Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (3)

Search Parameters:
Authors = Abhilash Dutta Roy ORCID = 0000-0003-2080-9715

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
25 pages, 5461 KiB  
Article
Spaceborne LiDAR Reveals Anthropogenic and Biophysical Drivers Shaping the Spatial Distribution of Forest Aboveground Biomass in Eastern Himalayas
by Abhilash Dutta Roy, Abraham Ranglong, Sandeep Timilsina, Sumit Kumar Das, Michael S. Watt, Sergio de-Miguel, Sourabh Deb, Uttam Kumar Sahoo and Midhun Mohan
Land 2025, 14(8), 1540; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081540 - 27 Jul 2025
Viewed by 504
Abstract
The distribution of forest aboveground biomass density (AGBD) is a key indicator of carbon stock and ecosystem health in the Eastern Himalayas, which represents a global biodiversity hotspot that sustains diverse forest types across an elevation gradient from lowland rainforests to alpine meadows [...] Read more.
The distribution of forest aboveground biomass density (AGBD) is a key indicator of carbon stock and ecosystem health in the Eastern Himalayas, which represents a global biodiversity hotspot that sustains diverse forest types across an elevation gradient from lowland rainforests to alpine meadows and contributes to the livelihoods of more than 200 distinct indigenous communities. This study aimed to identify the key factors influencing forest AGBD across this region by analyzing the underlying biophysical and anthropogenic drivers through machine learning (random forest). We processed AGBD data from the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) spaceborne LiDAR and applied filtering to retain 30,257 high-quality footprints across ten ecoregions. We then analyzed the relationship between AGBD and 17 climatic, topographic, soil, and anthropogenic variables using random forest regression models. The results revealed significant spatial variability in AGBD (149.6 ± 79.5 Mg ha−1) across the region. State-wise, Sikkim recorded the highest mean AGBD (218 Mg ha−1) and Manipur the lowest (102.8 Mg ha−1). Within individual ecoregions, the Himalayan subtropical pine forests exhibited the highest mean AGBD (245.5 Mg ha−1). Topographic factors, particularly elevation and latitude, were strong determinants of biomass distribution, with AGBD increasing up to elevations of 2000 m before declining. Protected areas (PAs) consistently showed higher AGBD than unprotected forests for all ecoregions, while proximity to urban and agricultural areas resulted in lower AGBD, pointing towards negative anthropogenic impacts. Our full model explained 41% of AGBD variance across the Eastern Himalayas, with better performance in individual ecoregions like the Northeast India-Myanmar pine forests (R2 = 0.59). While limited by the absence of regionally explicit stand-level forest structure data (age, stand density, species composition), our results provide valuable evidence for conservation policy development, including expansion of PAs, compensating avoided deforestation and modifications in shifting cultivation. Future research should integrate field measurements with remote sensing and use high-resolution LiDAR with locally derived allometric models to enhance biomass estimation and GEDI data validation. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 3135 KiB  
Review
Current Status of Remote Sensing for Studying the Impacts of Hurricanes on Mangrove Forests in the Coastal United States
by Abhilash Dutta Roy, Daria Agnieszka Karpowicz, Ian Hendy, Stefanie M. Rog, Michael S. Watt, Ruth Reef, Eben North Broadbent, Emma F. Asbridge, Amare Gebrie, Tarig Ali and Midhun Mohan
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(19), 3596; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16193596 - 26 Sep 2024
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 3774
Abstract
Hurricane incidents have become increasingly frequent along the coastal United States and have had a negative impact on the mangrove forests and their ecosystem services across the southeastern region. Mangroves play a key role in providing coastal protection during hurricanes by attenuating storm [...] Read more.
Hurricane incidents have become increasingly frequent along the coastal United States and have had a negative impact on the mangrove forests and their ecosystem services across the southeastern region. Mangroves play a key role in providing coastal protection during hurricanes by attenuating storm surges and reducing erosion. However, their resilience is being increasingly compromised due to climate change through sea level rises and the greater intensity of storms. This article examines the role of remote sensing tools in studying the impacts of hurricanes on mangrove forests in the coastal United States. Our results show that various remote sensing tools including satellite imagery, Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been used to detect mangrove damage, monitor their recovery and analyze their 3D structural changes. Landsat 8 OLI (14%) has been particularly useful in long-term assessments, followed by Landsat 5 TM (9%) and NASA G-LiHT LiDAR (8%). Random forest (24%) and linear regression (24%) models were the most common modeling techniques, with the former being the most frequently used method for classifying satellite images. Some studies have shown significant mangrove canopy loss after major hurricanes, and damage was seen to vary spatially based on factors such as proximity to oceans, elevation and canopy structure, with taller mangroves typically experiencing greater damage. Recovery rates after hurricane-induced damage also vary, as some areas were seen to show rapid regrowth within months while others remained impacted after many years. The current challenges include capturing fine-scale changes owing to the dearth of remote sensing data with high temporal and spatial resolution. This review provides insights into the current remote sensing applications used in hurricane-prone mangrove habitats and is intended to guide future research directions, inform coastal management strategies and support conservation efforts. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 2053 KiB  
Review
Biomass Production and Carbon Sequestration Potential of Different Agroforestry Systems in India: A Critical Review
by Pankaj Panwar, Devagiri G. Mahalingappa, Rajesh Kaushal, Daulat Ram Bhardwaj, Sumit Chakravarty, Gopal Shukla, Narender Singh Thakur, Sangram Bhanudas Chavan, Sharmistha Pal, Baliram G. Nayak, Hareesh T. Srinivasaiah, Ravikumar Dharmaraj, Naveen Veerabhadraswamy, Khulakpam Apshahana, Chellackan Perinba Suresh, Dhirender Kumar, Prashant Sharma, Vijaysinha Kakade, Mavinakoppa S. Nagaraja, Manendra Singh, Subrata Das, Mendup Tamang, Kanchan, Abhilash Dutta Roy and Trishala Gurungadd Show full author list remove Hide full author list
Forests 2022, 13(8), 1274; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081274 - 12 Aug 2022
Cited by 48 | Viewed by 11139
Abstract
Agroforestry systems (AFS) and practices followed in India are highly diverse due to varied climatic conditions ranging from temperate to humid tropics. The estimated area under AFS in India is 13.75 million ha with the highest concentration being in the states of Uttar [...] Read more.
Agroforestry systems (AFS) and practices followed in India are highly diverse due to varied climatic conditions ranging from temperate to humid tropics. The estimated area under AFS in India is 13.75 million ha with the highest concentration being in the states of Uttar Pradesh (1.86 million ha), followed by Maharashtra (1.61 million ha), Rajasthan (1.55 million ha) and Andhra Pradesh (1.17 million ha). There are many forms of agroforestry practice in India ranging from intensified simple systems of monoculture, such as block plantations and boundary planting, to far more diverse and complex systems, such as home gardens. As a result, the biomass production and carbon sequestration potential of AFS are highly variable across different agro-climatic zones of India. Studies pertaining to the assessment of biomass and carbon storage in different agroforestry systems in the Indian sub-continent are scanty and most of these studies have reported region and system specific carbon stocks. However, while biomass and carbon stock data from different AFS at national scale has been scanty hitherto, such information is essential for national accounting, reporting of C sinks and sources, as well as for realizing the benefits of carbon credit to farmers engaged in tree-based production activities. Therefore, the objective of this study was to collate and synthesize the existing information on biomass carbon and SOC stocks associated with agroforestry practices across agro-climatic zones of India. The results revealed considerable variation in biomass and carbon stocks among AFS, as well as between different agro-climatic zones. Higher total biomass (>200 Mg ha−1) was observed in the humid tropics of India which are prevalent in southern and northeastern regions, while lower total biomass (<50 Mg ha−1) was reported from Indo-Gangetic, western and central India. Total biomass carbon varied in the range of 1.84 to 131 Mg ha−1 in the agrihorticulture systems of western and central India and the coffee agroforests of southern peninsular India. Similarly, soil organic carbon (SOC) ranged between 12.26–170.43 Mg ha−1, with the highest SOC in the coffee agroforests of southern India and the lowest in the agrisilviculture systems of western India. The AFS which recorded relatively higher SOC included plantation crop-based practices of southern, eastern and northeastern India, followed by the agrihorticulture and agrisilviculture systems of the northern Himalayas. The meta-analysis indicated that the growth and nature of different agroforestry tree species is the key factor affecting the carbon storage capacity of an agroforestry system. The baseline data obtained across various regions could be useful for devising policies on carbon trading or financing for agroforestry. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomass Estimation and Carbon Stocks in Forest Ecosystems)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop