Harnessing seaweed farming for climate mitigation in South Korea: evaluating carbon dioxide removal potential and future research directions

Article information

Algae. 2024;39(4):329-347
Publication date (electronic) : 2024 December 15
doi : https://doi.org/10.4490/algae.2024.39.10.28
Department of Oceanography, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea
*Corresponding Author: E-mail: kykim@chonnam.ac.kr, Tel: +82-62-530-3465, Fax: +82-62-530-0065
Received 2024 June 25; Accepted 2024 October 28.

Abstract

Seaweed farming is emerging as a scalable and effective carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy, offering direct sequestration benefits through carbon uptake pathways and indirect climate advantages by substituting carbon-intensive products. This paper evaluates the potential of seaweed farming within the context of South Korea, leveraging its advanced aquaculture infrastructure, extensive coastal resources, and supportive policy frameworks. By synthesizing current literature, this study examines key sequestration mechanisms, including biomass storage, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) release, and particulate organic carbon (POC) burial, while addressing uncertainties such as the stability of recalcitrant DOC and the efficiency of POC burial under site-specific conditions. The analysis highlights South Korea’s unique strengths, such as its established seaweed farming industry and innovative technological developments, alongside challenges like ecological trade-offs, nutrient competition, and the absence of robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. The paper identifies opportunities to scale offshore farming, adopt integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, and enhance lifecycle climate benefits through product innovation and renewable energy integration. To guide future research and policy, the paper outlines critical gaps, including the need for precise quantification of long-term carbon sequestration pathways, development of MRV frameworks, and exploration of socio-economic impacts. By addressing these gaps, seaweed farming can become a central pillar of South Korea’s climate mitigation strategy, providing valuable insights for other regions seeking to integrate marine-based solutions into global CDR efforts.

INTRODUCTION

The urgent need to mitigate climate change has intensified global efforts to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. The Paris Agreement outlines two key approaches: immediate reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the implementation of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies to achieve net negative emissions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018). CDR technologies encompass various methods of capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it in geological, terrestrial, or marine reservoirs. While researchers have extensively studied land-based CDR methods like afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), ocean-based solutions are now emerging as promising complementary strategies with significant potential for scalability and global impact (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021, Bach et al. 2024).

Ocean-based CDR solutions harness the ocean’s natural carbon sink capacity, which has absorbed approximately 26% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the past decade (Friedlingstein et al. 2023). Within this field, seaweed farming shows promise through two key benefits: directly removing CO2 through photosynthesis and offering low-carbon alternatives to conventional products. Seaweeds (macroalgae) absorb dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) from seawater, converting it into organic carbon stored as biomass, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), or particulate organic carbon (POC) (Hill et al. 2015, Paine et al. 2021). These storage pathways can lead to both temporary and long-term carbon sequestration, with effectiveness varying by environmental conditions and farming methods. Furthermore, the harvested seaweed biomass serves as raw material for biochar, bioplastics, and livestock feed, creating additional climate benefits by replacing carbon-intensive materials (Bui et al. 2018, Lim et al. 2021, Spillias et al. 2023, Bullen et al. 2024).

Despite these potential benefits, the scalability and effectiveness of seaweed farming as a climate mitigation strategy remain debatable. Several key challenges must be addressed to fully realize its potential: the financial viability of harvested biomass, variations in carbon sequestration efficiency, and the absence of a standardized monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) framework for carbon accounting (Hurd et al. 2022, Pessarrodona et al. 2024). Moreover, large-scale seaweed farming presents ecological risks, such as habitat disruption and nutrient depletion (Bach et al. 2021, Boyd et al. 2022, Corrigan et al. 2022, Chopin et al. 2024), emphasizing the need for a balanced assessment of benefits and trade-offs.

South Korea has excellent potential for advancing seaweed farming as a CDR strategy. With its robust aquaculture infrastructure, favorable coastal conditions, and strong government support, South Korea is well-positioned to lead innovation in this field. However, current initiatives lack thorough preliminary review of key challenges regarding coastal ecosystem impacts and production system scalability. Systematic research and evaluation of these critical factors must be prioritized.

This review synthesizes current scientific knowledge on the carbon sequestration potential of seaweed aquaculture, with a particular focus on South Korea. It examines carbon uptake and storage mechanisms, assesses the environmental and economic impacts of large-scale aquaculture, and identifies key research gaps. Through a conceptual framework, this review seeks to guide future research directions and policy considerations for incorporating seaweed aquaculture into global climate mitigation strategies.

CARBON UPTAKE AND SEQUESTRATION MECHANISMS

Seaweed farming serves as a nature-based solution for CDR by utilizing seaweed’s biogeochemical processes to capture carbon in various forms. Through photosynthesis, seaweeds absorb DIC from seawater and convert it into organic carbon compounds, which are stored in three forms: biomass, DOC, and POC (Hill et al. 2015). These storage pathways each have distinct characteristics in terms of their stability, sequestration potential, and long-term carbon storage capacity.

Biomass carbon storage

Seaweeds capture and store carbon in their living tissues, with carbon content typically ranging from 25 to 42% of their biomass, depending on species and environmental conditions (Duarte 2017, Lian et al. 2023). This biomass carbon storage provides only temporary sequestration. Without further processing, such as conversion to biochar, most carbon returns to the atmosphere as the harvested biomass undergoes decomposition, fermentation, or combustion (Krause-Jensen et al. 2018, Ross et al. 2023). Nevertheless, simulations indicate that growing seaweed across more than 1 million km2 of the world’s most productive exclusive economic zones (EEZs) could achieve gigaton-scale annual biomass production (Arzeno-Soltero et al. 2023).

DOC pathway

During growth, seaweed release a portion of their fixed carbon into surrounding waters as DOC. While most of this DOC is labile and quickly re-mineralizes, certain fractions—known as recalcitrant dissolved organic carbon (RDOC)—can persist in the deep ocean for centuries, serving as a stable carbon sink (Wada et al. 2015, Paine et al. 2021). Recent studies suggest that DOC pathways, especially the RDOC fraction, may contribute more significantly to long-term ocean carbon sequestration than previously thought (Buck-Wiese et al. 2023). However, questions remain about both the conversion rate of DOC to RDOC and the environmental factors that influence this transformation.

POC pathway

Seaweed debris and particulate organic matter form a significant part of the POC pool in marine ecosystems. When these particles sink to the seafloor and become buried in sediments, they create a long-term carbon storage mechanism (Queirós et al. 2023). The effectiveness of POC burial varies by location, influenced by factors such as sedimentation rate, oxygen availability, and biological activity (Krumhansl and Scheibling 2012, Erlania et al. 2023). While earlier research emphasized deep-sea burial as the main pathway for macroalgal carbon storage (Ritschard 1992), recent studies highlight the crucial role of burial in pelagic sediments within coastal environments (Chung et al. 2011, Krause-Jensen and Duarte 2016, Queirós et al. 2019, Song et al. 2022).

Quantitative comparison of pathways

The contribution of seaweed’s carbon sequestration pathways—biomass, DOC, and POC—is determined by various factors such as seaweed species, cultivation methods, and environmental conditions. In the case of biomass, most of the carbon is initially stored, but without proper processing, more than 90% is released back into the atmosphere during decomposition or use (Krause-Jensen et al. 2018). For DOC, 10–60% of the carbon fixed by seaweeds is released in the form of DOC, but only 1–7% of this is RDOC that can be stored long-term (Li et al. 2022, Zhang et al. 2023). For POC, 5–70% of the total fixed carbon enters the POC pool, and its ultimate burial efficiency is highly dependent on local environmental factors such as water depth, sedimentation rate, and microbial activity (Dolliver and O’Connor 2022, Erlania et al. 2023, Canvin et al. 2024).

Stability of carbon storage pathways

Carbon storage pathways in seaweeds show varying degrees of long-term stability. Biomass storage is the least stable pathway—the carbon rapidly degrades unless converted into durable products like biochar or bioplastics (Ross et al. 2023). DOC, especially its recalcitrant form (RDOC), demonstrates moderate stability by persisting in the deep ocean for centuries, though it remains influenced by microbial activity and ocean currents (Zhang et al. 2023). POC offers the most stable storage when buried in anaerobic sediments, though its efficiency depends on sedimentation rates and bioturbation (Braeckman et al. 2019, Song et al. 2022).

CARBON SEQUESTRATION POTENTIAL AND CHALLENGES

Potential: scalability and EEZ

Seaweed aquaculture offers significant potential as a CDR strategy due to its scalability and versatility in a variety of marine environments. The global EEZ presents extensive opportunities for large-scale implementation, particularly in highly productive coastal and offshore areas.

Scalability of seaweed aquaculture

Scaling up seaweed aquaculture faces significant economic, environmental, and regulatory challenges. Carbon removal through seaweed cultivation remains unprofitable, while nutrient availability, light conditions, and technological limitations restrict suitable farming areas (Bak et al. 2018). From an environmental perspective, large-scale aquaculture can harm ecosystems through oxygen depletion, methane emissions, nutrient exhaustion, and habitat disruption. Some seaweed species also release halocarbons that may counteract climate change mitigation efforts (Ross et al. 2023). Furthermore, intensive cultivation risks reducing biodiversity and introducing invasive species (Corrigan et al. 2022).

Research is underway to address these challenges. Breeding programs in Asian countries have boosted yields by 75% (Boderskov et al. 2023) through advances in seaweed seed production technology and substrate research (Avila-Peltroche et al. 2022, Jiksing et al. 2022, Park et al. 2022, Jung et al. 2023). Strategic farm placement has also improved nutrient uptake and photosynthetic efficiency (Broch et al. 2019). However, carbon sequestration in seaweed farming still demands careful consideration—particularly due to varying regional regulations and the need for rigorous MRV procedures to demonstrate carbon removal effectiveness.

EEZ potential

There are approximately 48 million square kilometers of global waters suitable for seaweed farming, representing about 13% of the total ocean area and about 35% of the global EEZ area (Froehlich et al. 2019). These suitable waters are areas with limited human activity, sufficient sunlight, and nutrient-rich waters, especially those with high levels of DIC, such as the upwelling zone, which further enhances seaweed’s carbon fixation efficiency.

It is estimated that growing seaweeds in approximately 1 million km2 of the most productive areas of the global EEZ could produce gigatons of biomass per year (Arzeno-Soltero et al. 2023). This is based on seaweed’s rapid growth rate, adaptability to a wide range of marine environments, and minimal freshwater and land use. In particular, innovative offshore aquaculture technologies, such as multi-trophic level aquaculture systems, have enabled expansion into deeper waters (Buschmann et al. 2017), allowing production to scale up while minimizing competition with coastal ecosystems.

Seaweed farming on a global scale not only contributes significantly to meeting CDR targets, but also provides ancillary benefits such as enhancing food security, restoring marine ecosystem habitats, and mitigating ocean acidification. This demonstrates that seaweed farming is a comprehensive marine environmental improvement strategy that goes beyond simple carbon reduction.

Offshore seaweed farming is an approach that removes carbon by growing seaweed in the open ocean and settling it in the deep ocean. A North Atlantic study by Baker et al. (2022) achieved a 94% carbon sequestration rate at depths of more than 2,000 meters. Offshore aquaculture has several advantages. The high carbon-to-nutrient ratio of seaweed allows for effective carbon fixation even in eutrophic environments, and sequestration can be achieved over 100 years at depths greater than 500 meters (Broch et al. 2019). The CDR potential is substantial due to scalability opportunities (DeAngelo et al. 2023), while monoculture conditions and minimal herbivore presence make carbon flow analysis more straightforward (Hurd et al. 2024). Offshore aquaculture presents a number of challenges from an ecosystem perspective. Complex ecosystem dynamics are involved, including seaweed-plankton competition for nutrients, interactions with calcifying organisms, and albedo effects (Ross et al. 2022).

Challenges: re-mineralization, operational emissions, and MRV limitations

Despite its promising potential, seaweed farming faces a number of challenges that need to be addressed to fully realize its potential as a reliable and scalable CDR strategy.

Re-mineralization of carbon

The biggest challenge to seaweed farming is the issue of carbon re-emission. More than 90% of the carbon fixed in seaweed biomass is rapidly reoxygenated during decomposition, combustion, or short-term product use and released into the atmosphere as CO2 (Krause-Jensen et al. 2018). To overcome this limitation, long-term carbon sequestration of harvested biomass is essential, which can be achieved through additional processing, such as biochar production or incorporation into durable materials such as composites for construction (Farghali et al. 2023, Lian et al. 2023). Without these additional processing steps, the direct contribution of seaweed farming to CDR will be limited, demonstrating the urgent need for technological innovation to improve the carbon sequestration efficiency of seaweed farming.

Meanwhile, CDR through marine afforestation and deep-sea seaweed dumping faces a number of environmental, technical, and economic challenges. Environmentally, large-scale seaweed farming can negatively impact marine ecosystems. Native plankton disturbance, food chain changes, and volatile organic compound emissions are major concerns (Levin et al. 2023), and only 30% of the world’s oceans are suitable for aquaculture due to iron deficiency (Froehlich et al. 2019). On the technical side, there are uncertainties about the effectiveness and measurement of carbon sequestration. During deep-sea processing of seaweed biomass, significant amounts can be re-emitted as CO2 (Siegel et al. 2021), and precise monitoring of the ocean-atmosphere CO2 equilibrium is needed to accurately measure the actual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. On the economic side, the sustainability of large-scale aquaculture is a major challenge. Most biomass, except for high-value markets, is uneconomic (Troell et al. 2024), and simply dumping seaweed into the deep ocean means missing out on more valuable uses, such as food, fertilizer, and cosmetics.

Operational emissions

Operational emissions from the growing, harvesting, and transportation of seaweed are a significant factor that can offset the net climate benefits of this activity. Energy used for offshore aquaculture equipment and transportation emits significant amounts of greenhouse gases (Bullen et al. 2024), which contributes significantly to the overall carbon footprint of seaweed farming. In addition, in some regions, fertilizers are used to increase productivity, which generates nitrous oxide (N2O), an additional source of GHG emissions (Resplandy et al. 2024). Of particular note are the emissions of methane (CH4) and halocarbons that result from the decomposition of seaweed under anoxic conditions, which can be a major factor in reducing the climate mitigation benefits of seaweed farming (Resplandy et al. 2024). Improving farming efficiency and actively incorporating renewable energy sources into operations are therefore key challenges to minimizing these emissions and maximizing the net climate benefits of seaweed farming.

MRV limitations

Rigorous scientific verification is essential to demonstrate the CDR effectiveness of seaweed farming. According to the additionality principle, carbon uptake through seaweed farming must clearly exceed the uptake in the natural state, and this must be objectively demonstrable (Pessarrodona et al. 2023). International standards require at least 100 years of stable carbon storage (Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection 2019), so the establishment of a systematic MRV system is essential to verify the effectiveness of such long-term storage (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2014).

Accurate measurement and verification of carbon sequestration through seaweed farming is severely constrained by the lack of a standardized MRV framework, with a major challenge being the quantification of the rate at which DOC is converted to RDOC and remains in the ocean for long periods of time (Buck-Wiese et al. 2023). In addition, the burial rate of POC is highly dependent on regional deposition dynamics and oxygen availability, and accurately measuring and predicting this variability is also a major challenge (Duarte et al. 2023). Tracking emissions from operations and integrating them into life cycle assessments (LCA) has also been pointed out as a key issue to be addressed (Hasselström and Thomas 2022).

In this context, the development of robust MRV systems is a prerequisite for seaweed aquaculture to be effectively integrated into carbon markets and national climate accounting systems—a key challenge if carbon reduction efforts through seaweed aquaculture are to be recognized and utilized as a viable climate change mitigation strategy.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND INDIRECT CLIMATE BENEFITS

Seaweed farming not only offers direct CDR benefits but also contributes to climate change mitigation through indirect effects. By replacing carbon-intensive products and processes, seaweed-based products can significantly reduce GHG emissions across various sectors. LCA provides a critical framework to evaluate the environmental impacts and net benefits of these products, highlighting both opportunities and barriers to their widespread adoption.

Substitution effects and benefits of seaweed-based products

Seaweed-derived products have the potential to replace traditional carbon-intensive materials and processes, generating significant indirect climate benefits:

Biochar and carbon-enhanced materials

The process of converting seaweed biomass into biochar has important implications for soil management and carbon sequestration. Biochar is stable for decades to hundreds of years when injected into soil and has been shown to improve soil fertility while effectively storing carbon (Sun et al. 2022, Farghali et al. 2023). Furthermore, the application of biochar extends to the construction industry, where its incorporation into building materials such as concrete and asphalt can contribute to reducing carbon emissions from conventional building materials while enhancing long-term carbon sequestration (Wani et al. 2022).

Bioplastics

Seaweeds are gaining attention as a raw material for biodegradable plastics because of its value as an environmentally friendly alternative to conventional petroleum-based plastics. In particular, the production process of seaweed-based bioplastics can reduce energy consumption by up to 65% compared to conventional petroleum-based plastics, which can contribute significantly to reducing carbon emissions (Lim et al. 2021, Nagarajan et al. 2024). Furthermore, due to their biodegradable nature, they can effectively prevent microplastic pollution in marine ecosystems and soils, making them an innovative solution to address two environmental challenges simultaneously: climate change mitigation and ecosystem conservation (Zhang et al. 2024).

Livestock feed additives

Adding seaweed to livestock feed has been recognized as an effective solution for reducing GHG emissions in the agricultural sector. In particular, studies have reported that adding red algae species, such as Asparagopsis taxiformis, to livestock feed can reduce methane (CH4) emissions from ruminant gut fermentation by up to 80% (Machado et al. 2016). This is a significant reduction in enteric fermentation methane, a major source of GHG emissions from the agricultural sector, and highlights the climate change mitigation potential of seaweed farming.

Biofuels

Seaweed-based biofuels are gaining attention as an alternative to address the environmental problems caused by the use of fossil fuels. Seaweed-derived fuels, such as bioethanol and biodiesel, have the potential to reduce GHG emissions by replacing conventional fossil fuels (Jung et al. 2013). In particular, recent research has shown that integration with processing systems utilizing renewable energy enables efficient biofuel production with minimal GHG emissions during production (Farghali et al. 2023). These technological advances are further increasing the commercial viability of seaweed-based biofuels, and their role as a low-carbon energy source is expected in the future.

Quantified results from LCA

LCA quantify the environmental impacts of seaweed farming and the production of seaweed-derived products. Key findings include:

Carbon sequestration and emission reductions

Soil utilization of seaweed biochar shows notable carbon sequestration benefits. LCA results show that one ton of seaweed biomass (wet biomass) converted to biochar and applied to soil can result in net carbon sequestration equivalent to up to 0.06 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (Roberts et al. 2015).

Even more noteworthy is the potential for seaweed as a livestock feed additive; specifically, the use of red algae of the genus Asparagopsis as a feed additive for ruminants on a global scale is predicted to result in GHG reductions equivalent to approximately 2.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year (Spillias et al. 2023). This high mitigation potential is also confirmed under realistic feeding conditions: assuming a feed additive input of 7–10 kg per animal per year and a methane mitigation efficiency of approximately 80%, each ton of Asparagopsis-based additive could result in GHG reductions equivalent to approximately 200–300 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).

Energy use and emissions in seaweed processing

Seaweed products have shown significant substitution effects compared to conventional products, but energy consumption during production remains a challenge. Seaweed-based bioplastics have shown energy savings of 30–50% compared to petroleum-based plastics (Ayala et al. 2023), but still rely on industrial processing, which requires further energy efficiency. The pyrolysis process for biochar production also generates significant operational emissions (Pariyar et al. 2020), which can partially offset the carbon sequestration benefits of biochar if not utilized with renewable energy sources, requiring overall improvements in the production process.

Net climate benefits

There are important limitations to the carbon sequestration effectiveness of seaweeds. Most of the carbon fixed by seaweeds remains in short-term storage, with only a very low proportion leading to long-term storage. The climate change mitigation effect is expected to be quite limited now and in the near future, especially considering that the global cultivated seaweeds area is only 0.06% of the range of wild seaweeds (Pessarrodona et al. 2024). Moreover, emissions from fossil fuel use during seaweed farming are likely to offset the carbon removal, further reducing the net mitigation effect.

Nevertheless, there are positive findings at the local level. A study of various scenarios for the coast of British Columbia (BC), Canada, found that, depending on the growth rate and utilization of seaweeds, GHG emissions reductions of 0.20 to 8.2 Tg CO2e per year are possible. This is significant, representing 0.3 to 13% of BC’s annual GHG emissions (Bullen et al. 2024). Notably, the analysis suggests that effective substitution of existing carbon-intensive products is more important than ocean sequestration to achieve these climate benefits. However, the realization of these potential benefits is dependent on a number of factors, particularly technical and operational factors such as energy use, emissions from transportation, and the efficiency of the product conversion process, which have been identified as crucial to actual reductions.

Key barriers

Despite its promise, achieving the full lifecycle climate benefits of seaweed farming faces several challenges:

Energy and infrastructure requirements

The production of value-added products from seaweeds is accompanied by significant energy consumption, which has a significant impact on the efficiency and sustainability of the overall process (Lian et al. 2023, Liu et al. 2024). It is important to note that the climate change mitigation benefits of utilizing seaweeds can be significantly reduced if conventional fossil fuel-based energy sources are continued to be used, especially during processing. In addition, many regions currently lack the necessary infrastructure for large-scale seaweed cultivation and processing, which is a major factor limiting the expansion and efficient operation of the seaweed industry.

Economic feasibility

The high cost of growing and processing seaweeds is currently a major economic barrier. In particular, when compared to traditional feedstocks such as petroleum or synthetic fertilizers, seaweed-based products have been shown to be significantly less cost-competitive (DeAngelo et al. 2023). To address these cost issues and ensure the sustainable growth of the industry, it is essential to achieve economies of scale through the establishment of large-scale production systems. If economies of scale are realized, it is expected that unit production costs can be significantly reduced.

Product market penetration

Market access for seaweed-based products faces a number of challenges. This is particularly true for bioplastics and biofuels, which can be characterized by three main aspects. First, the current regulatory framework tends to limit the market entry of new biomaterials; second, consumer awareness and understanding of seaweed-based products is not yet fully developed. Finally, it is difficult to compete with established industries that are already well established in the market (Ayala et al. 2024).

Variability in lifecycle impacts

Seaweed farming is practiced in different ways in different regions, which is a major source of variability in LCA results. In particular, differences in farming methods, the diversity of seaweed species cultivated, and the application of different processing technologies in different regions make consistent interpretation of LCA results difficult (Hasselström and Thomas 2022). In this context, the establishment of a standardized LCA methodology is urgently needed to accurately assess the global potential of seaweed aquaculture. This would increase comparability across regions and enable more reliable assessments of climate change mitigation potential.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Large-scale seaweed farming presents a promising avenue for climate mitigation but comes with potential environmental and ecological trade-offs. These impacts, if unaddressed, could undermine the net benefits of seaweed farming and compromise marine ecosystem health. A balanced approach that acknowledges and mitigates these risks is essential for sustainable implementation.

Risks of large-scale farming

Habitat disruption

Large-scale seaweed farms can have a variety of impacts on marine ecosystems. First, the alteration of natural marine habitats can disrupt the habitat of native plants and animals, which in turn can lead to a reduction in biodiversity (Theuerkauf et al. 2022). In particular, dense seaweed farming structures can disrupt the natural migration routes of marine species such as fish, mammals, and seabirds and affect their feeding patterns. In addition, the shading effects of seaweed farms can alter the light environment of aquatic ecosystems (Campbell et al. 2019). These changes can have a significant impact on benthic communities, especially in shallow coastal areas where seagrasses and corals live, which can threaten the health of these ecosystems.

Nutrient competition

Seaweed farming requires dissolved inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which have a significant impact on nutrient cycling in marine ecosystems. In nutrient-limited waters, large-scale seaweed farming can result in competition for nutrients with native phytoplankton and other marine organisms, negatively impacting the primary productivity of those ecosystems and overall ecosystem dynamics (Ross et al. 2022). On the other hand, in eutrophicated waters, seaweeds can contribute to improving water quality by absorbing excess nutrients, but this process can rapidly deplete the nutrients in the ecosystem surrounding the farm, disrupting cycling systems (Kotta et al. 2022). Therefore, it is essential to carefully analyze the nutrient status of the waters to determine the appropriate scale for the design and operation of aquaculture farms.

GHG emissions

GHG emissions from the decomposition of seaweeds biomass can be a major factor hindering the effectiveness of seaweed aquaculture in combating climate change. In particular, decomposition under anoxic conditions produces potent greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which can occur throughout natural decomposition in the water column, during processing, or during the disposal of seaweed residues (Roth et al. 2023). In addition, halocarbons produced by some seaweed species with high sulfur content contribute to ozone depletion and global warming, further complicating the calculation of net climate benefits from seaweed farming (Keng et al. 2023).

Genetic and ecological risks of introduced species

The cultivation of non-native or genetically modified seaweeds can pose a serious risk to ecosystems. If these species are released into natural ecosystems, they can outcompete native populations and upset the balance of the ecosystem (Campbell et al. 2019). Genetically modified seaweeds, in particular, may have traits that have not arisen through natural selection, giving them an overwhelming advantage over native species. This, in turn, can lead to a reduction in biodiversity in marine ecosystems and, by extension, to changes in overall ecosystem structure, which requires a cautious approach.

Mitigation strategies for minimizing ecological trade-offs

Habitat-friendly farm design

The design of seaweed farms is a key factor in the conservation of marine ecosystems, and requires careful consideration to minimize habitat disturbance. For starters, ensuring proper spacing between cultivation lines is crucial to the health of the underwater ecosystem. This is significant because it facilitates light penetration through the water column, ensuring photosynthetic activity in the underlying ecosystem, as well as providing free migration routes for a wide variety of marine species (Flavin et al. 2013, Bak et al. 2020). In addition, the siting of aquaculture farms requires a careful approach to ecosystem conservation. In particular, by avoiding ecologically sensitive areas such as coral reefs, seagrass habitats, and marine protected areas, aquaculture activities can be balanced with the protection of fragile marine ecosystems (Arkema et al. 2024).

Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture

The integrated approach of seaweed farming and other aquaculture systems is of great significance for nutrient cycling in marine ecosystems. In particular, integration with shellfish or fish farming is becoming increasingly important as an effective way to balance nutrient dynamics (Wang et al. 2012, Nederlof et al. 2022). In such integrated aquaculture systems, seaweeds can act as a natural filter to absorb excess nutrients that inevitably occur during fish farming. This could be a solution that goes beyond simply mitigating competition for nutrients and could prevent environmental problems caused by eutrophication in the first place. As a result, this integrated approach can contribute significantly to creating a more sustainable aquaculture environment (Troell et al. 2009, Knoop et al. 2022). Furthermore, the adoption of integrated multi-trophic trophic aquaculture (IMTA) systems goes beyond mere productivity gains and contributes to improving the overall functioning of ecosystems while effectively reducing environmental trade-offs. This can serve as an important model for the future development of marine aquaculture.

Monitoring and regulation of nutrient uptake

The operation of seaweed farms that takes into account the availability and cycling of nutrients is crucial for the health of marine ecosystems. This requires a systematic assessment that takes into account the characteristics of each site to set appropriate thresholds for the nutrient carrying capacity of the waters in question (Roleda and Hurd 2019). This scientific approach plays a key role in preventing excessive consumption of nutrients that can occur during seaweed framing and preserving the natural nutrient cycling of local ecosystems (Chopin et al. 2024). Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of the marine environment, it is essential to establish adaptive management schemes that can flexibly respond to seasonal fluctuations and changes in nutrient concentrations based on regional characteristics.

Management of GHG emissions

The management of seaweed residues is a critical factor in reducing GHG emissions. In particular, there is an urgent need to develop appropriate treatment and processing methods to prevent degradation under anoxic conditions (Abomohra et al. 2022). In this regard, biochar production is gaining attention as an innovative utilization of waste biomass. Biochar is of great significance because it can effectively reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions while enhancing carbon storage capacity (Lian et al. 2023). In addition, to address the issue of halocarbon emissions, research is actively underway to select low-emitting seaweed species and develop optimized cultivation methods (Leedham et al. 2013, Keng et al. 2023).

Preventing the spread of invasive species

In terms of invasive species management, seaweed farming requires a careful approach to prevent ecosystem disturbance. First and foremost, it is important to select and use native seaweed species or species with proven compatibility with local ecosystems to avoid risks from potential invasive species (Chopin et al. 2024). In addition, more stringent biosecurity measures are required for genetically modified seaweeds, and any consideration of introducing a non-native species should be preceded by a systematic environmental impact assessment to closely examine its potential impact on the ecosystem (Ross et al. 2023).

Marine spatial planning and regulation

A holistic approach to marine spatial planning, including seaweed farming, is essential for effective marine spatial planning. This goes beyond simply selecting the location of aquaculture sites and implies systematic planning that takes into account the interactions and potential conflicts between different marine activities (Lester et al. 2018). Sustainable utilization of marine resources requires balancing the needs of different stakeholders and requires systematic protection of sensitive areas to preserve ecosystems (Bell et al. 2020). To realize this, clear zoning regulations must be established and compliance with environmental standards must be strictly managed through continuous monitoring.

REGIONAL CASE STUDY: SOUTH KOREA

South Korea is uniquely positioned to pioneer large-scale seaweed farming as a CDR strategy. With a rich history of seaweed farming, favorable coastal environments, and strong governmental support, the country serves as a model for integrating seaweed farming into national climate goals. However, achieving this potential requires addressing specific regional challenges while leveraging advancements in aquaculture practices and policies.

Coastal and policy context

Geographic and environmental advantages

The coastal regions of East Asia, particularly Korea, Japan, and China, possess unique geographical advantages for seaweed farming. These regions benefit from nutrient-rich upwelling currents and temperate climate, and have established themselves as optimal locations for large-scale seaweed production based on aquaculture infrastructure built over decades (Hwang and Park 2020).

Among these, Korea provides ideal natural conditions for seaweed farming with shallow and offshore areas developed along its approximately 15,000 km coastline. In particular, the rias coast of the West and South Seas features well-developed inlets, and its geographical characteristics of shallow depths and large tidal ranges enable the application of various cultivation methods (Hwang et al. 2022). Additionally, the seasonal upwelling phenomenon along the East Sea coast supplies nutrients from deep waters to the surface, promoting seaweed photosynthesis, which influences the carbon dioxide concentration in surrounding seawater and the carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean (Kim et al. 2022). These comprehensive environmental conditions provide Korea with optimal conditions for scaling up seaweed farming as a CDR strategy.

Policy frameworks supporting seaweed farming

Seaweed farming is gaining attention as a new strategic option for South Korea’s climate change response. In particular, the 2030 National Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals (NDCs) and the 2050 Carbon Neutrality Strategy emphasize the importance of blue carbon ecosystems, including seaweeds, in achieving GHG reduction targets (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2020). Building on this policy framework, the government is providing practical support for the expansion of seaweed farming and the development of its carbon sequestration potential through the Marine Carbon Sequestration Program (Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries 2021), which is leading to innovation in seaweed farming technologies and products through organic collaboration between government, academia, and industry.

Aquaculture advancements and production metrics

Established seaweed industry

South Korea’s seaweed aquaculture industry forms the core of the country’s fisheries industry in terms of production and diversity. From 2018 to 2022, annual cultured seaweed production has remained stable at 1.7 to 1.9 million tons (fresh weight), with Undaria pinnatifida, Saccharina japonica, and Pyropia spp. comprising the main producers at 500,000 to 600,000 tons per year each, and Hizikia fusiforme, Ulva spp., and Codium fragile comprising the secondary producers (KOSIS 2024). This balanced production structure shows the stability and sustainable growth potential of the domestic seaweed farming industry.

The core of seaweed farming technology, the floating longline system, utilizes buoys and ropes on the sea surface to cultivate seaweeds vertically and horizontally. The system increases productivity through efficient utilization of underwater space, minimizes seafloor ecosystem impacts, and provides optimal growing conditions through water depth control (Hwang and Park 2020). This contributes to achieving both ecosystem conservation and economic productivity.

Technological innovations

Ongoing research and development (R&D) is exploring the potential of seaweed for various applications. In particular, large-scale production technologies are being actively developed for various fields such as food, feed, fertilizer, industrial raw materials, and nutraceuticals (Lee et al. 2022, Mihindukulasooriya et al. 2022, Nagahawatta et al. 2023, Kang et al. 2023), laying the foundation for the sustainable development of the seaweeds industry.

In addition, innovative advances in nearshore aquaculture technology are being made. The introduction of automated harvesting systems and multi-trophic level aquaculture facilities has enabled the cultivation of seaweeds at deeper depths, effectively addressing the issue of competition for coastal space (Park et al. 2018, Hwang and Park 2020). In addition, the integration of advanced data-driven tools such as remote sensing and machine learning has enabled real-time monitoring of seaweed farms, raising the overall operational efficiency and environmental stewardship to the next level (Kim et al. 2024).

Carbon sequestration potential

South Korea’s seaweed farming industry currently covers about 23,000 hectares (230 km2) nationwide and produces about 276,000 tons of organic carbon per year. This production corresponds to a net primary production (NPP) of about 1,200 g C m−2 y−1, which is almost three times higher than the average NPP of natural seaweed communities reported by Krause-Jensen and Duarte (2016) (420 g C m−2 y−1).

In terms of carbon sequestration, if the average carbon sequestration rate of 11% for wild seaweed communities is applied to domestic seaweed aquaculture production, it can be estimated that about 30,360 tons of carbon is sequestered, equivalent to about 111,300 tons of CO2 per year. However, this amount of CO2 removed is influenced by a variety of factors, including farming environment, harvesting methods, ocean currents, and environmental conditions. Notably, it represents only 0.04% of South Korea’s 2030 national GHG reduction target of 291 million tons of CO2, highlighting the limited direct impact of seaweed aquaculture on overall emissions reductions at present. While it is possible to increase this contribution somewhat by expanding aquaculture acreage and improving containment techniques, the resulting gains are likely to remain marginal compared to national and international climate goals.

Regional challenges and future potential

Challenges

The main challenges facing the seaweed farming industry in South Korea are: First, there is increasing competition between fishing, tourism, and industrial activities for space in coastal areas. This makes it difficult to secure new space for the expansion of seaweed farming, and requires balanced coordination among various stakeholders. Second, there is the issue of coastal water quality management. Runoff from agricultural activities and wastewater inflows from urban areas are causing eutrophication in some coastal areas, which hinders the normal growth and nutrient uptake of seaweeds. Third, from an economic perspective, scaling up seaweed farming involves significant costs, particularly in building the infrastructure to operate offshore farms and process the harvest, and the uncertainty of the market for seaweed-derived products makes these investment decisions even more challenging. Finally, from an environmental perspective, the impact of large-scale seaweed farming on coastal ecosystems needs to be considered. In particularly sensitive coastal ecosystems, habitat alteration and disruption of nutrient balances can occur, which can negatively impact the health of marine ecosystems in the long term.

Future potential

The future of the seaweed aquaculture industry can realize its potential through a number of innovative development directions. The development and expansion of nearshore aquaculture systems offers an opportunity to effectively utilize unutilized marine space while addressing space utilization issues in coastal areas. This would be a practical way to scale up aquaculture while minimizing conflicts with existing coastal activities.

The establishment of a systematic MRV framework for seaweed carbon sequestration is another important way forward. Such a framework would enable integration with carbon crediting schemes, which would contribute to ensuring that the seaweed farming industry has the economic incentive to attract new investments and scale up operations.

Diversification of seaweed-derived products is also a key factor in increasing the economic sustainability of the industry. Expanding into different product lines, such as biodegradable plastics, livestock feed, and biofuels, can improve the profitability of the industry while contributing to the fight against climate change.

With its advanced aquaculture infrastructure and policy support, South Korea has the potential to take a leading position in blue carbon research. It has sufficient capacity to lead global research, especially in key research areas such as stability of DOC, burial efficiency of particulate organic carbon, and LCA.

RESEARCH GAPS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

While seaweed farming presents significant potential as a CDR strategy, several critical research gaps must be addressed to realize its full climate mitigation potential. This section outlines current uncertainties and proposes pathways for future research, focusing on improving our understanding of key sequestration mechanisms, developing robust carbon accounting systems, and exploring innovative approaches for sustainable scaling.

RDOC stability

Research gap

DOC released by seaweeds plays a key role in the ocean’s carbon cycle. However, only a limited fraction of this DOC is actually converted to RDOC, which contributes to long-term carbon sequestration (Zhang et al. 2023). Studies to date have not fully elucidated the environmental factors and biochemical mechanisms involved in this conversion process, which is an important limitation in accurately assessing and optimizing the efficiency of seaweed-based carbon sequestration.

Future directions

To understand the conversion of DOC to RDOC in seaweeds, systematic field experiments under different environmental conditions are essential. By quantitatively analyzing the effects of environmental factors such as temperature, nutrient availability, and microbial activity on the conversion rate, a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of RDOC production can be gained. Based on these experimental data, it will be possible to develop biogeochemical models that predict RDOC production rates based on seaweed species-specific characteristics and cultivation methods. In particular, by studying the impact of specialized compounds, such as complex polysaccharides found only in certain macroalgae (seaweeds), on RDOC formation, it is expected that more efficient carbon sequestration strategies can be developed.

POC burial efficiency

Research gap

The efficiency of POC burial in marine sediments is determined by a complex interplay of many environmental factors. Key influencing factors include the rate of sediment accumulation, oxygen concentration in seawater, and bioturbation from the activities of seafloor organisms, all of which exhibit significant spatial and temporal variability (Dolliver and O’Connor 2022). Current POC burial efficiency estimation methods do not fully account for these complex interactions, limiting their ability to accurately predict long-term carbon sequestration potential. This poses a significant challenge for assessing and optimizing the effectiveness of seaweed-based carbon sequestration strategies.

Future directions

Improving the burial efficiency of POC requires a systematic research approach. A first step is to utilize advanced sediment coring techniques to precisely measure POC deposition and burial rates in seaweed farming areas. The data collected can then be used to analyze the impact of various characteristics of the sediment, such as particle size and organic matter content, on POC stabilization. Furthermore, to apply these findings to actual aquaculture operations, strategies should be developed to maximize POC burial efficiency, such as selecting areas with high sediment accumulation rates and developing optimized aquaculture methods.

MRV system development and integration into global frameworks

MRV challenges

Research gap

Carbon accounting in seaweed aquaculture suffers from a lack of standardized MRV protocols. The complexity of accounting for multiple sequestration pathways, including biomass, DOC, and POC, as well as operational emissions from aquaculture processes, limits the estimation of net climate benefits.

Future directions

A comprehensive and standardized methodology is essential to accurately measure and verify the carbon sequestration effectiveness of seaweed farming, especially measurement protocols that can precisely track key carbon flows such as DOC emissions and POC burial. To this end, an international MRV framework specific to ocean-based carbon removal (CDR) can be established by building real-time monitoring systems that combine remote sensing technologies with machine learning algorithms. Such a framework would be the basis for effective integration of seaweed farming into carbon markets and national GHG inventories. Measuring seaweeds biomass requires systematic data collection using an appropriate combination of non-destructive methods and limited destructive sampling, and the data collected must be rigorously validated to provide a reliable biomass estimate (Gossard and Steller 2022). Continuous monitoring of a range of parameters is also essential to accurately determine the environmental conditions and carbon uptake capacity of aquaculture sites (Brewin et al. 2021).

Global framework integration

Research gap

The lack of a global marine carbon sequestration standard makes it difficult to integrate the carbon sequestration benefits of seaweed farming into international carbon trading and climate policy. This limits the utilization of the carbon reduction potential of seaweed farming and hinders ocean-based climate change action.

Future directions

International integration of seaweed farming into the Blue Carbon Framework is essential. Working with international organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) (Howard et al. 2023), seaweed farming should be included in the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidelines. Accurate assessment of seaweed farming’s contribution to national carbon reduction targets depends on this integration. Furthermore, pilot programs for regional carbon credits could serve as templates for global expansion.

Emerging opportunities

Offshore seaweed farming

Research gap

Offshore farming has enormous potential for scaling up seaweed farming, but faces technical, ecological, and economic challenges. The impact of deeper offshore conditions on growth rates and carbon sequestration efficiency is not fully understood.

Future directions

Advancing offshore aquaculture technology requires R&D on several fronts. First, it is essential to build robust infrastructure that can withstand strong currents and waves, and develop automated harvesting systems for efficient operation. Furthermore, research needs to be conducted to accurately assess the carbon sequestration potential in different marine environments, such as nutrient upwelling zones and eutrophic waters. In addition, it is important to comprehensively analyze the impacts of offshore aquaculture on surface ecosystems to establish environmentally sustainable aquaculture methods.

Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture

Research gap

IMTA systems farm seaweeds alongside fish or shellfish to improve resource efficiency and nutrient cycling. It can increase productivity while maintaining ecosystem balance, but empirical studies on its large-scale application and carbon mitigation effects are lacking.

Future directions

Successful implementation of IMTA systems requires a systematic research approach. First, the carbon and nutrient cycling in the system should be quantitatively analyzed through a LCA. Based on this, the optimal species mix to maximize the efficiency of nutrient cycling should be identified, and models should be developed to predict the economic and environmental performance of IMTA systems under different environmental conditions. Such comprehensive research will improve the feasibility of IMTA systems and contribute to the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry.

Seaweed genetics and bioengineering

Research gap

Genetic optimization research in seaweeds is in its infancy. Genetic manipulation techniques to improve growth rate, carbon uptake, and efficiency of DOC and POC production are still rudimentary, and are currently limited to simple genetic analysis and selective breeding. This is limiting the expansion of seaweed farming and the realization of its carbon reduction potential.

Future directions

Genetic optimization of seaweeds requires multiple research directions. First, relevant genetic markers need to be identified and analyzed to improve the productivity and carbon sequestration capacity of major seaweeds species. This will improve the efficiency of selective breeding. It is also important to utilize biotechnology to develop varieties with tolerance to environmental stresses such as temperature changes and nutrient deficiencies. In addition, biotechnological research to develop varieties that can produce stable RDOC compounds or improve POC burial efficiency is also essential. Such comprehensive research will help maximize the carbon sequestration capacity of seaweeds.

DISCUSSION

Seaweed farming has emerged as a promising nature-based solution for CDR. It offers a range of climate benefits through both direct and indirect pathways. This discussion synthesizes the key findings, assesses seaweed farming’s viability as a scalable CDR strategy, and explores the critical trade-offs and challenges we must address to unlock its full potential.

Synthesis of findings

Carbon sequestration mechanisms

The carbon sequestration capacity of seaweeds is determined by biomass production and species-specific carbon content. While the annual carbon sequestration potential of seaweeds is estimated at 61–268 Tg C (Krause-Jensen and Duarte 2016), it remains unclear whether this will result in CDR lasting more than 100 years. Understanding carbon sequestration requires distinguishing between several key terms: carbon sequestration means long-term CO2 removal over 100 years; carbon fixation refers to initial CO2 uptake through photosynthesis; carbon assimilation describes CO2 conversion into seaweed biomass; carbon storage indicates short-term retention; and carbon burial denotes permanent removal in sediment. Since researchers often use these terms interchangeably without clear distinction, calculating actual CO2 removal and long-term storage becomes challenging.

Seaweed farming employs three main pathways for carbon sequestration. First, biomass storage provides short-term carbon removal, though its long-term effectiveness depends on post-harvest processing methods like biochar production or integration into durable materials (Pessarrodona et al. 2024). Second, DOC—especially RDOC—shows promise as a long-term sequestration mechanism, though questions remain about its stability and production rates (Zhang et al. 2023). Third, POC burial offers a stable storage pathway in anaerobic sediments, with its efficiency largely determined by local sedimentation rates and bioturbation levels (Erlania et al. 2023).

LCA and indirect benefits

Seaweed-based products can contribute to climate change mitigation by replacing carbon-intensive products. Among these products, bioplastics, biochar, and livestock feed additives are gaining traction because of their significant carbon reduction potential. Specifically, seaweed bioplastics can reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by up to 50% compared to conventional petroleum-based plastics (Lim et al. 2021), and livestock feed additives have been shown to reduce methane emissions from livestock by up to 80% (Machado et al. 2016). However, a notable challenge is that the production and processing of these seaweed-based products requires significant energy consumption, so efforts to incorporate renewable energy into the production process and continuously improve process efficiency are essential to maximize their climate change mitigation potential.

Regional case study: South Korea

South Korea has secured global competitiveness in seaweed farming based on its advanced aquaculture infrastructure and government support. By efficiently utilizing coastal space and systematically managing nutrients, the country has established a sustainable production base and is now consolidating its position as a major producer in the global market. What is particularly noteworthy is that the biomass losses from seaweed farming are buried in sediments for long-term storage. This process of carbon burial provides an important mechanism for long-term sequestration of atmospheric carbon by accumulating organic carbon from seaweeds in sediments, and is recognized as one of the most reliable methods of carbon sequestration in the ocean, with minimal re-emissions. Furthermore, through innovations in offshore aquaculture technology and the introduction of IMTA systems, the Korean seaweed industry has the potential to develop in a more sustainable direction.

Environmental and ecological trade-offs

Large-scale seaweed farming can have a variety of environmental impacts on marine ecosystems. In particular, ecological risks such as habitat destruction, competition for nutrients, and methane emissions from biomass decomposition are major concerns (Campbell et al. 2019). To minimize these environmental impacts, sustainable aquaculture farm design and appropriate siting are essential and must be considered in an integrated manner with broader marine spatial planning initiatives. In this context, innovative mitigation strategies such as IMTA and nearshore aquaculture are gaining traction. These strategies can not only effectively reduce environmental risks, but also provide the added benefits of increased productivity and enhanced ecosystem functioning. IMTA systems, in particular, integrate organisms of different trophic levels, which can help to promote nutrient cycling and maintain ecosystem balance.

Research gaps and future directions

A number of scientific uncertainties need to be addressed for the sustainable development of seaweed farming systems. In particular, the long-term stability of RDOC, the burial efficiency of POC, and the net carbon balance of the entire system need to be further studied. Addressing these research challenges will be preceded by the development of standardized MRV systems, which will ultimately play a key role in the successful integration of seaweed farming into carbon markets and global climate frameworks (Cadman and Hales 2022). Meanwhile, advances in nearshore aquaculture technologies and innovative approaches such as genetic optimization offer new possibilities to address these challenges and improve the scalability and efficiency of seaweed farming.

Holistic evaluation of seaweed farming as a CDR strategy

Strengths

Seaweed farming is noteworthy for a number of reasons. First, seaweed farming is a highly scalable solution, as it does not require freshwater or arable land, minimizing competition with terrestrial resources. In addition, seaweed farming is not limited to carbon sequestration alone, but offers a range of additional benefits such as habitat restoration, nutrient pollution mitigation, and sustainable food and feedstock production. Furthermore, seaweed farming can simultaneously address both mitigation and adaptation to climate change, effectively contributing to the achievement of international climate goals represented by the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Challenges

One of the biggest challenges to seaweed farming is the uncertainty of its long-term carbon sequestration effectiveness. In particular, variability in the production of RDOC, burial efficiency of POC, and carbon retention in biomass make it difficult to accurately predict the long-term potential for carbon sequestration through seaweed farming. In addition, large-scale seaweed farming can have a significant impact on marine ecosystems, which, without proper management, can lead to disturbance of natural habitats and imbalances in nutrient cycling. In addition to these ecological concerns, there are also economic and technical barriers to the expansion of the seaweeds industry. High upfront investment costs for aquaculture facilities, limited market structure, and energy-intensive processing processes are key factors that make commercialization and market penetration of seaweeds-based products difficult.

Opportunities for improvement

Technological innovation in seaweed farming will be a key driver for sustainable development. In particular, the introduction of automated offshore aquaculture systems can dramatically improve productivity, while the use of biogeochemical modeling tools can enable accurate monitoring of carbon sequestration processes. In addition to these technological advances, expanding the range of uses for seaweeds, such as biofuels and building materials, will increase their economic viability while also having a positive impact on climate change mitigation. To realize these advances, it is essential that governments, academia, and industry work together to drive innovation and create the policy framework for the sustainable expansion of seaweed farming.

Comparison with other CDR strategies

Seaweed farming is complementary to other CDR approaches. In particular, compared to afforestation and BECCS, seaweed farming offers a unique advantage in that it utilizes the marine environment without using terrestrial resources. Moreover, unlike other CDR approaches, such as marine fertilization or direct air capture, which focus on a single objective, seaweed farming offers the additional benefits of enhancing food security and increasing marine ecosystem diversity in addition to the primary goal of carbon sequestration. This multifaceted approach makes seaweed farming a more socially and ecologically attractive climate change response strategy.

CONCLUSION

Seaweed carbon sequestration operates through multiple pathways, each with distinct stability and efficiency levels. While biomass provides valuable short-term carbon storage and helps reduce indirect emissions, the most effective mechanisms for long-term sequestration are DOC (particularly its recalcitrant form, RDOC) and POC burial. Understanding these environmental factors that enhance these pathways and optimizing cultivation methods will be crucial for realizing the full climate mitigation potential of seaweed farming.

Seaweed farming presents a scalable and promising solution for CDR, particularly in high-productivity regions within global EEZs. However, the challenges of re-mineralization, operational emissions, and MRV limitations must be addressed to unlock its full potential as a climate mitigation tool. Continued research and innovation in farming practices, carbon processing technologies, and monitoring systems will be crucial to overcoming these barriers and achieving meaningful contributions to global climate goals.

Seaweed farming offers significant indirect climate benefits by enabling the substitution of carbon-intensive products with sustainable alternatives. While LCAs highlight promising opportunities, barriers such as energy use, economic feasibility, and market integration must be addressed to maximize these benefits. Future research should focus on improving processing efficiencies, reducing operational emissions, and developing standardized LCA frameworks to fully realize the climate mitigation potential of seaweed-based products.

While seaweed farming offers significant climate mitigation potential, large-scale implementation must carefully address ecological risks such as habitat disruption, nutrient competition, and GHG emissions. Integrating habitat-friendly practices, employing IMTA systems, and implementing rigorous monitoring and regulatory frameworks can help mitigate these trade-offs. A sustainable approach to seaweed farming not only enhances its environmental benefits but also ensures its long-term viability as a climate solution.

South Korea’s extensive aquaculture experience, favorable coastal conditions, and progressive policy initiatives position it as a global leader in seaweed farming for climate mitigation. By addressing challenges such as space competition, nutrient dynamics, and economic feasibility, the country can significantly expand its seaweed farming capacity while contributing to global efforts to combat climate change. Continued investment in technological innovation, offshore farming systems, and blue carbon research will be critical to unlocking the full potential of seaweed farming as a sustainable CDR strategy.

Addressing these research gaps will be critical to advancing seaweed farming as a viable and scalable CDR strategy. Efforts to improve our understanding of RDOC stability and POC burial efficiency, establish robust MRV systems, and explore emerging opportunities such as offshore farming and IMTA can unlock the full potential of seaweed cultivation. By integrating technological innovation, rigorous science, and policy alignment, seaweed farming can play a transformative role in global climate mitigation efforts.

Seaweed farming shows remarkable promise as a scalable and sustainable CDR strategy, delivering both direct and indirect climate benefits. Its implementation, however, requires a balanced approach to address ecological trade-offs, technological challenges, and economic barriers. Through closing research gaps, developing robust MRV systems, and leveraging emerging opportunities, seaweed farming can serve as a crucial component in global climate change mitigation efforts. Success will depend on cross-disciplinary and cross-sector collaboration to integrate seaweed farming into comprehensive climate strategies that benefit both humanity and the planet.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by a National Research Foundation (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (NRF-2016R1A6A1A03012647, NRF-2020 R1A2C3005053, NRF-2022M3I6A1085991) to KYK.

Notes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Kwang Young Kim serves as an editor. Although involved in the final publication decision due to his editorial position, all efforts were made to ensure an objective and unbiased review process through independent peer review.

References

Abomohra A., Faisal S., Ebaid R., Huang J., Wang Q., Elsayed M.. 2022;Recent advances in anaerobic digestion of lipid-rich waste: challenges and potential of seaweeds to mitigate the inhibitory effect. Chem. Eng. J 449:137829. doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.137829.
Arkema K. K., Field L., Nelson L. K., Ban N. C., Gunn C., Lester S. E.. 2024;Advancing the design and management of marine protected areas by quantifying the benefits of coastal ecosystems for communities. One Earth 7:989–1006. doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.04.019.
Arzeno-Soltero I. B., Saenz B. T., Frieder C. A., et al. 2023;Large global variations in the carbon dioxide removal potential of seaweed farming due to biophysical constraints. Commun. Earth Environ 4:185. doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00833-2.
Avila-Peltroche J., Won B. Y., Cho T. O.. 2022;Effects of light-emitting diodes on protoplast regeneration from gametophytic cells of the commercial kelp Undaria pinnatifida (Laminariales, Phaeophyceae). Algae 37:163–174. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2022.37.6.7.
Ayala M., Arlov Ø, Nøkling-Eide K., et al. 2024;A supply-chain perspective on producing and upscaling bioplastic from cultivated brown seaweed. J. Clean. Prod 444:141248. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141248.
Ayala M., Thomsen M., Pizzol M.. 2023;Life cycle assessment of pilot scale production of seaweed-based bioplastic. Algal Res 71:103036. doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2023.103036.
Bach L. T., Tamsitt V., Gower J., Hurd C. L., Raven J. A., Boyd P. W.. 2021;Testing the climate intervention potential of ocean afforestation using the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt. Nat. Commun 12:2556. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22837-2.
Bach L. T., Vaughan N. E., Law C. S., Williamson P.. 2024;Implementation of marine CO2 removal for climate mitigation: the challenges of additionality, predictability, and governability. Elem. Sci. Anth 12:00034. doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00034.
Bak U. G., Gregersen Ó, Infante J.. 2020;Technical challenges for offshore cultivation of kelp species: lessons learned and future directions. Bot. Mar 63:341–353. doi.org/10.1515/bot-2019-0005.
Bak U. G., Mols-Mortensen A., Gregersen O.. 2018;Production method and cost of commercial-scale offshore cultivation of kelp in the Faroe Islands using multiple partial harvesting. Algal Res 33:36–47. doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2018.05.001.
Baker C. A., Martin A. P., Yool A., Popova E.. 2022;Biological carbon pump sequestration efficiency in the North Atlantic: a leaky or a long-term sink? Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 36:e2021GB007286. doi.org/10.1029/2021GB007286.
Bell T. W., Nidzieko N. J., Siegel D. A., et al. 2020;The utility of satellites and autonomous remote sensing platforms for monitoring offshore aquaculture farms: a case study for canopy forming kelps. Front. Mar. Sci 7:520223. doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.520223.
Boderskov T., Rasmussen M. B., Bruhn A.. 2023;Upscaling cultivation of Saccharina latissima on net or line systems: comparing biomass yields and nutrient extraction potentials. Front. Mar. Sci 10:992179. doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.992179.
Boyd P. W., Bach L. T., Hurd C. L., Paine E., Raven J. A., Tamsitt V.. 2022;Potential negative effects of ocean afforestation on offshore ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol 6:675–683. doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01722-1.
Braeckman U., Pasotti F., Vázquez S., et al. 2019;Degradation of macroalgal detritus in shallow coastal Antarctic sediments. Limnol. Oceanogr 64:1423–1441. doi.org/10.1002/lno.11125.
Brewin R. J. W., Sathyendranath S., Platt T., et al. 2021;Sensing the ocean biological carbon pump from space: a review of capabilities, concepts, research gaps and future developments. Earth-Sci. Rev 217:103604. doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103604.
Broch O. J., Alver M. O., Bekkby T., et al. 2019;The kelp cultivation potential in coastal and offshore regions of Norway. Front. Mar. Sci 5:529. doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00529.
Buck-Wiese H., Andskog M. A., Nguyen N. P., et al. 2023;Fucoid brown algae inject fucoidan carbon into the ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 120:e2210561119. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210561119.
Bui M., Adjiman C. S., Bardow A., et al. 2018;Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ. Sci 11:1062–1176. doi.org/10.1039/C7EE02342A.
Bullen C. D., Driscoll J., Burt J., Stephens T., Hessing-Lewis M., Gregr E. J.. 2024;The potential climate benefits of seaweed farming in temperate waters. Sci. Rep 14:15021. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65408-3.
Buschmann A. H., Camus C., Infante J., et al. 2017;Seaweed production: overview of the global state of exploitation, farming and emerging research activity. Eur. J. Phycol 52:391–406. doi.org/10.1080/09670262.2017.1365175.
Cadman T., Hales R.. 2022;COP26 and a framework for future global agreements on carbon market integrity. Int. J. Soc. Qual 12:76–99. doi.org/10.3167/IJSQ.2022.120105.
Campbell I., Macleod A., Sahlmann C., et al. 2019;The environmental risks associated with the development of seaweed farming in Europe: prioritizing key knowledge gaps. Front. Mar. Sci 6:107. doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00107.
Canvin M. C., Moore P. J., Smale D. A.. 2024;Quantifying growth, erosion and dislodgement rates of farmed kelp (Saccharina latissima) to examine the carbon sequestration potential of temperate seaweed farming. J. Appl. Phycol 36:3091–3102. doi.org/10.1007/s10811-024-03323-w.
Chopin T., Costa-Pierce B. A., Troell M., et al. 2024;Deep-ocean seaweed dumping for carbon sequestration: questionable, risky, and not the best use of valuable biomass. One Earth 7:359–364. doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.01.013.
Chung I. K., Beardall J., Mehta S., Sahoo D., Stojkovic S.. 2011;Using marine macroalgae for carbon sequestration: a critical appraisal. J. Appl. Phycol 23:877–886. doi.org/10.1007/s10811-010-9604-9.
Corrigan S., Brown A. R., Ashton I. G. C., Smale D. A., Tyler C. R.. 2022;Quantifying habitat provisioning at macroalgal cultivation sites. Rev. Aquac 14:1671–1694. doi.org/10.1111/raq.12669.
DeAngelo J., Saenz B. T., Arzeno-Soltero I. B., et al. 2023;Economic and biophysical limits to seaweed farming for climate change mitigation. Nat. Plants 9:45–57. doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01305-9.
Dolliver J., O’Connor N.. 2022;Whole system analysis is required to determine the fate of macroalgal carbon: a systematic review. J. Phycol 58:364–376. doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13251.
Duarte C. M.. 2017;Reviews and syntheses: hidden forests, the role of vegetated coastal habitats in the ocean carbon budget. Biogeosciences 14:301–310. doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-301-2017.
Duarte C. M., Delgado-Huertas A., Marti E., et al. 2023. Carbon burial in sediments below seaweed farms Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.02.522332v2. Accessed Aug 26, 2024.
Erlania Bellgrove A., Macreadie P. I., et al. 2023;Patterns and drivers of macroalgal ‘blue carbon’ transport and deposition in near-shore coastal environments. Sci. Total Environ 890:164430. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164430.
Farghali M., Mohamed I. M. A., Osman A. I., Rooney D. W.. 2023;Seaweed for climate mitigation, wastewater treatment, bioenergy, bioplastic, biochar, food, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics: a review. Environ. Chem Lett 21:97–152. doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01520-y.
Flavin K., Flavin N., Flahive B.. 2013. Kelp farming manual: a guide to the processes, techniques, and equipment for farming kelp in New England waters Ocean Approved LLC. Saco, ME: p. 123.
Friedlingstein P., O’Sullivan M., Jones M. W., et al. 2023;Global carbon budget 2023. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 15:5301–5369. doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023.
Froehlich H. E., Afflerbach J. C., Frazier M., Halpern B. S.. 2019;Blue growth potential to mitigate climate change through seaweed offsetting. Curr. Biol 29:3087–3093.E3. doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.041.
Gossard D. J., Steller D. L.. 2022;Population persistence of the perennial kelp Eisenia arborea varies across local spatial scales. Algae 37:63–74. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2022.37.2.19.
Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. 2019. High level review of a wide range of proposed marine geoengineering techniques (GESAMP Report 98). The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) Available from: http://www.gesamp.org/publications. Accessed Jan 15, 2024.
Hasselström L., Thomas J.-B. E.. 2022;A critical review of the life cycle climate impact in seaweed value chains to support carbon accounting and blue carbon financing. Clean. Environ. Syst 6:100093. doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2022.100093.
Hill R., Bellgrove A., Macreadie P. I., et al. 2015;Can macroalgae contribute to blue carbon? An Australian perspective. Limnol. Oceanogr 60:1689–1706. doi.org/10.1002/lno.10128.
Howard J., Sutton-Grier A. E., Smart L. S., et al. 2023;Blue carbon pathways for climate mitigation: known, emerging and unlikely. Mar. Policy 156:105788. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105788.
Hurd C. L., Gattuso J.-P., Boyd P. W.. 2024;Air-sea carbon dioxide equilibrium: will it be possible to use seaweeds for carbon removal offsets? J. Phycol 60:4–14. doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13405.
Hurd C. L., Law C. S., Bach L. T., et al. 2022;Forensic carbon accounting: assessing the role of seaweeds for carbon sequestration. J. Phycol 58:347–363. doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13249.
Hwang E. K., Boo G. H., Graf L., Yarish C., Yoon H. S., Kim J. K.. 2022;Kelps in Korea: from population structure to aquaculture to potential carbon sequestration. Algae 37:85–103. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2022.37.3.3.
Hwang E. K., Park C. S.. 2020;Seaweed cultivation and utilization of Korea. Algae 35:107–121. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2020.35.5.15.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. Accessed Jan 20, 2024.
Jiksing C., Ongkudon M. M., Thien V. Y., Rodrigues K. F., Yong W. T. L.. 2022;Recent advances in seaweed seedling production: a review of eucheumatoids and other valuable seaweeds. Algae 37:105–121. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2022.37.5.11.
Jung J. W., Xing Q., Park J.-S., Yarish C., Kim J. K.. 2023;Effects of salinity and irradiance on early developmental stages of Grateloupia turuturu (Halymeniaceae, Rhodophyta) tetrasporophytes. Algae 38:151–157. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2023.38.6.2.
Jung K. A., Lim S.-R., Kim Y., Park J. M.. 2013;Potentials of macroalgae as feedstocks for biorefinery. Bioresour. Technol 135:182–190. doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.025.
Kang N., Heo S.-Y., Kim E.-A., Cha S.-H., Ryu B., Heo S.-J.. 2023;Antiviral effect of fucoxanthin obtained from Sargassum siliquastrum (Fucales, Phaeophyceae) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Algae 38:295–306. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2023.38.11.29.
Keng F.S.-L, Phang S.-M., Rahman N. A., et al. 2023;Emission of volatile halocarbons from the farming of commercially important tropical seaweeds. J. Appl. Phycol 35:3007–3020. doi.org/10.1007/s10811-023-03067-z.
Kim J.-M., Lee K., Han I.-S., et al. 2022;Factors governing seawater carbonate dynamics in a macroalgal habitat. Front. Mar. Sci 9:963193. doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.963193.
Kim S. J., Jung H. C., Hwang D.-H.. 2024;Accuracy assessment of coastal aquaculture facility detection using deep learning techniques. Korean J. Remote Sens 40:455–464. doi.org/10.7780/kjrs.2024.40.5.1.4.
Knoop J., Barrento S., Lewis R., Walter B., Griffin J. N.. 2022;Incorporating concepts of biodiversity into modern aquaculture: macroalgal species richness enhances bioremediation efficiency in a lumpfish hatchery. Algae 37:213–226. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2022.37.5.12.
KOSIS. 2024. National statistics on fisheries and maritime affairs Available from: http://kosis.kr/eng. Accessed Jul 10, 2024.
Kotta J., Raudsepp U., Szava-Kovats R., et al. 2022;Assessing the potential for sea-based macroalgae cultivation and its application for nutrient removal in the Baltic Sea. Sci. Total Environ 839:156230. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156230.
Krause-Jensen D., Duarte C. M.. 2016;Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon sequestration. Nat. Geosci 9:737–742. doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2790.
Krause-Jensen D., Lavery P., Serrano O., Marbà N., Masque P., Duarte C. M.. 2018;Sequestration of macroalgal carbon: the elephant in the Blue Carbon room. Biol. Lett 14:20180236. doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0236.
Krumhansl K. A., Scheibling R. E.. 2012;Production and fate of kelp detritus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 467:281–302. doi.org/10.3354/meps09940.
Lee H.-G., Nagahawatta D. P., Liyanage N. M., et al. 2022;Structural characterization and anti-inflammatory activity of fucoidan isolated from Ecklonia maxima stipe. Algae 37:239–247. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2022.37.9.12.
Leedham E. C., Hughes C., Keng F. S. L., Phang S.-M., Malin G., Sturges W. T.. 2013;Emission of atmospherically significant halocarbons by naturally occurring and farmed tropical macroalgae. Biogeosciences 10:3615–3633. doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-3615-2013.
Lester S. E., Stevens J. M., Gentry R. R., et al. 2018;Marine spatial planning makes room for offshore aquaculture in crowded coastal waters. Nat. Commun 9:945. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03249-1.
Levin L. A., Alfaro-Lucas J. M., Colaço A., et al. 2023;Deep-sea impacts of climate interventions. Science 379:978–981. doi.org/10.1126/science.ade7521.
Li H., Zhang Z., Xiong T., et al. 2022;Carbon Sequestration in the Form of Recalcitrant Dissolved Organic Carbon in a Seaweed (Kelp) Farming Environment. Environ Sci Technol 56:9112–9122. doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01535.
Lian Y., Wang R., Zheng J., et al. 2023;Carbon sequestration assessment and analysis in the whole life cycle of seaweed. Environ. Res. Lett 18:074013. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acdae9.
Lim C., Yusoff S., Ng C. G., Lim P. E., Ching Y. C.. 2021;Bioplastic made from seaweed polysaccharides with green production methods. J. Environ. Chem. Eng 9:105895. doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105895.
Liu C., Gao J., Jiang H., Sun J., Gao X., Mao X.. 2024;Value-added utilization technologies for seaweed processing waste in a circular economy: developing a sustainable modern seaweed industry. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf 23:e70027. doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.70027.
Machado L., Magnusson M., Paul N. A., Kinley R., de Nys R., Tomkins N.. 2016;Identification of bioactives from the red seaweed Asparagopsis taxiformis that promote antimethanogenic activity in vitro. J. Appl. Phycol 28:3117–3126. doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-0830-7.
Mihindukulasooriya S. P., Kim H. J., Cho J., et al. 2022;Polyphenol-rich Sargassum horneri alleviates atopic dermatitis-like skin lesions in NC/Nga mice by suppressing Th2-mediated cytokine IL-13. Algae 37:331–347. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2022.37.11.24.
Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. 2021. Marine carbon sequestration program: expanding seaweed farming and carbon sequestration Available from: https://www.mof.go.kr/doc/ko/selectDoc.do?docSeq=44099&menuSeq=971&bbsSeq=10#. Accessed Jan 15, 2024.
Nagahawatta D. P., Liyanage N. M., Jayawardena T. U., et al. 2023;Functions and values of sulfated polysaccharides from seaweed. Algae 38:217–240. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2023.38.12.1.
Nagarajan D., Senthilkumar G., Chen C.-W., et al. 2024;Sustainable bioplastics from seaweed polysaccharides: a comprehensive review. Polym. Adv. Technol 35:e6536. doi.org/10.1002/pat.6536.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. A research strategy for ocean-based carbon dioxide removal and sequestration The National Academies Press. Washington, DC: p. 307.
Nederlof M. A. J., Verdegem M. C. J., Smaal A. C., Jansen H. M.. 2022;Nutrient retention efficiencies in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Rev. Aquac 14:1194–1212. doi.org/10.1111/raq.12645.
Paine E. R., Schmid M., Boyd P. W., Diaz-Pulido G., Hurd C. L.. 2021;Rate and fate of dissolved organic carbon release by seaweeds: a missing link in the coastal ocean carbon cycle. J. Phycol 57:1375–1391. doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13198.
Pariyar P., Kumari K., Jain M. K., Jadhao P. S.. 2020;Evaluation of change in biochar properties derived from different feedstock and pyrolysis temperature for environmental and agricultural application. Sci. Total Environ 713:136433. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136433.
Park M., Shin S. K., Do Y. H., Yarish C., Kim J. K.. 2018;Application of open water integrated multi-trophic aquaculture to intensive monoculture: a review of the current status and challenges in Korea. Aquaculture 497:174–183. doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.07.051.
Park S. K., Kim J. K., Choi H. G.. 2022;Effect of substratum types on the growth of assimilators and stolons of Caulerpa okamurae (Bryopsidales, Chlorophyta). Algae 37:293–299. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2022.37.12.10.
Pessarrodona A., Franco-Santos R. M., Wright L. S., et al. 2023;Carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation using macroalgae: a state of knowledge review. Biol. Rev 98:1945–1971. doi.org/10.1111/brv.12990.
Pessarrodona A., Howard J., Pidgeon E., Wernberg T., Filbee-Dexter K.. 2024;Carbon removal and climate change mitigation by seaweed farming: a state of knowledge review. Sci. Total Environ 918:170525. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170525.
Queirós A. M., Stephens N., Widdicombe S., et al. 2019;Connected macroalgal-sediment systems: blue carbon and food webs in the deep coastal ocean. Ecol. Monogr 89:e01366. doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1366.
Queirós A. M., Tait K., Clark J. R., et al. 2023;Identifying and protecting macroalgae detritus sinks toward climate change mitigation. Ecol. Appl 33:e2798. doi.org/10.1002/eap.2798.
Resplandy L., Hogikyan A., Müller J. D., et al. 2024;A synthesis of global coastal ocean greenhouse gas fluxes. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 38:e2023GB007803. doi.org/10.1029/2023GB007803.
Ritschard R. L.. 1992;Marine algae as a CO2 sink. Water Air Soil Pollut 64:289–303. doi.org/10.1007/BF00477107.
Roberts D. A., Paul N. A., Dworjanyn S. A., Bird M. I., de Nys R.. 2015;Biochar from commercially cultivated seaweed for soil amelioration. Sci. Rep 5:9665. doi.org/10.1038/srep09665.
Roleda M. Y., Hurd C. L.. 2019;Seaweed nutrient physiology: application of concepts to aquaculture and bioremediation. Phycologia 58:552–562. doi.org/10.1080/00318884.2019.1622920.
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. Front. Mar. Sci 9:1015612. doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1015612.
Ross F. W. R., Boyd P. W., Filbee-Dexter K., et al. 2023;Potential role of seaweeds in climate change mitigation. Sci. Total Environ 885:163699. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163699.
Roth F., Broman E., Sun X., et al. 2023;Methane emissions offset atmospheric carbon dioxide uptake in coastal macroalgae, mixed vegetation and sediment ecosystems. Nat. Commun 14:42. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35673-9.
Siegel D. A., DeVries T., Doney S. C., Bell T.. 2021;Assessing the sequestration time scales of some ocean-based carbon dioxide reduction strategies. Environ. Res. Lett 16:104003. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0be0.
Song S., Santos I. R., Yu H., et al. 2022;A global assessment of the mixed layer in coastal sediments and implications for carbon storage. Nat. Commun 13:4903. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32650-0.
Spillias S., Valin H., Batka M., et al. 2023;Reducing global land-use pressures with seaweed farming. Nat. Sustain 6:380–390. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01043-y.
Sun J., Norouzi O., Mašek O.. 2022;A state-of-the-art review on algae pyrolysis for bioenergy and biochar production. Bioresour. Technol 346:126258. doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126258.
Theuerkauf S. J., Barrett L. T., Alleway H. K., Costa-Pierce B. A., StGelais A., Jones R. C.. 2022;Habitat value of bivalve shellfish and seaweed aquaculture for fish and invertebrates: pathways, synthesis and next steps. Rev. Aquac 14:54–72. doi.org/10.1111/raq.12584.
Troell M., Hurd C., Chopin T., Costa-Pierce B. A., Costello M. J.. 2024;Seaweeds for carbon dioxide removal (CDR): getting the science right. PLoS Clim 3:e0000377. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000377.
Troell M., Joyce A., Chopin T., Neori A., Buschmann A. H., Fang J.-G.. 2009;Ecological engineering in aquaculture: potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture 297:1–9. doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.09.010.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2014. Handbook on measurement, reporting and verification for developing country parties United Nations Climate Change Secretariat. Bonn: p. 53.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2020;Long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategy of the Republic of Korea Available from: https://unfccc.int/documents/267683. Accessed Jan 15, 2024.
Wada S., Omori Y., Kayamyo Y., Tashiro Y., Hama T.. 2015;Photoreactivity of dissolved organic matter from macroalgae. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci 2:12–18. doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2015.08.018.
Wang X., Olsen L. M., Reitan K. I., Olsen Y.. 2012;Discharge of nutrient wastes from salmon farms: environmental effects, and potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquac. Environ. Interact 2:267–283. doi.org/10.3354/aei00044.
Wani I., Kushvaha V., Garg A., Kumar R., Naik S., Sharma P.. 2022;Review on effect of biochar on soil strength: towards exploring usage of biochar in geo-engineering infrastructure. Biomass Convers. Biorefin doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02795-5.
Zhang J., Cran M., Gao L., Xie Z., Gray S.. 2024;Contribution of seaweed farming to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and microplastics pollution. Algal Res 82:103623. doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2024.103623.
Zhang M., Qin H., Ma Y., et al. 2023;Carbon sequestration from refractory dissolved organic carbon produced by biodegradation of Saccharina japonica. Mar. Environ. Res 183:105803. doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2022.105803.

Article information Continued