Abstract Bottom trawling is the most widespread anthropogenic disturbance to marine benthic ecosystems, with a growing recognition of its potential to alter sedimentary carbon dynamics and influence ocean–atmosphere CO 2 exchange. Yet, the magnitude and underlying mechanisms of trawling‐induced carbon emissions from the seafloor remain poorly understood and subject to ongoing scientific debate. In this perspective, we synthesise current evidence on how physical disturbance caused by demersal fisheries has opposing effects on organic carbon (OC) mineralisation across different compartments with a particular focus on the distinction between short‐term remineralisation and long‐term carbon burial. We argue that bottom disturbance increases remineralisation in the water column by resuspending reactive OC to oxygenated environments, while decreasing local seabed OC stocks and in situ sediment mineralisation by reducing reactive OC and benthic fauna. We further distinguish between short‐term remineralisation of reactive OC and the longer‐term impairment of carbon burial in depositional zones. The critical role of benthic fauna, particularly bioturbators, in regulating carbon processing and sequestration remains complex and context‐dependent. While highly reactive OC is the most vulnerable to rapid mineralisation, prioritising management solely on the basis of OC reactivity risks overlooking habitats that contribute disproportionately to long‐term carbon sequestration. Depositional areas, though sometimes lower in OC lability, can offer greater climate‐relevant sequestration value and represent priority habitats for management aimed at protecting long‐term carbon burial. Synthesis and applications : Given this strong context dependence, effective protection of seabed carbon stocks requires region‐specific assessments that identify and prioritise habitats with high burial potential amongst considerations for increased short‐term CO 2 release, rather than blanket trawling bans or uniform effort reductions. Ultimately, while seabed carbon protection can support climate policy, it must remain secondary to, and never a substitute for, the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
Tiano et al. (Wed,) studied this question.