4.3 Article

Evaluation of carbon stock in the sediment of two mangrove species, Avicennia marina and Rhizophora mucronata, growing in the Farasan Islands, Saudi Arabia

期刊

OCEANOLOGIA
卷 62, 期 2, 页码 200-213

出版社

POLISH ACAD SCIENCES INST OCEANOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceano.2019.12.001

关键词

Blue carbon; Carbon sequestration; Carbon stocks; Climate change; Coastal ecosystems

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University [R.G.P. 2/56/40]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to conduct the first comprehensive evaluation of carbon stock in the sediments of Avicennia marina (black mangrove) and Rhizophora mucronata (red mangrove) along the coastline of an arid region (Farasan Islands, Saudi Arabia). Such information is necessary for the development of any management plan for the mangrove ecosystems along the Saudi Red Sea islands and provide a rationale for the restoration of mangrove forests in Saudi Arabia. A. marina and R. mucronata locations showed significant (P < 0.001) differences in sediment bulk density (SBD) and sediment organic carbon (SOC) concentration with higher mean values for both in the sediments of A. marina. Considering the whole depth of sediment sampled (0-50 cm), the highest value of SOC stock (12.3 kg C m(-2)) was recorded at A. marina locations and the lowest (10.8 kg C m(-2)) at R. mucronata locations. Thus, the SOC stock of A. marina was greater than that of R. mucronata by 114.3%. Consequently, considering the rate of carbon sequestration and the area of mangrove forests (216.4 ha), the total carbon sequestration potential of mangroves in the Farasan Islands ranged between 10.3 Mg C yr(-1) and 11.8 Mg C yr(-1) for R. mucronata and A. marina locations, respectively. Thus, it is necessary to protect and restore these ecosystems for the sequestration of carbon and for their other valuable ecosystem services. (C) 2020 Institute of Oceanology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.3
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