过大型海藻高效生物泵净化富营养化及污染水体, 可以提高水体溶氧量, 促进营养物质循环和水循环, 修复/恢复退化生境, 改善近海环境健康, 增加生物碳泵潜能, 提升近海生态系统碳汇功能。
将大型海藻栽培与鱼贝类养殖相结合, 实现生态增养殖是解决水产养殖健康问题的重要途径。大型海藻既可以减少水体污染物含量, 又可以为鱼贝类直接或间接提供食物来源, 因此在近海进行大型海藻规模化栽培具有重要意义。大型海藻近海栽培的一个挑战是部分海区较低的营养供应, 这可以通过“人工上升流”将富含营养物质的深层水输送到表层来解决。“人工上升流”调节生态系统内部的营养供应, 从而避免外部新营养物质扰动, 将“人工上升流”与海洋牧场建设相结合, 通过对环境因素、理化因素和生物因素进行科学调控, 构建兼顾环境与经济的生态增养殖负排放模式。
研究表明, 在中国黄海低营养区部署的人工上涌装置使栽培海带的生物量和碳清除量增加了一倍以上(Fan et al, 2020)。另一个营养供应方案是采用多营养层次综合养殖(integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, IMTA), 多营养层级的水生动植物利用其养殖生态位互补, 实现营养物质的循环利用, 并增加系统的可持续性和生产力(Gao et al, 2022; Mildenberger et al, 2022)。开发智能化管控和立体化养殖技术, 构建集污水处理、环境监测、病虫害防控于一体的绿色循环生态体系建设, 可满足不同营养级的多层次养殖系统协同发展需求, 同时解决水产养殖所面临的场地、污水和生产效率等难题。通过将大型海藻与水产动物复合养殖, 不仅可以保障水产养殖的经济效益, 还可增加碳汇减缓气候变化的影响(Gao et al, 2022), 实现“增汇—净水—经济—减排”陆海统筹增汇减排协同的海水养殖绿色低碳高质量发展。

3 大型海藻负排放技术应用

3.1 大型海藻规模栽培

海洋生态环境保护和可持续发展对于实现联合国可持续发展目标至关重要。大型海藻的规模化栽培可以为藻类物质生产提供可持续和环境安全的手段, 满足对食品, 能源和原材料的需求, 且不占用农业用地和淡水资源(Zollmann et al, 2021)。此外, 大型海藻规模化栽培可以减轻沿海营养物质过度富集, 因此, 发展大型海藻人工栽培对于社会经济可持续发展和环境保护非常重要(Alleway, 2023)。大型海藻还可用于二氧化碳去除(carbon dioxide removal, CDR)备受关注(Gao et al, 2020)。研究表明, 在开放海域养殖大型海藻并沉降可作为具有很大潜力的海洋CO2去除方法(Wu et al, 2023), 不过该途径在伦理和潜在风险方面现阶段还尚存较大争议。大型海藻水产养殖业发展成熟, 每年的收获量超过3600万吨(湿重)(FAO, 2022)。利用收获的大型海藻作为碳捕获和碳储存的生物能源具有良好前景(Wu et al, 2023)。然而, 大型海藻栽培主要位于沿海地区, 由于营养物质可用性和温度变化的限制, 大型海藻栽培范围有限(Oyinlola et al, 2020)。目前已有研究建立了近海大型海藻养殖设施, 包括陆基育苗、海上栽培和收获系统等(Wu et al, 2023)。这些研究为大型海藻栽培规模扩大进行二氧化碳去除提供了技术支持, 有望推动陆海统筹减排增汇等生态工程协同实施。

3.2 绿色低碳饲料开发

畜牧业特别是反刍动物在粮食安全中发挥着重要作用, 然而, 反刍动物是农业生产中最主要的CH4生产者, 占全球农业温室气体排放总量的41%(Dillon et al, 2021)。此外, 畜牧业饲料生产在农业用地中占有较大比重, 并与人类粮食安全直接竞争。因此, 寻找畜牧业饲料的高质量来源天然替代品对于可持续的动物生产至关重要。饲料控制是重要的干预措施, 可直接影响CH4排放量, 同时优化饲料来源, 是具有良好经济效益和环境效益的应对策略(Glasson et al, 2022)。使用大型海藻作为反刍牲畜饲料添加剂有助于减少动物饲养过程中的CH4排放, 可以有效缓解畜牧业温室气体排放(Sofyan et al, 2022)。不同的大型海藻对CH4减排的潜力具有种属差异。研究发现, 仅包含0.5%的紫杉状海门冬(Asparagopsis taxiformis)就足以减少90%的CH4排放, 且不影响奶牛健康和产品质量(Kinley et al, 2020)。含有3%紫杉状海门冬的饲料喂养绵羊可在72h内减少80%的CH4排放(Min et al, 2021)。据估算, 使用大型海藻作为饲料添加剂的CH4减排途径可使畜牧业2030年的全球碳足迹减少1%~4%(Ridoutt et al, 2022)。相比之下, 其他大型海藻如紫菜(Porphyra sp.)和掌形藻(Palmaria palmata)对CH4的产生没有影响(de la Moneda et al, 2019)。这种差异可能与大型海藻在瘤胃发酵中调节CH4生成的机制有关(Sofyan et al, 2022)。沿海地区使用大型海藻作为畜牧饲料添加剂有着悠久的历史, 能够满足可再生、可持续和不断增长的需求(Cotas et al, 2023)。大型海藻绿色饲料的开发和利用能同时解决现代畜牧业在温室气体排放、土地退化和饲料成本等方面问题。发展基于陆海统筹的大型海藻生态增养殖与固碳增汇协同增效新模式, 可为粮食安全和人类福祉做出重要贡献。

3.3 大型海藻在海洋渔业高质量发展中的作用

野生大型海藻在海洋渔业育苗、食物链平衡维持和栖息地环境保护等方面发挥重要功能。大型海藻繁育和规模化栽培技术的发展应用促进了海洋渔业环境的修复和资源可持续利用。此外, 大型海藻是渔业重要的饲料添加剂替代资源之一, 具有丰富的营养和药物特性。含有多种生物活性成分, 包括酚类物质、多糖和萜烯类等(Ul-Haq et al, 2019), 使用大型海藻及其提取物添加到渔用饲料中, 可促进鱼类免疫和生长性能提升。大型海藻及其提取物已被用于养殖鱼类传染病防治(Vatsos et al, 2015)、降低组织中炎症介质产生(Alagawany et al, 2020)、促进生长(Naiel et al, 2020)、改善胃肠道屏障功能(Patra et al, 2019)等。大型海藻具有良好的生物活性, 包括抗菌、抗氧化、抗微生物和免疫刺激, 对鱼类免疫力、生长、繁殖具有积极的影响(Naiel et al, 2021), 开发和利用大型海藻资源对保障海水渔业绿色高质量发展具有重要意义。

4 展望

利用大型海藻的光合作用捕获碳, 并将其封存在深海或沉积物中, 是一种极具前景的海洋碳移出战略, 其成本相对较低, 对经济社会可持续发展和提高生态环境效益潜力巨大(Rose et al, 2023)。然而, 大型海藻负排放理论技术研究与应用仍存在如下诸多挑战。
1) 目前大型海藻的碳汇过程和机理虽取得一些进展, 但仍不够全面和系统。因此, 需要继续深入研究大型海藻碳汇过程机理, 加强国际合作, 建立大型海藻负排放的理论和技术, 以科学评估大型海藻碳汇效应和提高大型海藻碳汇效益, 探讨大型海藻生态产品价值实现的有效途径, 为实现国家“双碳”目标和渔业高质量发展发挥大型海藻的独特作用, 为国际社会提供可借鉴的绿色低碳产业范式。
2) 大型海藻碳捕获和永久封存的评估方法存在挑战(Chung et al, 2011; Dolliver et al, 2022)。目前对大型海藻有机碳的核算仍处于起步阶段(Bar-On et al, 2019; Macreadie et al, 2019), 相关的监测和核查方案需要优化。由于物种差异(Trevathan-Tackett et al, 2015)、气候变化(Ravaglioli et al, 2019), 以及理化环境的限制(DeAngelo et al, 2022), 栽培大型海藻碳封存的潜力有待科学评估(Troell et al, 2022)。海洋环境和海藻碳封存的形式决定了海藻碳汇形成过程不会局限于栖息地, 而是会涉及更为广阔的深远海区域, 这为大型海藻碳汇的精确计算和碳汇交易提出了挑战, 需要新的碳汇计量理论和方法。要充分考虑大型海藻生态系统碳循环和产品全生命周期的相互作用, 编研基于全生命周期的大型海藻碳汇核算标准和方法学, 提高大型海藻碳汇核算的科学性和实时性, 而不是在没有足够证据的情况下假设永久封存(Boettcher et al, 2021; Siegel et al, 2021)。
3) 大型海藻优质种质资源开发、病虫害防治、海藻场管理等方面亟待取得突破(Mantri et al, 2023)。对大型海藻规模栽培的生态风险、技术与经济可行性需要进行严格的评估(Ross et al, 2022)。迫切需要政府部门制定相应的政策和法规, 给予科学的监管指导。目前应加强大型海藻病虫害暴发报告、监控大型海藻凋落物的迁移转化并进行风险评估、海藻行业的资质认证和激励政策, 并建立风险管理战略, 以保障大型海藻资源和碳汇产业的可持续发展。

5 结语

大型海藻具有广阔的可栽培区域和高效的单位面积碳固定能力, 同时大型海藻生态系统可通过生物碳泵和微生物碳泵协同实现多途径的碳封存。未来应加强大型海藻生态系统结构功能和碳汇生态过程研究及全生命周期评估, 完善大型海藻负排放理论和技术, 并开展示范应用(图1)。基于大型海藻生物修复与资源养护和生态增养殖技术的海洋负排放战略对减少近海碳排放, 以及减缓大气温室效应具有重要意义。应当建立并完善大型海藻规模化栽培技术, 加强绿色低碳饲料开发, 充分发挥大型海藻在海洋渔业高质量发展中的作用。加强负排放理论与技术研究, 积极推进大型海藻固碳增汇和负排放应用示范的实施, 对保障海洋渔业高质量发展和实现可持续发展目标具有重要科学意义和典型示范效应。
图1 大型海藻负排放理论技术研究与应用图解

Fig. 1 Research and application of seaweed negative emissions theory and technology

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
焦念志, 2021. 研发海洋“负排放”技术支撑国家“碳中和”需求[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 36(2): 179-187.

JIAO NIANZHI, 2021. Developing ocean negative carbon emission technology to support national carbon neutralization[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 36(2): 179-187 (in Chinese with English abstract).

[2]
杨宇峰, 罗洪添, 王庆, 等, 2021. 大型海藻规模栽培是增加海洋碳汇和解决近海环境问题的有效途径[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 36(3): 259-269.

YANG YUFENG, LUO HONGTIAN, WANG QING, et al, 2021. Large-scale cultivation of seaweed is effective approach to increase marine carbon sequestration and solve coastal environmental problems[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 36(3): 259-269 (in Chinese with English abstract).

[3]
张永雨, 张继红, 梁彦韬, 等, 2017. 中国近海养殖环境碳汇形成过程与机制[J]. 中国科学: 地球科学, 47(12): 1414-1424.

ZHANG YONGYU, ZHANG JIHONG, LIANG YANTAO, et al, 2017. Carbon sequestration processes and mechanisms in coastal mariculture environments in China[J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 47(12): 1414-1424.

[4]
ALAGAWANY M, ABD EL-HACK M E, FARAG M R, et al, 2020. The applications of Origanum vulgare and its derivatives in human, ruminant and fish nutrition-a review[J]. Annals of Animal Science, 20(2): 389-407.

[5]
ALLEWAY H K, 2023. Climate benefits of seaweed farming[J]. Nature Sustainability, 6(4): 356-357.

[6]
BALAJI-PRASATH B, WANG YING, SU YUPING, et al, 2022. Methods to control harmful algal blooms: a review[J]. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 20(5): 3133-3152.

[7]
BAR-ON Y M, MILO R, 2019. The biomass composition of the oceans: a blueprint of our blue planet[J]. Cell, 179(7): 1451-1454.

[8]
BEWS E, BOOHER L, POLIZZI T, et al, 2021. Effects of salinity and nutrients on metabolism and growth of Ulva lactuca: implications for bioremediation of coastal watersheds[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 166: 112199.

[9]
BOETTCHER M, BRENT K, BUCK H J, et al, 2021. Navigating potential hype and opportunity in governing marine carbon removal[J]. Frontiers in Climate, 3: 664456.

[10]
CHAI ZHAOYANG, HE ZHILI, DENG YUNYAN, et al, 2018. Cultivation of seaweed Gracilaria lemaneiformis enhanced biodiversity in a eukaryotic plankton community as revealed via metagenomic analyses[J]. Molecular Ecology, 27(4): 1081-1093.

[11]
CHAMKALANI A, ZENDEHBOUDI S, REZAEI N, et al, 2020. A critical review on life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel: current challenges and future prospects[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 134: 110143.

[12]
CHUNG I K, BEARDALL J, MEHTA S, et al, 2011. Using marine macroalgae for carbon sequestration: a critical appraisal[J]. Journal of Applied Phycology, 23(5): 877-886.

[13]
CORRIGAN S, BROWN A R, ASHTON I G C, et al, 2022. Quantifying habitat provisioning at macroalgal cultivation sites[J]. Reviews in Aquaculture, 14(3): 1671-1694.

[14]
COTAS J, GOMES L, PACHECO D, et al, 2023. Ecosystem services provided by seaweeds[J]. Hydrobiology, 2(1): 75-96.

[15]
DAI MINHAN, ZHAO YANGYANG, CHAI FEI, et al, 2023. Persistent eutrophication and hypoxia in the coastal ocean[J]. Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures, 1: e19.

[16]
DE LA MONEDA A, CARRO M D, WEISBJERG M R, et al, 2019. Variability and potential of seaweeds as ingredients of ruminant diets: an in vitro study[J]. Animals, 9(10): 851.

[17]
DEANGELO J, SAENZ B T, ARZENO-SOLTERO I B, et al, 2022. Economic and biophysical limits to seaweed farming for climate change mitigation[J]. Nature Plants, 9(1): 1-13.

[18]
DEVRIES T, 2022. The ocean carbon cycle[J]. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 47: 317-341.

[19]
DILLON J A, STACKHOUSE-LAWSON K R, THOMA G J, et al, 2021. Current state of enteric methane and the carbon footprint of beef and dairy cattle in the United States[J]. Animal Frontiers, 11(4): 57-68.

DOI PMID

[20]
DOLLIVER J, O’CONNOR N, 2022. Whole system analysis is required to determine the fate of macroalgal carbon: a systematic review[J]. Journal of Phycology, 58(3): 364-376.

DOI PMID

[21]
DUARTE C M, WU JIAPING, XIAO XI, et al, 2017. Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation?[J]. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4: 100.

[22]
EGGERTSEN L, FERREIRA C E L, FONTOURA L, et al, 2017. Seaweed beds support more juvenile reef fish than seagrass beds in a south-western Atlantic tropical seascape[J]. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 196: 97-108.

[23]
FAN WEI, ZHANG ZHUJUN, YAO ZHONGZHI, et al, 2020. A sea trial of enhancing carbon removal from Chinese coastal waters by stimulating seaweed cultivation through artificial upwelling[J]. Applied Ocean Research, 101: 102260.

[24]
FAO, 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation[R/OL]. Rome:FAO. [2023-12-03]. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en

[25]
FRIEDLINGSTEIN P, O’SULLIVAN M, JONES M W, et al, 2022. Global carbon budget 2022[J]. Earth System Science Data, 14(11): 4811-4900.

[26]
FROEHLICH H E, AFFLERBACH J C, FRAZIER M, et al, 2019. Blue growth potential to mitigate climate change through seaweed offsetting[J]. Current Biology, 29(18): 3087-3093. e3.

DOI PMID

[27]
GAO GUANG, BURGESS J G, WU MIN, et al, 2020. Using macroalgae as biofuel: current opportunities and challenges[J]. Botanica Marina, 63(4): 355-370.

[28]
GAO KUNSHAN, BEARDALL J, 2022. Using macroalgae to address UN Sustainable Development goals through CO2 remediation and improvement of the aquaculture environment[J]. Applied Phycology, 3(1): 360-367.

[29]
GARCíA-POZA S, PACHECO D, COTAS J, et al, 2022. Marine macroalgae as a feasible and complete resource to address and promote Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)[J]. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(5): 1148-1161.

[30]
GLASSON C R K, KINLEY R D, DE NYS R, et al, 2022. Benefits and risks of including the bromoform containing seaweed Asparagopsis in feed for the reduction of methane production from ruminants[J]. Algal Research, 64: 102673.

[31]
GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT, 2022. Supplemental data of Global Carbon Budget2022 (Version 1. 0)[DS/OL]. Global Carbon Project [2023-12-03]. https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2022

[32]
GRUBER N, BAKKER D C E, DEVRIES T, et al, 2023. Trends and variability in the ocean carbon sink[J]. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 4(2): 119-134.

[33]
GULEV S K, THORNE P W, AHN J, et al, 2021. Changing state of the climate system[M]// MASSON-DELMOTTEV, ZHAIPANMAO, PIRANIA, et al. Climate Change 2021:The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 287-422.

[34]
HANDAYANI T, ZULPIKAR F, KUSNADI A, 2022. The roles of macroalgae in climate change mitigation: opportunities and challenges for marine-based carbon donor[J]. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1119: 012014.

[35]
HILL R, BELLGROVE A, MACREADIE P I, et al, 2015. Can macroalgae contribute to blue carbon? An a ustralian perspective[J]. Limnology and Oceanography, 60(5): 1689-1706.

[36]
HOEGH-GULDBERG O, LOVELOCK C, CALDEIRA K, et al, 2019. The ocean as a solution to climate change: five opportunities for action[M]. Washington: World Resources Institute.

[37]
JIANG ZHIBING, LIU JINGJING, LI SHANGLU, et al, 2020. Kelp cultivation effectively improves water quality and regulates phytoplankton community in a turbid, highly eutrophic bay[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 707: 135561.

[38]
JIAO NIANZHI, HERNDL G J, HANSELL D A, et al, 2010. Microbial production of recalcitrant dissolved organic matter: long-term carbon storage in the global ocean[J]. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 8(8): 593-599.

DOI PMID

[39]
KINLEY R D, MARTINEZ-FERNANDEZ G, MATTHEWS M K, et al, 2020. Mitigating the carbon footprint and improving productivity of ruminant livestock agriculture using a red seaweed[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259: 120836.

[40]
KRAUSE-JENSEN D, DUARTE C M, 2016. Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon sequestration[J]. Nature Geoscience, 9(10): 737-742.

DOI

[41]
KRAUSE-JENSEN D, LAVERY P, SERRANO O, et al, 2018. Sequestration of macroalgal carbon: the elephant in the Blue Carbon room[J]. Biology Letters, 14(6): 20180236.

[42]
KROEKER K J, BELL L E, DONHAM E M, et al, 2020. Ecological change in dynamic environments: accounting for temporal environmental variability in studies of ocean change biology[J]. Global Change Biology, 26(1): 54-67.

DOI PMID

[43]
KWAN V, FONG J, NG C S L, et al, 2022. Temporal and spatial dynamics of tropical macroalgal contributions to blue carbon[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 828: 154369.

[44]
LAI S, LOKE L H L, BOUMA T J, et al, 2018. Biodiversity surveys and stable isotope analyses reveal key differences in intertidal assemblages between tropical seawalls and rocky shores[J]. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 587: 41-53.

[45]
LANDRIGAN P J, STEGEMAN J J, FLEMING L E, et al, 2020. Human health and ocean pollution[J]. Annals of Global Health, 86(1): 151.

DOI PMID

[46]
LI HONGMEI, FENG XIUTING, XIONG TIANQI, et al, 2023a. Green tides significantly alter the molecular composition and properties of coastal DOC and perform dissolved carbon sequestration[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(1): 770-779.

[47]
LI HONGMEI, ZHANG ZENGHU, XIONG TIANQI, et al, 2022. Carbon sequestration in the form of recalcitrant dissolved organic carbon in a seaweed (kelp) farming environment[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(12): 9112-9122.

[48]
LI JIASUI, WEINBERGER F, DE NYS R, et al, 2023b. A pathway to improve seaweed aquaculture through microbiota manipulation[J]. Trends in Biotechnology, 41(4): 545-556.

[49]
LOVELOCK C E, DUARTE C M, 2019. Dimensions of blue carbon and emerging perspectives[J]. Biology Letters, 15(3): 20180781.

[50]
LUO HONGTIAN, XIE SONGGUANG, YANG YUFENG, 2022. Potential removal capacity and secondary pollution risk evaluation of heavy metals in Gracilaria lemaneiformis from a typical seaweed farming base[J]. Algal Research, 65: 102749.

[51]
MAC MONAGAIL M, CORNISH L, MORRISON L, et al, 2017. Sustainable harvesting of wild seaweed resources[J]. European Journal of Phycology, 52(4): 371-390.

[52]
MACREADIE P I, ANTON A, RAVEN J A, et al, 2019. The future of Blue Carbon science[J]. Nature Communications, 10(1): 3998.

DOI PMID

[53]
MACREADIE P I, COSTA M D, ATWOOD T B, et al, 2021. Blue carbon as a natural climate solution[J]. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(12): 826-839.

[54]
MANTRI V A, KAMBEY C S B, COTTIER-COOK E J, et al, 2023. Overview of global Gracilaria production, the role of biosecurity policies and regulations in the sustainable development of this industry[J]. Reviews in Aquaculture, 15(2): 801-819.

[55]
MILDENBERGER J, STANGELAND J, REBOURS C, 2022. Antioxidative activities, phenolic compounds and marine food allergens in the macroalgae Saccharina latissima produced in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems[J]. Aquaculture, 546: 737386.

[56]
MIN B R, PARKER D, BRAUER D, et al, 2021. The role of seaweed as a potential dietary supplementation for enteric methane mitigation in ruminants: challenges and opportunities[J]. Animal Nutrition, 7(4): 1371-1387.

DOI PMID

[57]
NAIEL M A E, ISMAEL N E M, ABD EL-HAMEED S A A, et al, 2020. The antioxidative and immunity roles of chitosan nanoparticle and vitamin C-supplemented diets against imidacloprid toxicity on Oreochromis niloticus[J]. Aquaculture, 523: 735219.

[58]
NAIEL M A E, ALAGAWANY M, PATRA A K, et al, 2021. Beneficial impacts and health benefits of macroalgae phenolic molecules on fish production[J]. Aquaculture, 534: 736186.

[59]
NASEM, 2021. A research strategy for ocean-based carbon dioxide removal and sequestration[R/OL]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [2023-12-03]. https://doi.org/10.17226/26278.

[60]
NGUYEN P Q, HUANG XIAONING, COLLINS D S, et al, 2023. Harnessing synthetic biology to enhance ocean health[J]. Trends in Biotechnology, 41(7): 860-874.

DOI PMID

[61]
OULD E, CALDWELL G S, 2022. The potential of seaweed for carbon capture[J/OL]. CABI Reviews, 2022(2022): 1-9 [2023-12-03]. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/epdf/10.1079/cabireviews202217009

[62]
OYINLOLA M A, REYGONDEAU G, WABNITZ C C C, et al, 2020. Projecting global mariculture diversity under climate change[J]. Global Change Biology, 26(4): 2134-2148.

[63]
PANGESTUTI M, SUHARTINI S, HIDAYAT N, 2021. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy production from macroalgae: a review[J]. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 924: 012070.

[64]
PATRA A K, AMASHEH S, ASCHENBACH J R, 2019. Modulation of gastrointestinal barrier and nutrient transport function in farm animals by natural plant bioactive compounds-a comprehensive review[J]. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 59(20): 3237-3266.

[65]
RAVAGLIOLI C, BULLERI F, RÜHL S, et al, 2019. Ocean acidification and hypoxia alter organic carbon fluxes in marine soft sediments[J]. Global Change Biology, 25(12): 4165-4178.

DOI PMID

[66]
RAVEN J, 2018. Blue carbon: past, present and future, with emphasis on macroalgae[J]. Biology Letters, 14(10): 20180336.

[67]
REN C G, LIU Z Y, WANG X L, et al, 2022. The seaweed holobiont: from microecology to biotechnological applications[J]. Microbial Biotechnology, 15(3): 738-754.

[68]
RIDOUTT B, LEHNERT S A, DENMAN S, et al, 2022. Potential GHG emission benefits of Asparagopsis taxiformis feed supplement in Australian beef cattle feedlots[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 337: 130499.

[69]
ROQUE B M, VENEGAS M, KINLEY R D, et al, 2021. Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in beef steers[J]. PLoS One, 16(3): e0247820.

[70]
ROSE D J, HEMERY L G, 2023. Methods for measuring carbon dioxide uptake and permanence: review and implications for macroalgae aquaculture[J]. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(1): 175.

[71]
ROSS F, TARBUCK P, MACREADIE P I, 2022. Seaweed afforestation at large-scales exclusively for carbon sequestration: critical assessment of risks, viability and the state of knowledge[J]. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9: 2269.

[72]
SALA E, MAYORGA J, BRADLEY D, et al, 2021. Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate[J]. Nature, 592(7854): 397-402.

[73]
SANZ-LAZARO C, SANCHEZ-JEREZ P, 2020. Regional integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (RIMTA): spatially separated, ecologically linked[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 271: 110921.

[74]
SIEGEL D A, DEVRIES T, DONEY S C, et al, 2021. Assessing the sequestration time scales of some ocean-based carbon dioxide reduction strategies[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 16(10): 104003.

[75]
SIMON C, MCHALE M, SULPICE R, 2022. Applications of Ulva biomass and strategies to improve its yield and composition: a perspective for Ulva aquaculture[J]. Biology, 11(11): 1593.

[76]
SMITH K E, BURROWS M T, HOBDAY A J, et al, 2021. Socioeconomic impacts of marine heatwaves: global issues and opportunities[J]. Science, 374(6566): eabj3593.

[77]
SOFYAN A, IRAWAN A, HERDIAN H, et al, 2022. Effects of various macroalgae species on methane production, rumen fermentation, and ruminant production: a meta-analysis from in vitro and in vivo experiments[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 294: 115503.

[78]
SOLOMON S, QIN D H, MANNING M, et al, 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[79]
TERHAAR J, FRÖLICHER T L, JOOS F, 2021. Southern Ocean anthropogenic carbon sink constrained by sea surface salinity[J]. Science Advances, 7(18): eabd5964.

[80]
TERLOUW T, BAUER C, ROSA L, et al, 2021. Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide removal technologies: a critical review[J]. Energy & Environmental Science, 14(4): 1701-1721.

[81]
TREVATHAN-TACKETT S M, KELLEWAY J, MACREADIE P I, et al, 2015. Comparison of marine macrophytes for their contributions to blue carbon sequestration[J]. Ecology, 96(11): 3043-3057.

[82]
TROELL M, HENRIKSSON P J G, BUSCHMANN A H, et al, 2022. Farming the ocean-seaweeds as a quick fix for the climate?[J]. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 31(3): 285-295.

[83]
UL-HAQ I, BUTT M S, AMJAD N, et al, Marine-algal bioactive compounds: a comprehensive appraisal[M]// RAVISHANKARG, AMBATIN, Handbook of algal technologies and phytochemicals. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2019: 71-80.

[84]
VATSOS I N, REBOURS C, 2015. Seaweed extracts as antimicrobial agents in aquaculture[J]. Journal of Applied Phycology, 27(5): 2017-2035.

[85]
VISCH W, KONONETS M, HALL P O J, et al, 2020. Environmental impact of kelp (Saccharina latissima) aquaculture[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 155: 110962.

[86]
WATANABE K, YOSHIDA G, HORI M, et al, 2020. Macroalgal metabolism and lateral carbon flows can create significant carbon sinks[J]. Biogeosciences, 17(9): 2425-2440.

[87]
WAYNE C K, REEN C S, SHOW P L, et al, 2018. Effects of water culture medium, cultivation systems and growth modes for microalgae cultivation: a review[J]. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 91: 332-344.

[88]
WERNBERG T, KRUMHANSL K, FILBEE-DEXTER K, et al, 2019. Status and trends for the world’s kelp forests[M]// SHEPPARD C. World seas: an environmental evaluation: volume III: ecological issues and environmental impacts. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 57-78.

[89]
WU JIAJUN, KELLER D P, OSCHLIES A, 2023. Carbon dioxide removal via macroalgae open-ocean mariculture and sinking: an Earth system modeling study[J]. Earth System Dynamics, 14(1): 185-221.

[90]
XIAO XI, AGUSTÍ S, YU YAN, et al, 2021. Seaweed farms provide refugia from ocean acidification[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 776: 145192.

[91]
XIE XINFEI, HE ZHILI, HU XIAOJUAN, et al, 2023. The composition, function and assembly mechanism of epiphytic microbial communities on Gracilariopsis lemaneiformis[J]. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 564: 151909.

[92]
XIONG TIANQI, LI HONGMEI, YUE YUFEI, et al, 2023. Legacy effects of late macroalgal blooms on dissolved inorganic carbon pool through alkalinity enhancement in coastal ocean[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(5): 2186-2196.

[93]
YANG YUFENG, CHAI ZHAOYANG, WANG QING, et al, 2015. Cultivation of seaweed Gracilaria in Chinese coastal waters and its contribution to environmental improvements[J]. Algal Research, 9: 236-244.

[94]
YU LIANGHONG, ZHENG SHAN, GAO QIANG, 2023. Independent or collaborative management? Regional management strategy for ocean carbon sink trading based on game theory[J]. Ocean & Coastal Management, 235: 106484.

[95]
ZHANG CHUANLUN, SHI TUO, LIU JIHUA, et al, 2022. Eco-engineering approaches for ocean negative carbon emission[J]. Science Bulletin, 67(24): 2564-2573.

DOI PMID

[96]
ZHANG CHUANLUN, SHI TUO, LIU JIHUA, et al, 2022. Ecoengineering approaches for ocean negative carbon emission[J]. Science Bulletin, 67(24): 2564-2573.

[97]
ZHU LONGHUAN, HUGUENARD K, ZOU QINGPING, et al, 2020. Aquaculture farms as nature-based coastal protection: Random wave attenuation by suspended and submerged canopies[J]. Coastal Engineering, 160: 103737.

[98]
ZOLLMANN M, RUBINSKY B, LIBERZON A, et al, 2021. Multi-scale modeling of intensive macroalgae cultivation and marine nitrogen sequestration[J]. Communications Biology, 4(1): 848.

DOI PMID

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉