Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Organic carbon burial and sources in soils of coastal mudflat and mangrove ecosystems

Open access
Sasmito, Sigit D., Kuzyakov, Yakov, Lubis, Ali Arman, Murdiyarso, Daniel, Hutley, Lindsay B., Bachri, Samsul, Friess, Daniel A., Martius, Christopher, Borchard, Nils·2020·CATENA

Abstract

Mangrove organic carbon is primarily stored in soils, which contain more than two-thirds of total mangrove ecosystem carbon stocks. Despite increasing recognition of the critical role of mangrove ecosystems for climate change mitigation, there is limited understanding of soil organic carbon sequestration mechanisms in undisturbed low-latitude mangroves, specifically on organic carbon burial rates and sources. This study assessed soil organic carbon burial rates, sources and stocks across an undisturbed coastal mudflat and mangrove hydrogeomorphological catena (fringe mangrove and interior mangrove) in Bintuni Bay, West Papua Province, Indonesia. 210 Pb radionuclide sediment dating, and mixing model of natural stable isotope signatures (δ 13 C and δ 15 N) and C/N ratio were used to estimate organic carbon burial rates and to quantify proportions of allochthonous (i.e., upland terrestrial forest) and autochthonous (i.e., on-site mangrove forest) organic carbon in the top 50 cm of the soil. Burial rates were in the range of 0.21–1.19 Mg C ha −1 yr −1 . Compared to the fringe mangroves, organic carbon burial rates in interior mangroves were almost twice as high. Primary productivity of C 3 upland forest vegetation and mangroves induced soil organic carbon burial in interior mangroves and this was consistent with the formation of the largest organic carbon stocks (179 ± 82 Mg C ha −1 ). By contrast, organic carbon stored in the fringe mangrove (68 ± 11 Mg C ha −1 ) and mudflat (62 ± 10 Mg C ha −1 ) soils mainly originated from upland forests (allochthonous origin). These findings clearly indicate that carbon sequestered and cycling in mangrove and terrestrial forest ecosystems are closely linked, and at least a part of carbon losses (e.g., erosion) from terrestrial forests is buried in mangrove ecosystems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.catena.2019.104414

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Metadata

Authors
Sasmito, S. D., Kuzyakov, Y., Lubis, A. A., Murdiyarso, D., Hutley, L. B., Bachri, S., Friess, D. A., Martius, C., & Borchard, N.
Venue
CATENA
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
187
Pages
104414
ISSN
0341-8162 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2997175991
Cited by
283
References
60
FWCI
14.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Organic carbon burial and sources in soils of coastal mudflat and mangrove ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104414
The paper
Sasmito, S. D., Kuzyakov, Y., Lubis, A. A., Murdiyarso, D., Hutley, L. B., Bachri, S., Friess, D. A., Martius, C., & Borchard, N. (2020). Organic carbon burial and sources in soils of coastal mudflat and mangrove ecosystems. CATENA. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104414

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.