4.2 Article

Carbon sequestration potential of Rhizophora mucronata and Avicennia marina as influenced by age, season, growth and sediment characteristics in southeast coast of India

期刊

JOURNAL OF COASTAL CONSERVATION
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 397-408

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11852-013-0236-5

关键词

Carbon sequestration; Mangroves; Avicennia; Rhizophora; Biomass; Sediment

资金

  1. Ministry of Earth Sciences, Govt. of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work analysed the carbon sequestration potential in two species of mangroves (Rhizophora mucronata and Avicennia marina) along with their growth, biomass, sediment characteristics for four seasons of the year 2009-2010, in planted stands of different age (1-17.5 years) in the Vellar-Coleroon estuarine complex, India. The mangroves were recorded to store significant amount of biomass. Avicennia marina performed better to display 75 % higher rate of carbon sequestration than that in Rhizophora mucronata. This could be attributed to growth efficiency and high biomass production. For instance, Avicennia marina exhibited 2.7 fold higher girth, 24 % higher net canopy photosynthesis, 2 fold aboveground biomass (AGB), 40 % more belowground biomass (BGB) and 77.3 % higher total biomass, than R. mucronata did. Seasonally the rate of carbon sequestration was 7.3 fold higher in post-monsoon, 3.4 fold in monsoon, 73 % more in summer than that in pre-monsoon. The rate of carbon sequestration was positively correlated with age of planted site, tree height, tree diameter, net canopy photosynthesis, AGB, BGB, total biomass, carbon stock, growth efficiency, AGB/tree height tree girth, leaf area index, silt content (p < 0.01). The carbon sequestration was negatively corrected with soil temperature and clay content (p < 0.05). Mangroves were found to be a productive system and important sink of carbon in the tropical coastal zone, but increasing soil temperature due to global warming would have a negative impact on carbon sequestration potential of the mangroves.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据