Global seaweed carbon sequestration estimates are currently taken as the fraction of the net primary production (NPP) exported to the deep ocean. However, this perspective does not account for CO2 from the consumption of external subsidies. Here, we clarify: (i) the role of export relative to seaweed net ecosystem production (NEP) for a closed system and one more likely open to subsidies; (ii) the importance of subsidies by compiling published estimates of NEP from seaweed-dominated ecosystems; and (iii) discuss their impact on the global seaweed net carbon balance and other sequestration constraints as a mitigation service. Examples of seaweed NEP (n = 18) were sparse and variable. Nevertheless, the average NEP (−4.0 mmol C m–2 d–1 SE ± 12.2) suggested that seaweed ecosystems are a C source, becoming increasingly heterotrophic as their export is consumed. Critically, mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions was mixed relative to their replacement or baseline states, and where CO2 is supplied independently of organic metabolism and atmospheric exchange, we caution a sole reliance on NEP or NPP. This will ensure a more accurate seaweed mitigation assessment, one that does exceed their capacity and is effective within a compliance and carbon trading scheme.

The biodiversity benefits of kelp aquaculture and afforestation are increasingly acclaimed as the industry continues to grow and develop globally, however, whether farmed kelp can provide this ecosystem service remains unclear. Using peer-reviewed literature, we evaluated whether kelp farms provide biodiversity benefits, and identified only 23 studies that discussed the effects of kelp aquaculture on biodiversity, half of which were broad reviews that only assessed the concept of ‘biodiversity’ peripherally (e.g. did not focus on specific responses or taxa). There is also a general lack of experimental research on the topic. Based on the evidence, it seems that kelp farms can create habitat via changes to the local environment, particularly through the provision of structure and changed nutrient cycling. While this can lead to increased abundance and diversity among certain taxa (e.g. fouling organisms), it seems that kelp farms typically create novel habitats that support distinct communities not equivalent to natural kelp forests. Moreover, the potential for kelp farms to support biodiversity depends on a range of operational factors, many of which may be at odds with farming objectives that require the harvest and removal of the habitat that farms provide. While more work needs to be done to address the complexity of comparisons between kelp farms and forests, especially at appropriate experimental scales, it currently seems unlikely that kelp farms will act as kelp forests and deliver meaningful biodiversity outcomes. We should instead recognise farms for providing their own valuable services and support restoration and conservation practices of kelp forests to pursue biodiversity outcomes.