Soils from intertidal mudflats of mangrove dominated Indian Sundarbans were analyzed for soil organic carbon, bulk density and organic carbon density during 2009 in two different sectors: western and eastern.Samplings were carried out at 12 stations in four differentdepths (0.01–0.10, 0.10–0.20, 0.20–0.30 and 0.30–0.40 m)through three seasons (pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon). High organic carbon density is observed in thestations of western Indian Sundarbans, which is relativelyclose to the highly urbanized city of Kolkata, Howrah andthe newly emerging Haldia port-cum-industrial complex.The mangrove forest in the eastern Indian Sundarbans exhibits comparatively lower organic carbon density.Anthropogenic activities are almost negligible in this sector because of its location almost within the protected forestarea. The bulk density of the mangrove soil increased with depth, while organic carbon and carbon density decreased with depth almost in all the stations. We observed significant spatial variations in soil organic carbon and organic carbon density in the study area.
Soil is the permanent reservoir of carbon and capturing of carbon depends upon the land uses.
I am plenty sure that that is going to depend of several variables and conditions. For instance, in South American tropical forests under wet and dry conditions where I am used to working, I have never ever found more carbon in soils (considering all horizons) than within living biomass. However, I would like to have some measures in peat-lands where I have read that the carbon accumulation can even be higher than within living biomass. At the end of the day, it is essential to preserve the equilibrium between both stocks because there is a transference of material. Now, if another thing can be analyzed within the lingering of every stock, so under current human land transformation is easier to lose carbon in living biomass stock than soil one, but once you have lost the soil, I do not know a technology to create soil and retrieve the original conditions of a place. That is why I have always thought that the value of both stocks is not comparable because the soil has several so valuable characteristics as well. So under the pay for ecosystem services, they should not have created a model only based on carbon amount and paying for its preservation with similar weight. Nevertheless, I am afraid the since the academic sector, we are still striving to demonstrate these subtle but significant differences.
These studies are difficult and rates are typically slow. Can you sample sites that have a longer history?
Resistant fractions of soil organic carbon are important from sequestration point if view. Lot of newly added OM gets decomposed.
Accurate estimation is difficult in natural conditions and both are interlinked system with positive relations. Carbon sink in soil and vegetation shows largely spatial and temporal variations (even in an acre land of your research location Kolkata or Howrah). Therefore, it is hard to make a general conclusion on "Soil have better carbon sink" or "vegetation store more carbon". Either, first or second one may correct depends on various factors. These factors can be broadly classified into three categories:
1. plant species (numbers, intensity, longevity, diversity etc.),
2. soil types (texture, structure, depth, pH etc.) and
3. climatic factors (precipitation, temperature, humidity etc.).
Yes, because it contains peat, which is concentrated carbon predominantly derived from roots, whereas leaves and stems are ash and water with small amounts of carbon :)
Soil and vegetation both are good sink for carbon. The carbon capturing potential depends on type of soil and vegetation.
Soil is much betetr carbon sink than plants in terms of both duration and recalcitrance of carbon , no doubt . But , it would be interesting to see , how improved carbon sink of soil triggers a better carbon sink in plants....
To me ----- SOC containing the plant particles after decay - enhance C load in soil
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing