IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v147y2024ics0264837724003077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential environmental implications of sandbar afforestation: Insights from ecosystem restoration initiatives in a sandbar of Brahmaputra River Assam, India

Author

Listed:
  • Goswami, Mrinalini
  • Prakash, Satya
  • Nautiyal, Sunil
  • Mukul, Sharif A.

Abstract

Plantation in riverine sandbars offers an excellent opportunity for restoration of ecosystem with a vast potential for enhancing carbon stock. Afforestation on barren islands is challenging task; however, Padmashree Jadav Payeng has single-handedly transformed a sandbar of the river Brahmaputra into a forested landscape in India’s northeastern state of Assam. Such inspiring initiative needs more attention in terms of scientific assessment to quantify ecosystem value and services that can be enriched through such activities. This study uses remote sensing data viz., Landsat4–5TM and Sentinel 2 A data to provide a detailed information on spatio-temporal variability of land use land cover of study region from 1990 to 2021. It aims to conduct a scientific and systematic assessment of biophysical changes that have occurred in the sandbars, understand the status of afforestation, and evaluate the current levels of aboveground biomass (AGB), belowground biomass (BGB), and carbon stock in the selected sandbars. The spatial distribution of AGB, BGB and carbon stock is derived using linear regression model between SAR backscatter and field-based AGB. The results demonstrate that forest cover increased by 31.92 % and sandbar area is reduced by 26.87 % from 1990 to 2021. Spatially derived AGB ranges from 9 to 1295.89 Mg per ha, BGB from 2.35 to 290.50 Mg per ha and carbon stock from 6.18 to 763.34 Mg per ha. Ficus religiosa exhibits a high biomass, ranging from 564.7 Mg per ha to 994.7 Mg per ha, and a high carbon stock, ranging from 8 to 557.30 Mg per ha, attributed to its larger diameter at breast height (DBH). Moreover, phytosociological assessment was conducted for the studied forest, which reveal a total tree species richness of 79. The forest exhibits a total tree density of 395 individuals per hectare. Different biodiversity indices provide a comprehensive understanding of species composition; where results show a Shannon diversity index of 2.81, a Simpson's index of 0.08, a Menhinick's richness index of 2.7, and a Margalef's richness index of 5.26. The article provides detailed information on change in forest cover and present status of AGB, BGB and Carbon stock, providing evidence-based narratives on ecosystem restoration. The initiative by a single person has created a forested landscape and habitat for a large number of wild animals, contributing to better carbon stock and a healthier ecosystem. With regard to the current debate of carbon market, the study suggests the need of instrumentalization of carbon credits for such restoration activities to encourage increase in carbon stock. It also concludes that in-depth research should be taken up on long-term effectiveness of such plantation activities and the potential for scaling up these initiatives for ecosystem restoration in view of climate change mitigation and sustainable forest development.

Suggested Citation

  • Goswami, Mrinalini & Prakash, Satya & Nautiyal, Sunil & Mukul, Sharif A., 2024. "Potential environmental implications of sandbar afforestation: Insights from ecosystem restoration initiatives in a sandbar of Brahmaputra River Assam, India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724003077
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724003077
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107354?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lederer, Markus, 2011. "From CDM to REDD+ -- What do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1900-1907, September.
    2. Andrew K. Skidmore & Nathalie Pettorelli & Nicholas C. Coops & Gary N. Geller & Matthew Hansen & Richard Lucas & Caspar A. Mücher & Brian O'Connor & Marc Paganini & Henrique Miguel Pereira & Michael E, 2015. "Environmental science: Agree on biodiversity metrics to track from space," Nature, Nature, vol. 523(7561), pages 403-405, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Andresen, Steinar, 2011. "Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1908-1915, September.
    2. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    3. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Cadman, Timothy & Maraseni, Tek & Ma, Hwan Ok & Lopez-Casero, Federico, 2017. "Five years of REDD+ governance: The use of market mechanisms as a response to anthropogenic climate change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 8-16.
    5. Kim, Yeon-Su & Bae, Jae Soo & Fisher, Larry A. & Latifah, Sitti & Afifi, Mansur & Lee, Soo Min & Kim, In-Ae, 2016. "Indonesia's Forest Management Units: Effective intermediaries in REDD+ implementation?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 69-77.
    6. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    7. Adelaide Glover & Heike Schroeder, 2017. "Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 695-708, October.
    8. Khaleel Muhammed & Aavudai Anandhi & Gang Chen, 2022. "Comparing Methods for Estimating Habitat Suitability," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Wen Song & Wei Song & Haihong Gu & Fuping Li, 2020. "Progress in the Remote Sensing Monitoring of the Ecological Environment in Mining Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Jean-Christophe Poudou & Sébastien Roussel, 2012. "North / South Contractual Design through the REDD+ Scheme," Post-Print halshs-00747405, HAL.
    11. Chiroleu-Assouline, Mireille & Poudou, Jean-Christophe & Roussel, Sébastien, 2018. "Designing REDD+ contracts to resolve additionality issues," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-17.
    12. Lan Thanh Ha & Wim G. M. Bastiaanssen, 2023. "Determination of Spatially-Distributed Hydrological Ecosystem Services (HESS) in the Red River Delta Using a Calibrated SWAT Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-24, April.
    13. Gregory Giuliani & Joan Masó & Paolo Mazzetti & Stefano Nativi & Alaitz Zabala, 2019. "Paving the Way to Increased Interoperability of Earth Observations Data Cubes," Data, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-23, July.
    14. Piffer Salles, Guilherme & Paiva Salinas, Delhi Teresa & Paulino, Sônia Regina, 2017. "How Funding Source Influences the Form of REDD+ Initiatives: The Case of Market Versus Public Funds in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 91-101.
    15. Dellas, Eleni, 2011. "CSD water partnerships: Privatization, participation and legitimacy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1916-1923, September.
    16. Peter Heindl & Sebastian Voigt, 2012. "Supply and demand structure for international offset permits under the Copenhagen Pledges," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 343-360, November.
    17. Catalina B. Muñoz-Pacheco & Nélida R. Villaseñor, 2022. "Urban Ecosystem Services in South America: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    18. Vijge, Marjanneke J., 2015. "Competing discourses on REDD+: Global debates versus the first Indian REDD+ project," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 38-47.
    19. Thorstensen Erik & Forsberg Ellen-Marie & Underthun Anders & Danihelka Pavel & Řeháček Jakub, 2016. "Regional Development and Climate Change Adaptation: A Study of the Role of Legitimacy," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 8(3), pages 207-226, September.
    20. Mbatu, Richard S, 2016. "REDD+ research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 140-152.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724003077. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.