Received: 15 December 2020 Revised: 22 March 2021 Accepted: 28 March 2021

DOI: 10.1002/ldr.3959

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Changes in carbon stocks and its economic valuation under a

changing land use pattern—A multitemporal study in Konar
catchment, India

Joy Rajbanshi1 | Sharmistha Das2

1
Department of Geography, Vivekananda
College for Women, University of Calcutta,
Kolkata, India
2
Department of Geography, Presidency
University, Kolkata, India
Correspondence
Joy Rajbanshi, Department of Geography,
Vivekananda College for Women, University
of Calcutta, Kolkata, India.
Email: jrgeog_rs@caluniv.ac.in
Abstract
Land use and land cover (LULC) changes influence the global terrestrial carbon pools
and carbon sequestration processes to great extents. Therefore, the understanding
of the soil carbon dynamics under the dire pressure of LULC changes is highly neces-
sary. The subhumid tropical catchment of Konar, India, has endured immense LULC
transitions over the years and this is likely to promote altered carbon exchanges with
atmosphere and, thus, has a significant impact on climate regulation and ecosystem
services. Our study analyzed the change in total carbon storage in the past (1992–
2004 and 2004–2016) and predicted the future (2030) with respect to the changing
land use scenario in the catchment. In addition, the monetary valuation of the carbon
loss and/or gain in that area has been performed considering its economic value in
the society. The Markov chain model was used in this work in order to predict the
LULC map for the future period, and integrated valuation of ecosystem services and
trade-offs (InVEST) model was applied to measure the changes in total carbon stocks.
The results show that 129,273.75 Mg carbon has already been lost from 2004 to
2016 that is worth of $US 20.06 million ($US 212.69 ha
1), and another
66,050.25 Mg of carbon which is worth of $US 9.73 million ($US 103.21 ha
1) is
expected to be lost in future by 2030. A thorough understanding of the carbon sce-
nario of the study area may help to promote feasible mitigation actions to conserve
the carbon pools.

KEYWORDS
carbon pool, carbon sequestration, economic valuation, InVEST, LULC change

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N Therefore, a strong interest has grown among the scientific society to

Carbon has become a focal topic of study and research in the era of
climate change, global warming, food scarcity, and sustainable devel-
opment (Lal, 2016). With the rapid human encroachment upon the
natural resources, the importance of carbon management has become
more of a necessity rather than an alternative solution to such global
issues. With the industrial revolution in the 19th and 20th centuries,
the global carbon cycle along with the carbon reserves of the world
has faced unprecedented losses (Lal, 2008), and it is still continuing.
understand the concept of present carbon cycle and its interactions
with carbon pools along with the anthropogenic interferences.
Population growth, industrialization, urbanization, deforestation,
and conversion of natural vegetation into cultivable land (Molotoks
et al., 2018) in order to meet the ever-growing demand for food crops
are some of the prominent aspects that result in the emission of CO2
from the soil which in turn increases the atmospheric carbon and
cause depletion of the terrestrial carbon pool (Lal, 2019). The tropical
and subtropical forests that cover around 45% and 11%, respectively,

Land Degrad Dev. 2021;1–15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ldr © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 RAJBANSHI AND DAS
of the total world forest hold more than 37% of the terrestrial carbon
(FAO, 2020). This forest, however, is decreasing by 4.7 million hect-
ares per year leading to an alarming loss of carbon around the globe
(FAO, 2020). A report published by Liu et al. (2015) estimated that the
global above-ground carbon (AGC) was lost at a rate of
0.07 PgC
yr
1 from 1993 to 2012 due to the loss of tropical forest area. Pan
et al. (2011) reported the loss in global soil organic carbon (SOC) by
7.7% (12.7 PgC) from 1990 to 2007 largely due to tropical deforesta-
tion. The study by Crowther et al. (2016) stated that the global SOC
in the upper soil horizons is going to be lost by 55 PgC (±50 PgC) by
the end of 2050. The degradation of the terrestrial carbon pool leads
to low soil fertility and productivity, soil erosion, and later on becomes
a root cause of food scarcity (Lal, 2004). Therefore, it is crucial to
understand the loss of carbon stock for the sustainability of the eco-
system services.
A considerable amount of work has been done to obtain a better
perception of carbon sequestration and its interactions with the
changes in land use and land cover (Babbar et al., 2020; Meena
et al., 2018; Nath, Brahma, Sileshi, & Das, 2018; Zhao et al., 2019).
One of the most scientific, useful, and convenient way of analyzing
soil carbon and its nature is modelling. There are several models that
are extensively and successfully used for modelling SOC in a variety
of land uses namely: CENTURY, RothC, DNDC (Smith et al., 1997),
and APSIM (Mohanty et al., 2020). However, most of these models
depend on large amount of data and proper parameterization under
particular climatic regions or management practices, hindering global
application (Brilli et al., 2017; Falloon & Smith, 2010). The InVEST
model, however, tries to analyze biophysical relationships in different
climatic regions to understand the nature of carbon exchange with soil
along with performing an economic valuation of the carbon (Brilli
et al., 2017) that helps to evaluate the benefits gained from the eco-
system considering them as services that make it useful to analyze
potential natural risks and vulnerability (Caro, Marques, Cunha, &
Teixeira, 2020).
Several works on the tropical and subtropical regions show that
last several decades have brought widespread deforestation in those
regions mostly followed by extensions of agricultural fields that may
affect the carbon stocks immeasurably and cause irreversible damage
to the environment (Nogueira, Yanai, De Vasconcelos,
Fearnside, 2017; De Sy, 2019). The Konar catchment located in the
humid subtropical region of India also experienced the distinct loss of
forested areas (15.1%) over the past decades while noticing an
increase of about 14.5% in the wastelands (Rajbanshi
Bhattacharya, 2020; Sanyal, Densmore, & Carbonneau, 2014). The
previous works were limited to quantifying the rate of LULC change
and its impact on the surface runoff and soil erosion. However, no
studies have been carried out in order to measure the soil carbon loss
or sequestration in the region. Moreover, there has been a serious
lack of studies focusing on the economic perspective of carbon stock
changes that have a great impact on the society and economy
(Lal, 2004; Lubowski, Plantinga, & Stavins, 2006; Sykes et al., 2020)
because of the resultant environmental services variations in this
region (Lubowski et al., 2006; Gren & Carlsson, 2013). Therefore, the
aims of this study are (1) to produce the carbon stock change scenario
of the Konar catchment located in the Upper Damodar basin for the
year of 2030 under changing LULC and (2) to perform an economic
valuation of the carbon loss and/or gain in that area considering its
economic value to society.
2 | M A T E R I A L S A N D M ET H O D S
2.1 | The study area
This study has been performed in the Konar catchment
(23 510 23.2500 N to 24 80 26.8300 N and 85 1420 32.9300 E to
85 470 10.5400 E) covering 94.3 thousand hectares (Th ha) area, located
in the upper Damodar River basin, India (Figure 1). The elevation
ranges from 418 to 939 m from the mean sea level, and the major
slope is directed toward the east of the catchment. The catchment is
predominantly classified as of subtropical climate and receives precipi-
tation amounting more than 1,300 mm annually, the majority (> 80%)
of which occurs during the southwest monsoon season (June–
September). The maximum temperature goes up to 46 C during the
peak summer months (March–May), while during the winter months
(January–February, December), minimum temperature drops down to
4 C. The natural vegetation of the catchment consists of dry to moist
deciduous trees, shrubs, grasses, and weeds. The soil of the catchment
area mainly attributed with sandy loam texture followed by loam,
loamy sand, clay loam, clay, and silt loam.
2.2 | Methods
2.2.1 | Image preprocessing and LULC
classification
Three LANDSAT satellite images were selected for preparing land
use and land cover (LULC) maps for 1992, 2004, and 2016 (Table.1).
Atmospheric correction based on dark objective subtraction (DOS)
algorithm was applied through the semi-automatic classification plu-
& gin available in the open-source QUANTUM GIS (QGIS) software
(version 3.0.0). In order to prepare the LULC map in the basin, the
classification scheme developed by the National Remote Sensing
Centre (NRSC) and Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) was
& considered (NRSC Manual, 2006). The six major LULC classes
namely agriculture; built-up; forest; shrubs; fallow land; and
waterbody were chosen from the level I classification types for map-
ping the entire basin. The maximum likelihood classification (MLC)
algorithm under supervised classification technique has been used to
classify the LULC of the catchment. Ground truth is a very essential
step when supervised and/or knowledge-based classification
method is being considered for the LULC classification. Therefore, a
total of 151 ground control points (GCPs) were collected from differ-
ent LULC types in the catchment in 2016 for the calibration purpose
(Figure S1).
RAJBANSHI AND DAS 3

F I G U R E 1 Location map of
the Konar catchment, India
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

T A B L E 1 Details of the satellite

Satellite sensor Path Row Date acquired Spatial resolution (m)
images used in the study
LANDSAT 5 TM 140 43 December 19, 1992 30
LANDSAT 5 TM 140 43 December 4, 2004 30
LANDSAT 8 OLI TIRS 140 43 December 21, 2016 30

2.2.2 | LULC change modelling
In this study, the land change modeler (LCM) has been used to develop
future LULC scenario for the year 2030 based on the observed LULC
changes between 2004 (T1) and 2016 (T2). LCM is an inbuilt module of
IDRISI software developed by Clark Labs in conjunction with Conserva-
tion International which is typically based on inductive approach that
draws the correlation among different explanatory variables using sta-
tistical inferences (Gibson, Münch, Palmer, & Mantel, 2018). It analyzes
the changes of LULC from two different historical time periods (T1 and
T2) and uses different explanatory variables to create the transition
potential maps using multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network or
logistic regression. It also uses the Markov chain analysis (stochastic
modeling approach) to assign probability of change determined from
historical change and projecting the LULC scenario for future time
period. LCM usually produces two types of future prediction map
namely, soft prediction and hard prediction. Soft prediction map is the
aggregration of all transitional potential which provides the indication
of a cell likely to experience LULC change without providing what the
new LULC would be. However, LCM uses multiobjective land allocation
(MOLA) module to produce hard prediction map which allocates the
cell to an LULC class for which its weighted transition potential is maxi-
mum (Houet & Hubert-Moy, 2006). The schematic diagram of the pro-
cedure is shown in Figure 2.
Explanatory variable and transition potential maps
The explanatory variables are the biophysical and socioeconomic fac-
tors representing the drivers for changing the LULC types of an area
(Pérez-Vega, Mas, & Ligmann-Zielinska, 2012). Physical factors such
as topography, slope, and climate play a vital role for changing the
4 RAJBANSHI AND DAS
FIGURE 2 Flowchart of the proposed methodology [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
LULC (Reilly, O'Mara, & Seto, 2009; Wu, Zhang, & Shen, 2011).
Whereas, socioeconomic factors, such as distance from road, distance
from socio-economic centers, distance from rivers are crucial for
changing the LULC types (Eastman, 2016; Gibson et al., 2018; Mas,
Kolb, Paegelow, Camacho Olmedo, & Houet, 2014; J. Wang &
Maduako, 2018). Thus, in this study, several drivers such as elevation,
slope, distance from major roads, distance from streams/rivers, dis-
tance from towns, and distance from villages were considered as
explanatory variables and added in the LCM as raster datasets.
According to Pérez-Vega et al. (2012), the LULC transition can be
grouped into sub-models if the drivers for each transition remain
unchanged. Thus, the different LULC transitions were grouped into
seven sub-models following Münch, Okoye, Gibson, Mantel, &
Palmer (2017) and Gibson et al. (2018) and also labelled as (1) Aban-
donment—agriculture and built-up areas converted to shrubs and
wastelands, (2) afforestation—others LULC are converted to forest,
(3) agriculture intensification—others LULC replaced by agricultural
land, (4) deforestation—forest converted to other LULC, (5) degrada-
tion—shrub and water area converted to bare/wastelands, (6) natural
dynamics—areas where natural changes occurred, and (7) urbaniza-
tion—urban built-up substitutes the previous LULC classes.
2.2.3 | Changes in carbon stock using the
InVEST model
A carbon pool table which includes the carbon pool in aboveground
biomass, belowground biomass, SOC, and deadwood carbon in
different LULC classes is required in order to prepare the total car-
bon stock map in InVEST model. For the estimation of SOC, a total
of 35 surface soil samples were collected from 0 to 30 cm depth
using the stratified random sampling method from different LULC
and soil taxonomy classes (Figure 1). Soil bulk density was deter-
mined using the soil core sampler having a diameter of 5.7 cm
(Blake & Harte, 1986), and the SOC concentration was determined
from 0.5 mm sieved ovendry soil samples following rapid titration
method (Walkley & Black, 1934). Finally, the SOC per unit area
(t ha
1) was calculated by multiplying the SOC percentage with soil
bulk density and depth of the soil layer. The remaining parameters
(i.e., carbon pool in aboveground biomass, belowground biomass,
and deadwood carbon) were estimated following the Forest Survey
Reports and IPCC, 2006 guidelines and previously published
research papers (Table 2) (Babbar et al., 2020; FSI, 2011, 2019;
IPCC, 2006). This carbon pool table along with the different LULC
maps of the selected years (i.e., 1992, 2004, 2016, 2030) was used
as the input variables for preparing carbon stock map in InVEST
model. Moreover, the high amount of emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) costs the Indian economy $US 210 billion, while the social
cost is estimated to be $US 86 per tonne of CO2 every year (Ricke,
Drouet, Caldeira, & Tavoni, 2018). Apart from this, the annual rate
of change in the price of carbon was estimated as 5% by Nelson
et al. (2010). Hence, the 5% annual rate of changing price of carbon
and the three different market discount rates, 1%, 3%, and 7% were
considered following Sil et al. (2017). These economic data have
been used to estimate the economic value of carbon in the catch-
ment for the selected periods.
RAJBANSHI AND DAS 5

TABLE 2 Carbon pool (Mg ha
1) table used as input in InVEST 3 | RE SU LT S

model

LULC class C above C below C soil C dead 3.1 | LULC classification and accuracy assessment
Agriculture 23 35 21.21 5
Results obtained from the LULC maps of 1992, 2004, and 2016
Built-up 2 1 6.22 0
(Figure 3) indicated that in 1992, major portion of the catchment was
Forest 65 44 26.72 9
occupied by the forest (30.59%) followed by agriculture (27.82%),
Shrubs 8 8 23.01 3
shrubs (21.50%), and fallow land (10.42%) (Table.3). Between 1992
Fallow land 1 1 15.38 0
and 2004, the fallow land showed an increase of 6.02% while forested
Waterbody 0 0 0 0
area, agriculture, and shrubs decreased by 0.65%, 2.42%, and 2.29%,
respectively. The shrubs in 1992 mostly changed into fallow land
(5.7%) and agriculture (4.2%), whereas parts of the agricultural
2.2.4 | Statistical analysis land were converted to shrubs (4.08%), fallow land (3.97%), and built-
up (2.96%), respectively, in 2004. Furthermore, 58.34 Th ha (61.82%)
Accuracy assessment of the LULC maps area remained unchanged, which included forest (25.07%), agriculture
Accuracy assessment is an essential postclassification step that evalu- (16.49%), shrubs (11.08%), fallow land (5.79%), built-up (2.97%), and
ates the performance of the LULC classification. Acceptable level of waterbody (0.42%) between 1991 and 2004 (Figure 4a). Results from
accuracy of classification varies depending upon the nature of applica- the classified LULC image of 2016 illustrate that the forest area and
tion. Anderson, Hardy, Roach, & Witmer (1976) has stated an accept- shrubs land covered more than 50% (49.34 Th ha) of the total geo-
able threshold value of 85% for the LULC classification accuracy graphical area of the catchment. However, the agricultural land indi-
assessment. However, some other researchers have argued that the cated a decrease of 6.29% (5.93 Th ha) from 2004 to 2016. Similarly,
accuracy of 80% is also acceptable (Mohammad & Adam, 2010). After fallow land also decreased by 1.01% between 2004 and 2016
successful classification, we have created 600 random points (Table 3). The changes of the LULC classes between 2004 and
(100 samples per class) in the catchment area and validated with the 2016 showed that agricultural land was largely converted to shrubs
actual classes using high-resolution Google Earth images. A confusion (4.47%) and fallow land (3.81%). Shrubs, on-the-other-hand, were
matrix also known as error matrix was developed, and a number of converted to forest and fallow land by 3.36% and 2.97%. Besides,
statistics such as overall accuracy (OA), producer's accuracy (PA), 6.52 Th ha area of fallow land was converted to agriculture (3.51%)
user's accuracy (UA), and kappa coefficient (K) have been calculated and shrubs (3.40%) land from 2004 to 2016 (Figure 4b).
following Fung & Ledrew (1988); Foody (2010); and Lewis & The overall accuracy of the classification, that is, 83% and
Brown (2010). kappa statistics of 0.81 indicate good classification performance for
2004 LULC. High user's accuracy was found in the waterbody
Cramer's V (94%) and shrubs (92%), whereas built-up (59%) area showed a very
The association between the drivers in a particular transition and the poor accuracy (Table S1). Similarly, LULC for 2016 has achieved
LULC types was determined using Cramer's V test (Cramer, 1946). 84.83% of overall accuracy with Kappa coefficient of 0.82 in which
The Cramer's V ranges from 0 (no correlation) to 1 (perfect correla- maximum producer accuracy was found in built-up area (90.7%),
tion) where the values of 0.1 or higher are very useful indicating a reliable performance for LULC classification (Table S2).
(Eastman, 2016). However, it should be noted that the Cramer's V is The classification accuracy achieved in this study fulfills the mini-
not definitive; it only helps to select the major drivers for creating the mum accuracy threshold of 80% as suggested by Mohammad &
transition potential maps in the LCM (Gibson et al., 2018). Adam (2010).

Kappa statistics
To evaluate the performance of our model, the LULC map of 2016
was predicted based on the transition probability matrix of LULC
changes between 1992 and 2004. In the next step, validation has
been done by comparing the predicted 2016 LULC map with the
actual 2016 LULC map using kappa statistics (Kamusoko, Aniya,
Adi, & Manjoro, 2009; S. Q. Wang, Zheng, & Zang, 2012). Different
kappa statistics includes, kappa standard (Kstandard), kappa for no infor-
mation (Kno), kappa for grid cell level location (Klocation), and kappa for
stratum-level location (KlocationStrata) were selected for the assessment
of the model. After validating the model with reasonable accuracy, the
future LULC map was produced considering the same explanatory
variable for the year 2030.
3.2 | Transition potential and performance of
submodel
A total of six explanatory variables for each transitional submodel are
shown in Figure 5. The Cramer's V for overall LULC classes signifies
their explanatory capacity for creating transition potential maps. It is
seen that the variables such as distance from rivers, distance from
towns, and distance from villages are very useful (Cramer's V = > 0.1)
in explaining the transition, while the elevation, slope, and distance
from roads having low Cramer's V (< 0.1) have less impact over creat-
ing the transition potential maps in the catchment. The accuracy and
skill measures for individual submodels revealed a wide variety of
6 RAJBANSHI AND DAS

F I G U R E 3 LULC map of the Konar catchment for (a) 1992 (b) 2004 (c) 2016 and (d) simulated 2030 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 3 Area of different distribution in Konar catchment for 1992, 2004, 2016, and 2030

Change Change Change

1992 2004 2016 2030 (1992–2004) (2004–2016) (2016–2030)

Area Area Area Area

LULC (Thha) % (Th ha) % (Th ha) % (Th ha) % % % %
Agriculture 26.24 27.82 23.95 25.40 18.02 19.11 18.02 19.11
2.42
6.29 0.00
Built-up 7.95 8.43 7.80 8.28 10.67 11.31 10.67 11.31
0.15 3.04 0.00
Forest 28.84 30.59 28.23 29.93 30.51 32.35 29.07 30.83
0.65 2.42
1.53
Shrubs 20.28 21.50 18.12 19.21 18.83 19.97 23.73 25.17
2.29 0.76 5.19
Fallow land 9.83 10.42 15.50 16.44 14.55 15.43 10.89 11.55 6.02
1.01
3.88
Waterbody 1.17 1.24 0.70 0.74 1.72 1.82 1.92 2.03
0.50 1.08 0.21

Abbreviation: Th ha, thousand hectares.

disparity in model prediction for different transitions. The accuracy
varies between 50.23 and 66.95% (Table S3), whereas, lowest accu-
racy is associated with afforestation having low skill measures (0.01),
followed by agriculture intensification with 51.8% accuracy and skill
measures of 0.04. Deforestation has a high accuracy with 66.95% and
skill measures of 0.34 due to the large number of pixels involved in
this submodel. It should be noted that the low accuracy may also be
an indication that LULC change is not totally controlled by the drivers
used in the model.
3.3 | Validation of the LCM model
The LCM model was validated by comparing the simulated and actual
LULC map for 2016 shown in Figure 6. The overall agreement of 0.78
indicates the reasonable performance (78%) of the model. In addition,
all the kappa statistics such as Kstandard (0.71), Kno (0.73), Klocation
(0.75), and KlocationStrata (0.75) were also showed an acceptable perfor-
mance in simulating the future LULC conditions. Further analysis
showed that the agricultural area poorly simulated followed by built-
RAJBANSHI AND DAS
F I G U R E 4 Different land use land cover (LULC) transitions from (a) 1992 to 2004, (b) 2004 to 2016, and (c) 2016 to 2030 in the Konar
catchment [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
up area. However, best agreement was achieved for the shrubs, fallow
land, and waterbody areas. For instance, shrubs land for the actual
map was 19.97%, whereas the area of corresponding simulated map
decreased to 0.8% only. Similarly, the observed area in the fallow land
category was 15.43% and the simulated value increased to 0.9%.
3.4 | Transition probability for the predicted
year 2030
A transition probability matrix for different LULC classes from the
year 2016 to 2030 has been generated using the Markov chain analy-
sis in LCM model that is a stochastic approach which expresses the
likelihood of the fact that a pixel of a given class will change to any
other class for the given period (Table 4). This matrix is used to project
the persistence and estimated changes in the LULC classes for the
simulation of LULC map in 2030. In the Konar catchment, there is
0.44 probability that the agriculture will remain in the same class and
0.2 probability of conversion of agricultural area into shrubs and fal-
low land from 2016 to 2030. Similarly, there is a probability of 0.88,
that the forest area will remain in the same class while 0.25
7
probability of conversion of fallow land into agriculture and shrubs
land. The waterbody will remain same in the future period showing
the maximum probability of 0.89.
3.5 | Future prediction of LULC for 2030
The LULC map obtained from the LCM prediction model for the year
2030 is shown in Figure 3d, and the area covered by different LULC is
shown in Table 3. The area occupied by six LULC classes such as agri-
culture, built-up, forest, shrubs, fallow land, and waterbody in projec-
ted LULC map of 2030 is 18.02 Th ha, 10.67 Th ha, 29.07 Th ha,
23.73 Th ha, 10.89 Th ha, and 1.92 Th ha, respectively, which rev-
ealed that the forest area shared the largest area (30.83%) followed
by shrubs land (25.17%). The changes of the LULC classes between
2016 and 2030 revealed that the shrubs area will be increased by
5.19% (4.9 Th ha), and forest and fallow land will be decreased
by 1.53% (1.44 Th ha) and 3.88% (3.66 Th ha). Moreover, the fallow
land and forest will be converted to shrubs by 3.79% (3.57 Th ha) and
1.42% (1.34 Th ha). However, the agriculture and built-up area will
remain constant in the future (2030) period (Figure 4c).
8 RAJBANSHI AND DAS

F I G U R E 5 Different potential drivers used in the study for LULC changes: (a) elevation (b) slope (c) distance from major roads (d) distance
from rivers (e) distance from town (f) distance from villages [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

3.6 | The carbon stock changes shrubs area show more or less similar mean SOC stock, that is,
21.21 Mg ha
1 (SD: 10.7 Mg ha
1); 26.72 Mg ha
1 (SD:
The observed SOC stock in the 0–30 cm soil depth for the Konar 16.38 Mg ha ); and 23 Mg ha (SD: 8.07 Mg ha
1); however, forest

1
1

catchment ranged from 3.64 Mg ha
1 to 63.68 Mg ha
1 with a mean

1
1
stock of 19.85 Mg ha (SD: 11.6 Mg ha ). The measured SOC in
the catchment was quite variable having the coefficient of variation
value of 58.42%. Among the LULC classes, agriculture, forest, and
area showed largest variability with SOC ranged from 18 Mg ha
1 to
63.68 Mg ha
1 (Figure 7). Nevertheless, the InVEST model under two
LULC change scenarios (1992–2004 and 2004–2016) showed a
decrease in the total carbon storage in the catchment (Table 5). In the
RAJBANSHI AND DAS 9

change ranged from $US 32.98 million ($US 349.69 ha
1) at high soci-
etal preference for immediate benefits over future benefits (7% dis-
count rate) to $US 42.70 million ($US 452.78 ha
1) at low societal
preference for immediate benefits over future benefits (1% discount
rate). Over the projected period (2016–2030), the monetary value of
carbon significantly decreased which varies from $US 7.25 million
($US 76.83 ha
1) to $US 9.73 million ($US 103.21 ha
1) at low to
high societal preference for immediate benefits over future benefits.
It is observed from the study that a low societal preference for imme-
diate benefits of carbon sequestration led to higher monetary values
of the service and the monetary value decreasing as the discount rate
increased.
F I G U R E 6 Area percentage of actual versus simulated LULC
categories in 2016
4 | DI SCU SSION

Konar catchment, the shrubs, built-up, and fallow land stored the car-
bon mainly in the soil, while the maximum carbon storage is observed
in the forest pools, especially above ground. Despite the similarities
observed in the carbon loss in the agricultural field, the forest expan-
sion scenario in the 2004–2016 showed the increasing carbon stock
in the forest area of the catchment by 8.08% (330,211.41 Mg).
Although all pools in forest areas gained carbon, above-ground bio-
mass and below-ground biomass showed the highest rates, that is,
44.91% (148,309.2 Mg) and 30.40% (100,393.9 Mg). However, the
maximum decrease in carbon has been observed in the agricultural
field by 8.30% (192,549.84 Mg) and 23.49% (499,492.7 Mg) from
1992 to 2004 and 2004 to 2016. The overall carbon stored across
pools in the predicted 2030 LULC scenario showed a decrease by
0.92% (66,050.25 Mg) carbon from 2016 to 2030. The maximum
amount of carbon losses observed in the fallow land, that is, 25.38%
(63,538.24 Mg) followed by forest area (4.72%; 208,205.64 Mg).
However, the carbon stocks are expected to remain constant for agri-
culture and built-up class due to nonexpansion of these areas.
3.7 | Economic valuation
Despite the variation in carbon discount rates, LULC changes in the
observed (1992–2004 and 2004–2016) and projected (2016–2030)
periods in the Konar catchment contributed to a carbon loss with a
relatively high monetary value (Table 6). The results showed that
between 1992 and 2004, the economic cost due to carbon stock
Both chemical and physical characteristics of soil are highly sensitive
to the changes occurring in LULC (Qi et al., 2018; Qin, Dunn, Kwon,
Mueller, & Wander, 2016). Soil carbon, especially in the upper layers
of soil, is the first that comes in contact with those changes and,
hence, faces adverse fate (Barcena et al., 2014). With loss of carbon,
soil not only loses its fertility but faces erosion and adds to the atmo-
spheric CO2 (Bastida, Hernandez, & García, 2018). Therefore, a
methodical study of the interactions between land use and soil carbon
dynamics is essential for achieving a better perceptive of global car-
bon management (W. Li et al., 2017). The focus of the present study
is to observe the past and make a prediction of the amount of carbon
changes in the future with respect to the changing LULC scenario in
the Konar catchment. The study also aims to give a monetary valua-
tion of the carbon loss and/or gain in that area considering its eco-
nomic value in the society using InVEST model.
The study indicates that forested areas have the highest amount
of carbon storage among all the LULC classes in the study area,
followed by agricultural fields and shrub lands (Table 5). As forests
contain a larger amount of biomass, it is natural for them to have
larger carbon storage (Hui, Deng, Tian, & Luo, 2016). However, with
changing land use, the capacity of the forests of sequestering and
storing carbon is directly hampered. There has been a reduction in the
area of forest cover by 0.65% from 1992 to 2004 (Table 3) coincided
by a loss of carbon storage of about 89,169.59 Mg. It can be observed
that during this period, the forested areas have been transformed
mostly into shrubs and fallow lands, possibly through deforestation
(Figure 4a). Deforestation and conversion of forests expose the

T A B L E 4 LULC transition probability

LULC Agriculture Built-up Forest Shrubs Fallow land Waterbody
for the year 2030
Agriculture 0.4433 0.1074 0.0427 0.2003 0.1699 0.0363
Built-up 0.1294 0.4861 0.147 0.1561 0.0634 0.018
Forest 0.0112 0.0595 0.8757 0.044 0.0062 0.0034
Shrubs 0.0972 0.0914 0.2065 0.4238 0.1797 0.0013
Fallow land 0.2502 0.0895 0.0112 0.2454 0.3978 0.0059
Waterbody 0.0728 0.0166 0.0044 0.005 0.0068 0.8943
10 RAJBANSHI AND DAS

C-stock change (mg)

208,205.6403

63,538.2417

66,050.2459
205,693.6361
(2016–2030)

0
0

0
Total carbon (mg)
1,627,309.502

4,207,173.666

7,118,957.267
98,345.01365

996,832.8931
189,296.1928
2030

0
F I G U R E 7 Measured soil organic carbon (SOC) among different
LULC classes in the Konar catchment [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

C-stock change (mg)

499,492.6952

16,566.89698

129,273.7482
26,398.42234
330,211.4102
30,176.01138
(2004–2016)
organic carbon from soil at different horizons, and the exposed carbon
is easily removed by water (Drake et al., 2019). Deforestation may
cause an increase in the surface soil carbon stock in the initial few

0
years due to accumulation of litter but after that the soil rapidly loses
its carbon stock that may take years to stabilize and reach equilibrium

Total carbon (mg)

(Fujisaki, Perrin, Garric, Balesdent, & Brossard, 2017). Deforestation

Total carbon storage and its changes under different LULC classes for 1992, 2004, 2016, and 2030

1,627,309.502

4,415,379.306

7,185,007.513
98,345.01365

252,834.4345
791,139.257
causes loss of biomass along with increasing soil temperature which is
likely to increase CO2 emission as well, and this situation continues
until the soil reaches stability (McNicol, Ryan, & Mitchard, 2018; Not- 2016

0
tingham, Meir, Velasquez, & Turner, 2020). Reaching stability may
take about three decades producing excellent carbon sinks afterward
(Barcena et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2017; McNicol et al., 2018; Zhang
C-stock change (mg)

et al., 2019). As the forested areas in our study area still have not

192,549.8372

1,337.553255

89,169.58482

90,751.08409

275,171.5201
attained that much undisturbed time to reach stability, they are still
(1992–2004)

98,636.5393
continuing to experience loss of carbon. We compared our results of
SOC in the Konar catchment with several studies performed in the
adjacent regions or on a broader scale for validation. In a meta-
0

analysis performed over the Indo-Gangetic Plain by Grace

et al. (2012) suggests that in West Bengal, SOC stock ranges from
Total carbon (mg)

22.61 to 37.69 Mg C ha
1 in 0–30 cm depth for conventional tillage

2,126,802.197

4,085,167.896

7,314,281.261
71,946.59131

760,963.2456
269,401.3315

practices which comes very close to our results of present SOC stocks
for agricultural fields which is 21.21 Mg ha
1 for the same depth. In
case of the forest regions, our results range from 18 Mg ha
1 to
2004

63.68 Mg ha
1 which again can be supported by the works of Rav-

0

indranath, Somashekhar, & Gadgil (1997) and Roy et al. (2010) where
the average SOC stocks for 0–30 cm are estimated as 57.99 Mg ha
1.
Total carbon (mg)

Studies performed by Gami, Lauren, & Duxbury (2009) in similar cli-

2,319,352.034

4,174,337.481

7,589,452.781
73,284.14457

851,714.3297
170,764.7922

matic regions adjacent to our study area suggest quite alike SOC
stocks in the surface soil of forested regions that is 43.80 Mg ha
1.
1992

In Table 3, it can be seen that between 2004 and 2016, there has
0

been an expansion of forest cover by 2.42% (2.28 Th ha), and the

amount of carbon gained in this period has been estimated as
330,211.410 Mg (Table 5). Afforestation on transformed and dis-
Fallow land
Waterbody
Agriculture
TABLE 5

Built-up

turbed lands can improve the soil organic matter on the surface layer
Shrubs
Forest
LULC

Total

(0–10 cm), but in subsurface horizons (0–20 cm or 0–30 cm), it may

take longer for the carbon dynamics to settle down (Barcena
RAJBANSHI AND DAS
T A B L E 6 Total economic costs (million $US) and rate ($US ha
1) due to carbon sequestration among LULC scenarios at different carbon
discount rate
Discount rate
1% 3%

1
LULC transitions Value (million $US) Rate ($US ha ) Value (million $US)
1992–2004
42.70
452.78
38.94
2004–2016
20.06
212.69
18.29
2016–2030
9.73
103.21
8.75
et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2017). As explained earlier, the forest areas
are yet to reach stability, and thus the area is expected to lose carbon
by the year 2030. The agricultural fields located mainly in the central
and western part of the catchment area (Figure 3) also showed high
amounts of carbon stock (2,319,352.034 Mg) in 1992 (Table 5). How-
ever, a decrease in these agricultural fields aided with unplanned agri-
cultural activities has led to the loss of carbon stock in those parts too
from 1992 to 2016. Proper management system and practice of agro-
forestry, silviculture, conservation agriculture, no-tillage practice, and
crop residue inclusion can improve the soil carbon stock with its addi-
tion of tree biomass and enhancement of belowground carbon
sequestration process (Brahma et al., 2018; Chenu et al., 2019;
Corbeels, Cardinael, Naudin, Guibert, & Torquebiau, 2019; De
Stefano & Jacobson, 2018; Guo, Wang, Wang, Wu, & Cao, 2018; X. Li
et al., 2020; Morales et al., 2020; Shi, Feng, Xu, & Kuzyakov, 2018;
H. Wang et al., 2020). On-theother-hand, shrub lands faced a
decrease since 1992 due to conversion into fallow lands (Figure 4 and
Table 3). Shrub lands have a high potential to sequester carbon due to
its high capacity to produce litter (Sainepo, Gachene, & tion of the carbon expected to be lost by 2030 is $US 9.73 million.
Karuma, 2018). It is mostly their root biomass that adds significantly
to the carbon stock (Nie et al., 2019). The shrubs are showing a slight
increase in area by 2016 and are expected to increase more by 2030
(Table 3). Among all the land use classes taken in our study, only
shrubs have shown a positive trend in sequestering carbon since
2004 and is expected to continue sequestering and increasing carbon
by the year 2030, while other land use classes are expected no or neg-
ative trend of carbon sequestration (Table 5). The study by
Jhariya (2017) reported that the shrub lands of Chhattisgarh in India
can sequester carbon nearly at a rate of 1.57 ± 0.27 t ha
1 yr
1. Fal-
low lands are more prone to erosion by wind and water, and they tend
get hotter and have less water retention capacity, which not only
affects the carbon sequestration process but also leads to depletion
of carbon stocks (Peng et al., 2018). Therefore, the conversion of for-
ests, agricultural fields, or shrubs into bare or fallow lands is expected
to cause adverse effects to the carbon sequestration potential of that
area. However, it is encouraging that our study expects a reduction of
bare lands and being taken up by shrubs (Table 3).
With the land use and carbon dynamics scenario, simulations for
the year 2030 have given remarkable outcomes. The forest areas and
fallow lands are expected to decrease by 1.53% and 3.88%, respec-
tively, since 2016, while the shrub lands are expected to increase by
5.19% (Table 3). The other land use classes are expected to
11
7%

1
Rate ($US ha ) Value (million $US) Rate ($US ha
1)

412.97
32.98
349.69

193.99
15.49
164.26

92.84
7.25
76.83
experience no or insignificant changes by 2030. With such changes in
land use, a total of 66,050.246 Mg C is expected to be lost by 2030,
especially from forest and fallow lands. No or negligible amount of C
is expected to be lost from the agricultural and built-up sectors
(Table 5). By systematically reviewing the behavior of land use pat-
terns and carbon dynamics of the study area, it is apparent that the
carbon content of that area is observably influenced by the land use
changes over time (W. Li et al., 2017). This leads to the second part of
our objective that is valuation of the carbon loss in monetary form.
Considering the conceptions of social preferences and social discount
rates of carbon (Pindilli, Sleeter, & Hogan, 2018), it can be said the
area under study has the potential to lose carbon stock with great
economic value. The catchment area has already lost carbon stock
that is worth $US 42.70 million ($US 452.78 ha
1) in the period
between 1992 and 2004 and that is worth $US 20.06 million ($US
212.69 ha
1) from 2004 to 2016 at 1% discount rate (Table 6). In
future, the area is expected to suffer more economic loss in the form
of carbon stock depletion. According to our study, the present valua-
The value of the same is expected to lower at $US 7.25 million at 7%
discount rate. G. Liu et al. (2020) produced a similar study including
plantation in cost delineation of carbon sequestration in Indonesia
where they also estimated lowering values of carbon with increase in
discount rate. As with every passing year, the value of monetary price
decreases and the value of carbon also decreases (Price, 2018).
Besides, societal preferences tend to be more willing to utilize
resources at the moment rather than waiting for the future, and thus,
the monetary value of carbon decreases with increased discount rate
(Courard-Hauri, Klimas, & Parrish, 2020).
Yet, the work holds some limitations due to small soil sample size,
coarse resolution of the satellite images for the preparation of LULC
map, and some unquantifiable anthropogenic drivers for LULC transi-
tions which may raise some minor uncertainties in the results. In spite
of that, the work still proved to be presenting excellent and reliable
results when compared with works of similar nature.
Nevertheless, our study tries to contribute to the vast soil carbon
research continuum by quantifying the soil carbon dynamics under
transforming land use and attempting to perform an economical eval-
uation to help conceptualize the social and environmental services
provided by soil carbon. This work may assist the policy makers by
providing useful information for preparing developmental and man-
agement plans in future. This work may help the Damodar Valley
12
Corporation in initializing developmental plans for its goals to evade
soil erosion, perform soil conservation, retention of soil fertility, dam
and reservoir, as well as afforestation projects.
5 | C O N CL U S I O N S
The work attempts to make a constructive contribution toward the
study of carbon storage and its relationship with the changing land
use pattern and the future consequences regarding the carbon
dynamics. Multitemporal study of the Konar catchment area with the
assistance of the land change modeler and InVEST model not only
presents the changing dimensions of land use of that area but also
provides with a conception of the past, present, as well as future sce-
nario of carbon sequestration and remaining carbon stocks of that
area along with their economic valuation. The outcome of the work is
satisfying although the situation it reveals is forbidding. This area
is still expected to be losing 66,050.24 Mg carbon, the economic valu-
ation of which is expected to be around $US 9.73 million. This work is
an attempt to bring this harsh scenario up in the front, so that preven-
tive measures can be taken without further delay. This paper also tries
to present a literature that supports and helps to promote mitigation
plans for carbon management at local level by presenting reliable
information to its best capacity regarding amount of carbon stock,
remaining carbon pools and their potential along with loss or gain of
carbon regulated by changes in land use that is fit to assist in further
research for the different aspects of land use management, carbon
management, and soil conservation.
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST
There are no conflicts of interest in the submission of this manuscript.
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Joy Rajbanshi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7044-5476
RE FE R ENC E S
Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E., Roach, J. T. & Witmer, R. E. (1976). A land use
and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data.
USGS professional paper 964, Arlington: U.S. Geological Survey.
Babbar, D., Areendran, G., Sahana, M., Sarma, K., Raj, K., & Sivadas, A. (2020).
Assessment and prediction of carbon sequestration using Markov chain
and InVEST model in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 278, 123333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123333
Barcena, T. G., Kiær, L. P., Vesterdal, L., Stef ansdo  ttir, H. M.,
Gundersen, P., & Sigurdsson, B. D. (2014). Soil carbon stock change
following afforestation in northern Europe: A meta-analysis. Global
Change Biology, 20(8), 2393–2405. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.
12576
Bastida, F., Hernandez, T., & García, C. (2018). Soil erosion and C losses:
Strategies for building soil carbon. In The future of soil carbon: Its con-
servation and formation. London: Elsevier Inc.
RAJBANSHI AND DAS
Blake, G. R., & Harte, K. H. (1986). Bulk density. In A. Klute (Ed.), Part
1 Methods of soil analysis (363–375). Madison, WI: American Society
of Agronomy.
Brahma, B., Pathak, K., Lal, R., Kurmi, B., Das, M., Nath, P. C., … Das, A. K.
(2018). Ecosystem carbon sequestration through restoration of
degraded lands in Northeast India. Land Degradation & Development,
29(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2816
Brilli, L., Bechini, L., Bindi, M., Carozzi, M., Cavalli, D., Conant, R., …
Bellocchi, G. (2017). Review and analysis of strengths and weaknesses
of agro-ecosystem models for simulating C and N fluxes. Science of the
Total Environment, 598, 445–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2017.03.208
Caro, C., Marques, J. C., Cunha, P. P., & Teixeira, Z. (2020). Ecosystem ser-
vices as a resilience descriptor in habitat risk assessment using the
InVEST model. Ecological Indicators, 115, 106426. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2020.106426
Chen, Y., Yu, S., Liu, S., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Liu, T., … Fu, S. (2017). Refor-
estation makes a minor contribution to soil carbon accumulation in the
short term: Evidence from four subtropical plantations. Forest Ecology
and Management, 384, 400–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.
2016.10.053
Chenu, C., Angers, D. A., Barré, P., Derrien, D., Arrouays, D., &
Balesdent, J. (2019). Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils:
Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research,
188, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.04.011
Corbeels, M., Cardinael, R., Naudin, K., Guibert, H., & Torquebiau, E.
(2019). The 4 per 1000 goal and soil carbon storage under agrofor-
estry and conservation agriculture systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Soil
and Tillage Research, 188, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.
02.015
Courard-Hauri, D., Klimas, C. A., & Parrish, C. (2020). An analysis of the
long-term social discount rate and the valuation of large environmen-
tal losses using non-monetary tradeoffs. Journal of Behavioral and
Experimental Economics, 87, 101549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.
2020.101549
Cramer, H. (1946). Mathematical methods of statistics. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Crowther, T. W., Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Rowe, C. W., Wieder, W. R.,
Carey, J. C., MacHmuller, M. B., … Bradford, M. A. (2016). Quantifying
global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature, 540(7631),
104–108. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20150
De Stefano, A., & Jacobson, M. G. (2018). Soil carbon sequestration in
agroforestry systems: A meta-analysis. Agroforestry Systems, 92(2),
285–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0147-9
De Sy, V. (2019). Tropical deforestation drivers and associated carbon
emission factors derived from remote sensing data. Environmental
Research Letters, 14, 094022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
ab3dc6
Drake, T. W., Van Oost, K., Barthel, M., Bauters, M., Hoyt, A. M.,
Podgorski, D. C., … Spencer, R. G. M. (2019). Mobilization of aged and
biolabile soil carbon by tropical deforestation. Nature Geoscience, 12
(7), 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0384-9
Eastman, J. R. (2016). TerrSet geospatial monitoring and modeling system–
manual. Worcester: Clark University.
Falloon, P., & Smith, P. (2010). Modelling soil carbon dynamics. In W. L.
Kutsch, M. Bahn & A. Heinemeyer (Eds.), Soil carbon dynamics: An inte-
grated methodology (pp. 221–244). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511711794.013
FAO. (2020). Global Forest resources assessment 2020- key findings.
Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. https://doi.org/10.4060/
ca9825en
Foody, G. M. (2010). Remote sensing of environment assessing the accu-
racy of land cover change with imperfect ground reference data.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 114(10), 2271–2285. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rse.2010.05.003
RAJBANSHI AND DAS
FSI. (2011). Carbon stock in India's forests. Forest Survey of India (FSI),
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Dehradun: Gov-
ernment of India.
FSI. (2019). India State of Forest Report. Forest Survey of India (FSI), Min-
istry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Dehradun: Govern-
ment of India.
Fujisaki, K., Perrin, A. S., Garric, B., Balesdent, J., & Brossard, M. (2017).
Soil organic carbon changes after deforestation and agrosystem estab-
lishment in Amazonia: An assessment by diachronic approach. Agricul-
ture, Ecosystems and Environment, 245, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agee.2017.05.011
Fung, T., & Ledrew, E. (1988). The determination of optimal threshold
levels for change detection using various accuracy indices. Photogram-
metric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 54(10), 1449–1454.
Gami, S. K., Lauren, J. G., & Duxbury, J. M. (2009). Geoderma in fl uence of
soil texture and cultivation on carbon and nitrogen levels in soils
of the eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains. Geoderma, 153(3–4), 304–311.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.08.003
Gibson, L., Münch, Z., Palmer, A., & Mantel, S. (2018). Future land cover
change scenarios in South African grasslands – Implications of altered
biophysical drivers on land management. Heliyon, 4(7), 1–35. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00693
Grace, P. R., Antle, J., Aggarwal, P. K., Ogle, S., Paustian, K., & Basso, B.
(2012). Agriculture, ecosystems and environment soil carbon sequestra-
tion and associated economic costs for farming systems of the Indo-
Gangetic Plain: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ-
ment, 146(1), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.10.019
Gren, I. M., & Carlsson, M. (2013). Economic value of carbon sequestration
in forests under multiple sources of uncertainty. Journal of Forest Eco-
nomics, 19(2), 174–189. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2013.01.002
Guo, J., Wang, B., Wang, G., Wu, Y., & Cao, F. (2018). Vertical and seasonal
variations of soil carbon pools in ginkgo agroforestry systems in east-
ern China. Catena, 171, 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.
2018.07.032
Houet, T., & Hubert-moy, L. (2006). Modelling and projecting land-use and
land-cover changes with a cellular automaton in considering landscape
trajectories: An improvement for simulation of plausible future states.
EARSeL eProceedings, European Association of Remote Sensing Laborato-
ries, 5(1), 63–76.
Hui, D., Deng, Q., Tian, H., & Luo, Y. (2016). Handbook of climate change
mitigation and adaptation. In Handbook of climate change mitigation
and adaptation. New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4614-6431-0
IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas invento-
ries. In H. S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, & K. Tanabe
(Eds.), National greenhouse gas inventories programme (01–20). Tokyo:
IGES.
Jhariya, M. K. (2017). Vegetation ecology and carbon sequestration poten-
tial of shrubs in tropics of Chhattisgarh, India. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment, 189(10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-
6246-2
Kamusoko, C., Aniya, M., Adi, B., & Manjoro, M. (2009). Rural sustainability
under threat in Zimbabwe - simulation of future land use/cover
changes in the Bindura District based on the Markov-cellular automata
model. Applied Geography, 29(3), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeog.2008.10.002
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change
and food security. Science, 304(5677), 1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.
1126/science.1097396
Lal, R. (2008). Carbon sequestration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, B: Biological Sciences, 363(1492), 815–830. https://doi.org/10.
1098/rstb.2007.2185
Lal, R. (2016). Global food security and nexus thinking. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 71(4), 85A–90A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.
71.4.85A
13
Lal, R. (2019). Accelerated soil erosion as a source of atmospheric CO2.
Soil and Tillage Research, 188, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.
2018.02.001
Lewis, H. G., & Brown, M. (2010). International journal of a generalized
confusion matrix for assessing area estimates from remotely sensed
data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 22, 37–41. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01431160152558332
Li, W., Ciais, P., Peng, S., Yue, C., Wang, Y., Thurner, M., … Zaehle, S.
(2017). Land-use and land-cover change carbon emissions between
1901 and 2012 constrained by biomass observations. Bio-
geosciences, 14(22), 5053–5067. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-
5053-2017
Li, X., Ge, T., Chen, H., Chen, Z., Wang, S., & Ou, X. (2020). Enhancement
of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks by abiotic and microbial pathways
in three rubber-based agroforestry systems in Southwest China. Land
Degradation & Development, 31(16), 2507–2515. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ldr.3625
Liu, G., Liu, Q., Song, M., Chen, J., Zhang, C., Meng, X., … Lu, H. (2020).
Costs and carbon sequestration assessment for REDD+ in Indonesia.
Forests, 11(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/F11070770
Liu, S., Zhang, Y., Zong, Y., Hu, Z., Wu, S., Zhou, J. I. E., … Zou, J. (2015).
Response of soil carbon dioxide fluxes, soil organic carbon and micro-
bial biomass carbon to biochar amendment: A meta-analysis. GCB Bio-
energy, 8(2), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12265
Lubowski, R. N., Plantinga, A. J., & Stavins, R. N. (2006). Land-use
change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon
sequestration supply function. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 51(2), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.
2005.08.001
Mas, J. F., Kolb, M., Paegelow, M., Camacho Olmedo, M. T., & Houet, T.
(2014). Inductive pattern-based land use/cover change models: A
comparison of four software packages. Environmental Modelling and
Software, 51, 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.09.010
McNicol, I. M., Ryan, C. M., & Mitchard, E. T. A. (2018). Carbon losses from
deforestation and widespread degradation offset by extensive growth
in African woodlands. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-018-05386-z
Meena, V. S., Mondal, T., Pandey, B. M., Mukherjee, A., Yadav, R. P.,
Choudhary, M., … Pattanayak, A. (2018). Land use changes: Strategies
to improve soil carbon and nitrogen storage pattern in the mid-
Himalaya ecosystem, India. Geoderma, 321, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.geoderma.2018.02.002
Mohammad, A. G., & Adam, M. A. (2010). The impact of vegetative cover
type on runoff and soil erosion under different land uses. Catena, 81
(2), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2010.01.008
Mohanty, M., Sinha, N. K., Somasundaram, J., McDermid, S. S., Patra, A. K.,
Singh, M., … Chaudhari, S. K. (2020). Soil carbon sequestration poten-
tial in a Vertisol in Central India- results from a 43-year long-term
experiment and APSIM modeling. Agricultural Systems, 184, 102906.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102906
Molotoks, A., Stehfest, E., Doelman, J., Albanito, F., Fitton, N.,
Dawson, T. P., & Smith, P. (2018). Global projections of future crop-
land expansion to 2050 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon
storage. Global Change Biology, 24(12), 5895–5908. https://doi.org/
10.1111/gcb.14459
Morales, D. E., Deb, R., Guevara, F., Fernando, H., Lugo, C., &
Villanueva, G. (2020). Carbon contents and fine root production in
tropical silvopastoral systems. Land Degradation & Development, 32,
738–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3761
Münch, Z., Okoye, P. I., Gibson, L., Mantel, S., & Palmer, A. (2017). Charac-
terizing degradation gradients through land cover change analysis in
rural Eastern Cape, South Africa. Geosciences (Switzerland), 7(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7010007
Nath, A. J., Brahma, B., Sileshi, G. W., & Das, A. K. (2018). Impact of land
use changes on the storage of soil organic carbon in active and
14
recalcitrant pools in a humid tropical region of India. Science of the
Total Environment, 624, 908–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2017.12.199
Nelson, E., Sander, H., Hawthorne, P., Conte, M., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S.,
… Polasky, S. (2010). Projecting global land-use change and its effect
on ecosystem service provision and biodiversity with simple models.
PLoS One, 5(12), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014327
Nie, X., Peng, Y., Li, F., Yang, L., Xiong, F., Li, C., & Zhou, G. (2019). Distri-
bution and controlling factors of soil organic carbon storage in the
northeast Tibetan shrublands. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 19(1),
322–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2037-9
Nogueira, E. M., Yanai, A. M., De Vasconcelos, S. S., & Fearnside, P. M.
(2017). Carbon stocks and losses to deforestation in protected areas in
Brazilian Amazonia. Regional Environmental Change, 18, 261–270.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1198-1
Nottingham, A. T., Meir, P., Velasquez, E., & Turner, B. L. (2020). Soil car-
bon loss by experimental warming in a tropical forest. Nature, 584
(7820), 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2566-4
NRSC. (2006). NRC-LULC-50K Manual National Land Use Land Cover
Mapping Using Multi-Temporal Satellite Data. Hyderabad: Remote
Sensing and GIS Applications Area. National Remote Sensing Centre,
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Department of Space,
Government of India.
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., …
Hayes, D. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the World's for-
ests. Science, 333(6045), 988–993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1201609
Peng, F., Xue, X., You, Q., Huang, C., Dong, S., Liao, J., … Wang, T.
(2018). Changes of soil properties regulate the soil organic carbon
loss with grassland degradation on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Eco-
logical Indicators, 93, 572–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.
2018.05.047
Pérez-Vega, A., Mas, J. F., & Ligmann-Zielinska, A. (2012). Comparing two
approaches to land use/cover change modeling and their implications
for the assessment of biodiversity loss in a deciduous tropical forest.
Environmental Modelling and Software, 29(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.09.011
Pindilli, E., Sleeter, R., & Hogan, D. (2018). Estimating the societal benefits
of carbon dioxide sequestration through peatland restoration. Ecologi-
cal Economics, 154, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2018.08.002
Price, C. (2018). Declining discount rate and the social cost of carbon: For-
estry consequences. Journal of Forest Economics, 31, 39–45. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.05.003
Qi, Y., Chen, T., Pu, J., Yang, F., Shukla, M. K., & Chang, Q. (2018).
Response of soil physical, chemical and microbial biomass properties
to land use changes in fixed desertified land. Catena, 160, 339–344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.10.007
Qin, Z., Dunn, J. B., Kwon, H., Mueller, S., & Wander, M. M. (2016). Soil
carbon sequestration and land use change associated with biofuel pro-
duction: Empirical evidence. GCB Bioenergy, 8(1), 66–80. https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcbb.12237
Rajbanshi, J., & Bhattacharya, S. (2020). Assessment of soil erosion, sedi-
ment yield and basin specific controlling factors using RUSLE-SDR and
PLSR approach in Konar River basin, India. Journal of Hydrology, 587,
124935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124935
Ravindranath, N. H., Somashekhar, B. S., & Gadgil, M. (1997). Carbon flow
in Indian forests. Climatic Change, 35(3), 297–320. https://doi.org/10.
1023/A:1005303405404
Reilly, M. K., O'Mara, M. P., & Seto, K. C. (2009). From Bangalore to the
Bay Area: Comparing transportation and activity accessibility as
drivers of urban growth. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(1), 24–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.02.001
RAJBANSHI AND DAS
Ricke, K., Drouet, L., Caldeira, K., & Tavoni, M. (2018). Country-level social
cost of carbon. Nature Climate Change, 8(10), 895–900. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y
Roy, P. K., Samal, N. R., Roy, M. B., Mazumdar, A., Bengal, W., Centre, R.,
… Bengal, W. (2010). Soil carbon and nutrient accumulation under for-
est plantations in Jharkhand State of India. CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water, 38,
706–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.200900198
Sainepo, B. M., Gachene, C. K., & Karuma, A. (2018). Assessment of soil
organic carbon fractions and carbon management index under differ-
ent land use types in Olesharo catchment, Narok County, Kenya. Car-
bon Balance and Management, 13(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13021-018-0091-7
Sanyal, J., Densmore, A. L., & Carbonneau, P. (2014). Catena analysing the
effect of land-use/cover changes at sub-catchment levels on down-
stream flood peaks: A semi-distributed modelling approach with sparse
data. Catena, 118, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.
01.015
Shi, L., Feng, W., Xu, J., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2018). Agroforestry systems:
Meta-analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and
future potentials. Land Degradation & Development, 29(11), 3886–
3897. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3136
Sil, Â., Fonseca, F., Gonçalves, J., Honrado, J., Marta-Pedroso, C.,
Alonso, J., … Azevedo, J. C. (2017). Analysing carbon sequestration
and storage dynamics in a changing mountain landscape in Portugal:
Insights for management and planning. International Journal of Biodiver-
sity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 13(2), 82–104.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1297331
Smith, P., Smith, J. U., Powlson, D. S., Mcgill, W. B., Arah, J. R. M.,
Chertov, O. G., … Whitmore, A. P. (1997). A comparison of the perfor-
mance of nine soil organic matter models using datasets from seven
long-term experiments. Geoderma, 81(81), 153–225. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00087-6
Sykes, A. J., Macleod, M., Eory, V., Rees, R. M., Payen, F., Myrgiotis, V., …
Smith, P. (2020). Characterising the biophysical, economic and social
impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal
technology. Global Change Biology, 26(3), 1085–1108 https://doi.org/
10.1111/gcb.14844
Walkley, A., & Black, I. A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method
for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of
the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37(1), 29–38. https://
doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
Wang, H., Wang, S., Yu, Q., Zhang, Y., Wang, R., Li, J., & Wang, X. (2020).
No tillage increases soil organic carbon storage and decreases carbon
dioxide emission in the crop residue-returned farming system. Journal
of Environmental Management, 261, 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2020.110261
Wang, J., & Maduako, I. N. (2018). Spatio-temporal urban growth dynam-
ics of Lagos metropolitan region of Nigeria based on hybrid methods
for LULC modeling and prediction. European Journal of Remote Sens-
ing, 51(1), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2017.
1419831
Wang, S. Q., Zheng, X. Q., & Zang, X. B. (2012). Accuracy assessments of
land use change simulation based on Markov-cellular automata model.
Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13(2011), 1238–1245. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.117
Wu, Y., Zhang, X., & Shen, L. (2011). The impact of urbanization policy on
land use change: A scenario analysis. Cities, 28(2), 147–159. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.11.002
Zhang, H., Deng, Q., Hui, D., Wu, J., Xiong, X., Zhao, J., … Zhang, D. (2019).
Recovery in soil carbon stock but reduction in carbon stabilization
after 56-year forest restoration in degraded tropical lands. Forest Ecol-
ogy and Management, 441, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.
2019.03.037
RAJBANSHI AND DAS 15

Zhao, M., He, Z., Du, J., Chen, L., Lin, P., & Fang, S. (2019). Assessing the
effects of ecological engineering on carbon storage by linking the CA- How to cite this article: Rajbanshi J, Das S. Changes in carbon
Markov and InVEST models. Ecological Indicators, 98, 29–38. https://
stocks and its economic valuation under a changing land use
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.10.052
pattern—A multitemporal study in Konar catchment, India.
Land Degrad Dev. 2021;1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/
SUPPORTING INFORMATION ldr.3959
Additional supporting information may be found online in the
Supporting Information section at the end of this article.