Next Article in Journal
Conjugates of Chitosan with β-Cyclodextrins as Promising Carriers for the Delivery of Levofloxacin: Spectral and Microbiological Studies
Next Article in Special Issue
Changes in Salinity, Mangrove Community Ecology, and Organic Blue Carbon Stock in Response to Cyclones at Indian Sundarbans
Previous Article in Journal
“Sea Water” Supplemented with Calcium Phosphate and Magnesium Sulfate in a Long-Term Miller-Type Experiment Yields Sugars, Nucleic Acids Bases, Nucleosides, Lipids, Amino Acids, and Oligopeptides
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Interaction of Seasons and Biogeochemical Properties of Water Regulate the Air–Water CO2 Exchanges in Two Major Tropical Estuaries, Bay of Bengal (India)
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Variations in Soil Blue Carbon Sequestration between Natural Mangrove Metapopulations and a Mixed Mangrove Plantation: A Case Study from the World’s Largest Contiguous Mangrove Forest

Jindal School of Environment and Sustainability, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat 131001, Haryana, India
Ecological Restoration Laboratory, Department of Environmental Science & Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM), Dhanbad 826004, Jharkhand, India
Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat 131001, Haryana, India
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2023, 13(2), 271;
Submission received: 20 November 2022 / Revised: 27 December 2022 / Accepted: 11 January 2023 / Published: 18 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Marine Carbon Systems: Dynamics, Conservation, and Management)


Sundarban is the world’s largest mangrove wetland. This study, conducted in 2016, to compare blue carbon sequestration with different natural metapopulations and a four-year-old Avicennia marina (30% area)-Rhizophora mucronata (70% area)-mixed mangrove plantation under anthropoganic stress. The aims of the study is to find out the variations in soil ecological function indicators (pH, electrical conductivity, bulk density, soil texture, available nitrogn, phosphorus and soil organic carbon) and key ecological service indicator (soil blue carbon pool) between sites. Simpson’s Index of dominance, diversity and Shannon-Weiner Index revealed that all the sites are under ecological stress, with the Suaeda maritima-dominated mudflat having the least biodiversity. It is also revealed that pH and electrical conductivity were highest in Suaeda maritima and Phoenix padulosa-dominated metapopulations, whereas organic carbon was the highest under the mangrove plantation and Avicennia marina-dominated site. Available nitrogen was recorded highest in the community with the Sonneretia sp.-Avicennia marina association. The mixed mangrove plantation had the highest blue carbon pool. The species diversity was not found to be related with the distance from the nearby conserved mangrove forest, contrary to the island biogeography theory. This study concludes with a recommendation of mixed mangrove plantations to restore the degraded saline mudflats along the human settlements across the globe.

1. Introduction

Mangroves are specially adapted plant groups that have a physiological, morphological, or anatomical adaptation to survive and proliferate in saline tide washed soil and mudflats. Mangroves are distributed across the globe in the tropical and subtropical coastlines, deltas, estuaries, and islands. Indonesia has the largest area under the mangrove cover scattered across the tropical islands, but the ‘Sundarban mangrove wetland’ shared by Bangladesh (60%) and India (40%), is the world’s largest contiguous mangrove forest. This region is also the world’s largest delta with dense population, facing intense anthropocentric developmental pressures.
Existing in the ecotone of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, mangroves are crucial for the survival and healthy functioning of both. Research has already established a multitude of ecological services rendered by these plant communities, namely, Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR), breeding ground of marine fauna, pollutant sink, economic service in terms of forest products, consolidation of soil, and resilience to tidal erosion [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Foremost amongst these services is their ability to sequester an enormous amount of carbon in the soil. This sequestered soil carbon in the saline, edaphic environment of mangrove and sea grasses is referred as ‘blue carbon’. Mangrove and sea grass constitutes the blue carbon sink, which is larger than most of the terrestrial ecosystems, such as boreal forests and tropical forest types [7]. Blue carbon has been recognized as a solution to the global problem of climate change. Sundarban ecosystem is a repository of the sediment organic carbon content, varying between 0.92 to 3.29%, resulting in an organic carbon stock of 59.14 Tg within 90 cm of the intertidal sediment [6].
With all the conservation efforts and global focus on conserving the mangrove ecosystem, the footprint of human development has altered the land use and mangrove cover across the globe [8]. By then, 54 out of 102 islands at the Indian part of Sundarbans was under human habitation and mangrove forests had been wiped out to facilitate developmental activities such as agriculture and aquaculture. The rest of the islands were conserved and is the last remaining frontier for enigmatic mangrove forest dwelling Royal Bengal Tigers. However, blue carbon stocks are reducing across the Sundarban mangrove ecosystem [6,9]. Mangroves in an average can sequester of 1023 Mg C per hectare. Studies demonstrate that Sundarban’s mangrove ecosystem can sequester approximately 4.71–6.54 Mg C ha−1 year−1 C [6,9]. However, land conversions and climate change impacts are destabilizing both ecological functions and services at Indian Sundarbans. Research by Bera et al. revealed an approximate 6,313,944 mg/6.31 Tg loss of C at Sundarbans between 1975 and 2020 [9].
The recent decade has observed a shift in international perception towards climate change and global warming. The frequency and number of tropical disturbances had also increased over the years due to the impact of climate change, periodically inundating human-colonized islands of Indian Sundarbans. Restoration initiatives have also increased in these islands to protect the mudflats and embankments from erosion during natural disasters [5]. Blue carbon sequestration is the key tool in the hand of climate change ecologists against the fight with climate change. Restoration initiatives are known to improve the blue carbon pool [3].
This article focuses on a research question: ‘Does multispecies mangrove plantation help in improving blue carbon sequestration in comparison to natural mangrove patches under anthropogenic pressure?’. The rationale of the study is to compare the soil carbon pool between different mangrove metapopulations (with varied community composition) to a mixed mangrove plantation.
To answer this question, our lab group investigated the biodiversity and blue carbon pool along with associated soil ecological function indicators between five sites with different mangrove community composition, of which one site is a 4-year-old mixed species plantation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The study area has been selected at different parts of Indian Sundarbans with different forest/plantation, as natural mangrove community sites. Descriptions and locations of the sites have been elucidated in Table 1 and Figure 1.

2.2. Plantation, Monitoring and Assessment Strategy

Site-1: Rhizophora mucronata have been planted through the drain and trench method to maximize the survival of the nursery grown saplings [3]. Before the R. mucronata plantation site, there was a natural cover of Avicennia marina plants. The location of the plant layers with respect to High Tide Level (HTL) and Low Tide Level (LTL) line has been depicted in Figure 2.
Site-2–5: Natural degraded mudflats near to the plantation site with about 70% mudflat covered with a particular mangrove or halophyte species. Samplings and biodiversity survey have been conducted on 2016 (Post-monsoon). As this site is devoid of human intervention or plantation program, the community ecology of the mangrove metapopulation was liable to change under natural influences. Hence, there has been a need for a yearly biodiversity assessment in the area. Five quadrat plots (10 m × 10 m) were randomly set in the site each year and the average individual of the recorded species was used to assess the biodiversity.
The species diversity of the sites was assessed through Relative density and Frequency as per previous research on community ecology at the Indian Sundarbans [10].
Relative density is an estimate of the numerical strength of a species in relation to all the individuals of all the species, defined as;
Relative   Density   ( RD ) = Number   of   individuals   of   a   species Number   of   individuals   of   all   the   species × 100
The distribution or dispersion of a individual species is generally estimated as percentage occurrence and is defined as;
Frequency   ( % ) = Number   of   quadrats   the   species   occured Total   number   of   quadrat   studied × 100
Both the estimators give an idea of the status of a particular species in relation to the whole community, which is used in this study to understand the changes in distribution of the plants.

2.3. Soil Sampling and Analyses

Soil sampling was conducted in the sites during 2016. An acid washed trowel was used to scoop out the soil from upper surface of the mudflat (0–30 cm). The sample was collected in three replicate subsamples for each five sites, which were further mixed and homogenized to prepare a composite soil sample. The sites were selected, keeping in mind the similarity of anthropogenic stresses at all sites (to negate the biasness of the data) and to cover maximum types of mangrove community composition found at human-inhabited parts of the Indian Sundarbans. In the plantation sites, soil samples were collected from the four corners of ten 5 m × 5 m quadrat, of which three were from areas with A. marina dominance and seven from areas with R. mucronata dominance, and all the soil samples are mixed. Approximately 30% of the area was under the cover of A. marina, while the rest of the 70% was under the R. mucronata plantation, though there was intermixing at most of the sampled spaces. The collected soil samples were placed in plastic bags and labeled before being brought to the laboratory.
Soil organic carbon (SOC) was determined through the wet digestion method and reported as a percentage [11,12]. While preparing the reagents for analysis of SOC, 5 g Ag2SO4/L of H2SO4 is added before the use of H2SO4 to minimize the interference of Cl- in the saline mangrove soil [3]. Bulk density was calculated through the standard method [12].
Soil pH was measured by a multiparameter pH probe (HI-2020, Hanna Instruments, India) by making a suspension with deionized water (1:2.5, w/v) and after allowing it to settle for one hour [12]. Plant-available nitrogen (N) was estimated after digesting the samples with 0.32% KMnO4 solution followed by titration with 0.02 N H2SO4 using the Kjeldahl distillation unit (KJELODIST-EAS VA, Pelican Equipment Inc., Chennai, India) [13]. Plant available Phosphorus was determined by the Olsen method [14].
Carbon pool (0–10 cm) was calculated using SOC concentration, bulk density, and particular soil depth [15], as follows:
Carbon pool (Mg C ha−1) = SOC × BD × T
where SOC = Soil Organic carbon (%); BD = bulk density (g cm− 3), and T = soil thickness (cm).

2.4. Assessing the Health of the Ecosystem

‘Community ecology’ has two estimators that indirectly shed light onto the overall health of the ecosystem. The first one is a ‘Dominance’ estimator that focuses on overall dominance of one or group of species representing α-diversity of the ecosystem. The reciprocal of the dominance estimator is the ‘Diversity’ value. However, these estimators are generally biased to the most dominant species in an ecosystem. Hence, information-statistic indices are used to quantify the ‘entropy’ or ‘randomness’ in a community, which shed light onto the overall health of an ecosystem.
For understanding dominance, ‘Simpson’s Index of Dominance (D)’ is used, which is [16,17],
D = Σ n ( n 1 ) N ( N 1 )
Simpson’s Index of Diversity (L) is [16,17],
L = 1 D
Shannon Diversity Index (H) shed light into the overall diversity and health of the ecosystem, depicted as [18],
H = Σ   piLn   pi
In the equations, D = Simpson’s Index of dominance, L = Simpson’s Index of Diversity, H’ = Shannon’s Index, n = Number of individuals of each species, N = Total number of individuals of all the species, and pi = Total number of individuals in each species/Total number of individuals in all the species [18].

2.5. Statistical Tests

Statistical treatment was applied in Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS 16 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). The regression analysis was used to understand the trends in temporal changes in salinity regime and biodiversity. The standard error is used to understand the reliability of the data. The variance of mean (n = 3) has been evaluated by the Analysis of Variance (one-way ANOVA), followed by Duncan’s post hoc test after testing the dataset for the application of these statistics using the Shapiro–Wilk’s and Levene’s test.

3. Results

3.1. Biodiversity and Ecological Health Assessment

Blue carbon has been referred to as one of the key ecosystem services of mangroves, and scientists across the globe has been trying find out the relationship between the sequestration and drivers that influence the rate of C-trapping in the soil [19]. The biodiversity assessment in the sites revealed an array of species composition, where their relative density and frequency has been depicted in Table 2.
The health of the ecosystems in all the five sites has been elucidated by Simpson’s index of Dominance and Diversity, and the information-statistic index-Shannon Weiner Index (Table 3).
Similar studies use these quantitative ecological estimators to shed light onto the health of the ecosystem [10,20,21].

3.2. Soil Parameters

Soil parameters such as soil salinity, pH, bulk density (BD), soil organic carbon (SOC), available nitrogen (N), available phosphorous (P) and soil texture have been analyzed to quantify ecological functions. The results depicted in Table 4 indicate that these parameters are statistically and significantly varying across the five sites (S1–S5).

4. Discussion

4.1. Biodiversity and Ecological Health

It is evident from Table 2 that the Plantation location (Site 1 or S1) has a 24 RD value for A. marina, while it has an RD of 60 for R. mucronata (planted species). This species association is due to the mixed plantation model with naturally existing A. marina trees in the Low Tide Level, to reduce the wave impact during the tides. This resulted in luxuriant growth of R. mucronata. The mangrove associate A. ilicifolius was only nominally present in the site.
Site-2 (S2) has an 80 RD value for A. marina, indicating its dominance in the natural metapopulation. The rest of the species are rarely present in the site. Site-3 has a 48 RD for A. marina, while S. caseolaris is recorded to be at 16. A. ilicifolius have a RD of 24, but it is a small thorny herb and a mangrove associate (semelparous species), while both A. marina and S. caseolaris are trees with an iteroparous life cycle pattern. The Semelparous species shows a life strategy where the plants (generally herbs) grow for a short duration (seasonal or annual), and invests maximum energetics in the reproductive cycle and propagation. The short life cycle makes it difficult for semelparous species to impart any changes in the microenvironment where they grow. Iteroparous species can live longer and obtain reproductive maturity at a latter part of life but can modify the microenvironment, making it suitable for growth. Mostly tree species follow an iteroparous life cycle.
Site-3 (S3) has an association of two iteroparous tree species: A. marina (RD = 55) and S. caseolaris (RD = 21). Though the semelparous mangrove associate and grass P. coarctata have a RD value of around 13, it minimally impacts the microenvironment of the habitat.
Site-4 (S4) has a dominance of the edaphic sub-climax species and mangrove palm and shrub, P. paludosa (RD = 63). The rest of the species have a sparce distribution. It does indicate a greater erosional impact in the study site, as focused on previous studies [22]. These shrublands provide little protection against the tidal current or wave action during storm surges, making the shorelines vulnerable to erosional dynamics, unlike iteroparous mangrove trees such as A. marina, R. mucronata, C. tagal or S. caseolaris, which impart ecosystem services such as the consolidation of soil, barrier against natural disaster, and protection from erosion [5].
Site-5 (S5) has a a dominance of only a salt tolerant ruderal semelparous herb-S. maritima (RD = 69). The rest of the species has been sparsely distributed in the study site. This species has been demonstrated to be highly adapted to soil salinity and oxygenation stress [23]. They are generally observed in the sites under salinity stress with low biodiversity. It creates a mat in the soil, making it difficult for propagules of other species to lodge and grow in the sites. Being a semelparous ruderal, it rarely influences the micro-environment of the study site.
The theory of island biogeography suggests that the distance from the nearest large population pool determines the distribution of species [24]. However, in the case of Sundarbans, this theory may not be justified. In the current study, it has been observed that the distance from the nearby conserved larger metapopulation does not determine the species distribution of mangroves (Table 1).
This spatial study indicates that the distance from the nearest conserved mangrove population and observed species number at the sites indicates that geological forcing of environmental parameters may be more important for the species distribution of mangroves, contrary to the island biogeography theory. Though data from only five sites do not conclusively disprove the island biogeography theory at Indian Sundarbans and that geological, climate change, ecological forcing have been more prominent drivers for shaping the mangrove community ecology, but it does substantiate further investigation on understanding the ecosystem of Sundarbans through the lens of ‘Island biogeography’ theory.
The plantation site (Site-1) shows a higher diversity and lower dominance value, indicating a restoration of the ecosystem with different species colonizing the sites apart from the planted species-R. mucronata. The Shannon-Weiner Index shows a higher comparative value compared to other natural sites except Site-3. Amongst all the sites, Site-3 with a natural assemblage of A. marina and S. caseolaris had the robust ecosystem health and lesser randomness or ‘entropy’ in the ecosystem. The Diversity value is also the highest amongst other sites, which is reciprocal to the dominance. The sites (4 and 5) under erosional or salt stress and with only dominant semelparous herbs, had the lowest diversity value and highest randomness or entropy amongst all the α-diversity habitats. This concludes that both the sites are under stress, with a local extinction of most of the key mangrove species found in the Sundarban mangrove community ecology such as B. sexangula, C. tagal, R. mucronata, S. caseolaris. The Shannon-Weiner Index value ideally ranges between 1.5 to 3.5. This value of Shannon-Weiner for all the sites is below, 1.5, which indicates increased anthropogenic stress on all the sites. The selection of study site is based on the mudflats near to human habitation; hence, anthropogenic stresses were essential drivers in shaping the community ecology of all the sites.

4.2. Comparing the Ecosystem Function and Services

Table 4 indicates the major indicators of ecosystem services such as pH, soil salinity, OC, BD, N, P and soil texture. The ecosystem function and services can be quantified through these soil indicators [25,26]. S1 have the highest proportion of clay, while S3 have more silt and S4 have the highest sand proportion amongst all the sites. The pH of all the sites varied significantly and was recorded within the alkaline range. The pH of the soil in S4 and S5 is highly alkaline, and the same sites also have the high soil salinity in comparison with the other sites. The pH of hypersaline mangrove wetlands always tends to be alkaline due to the presence of basic ions of Na, K, Ca and Mg. The high salinity and pH in S4, S5 indicates the formation of ‘saline blanks’ on the surface of the soil. This occurs when a particular soil has been devoid of biodiversity cover, and that results in the transport and deposition of salt from lower depths of soil through capillary action due to evaporation. Both S4 and S5 has been observed to have saline blanks; although, in the case of S5, around 20% of the surveyed land is impacted due to the saline blank formation. High salinity and pH hinder the growth and colonization of natural mangrove species; hence, both the sites have a dominance of only salt tolerant or stress tolerant semelparous species, instead of a healthy mangrove community composition. This has been evident from the Shannon-Weiner Index and Simpson’s Index of Diversity.
Soil organic carbon is highest in the S1, due to the association between two key mangrove species. The ecosystem has been restored, which is evident from the mixed species composition and colonization trend of non-planted mangroves and halophytes. S2, which have a dominance of the salt tolerant mangrove, A. marina, also recorded a high SOC compared to other sites. A. marina grows fast and has been known to tolerate high salinity stress, and is hence ideal for proliferation at Sundarban mudflats [10,27]. The other ecosystem function parameters such as N and P have also been recorded higher in S1, S2 and S3 compared to the other. All of these sites have a dominance of species, which are iteroparous mangroves; hence, the leaf litter is accumulated and transported to soil daily. All mangroves are evergreen plants that shed leaves throughout the year, unlike deciduous plants. The litter constitutes for increased nutrient-N,P in the soil. When compared between all five metapopulations considered in this study, the highest N is recorded in S3 because of the association between two mangrove tree species—A. marina and S. caseolaris. Previous studies have demonstrated that the S. caseolaris leaf has an N content that influences the nutrient dynamics of the soil where it grows [28]. The association of the two species and colonization of the other mangrove species indicates an approximately better ecological health, but a Shannon-Weiner value less than 1.5 for all the sites does indicate a stressed ecosystem that is in need of conservation interventions.
The blue carbon pool was found to be highest in the plantation site (S1), followed by S2 with more than 10–15-year-old A. marina strands (Figure 3).
Multispecies strands and restoration initiatives through the multispecies mangrove does improve upon the blue carbon sequestration in soil compared to degraded mudflats under the dominance of stress tolerant semelparous halophytes or mangrove associates (S4, S5).
Similar restoration initiatives have been observed throughout the mangrove habitats across the globe. The average soil organic carbon stock and N for the top 1 m soils has been observed to be 263 ± 14 Mg C ha−1 and 11.8 ± 0.4 Mg N ha−1 at eastern Brazilian mangroves [29]. A restoration initiative at Xiamen, China, revealed that the 10-year-old Sonneratia apetala and Kandelia obovata plantations have a C-sequestration rate of 3.32 ± 0.62 kg C m−2 yr−1 [30]. An investigation of soil carbon sequestration and the carbon storage of mangroves and Spartina spp. on Maoyan and Ximen islands indicated that the Spartina spp. can store 12.7–31.4% more carbon than the naked mudflat [31]. A conservation project at the Gulf of California, Mexico protected 16,058 ha of mangroves, equivalent to 2.84 million Mg CO2 emission reduction within a period of 100 years [32]. A total of 22% of the conserved mangrove forests of Indonesia resulted in 0.82–1.09 PgC hectare−1 of carbon storage [33]. A Sonneratia caseolaris and S. apetala mixed species plantation in southern China have recorded an increased C-stock in the sediment compared to monocultures, as is also evident from this study [34]. Hence, mangrove restoration is one of the most effective methods to combat the vagaries of global warming by improving the C-sequestration.

5. Conclusions

This research concluded that plantations with multispecies iteroparous mangroves improve the ecological functions and services of the degraded mudflats under anthropogenic stress. The plantation sites have a better blue carbon pool compared to others. P. paludosa and S. maritima have been indicative of a degraded, eroded, or stressed habitat, and such mudflats can be a potential site for the multispecies mangrove eco-restoration initiatives. The species diversity does not follow the island biogeography theory, which indicats a possible geological or environmental driver behind the mangrove species distribution, substantiating the need for future research. Ecological indicators need to be incorporated in the decision making along with a regular in situ mangrove biodiversity assessment to grasp the level of degradation in the mudflats across the human-inhabited parts of the Indian Sundarbans. This study also recommends further research at Sundarbans as well as other mangrove multispecies plantations across the globe to formulate effective policy level interventions to restore this rapidly degrading and unique ecosystem.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.; methodology, A.C.; software, A.C. and A.N.; validation, S.K.M. and A.N.; formal analysis, A.C. and A.N.; investigation, A.C.; resources, S.K.M.; data curation, A.C. and A.N.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.; writing—review and editing, A.N. and S.K.M.; visualization, A.N.; supervision, S.K.M.; project administration, A.C.; funding acquisition, A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is presented in the manuscript and the raw data is with the authors.


The authors acknowledge the support of People’s Empowerment Towards Mangrove Restoration (P.E.M.R) program funded by BMZ-Germany for the mangrove restoration initiative presented in this case study at S1.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Takagi, H. Long-term design of mangrove landfills as an effective tide attenuator under relative sea-level rise. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Alongi, D.M. Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2008, 76, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chowdhury, A.; Naz, A.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Sanyal, P. Cost–benefit analysis of ‘Blue Carbon’sequestration by plantation of few key mangrove species at Sundarban Biosphere Reserve, India. Carbon Manag. 2018, 9, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Trégarot, E.; Caillaud, A.; Cornet, C.C.; Taureau, F.; Catry, T.; Cragg, S.M.; Failler, P. Mangrove ecological services at the forefront of coastal change in the French overseas territories. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 763, 143004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Naz, A.; Chowdhury, A. Eco-Engineering and mangrove restoration methods to stabilize earthen embankments and establishing bio-shield against natural disasters: A case study from Sundarban Ramsar Wetland, India. In Assessing, Mapping and Modelling of Mangrove Ecosystem Services in the Asia-Pacific Region; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 183–198. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barik, J.; Sanyal, P.; Ghosh, T.; Mukhopadhyay, S.K. Carbon stock and storage pattern in the Sundarbans mangrove forest, NE coast of India. Trop. Ecol. 2021, 62, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Donato, D.C.; Kauffman, J.B.; Murdiyarso, D.; Kurnianto, S.; Stidham, M.; Kanninen, M. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat. Geosci. 2011, 4, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Thomas, N.; Lucas, R.; Bunting, P.; Hardy, A.; Rosenqvist, A.; Simard, M. Distribution and drivers of global mangrove forest change, 1996–2010. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bera, B.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Sengupta, N.; Shit, P.K.; Adhikary, P.P.; Sengupta, D.; Saha, S. Significant reduction of carbon stocks and changes of ecosystem service valuation of Indian Sundarban. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 7809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chowdhury, A.; Sanyal, P.; Maiti, S.K. Dynamics of mangrove diversity influenced by climate change and consequent accelerated sea level rise at Indian Sundarbans. Int. J. Global Warm. 2016, 9, 486–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Maiti, S.K. Ecorestoration of Coal Mine Degraded Lands, 1st ed.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  13. Subbiah, B.V.; Asija, G.L. A rapid procedure for the determination of available nitrogen in soils. Curr. Sci. 1956, 25, 259–260. [Google Scholar]
  14. Olsen, S.R. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate (No. 939); US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tue, N.T.; Dung, L.V.; Nhuan, M.T.; Omori, K. Carbon storage of a tropical mangrove forest in Mui Ca Mau National Park, Vietnam. Catena 2014, 121, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Simpson, E.H. Measurement of diversity. Nature 1949, 163, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Laude, R. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 1996, 76, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
  18. Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Macreadie, P.I.; Anton, A.; Raven, J.A.; Beaumont, N.; Connolly, R.M.; Friess, D.A.; Duarte, C.M. The future of Blue Carbon science. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Singh, J.K. Structural characteristics of mangrove forest in different coastal habitats of Gulf of Khambhat arid region of Gujarat, west coast of India. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jiang, Y.; Kang, M.; Zhu, Y.; Xu, G. Plant biodiversity patterns on Helan mountain, China. Acta Oecologica 2007, 32, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Blasco, F.; Janodet, E.; Bellan, M.F. Natural hazards and mangroves in the Bay of Bengal. J. Coast. Res. 1994, 12, 277–288. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wetson, A.M.; Zörb, C.; John, E.A.; Flowers, T.J. High phenotypic plasticity of Suaeda maritima observed under hypoxic conditions in relation to its physiological basis. Ann. Bot. 2012, 109, 1027–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. MacArthur, R.H.; Wilson, E.O. The theory of island biogeography. In The Theory of Island Biogeography; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  25. Muñoz-Rojas, M. Soil quality indicators: Critical tools in ecosystem restoration. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 5, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Salmo, S.G.; Lovelock, C.; Duke, N.C. Vegetation and soil characteristics as indicators of restoration trajectories in restored mangroves. Hydrobiologia 2013, 720, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Patel, N.T.; Gupta, A.; Pandey, A.N. Salinity tolerance of Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh. from Gujarat coasts of India. Aquat. Bot. 2010, 93, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ahmed, A.; Ohlson, M.; Hoque, S.; Moula, M.G. Chemical composition of leaves of a mangrove tree (Sonneratia apetala Buch.-Ham.) and their correlation with some soil variables. Bangladesh J. Bot. 2010, 39, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Hatje, V.; Masqué, P.; Patire, V.F.; Dórea, A.; Barros, F. Blue carbon stocks, accumulation rates, and associated spatial variability in Brazilian mangroves. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2021, 66, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ratul, S.B.; Gu, X.; Qiao, P.; Sagala, F.W.; Nan, S.; Islam, N.; Chen, L. Blue carbon sequestration following mangrove restoration: Evidence from a carbon neutral case in China. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2022, 8, 2101547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gu, J.; Wu, J. Blue carbon effects of mangrove restoration in subtropics where Spartina alterniflora invaded. Ecol. Eng. 2023, 186, 106822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Adame, M.F.; Najera, E.; Lovelock, C.E.; Brown, C.J. Avoided emissions and conservation of scrub mangroves: Potential for a Blue Carbon project in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Biol. Lett. 2018, 14, 20180400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Sidik, F.; Supriyanto, B.; Krisnawati, H.; Muttaqin, M.Z. Mangrove conservation for climate change mitigation in Indonesia. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2018, 9, e529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chen, L.; Zeng, X.; Tam, N.F.; Lu, W.; Luo, Z.; Du, X.; Wang, J. Comparing carbon sequestration and stand structure of monoculture and mixed mangrove plantations of Sonneratia caseolaris and S. apetala in Southern China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 284, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The study site. (a) From map of India, the study area has been zoomed out to represent all the sampling sites in a google earth image. (b) Imagery of the study site locating the sampling metapopulations. (c) Site-2 (S2) dominated by A. marina strands. (d) Site-5 (S5) metapopulation dominated by halophyte-S. maritima. (e) Site-3 (S3) dominated by A. marina-S. caseolaris association and (f) Plantation site with establishment of R. mucronata stands.
Figure 1. The study site. (a) From map of India, the study area has been zoomed out to represent all the sampling sites in a google earth image. (b) Imagery of the study site locating the sampling metapopulations. (c) Site-2 (S2) dominated by A. marina strands. (d) Site-5 (S5) metapopulation dominated by halophyte-S. maritima. (e) Site-3 (S3) dominated by A. marina-S. caseolaris association and (f) Plantation site with establishment of R. mucronata stands.
Life 13 00271 g001
Figure 2. The plantation site (S1) species composition. The Low Tide Level (LTL) side represented by water body has the established natural stand of A. marina (approximately 30% area cover) followed by the plantation of R. mucronata (approximately 70% area cover).
Figure 2. The plantation site (S1) species composition. The Low Tide Level (LTL) side represented by water body has the established natural stand of A. marina (approximately 30% area cover) followed by the plantation of R. mucronata (approximately 70% area cover).
Life 13 00271 g002
Figure 3. A comparison between the ‘Blue carbon’ pool between the sites.
Figure 3. A comparison between the ‘Blue carbon’ pool between the sites.
Life 13 00271 g003
Table 1. The location and description of the study sites/metapopulation.
Table 1. The location and description of the study sites/metapopulation.
SitesName of Monitoring LocationLatitude and LongitudesApproximate Linear Distance from Nearest Conserved Mangrove Forest Patch—Sajnekhali Sanctuary
S1Plantation site22.1013272° N, 88.855648° E0.3The plantation comprises of Rhizophora mucronata, executed in 2012. The plantation site is behind a natural Avicennia marina plantation site, as depicted in detail in Figure 2. Hence, the study site is an association between naturally grown A. marina and planted R. mucronata.
S2Lahiripur22.0912318° N, 88.9027087° E0.3Near to the Lahiripur Revenue village. The patch is dominated by Avicennia marina.
S3Poroshmoni sub-center22.1210751° N, 88.8902425° E3.7The area is in a creek locally called ‘Dutta River’. It has a 60% Relative density for Avicennia marina, while Sonneretia caseolaris constitute another 20%. This is a natural association of Avicennia-Sonneretia.
S4Amlamethi Mudflat22.0807666° N, 88.7105938° E9Mudflat in Bali Island of Gosaba block under 80% relative density of Phoenix paludosa, the mangrove palm.
S5Chotto-Mollakhali22.2281325° N, 88.8487385° E12Near to the revenue village of Chotto-Mollakhali. Dominance of halophyte-Suaeda maritima
Table 2. The biodiversity assessment of the five sites. Relative density (RD) and Frequency (F) occupancy of the species have been represented in the table. As the ‘values’ represented in the table have been ‘approximated’ to nearnest integer, at some sites the total RD value may be above or less than ‘100’.
Table 2. The biodiversity assessment of the five sites. Relative density (RD) and Frequency (F) occupancy of the species have been represented in the table. As the ‘values’ represented in the table have been ‘approximated’ to nearnest integer, at some sites the total RD value may be above or less than ‘100’.
Site 1Site 2Site 3Site 4Site 5
Acanthus ilicifolius L.Acanthaceae8100810006601060460
Avicennia marina (Forssk.) VierhAcanthaceae24608010055100161001340
Bruguera sexangula (Lour.) Poir.Rhizophoraceae460120000000
Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C.B. RobinsonRhizophoraceae14000000000
Phoenix paludosa Roxb.Arecaceae0400046063100480
Proteresia coarctata (Roxb.) TateokaPoaceae401240134010201040
Rhizophora mucronata Lamk.Rhizophoraceae60100000400000
Sonneretia caseolaris (L.) Engl.Sonnetiaceae0000211000000
Suaeda maritima (L.) Dumort.Amaranthaceae0000000069100
Table 3. Comparison of Simpson’s Index of Dominance/Diversity and Shannon-Weiner Index between the five sites.
Table 3. Comparison of Simpson’s Index of Dominance/Diversity and Shannon-Weiner Index between the five sites.
Site 1Site 2Site 3Site 4Site 5
Simpson’s Index of Dominance0.410.660.360.430.5
Simpson’s Index of Diversity0.590.340.640.570.5
Shannon-Weiner Index1.130.651.231.051.0
Table 4. Soil parameters of the sampled sites from S1 to S5, with mean and standard deviation (±). ANOVA were performed, alphabets (a to d) are indicating Duncan’s Multiple Range Tests (DMRT).
Table 4. Soil parameters of the sampled sites from S1 to S5, with mean and standard deviation (±). ANOVA were performed, alphabets (a to d) are indicating Duncan’s Multiple Range Tests (DMRT).
SandSiltClaypHSOC (%)BD (g/cm3)P (mg/kg)Salinity (ppt)N (mg/kg)
S16.8 ± 0.5 a36.2 ± 4.9 a57.0 ± 5.2 d7.6 ± 0.1 a1.9 ± 0.12 c1.8 ± 0.1 b9.4 ± 1.2 b9.3 ± 0.4 a74.2 ± 3.5 b
S210.4 ± 0.8 c40.4 ± 1.8 ab49.2 ± 1.6 c7.4 ± 0.1 a1.8 ± 0.09 c1.7 ± 0.05 b8.5 ± 0.7 b8.9 ± 0.3 a72.4 ± 8.2 b
S38.7 ± 1.4 b64.2 ± 3.7 c27.1 ± 3.6 a7.8 ± 0.2 a1.0 ± 0.06 b1.5 ± 0.1 a9.0 ± 0.5 b7.9 ± 0.26 a83.6 ± 4.5 c
S419.3 ± 1.1 d44.8 ± 2.6 b35.9 ± 3.5 b11.3 ± 1.2 b0.8 ± 0.11 a1.8 ± 0.08 b5.0 ± 0.5 a16.5 ± 1.5 b45.2 ± 3.3 a
S519.0 ± 0.8 a60.8 ± 2.3 a20.2 ± 1.6 d11.7 ± 0.6 a0.7 ± 0.05 c1.4 ± 0.1 b3.0 ± 0.2 b18.0 ± 2.4 a37.2 ± 3.5 b
F value97.828.932.529.878.548.414.765.625.7
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chowdhury, A.; Naz, A.; Maiti, S.K. Variations in Soil Blue Carbon Sequestration between Natural Mangrove Metapopulations and a Mixed Mangrove Plantation: A Case Study from the World’s Largest Contiguous Mangrove Forest. Life 2023, 13, 271.

AMA Style

Chowdhury A, Naz A, Maiti SK. Variations in Soil Blue Carbon Sequestration between Natural Mangrove Metapopulations and a Mixed Mangrove Plantation: A Case Study from the World’s Largest Contiguous Mangrove Forest. Life. 2023; 13(2):271.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chowdhury, Abhiroop, Aliya Naz, and Subodh Kumar Maiti. 2023. "Variations in Soil Blue Carbon Sequestration between Natural Mangrove Metapopulations and a Mixed Mangrove Plantation: A Case Study from the World’s Largest Contiguous Mangrove Forest" Life 13, no. 2: 271.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop