Remember the claims that 'Bottom trawling releases as much carbon as global air travel'? It turns out that these simplistic estimates have overestimated CO2 release by two to three orders of magnitude nature.com/articles/s4158…
Today we publish a paper showing that Sala et al. massively overestimate the reactivity of buried carbon. nature.com/articles/s4158…
A review of 49 studies investigating carbon stocks after trawling revealed highly mixed results, with 61% of studies reporting no significant effect, 29% reporting lower OC stocks and 10% reporting higher stocks.
In conclusion, we currently do not know enough about the impact of trawling on seabed carbon to make robust global projections. Even initial plans for the management of bottom trawling for carbon benefits require estimates that are of the correct order of magnitude.
You may have noted that there is >2years between the submission and publication of our 'Matters Arising' paper. This has exposed the difficulties of publishing pieces criticising high profile papers in Nature. A🧵... rdcu.be/dbPz8
The original manuscript was reviewed, and one reviewer strongly agreed with us that the Sala et al. paper has some major flaws in the modelling of carbon dynamics.
Nature agreed, but decided that publication of our manuscript was not justified, because on the basis of referee feedback the authors would need to correct their paper, and this would serve to address our central concern. And nothing would be left to publish for us.
We are concerned that Sala et al. overestimate trawl-induced CO2 release, because their model uses a reactivity estimated for highly reactive carbon delivered recently to the sediment surface, and apply it to bulk sediment which is known to have a much lower reactivity
One way in which the overestimate becomes obvious is through the validation of their model. They say their model predicts the red outer circle below. But you cannot measure just that red part separately.