Comparison of soil characteristics and carbon content of contrastingly different moist-mixed deciduous and evergreen mangrove forest in Odisha, India

Figures & data

Figure 7. Column chart comparing the C/N ratio in terms of mean ± SEM.

Table 1. Comparision of soil physico-chemical parameters of CWS and BNP.

Physico-chemical parameters	CWS	BNP
pH	5.4 ± 0.1	7.0 ± 0.1
Conductivity (µS)	75.4 ± 6.1	5.3 ± 0.08
Soil moisture content (%)	9.4 ± 1.8	39.6 ± 1.1
Water holding capacity (%)	42.4 ± 1.1	45.0 ± 1.2
Soil textural type	Fine sand	Clay loam
Sand (%)	90.9 ± 1.7	19.7 ± 1.9
Silt (%)	6.0 ± 1.0	47.4 ± 1.4
Clay (%)	3.0 ± 0.8	32.7 ± 0.8
Total carbon (%)	1.3 ± 0.3	1.7 ± 0.04
Organic carbon (%)	1.1 ± 0.2	1.3 ± 0.09
Inorganic carbon (%)	0.2 ± 0.06	0.3 ± 0.05
Total nitrogen (%)	0.09 ± 0.04	0.07 ± 0.003
C/N ratio	51.3 ± 13.8	21.6 ± 2.6
Organic carbon (gm/kg)	10 ± 2.8	13 ± 0.9
Bulk density (kg/m^3)	1300	1000
Soil depth (m)	0.3	0.3

Figure 1. Maps of study area.

Figure 2. Box and Whisker charts of CWS and BNP soil texture.

Figure 3. SEM micrographs of soil samples recorded at different magnifications: 5 µm and 10 µm.

Figure 4. FT-IR spectra of CWS and BNP soil samples.

Figure 5. Comparative line – graph re-presenting FT-IR spectra of raw and H₂O₂-treated soil samples.

Figure 6. A line chart showing SOC variations at CWS and BNP.

Table 2. Pearson’s correlation matrix among soil physicochemical parameters of CWS, BNP.

	pH	SMC	EC	Sand		Silt	Clay	SOC
Parameters, CWS
pH SMC EC Sand Silt Clay SOC	1 .04 −.05 .05 −.02 −.09 .03	1 −.49 −.09 −.02 .23 .32	1 −.18 .21 .13 .002	1 −.95** −.92** .09		1 .75* −.24	1 0.09	1
Parameters, BNP
pH	1
EC	.39	1
SMC	.31	−.26	1
SAND	.74*	.10	.76**	1
SILT	.57	−.15	.82**	.91**	1
CLAY	.70*	.04	.32	−.71*	.36	1
SOC	−.42	.56	.03	−.21	.07	.36	1

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two tailed).

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed), p > 0.

Table 3. SOC of different deciduous and mangrove forest areas of world.

Deciduous forest areas	SOC (Mg/ha)	Soil depth in cm	References
Sathanur Reserve forest, Eastern Ghats	16–47	30	Gandhi and Sundarapandian (2017)
Tropical Dry Forest, Chhatigarh	122.5	30	Iqbal and Tiwari (2016)
Different Forest Type of entire India	22.42–100.33	30	Velmurugan, Kumar, Dadhwal, and Gupta (2014)
Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest, India	7.7–85.6	30	Chhabra, Palria, and Dadhwal (2003)
Tropical Secondary forest, Australia	78.8	30	Paz et al. (2016)
Tropical Dry Forest, Brazil	47.73–61.4	30	Santos et al. (2015)
Tropical Monsoon Forests, Cambodia	53.2–108.7	30	Toriyama et al. (2011)
Mangrove forest of Australia	118–296	100	Alongi et al. (2003)
Mangroves of Micronesia	107–135	100	Kauffman, Heider, Cole, Dwire, and Donato (2011)
Mangroves of china	44–192	100	Lunstrum and Chen (2014)
Mangrove forest of Egypt	85	40	Eid and Shaltout (2016)
Study on BNP, Odisha, India	54.30	30	Sahu et al. (2016)
Estimated SOC of CWS, Odisha, India	47.51	30	Present study

Gandhi, D. S., & Sundarapandian, S. (2017). Large-scale carbon stock assessment of woody vegetation in tropical dry deciduous forest of sathanur reserve forest, Eastern Ghats, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189(4), 187. doi:10.1007/s10661-017-5899-1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Iqbal, S., & Tiwari, S. C. (2016). Soil organic carbon pool under different land uses in Achanakmar, Amarkantak biosphere reserve of Chhattisgarh, India. Current Science, 110(5), 771–773.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Velmurugan, A., Kumar, S., Dadhwal, V. K., & Gupta, M. K. (2014). Soil organic status of Indian forests. Indian Forester, 140(5), 468–477.

 Google Scholar

Chhabra, A., Palria, S., & Dadhwal, V. K. (2003). Soil organic carbon pool in Indian forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 173, 187–199.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Paz, C. P., Goosem, M., Bird, M., Preece, N., Goosem, S., Fensham, R., & Laurance, S. (2016). Soil types influence predictions of soil carbon stock recovery in tropical secondary forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 376, 74–83.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Santos, L. T. D., Marra, D. M., Trumbore, S., Camargo, P. B., Chambers, J. Q., Negron-Juarez, R. I., … Higuchi, N. (2015). Wind throws increase soil carbon stocks in a Central Amazon forest. Biogeosciences Discussions, 12, 19351–19372.

 Google Scholar

Toriyama, J., Ohta, S., Ohnuki, Y., Ito, E., Kanzaki, M., Araki, M., … Kiyono, Y. (2011). Soil carbon stock in Cambodian monsoon forests. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly: JARQ, 45(3), 309–316.

 Google Scholar

Alongi, D. M., Clough, B. F., Dixon, P., & Tirendi, F. (2003). Nutrient partitioning and storage in arid-zone forests of the mangroves Rhizophora stylosa and Avicennia marina. Trees, 17, 51–60.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kauffman, J. B., Heider, C., Cole, T. G., Dwire, K. A., & Donato, D. C. (2011). Ecosystem carbon stocks of Micronesian mangrove forests. Wetlands, 31, 343–352.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lunstrum, A., & Chen, L. (2014). Soil carbon stocks and accumulation in young mangrove forests. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 75, 223–232.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eid, E. M., & Shaltout, K. H. (2016). Distribution of soil organic carbon in the mangrove Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh. along the Egyptian Red Sea Coast. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 3, 76–82.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sahu, S. C., Kumar, M., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2016). Carbon stocks in natural and planted mangrove forests of Mahanadi mangrove wetland, East coast of India. Current Science, 110, 12. doi:10.18520/cs/v110/i12/2253-2260

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar