IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p3085-d765523.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying the Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) to Assess Mangrove Soil Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Laís Coutinho Zayas Jimenez

    (Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo (ESALQ-USP), Av. Pádua Dias 11, Piracicaba 13418-900, SP, Brazil)

  • Hermano Melo Queiroz

    (Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo (ESALQ-USP), Av. Pádua Dias 11, Piracicaba 13418-900, SP, Brazil)

  • Maurício Roberto Cherubin

    (Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo (ESALQ-USP), Av. Pádua Dias 11, Piracicaba 13418-900, SP, Brazil)

  • Tiago Osório Ferreira

    (Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo (ESALQ-USP), Av. Pádua Dias 11, Piracicaba 13418-900, SP, Brazil)

Abstract

Soil quality (SQ) refers to its capacity to perform its functions. Thus, the SQ index (SQI) is a potentially useful tool for monitoring soil changes induced by mangrove restoration initiatives. Although the soil management assessment framework (SMAF) is a well-developed tool for SQ assessments in diverse ecosystems, it has never been tested on mangrove soils. In this study, we tested the SMAF to evaluate the shifts in the SQ of mangroves in a reforestation initiative using three- and seven-year plantations, which were compared with degraded and mature mangroves. A minimum dataset, composed of the pH and available P as chemical indicators, bulk density as a physical indicator, and soil organic carbon as a biological indicator, was used to calculate the SQI. The SMAF scores facilitated the monitoring of improvement in the mangrove SQ with vegetation development, mainly driven by physical and biological indicators. The SMAF may be a useful tool for monitoring SQ in mangroves under protection and recovery initiatives. Nevertheless, we suggest the inclusion of additional biological and chemical indicators in the minimum dataset for future studies to better represent specific processes and functions (e.g., microbial redox reactions and contaminant immobilization) that can alter the SQ of mangroves.

Suggested Citation

  • Laís Coutinho Zayas Jimenez & Hermano Melo Queiroz & Maurício Roberto Cherubin & Tiago Osório Ferreira, 2022. "Applying the Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) to Assess Mangrove Soil Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:3085-:d:765523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/3085/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/3085/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maurício R Cherubin & Douglas L Karlen & Carlos E P Cerri & André L C Franco & Cássio A Tormena & Christian A Davies & Carlos C Cerri, 2016. "Soil Quality Indexing Strategies for Evaluating Sugarcane Expansion in Brazil," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    3. Herrera, Diego & Cunniff, Shannon & DuPont, Carolyn & Cohen, Benjamin & Gangi, Dakota & Kar, Devyani & Peyronnin Snider, Natalie & Rojas, Victor & Wyerman, Jim & Norriss, Jessie & Mountenot, Marshall, 2019. "Designing an environmental impact bond for wetland restoration in Louisiana," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 260-276.
    4. Jakovac, Catarina C. & Latawiec, Agnieszka Ewa & Lacerda, Eduardo & Leite Lucas, Isabella & Korys, Katarzyna Anna & Iribarrem, Alvaro & Malaguti, Gustavo Abreu & Turner, R. Kerry & Luisetti, Tiziana &, 2020. "Costs and Carbon Benefits of Mangrove Conservation and Restoration: A Global Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    5. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & VaÄ kářová, Davina, 2021. "The value of forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis at the European scale and application to national ecosystem accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    6. Atanu Mukherjee & Rattan Lal, 2014. "Comparison of Soil Quality Index Using Three Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nirmalendu Basak & Biswapati Mandal & Sunanda Biswas & Piu Basak & Tarik Mitran & Bholanath Saha & Arvind Kumar Rai & Md. Khairul Alam & Arvind Kumar Yadav & Ashim Datta, 2022. "Impact of Long Term Nutrient Management on Soil Quality Indices in Rice-Wheat System of Lower Indo-Gangetic Plain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, May.

    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. Taye, Fitalew Agimass & Folkersen, Maja Vinde & Fleming, Christopher M. & Buckwell, Andrew & Mackey, Brendan & Diwakar, K.C. & Le, Dung & Hasan, Syezlin & Ange, Chantal Saint, 2021. "The economic values of global forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Zakir Hussain & Limei Deng & Xuan Wang & Rongyang Cui & Gangcai Liu, 2022. "A Review of Farmland Soil Health Assessment Methods: Current Status and a Novel Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    4. Hendrawan, Dienda C P & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Oil Palm Smallholder Farmers' Livelihood Resilience and Decision Making in Replanting," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    6. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Turetta, Ana Paula Dias & Kuyper, Thomas & Malheiros, Tadeu Fabrício & Coutinho, Heitor Luiz da Costa, 2017. "A framework proposal for sustainability assessment of sugarcane in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 597-603.
    8. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    9. Shrestha, Ram K. & Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre S., 2002. "Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 289-299, August.
    10. Guo, Jianke & Dong, Mengru & Zheng, Miaozhuang & Han, Zenglin & Li, Fujia, 2023. "The composition and evaluation of the strategic value of high seas resources: A theoretical model based on the human–sea relationship," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    11. Sangha, Kamaljit K & Evans, Jay & Edwards, Andrew & Russell-Smith, Jeremy & Fisher, Rohan & Yates, Cameron & Costanza, Robert, 2021. "Assessing the value of ecosystem services delivered by prescribed fire management in Australian tropical savannas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    12. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    13. Shaokang Fu & Lin Zhao & Zhi Qiao & Tong Sun & Meng Sun & Yuying Hao & Siyu Hu & Yanchang Zhang, 2021. "Development of Ecosystem Health Assessment (EHA) and Application Method: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    15. Neville D Crossman & Jeffrey D Connor & Brett A Bryan & David A Summers & John Ginnivan, 2009. "Reconfiguring an Irrigation Landscape to Improve Provision of Ecosystem Services," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-07, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    16. Maurício Roberto Cherubin & João Luís Nunes Carvalho & Carlos Eduardo Pellegrino Cerri & Luiz Augusto Horta Nogueira & Glaucia Mendes Souza & Heitor Cantarella, 2021. "Land Use and Management Effects on Sustainable Sugarcane-Derived Bioenergy," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-24, January.
    17. Yamamoto, Yuki, 2023. "Living under ecosystem degradation: Evidence from the mangrove–fishery linkage in Indonesia," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    18. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    19. Vorstius, Anne Carolin & Spray, Christopher J., 2015. "A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 75-83.
    20. Chen, Yu & Liu, Gengyuan & Yan, Ningyu & Yang, Qing & Gao, He & Su, Liya & Santagata, Remo, 2023. "Comprehensive evaluation of urban greenspace ecological values marketability through the spatial relationship between housing price and ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:3085-:d:765523. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.