有一个误解“稳态”部分,这不是什么联系。显然状态数据依赖于温度,它表示,在应对全球变暖湿地将缴款更多的甲烷,并试图量化数量。[结论][1],>这一发现强调了限制全球变暖的重要性2°C以下,以避免重大气候反馈由自然湿地甲烷排放量。“(反馈)[2]”是这里的关键词。这种反馈是加速反应系统的全球变暖。非常简化,以防小浅湿地CH4释放与含氧的水平和缺氧的条件下,后者扩大不仅在当地“水坑”的表还在地理上从低到高纬度地区温度和释放更多的甲烷在气候变暖,气候变暖等等。除了是微不足道的人类活动和湿地破坏释放大量的温室气体,考虑到存储和存储在这些生态系统的碳量。可能会有一个由甲烷排放抵消碳封存(并不是所有的碳吸收实际上是绑定),根据个人位置,温度条件和最重要的。但这决不是一个反对“自然资源”倡导“保护和re-valuation”来帮助(固碳)[4]。>这个分析可以帮助从业者和景观经理[…] foster the worldwide implementation of wetland restoration, creation, and conservation projects for sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. So, yes, wetlands are effective against climate change and their destruction causes climate change. That's the sciency part. 'Cost' and 'benefit' on the other hand describe a value and are inherently opinionated, may depend on the case or what a society, groups or individuals see as 'valuable' and worth fostering. [1]: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/observation-constrained-assessment-climate-sensitivity-and-future-trajectories-wetland-methane [2]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017RG000559 [3]: https://www.usgs.gov/news/methane-some-wetlands-may-lower-benefits-carbon-sequestration [4]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925857417303658