# Accounting intra-tree radial wood density variation provides more accurate above ground mangrove biomass estimation in the Sundarbans

Md. Qumruzzaman Chowdhury, Swapan Kumar Sarker, Md. Bishal Ali, Md. Imam Hossain Imran, Anup Datta, Jean-Michel Leban

► To cite this version:

Md. Qumruzzaman Chowdhury, Swapan Kumar Sarker, Md. Bishal Ali, Md. Imam Hossain Imran, Anup Datta, et al.. Accounting intra-tree radial wood density variation provides more accurate above ground mangrove biomass estimation in the Sundarbans. 2024. hal-04676082

HAL Id: hal-04676082

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04676082v1

Preprint submitted on 23 Aug 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Accounting intra-tree radial wood density variation provides more accurate above ground mangrove biomass estimation in the Sundarbans

**Md. Qumruzzaman Chowdhury** (✉ qumrul-for@sust.edu)

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology

**Swapan Kumar Sarker**

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology

**Md. Bishal Ali**

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology

**Md. Imam Hossain Imran**

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology

**Anup Datta**

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology

**Jean-Michel Leban**

National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment

## comment

**Keywords:** biomass and carbon stocks, inner and outer wood, shade tolerance, salinity, wood density, Sundarbans, mangroves

**Posted Date:** January 16th, 2024

**DOI:** https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3505676/v1

**License:** © 🌐 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

**Additional Declarations:** No competing interests reported.
**Abstract**

Wood density is an important functional trait used to estimate forest biomass and carbon stocks. Its wider range of variations, such as inter- and intra-specific level, and within tree disparity, repeatedly invoke wood density as a potential source of variation in biomass or carbon estimation. We aim to (i) measure pith-to-bark wood density profiles in major mangrove tree species in the Sundarbans and (ii) quantify the deviation in above ground biomass estimations by comparing the method that ignores wood density variation across the radius. One hundred and fifty wood cores were collected from five widely distributed ecologically distinct mangrove species in three distinct salinity zones (low, medium, and high) in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Wood density was measured for each 1 cm long wood core segment from pith to bark. Among the three light-demanding species, *Sonneratia apetala* and *Avicennia officinalis* showed a decreasing wood density trend from pith to bark while *Excoecaria agallocha* exhibited an increasing trend. Shade tolerant *Xylocarpus moluccensis* displayed a decreasing wood density trend, whereas the most dominant *Heritiera fomes* unveiled almost less variable wood density values from pith to bark. Albeit wood density varied positively with slenderness ratio, a significant relationship was found only for the shade tolerant species. Shade tolerant species also had a significantly higher mean wood density than light demanders. Wood density was significantly higher at the high saline zone for the studied species, except *S. apetala* and *A. officinalis*. Depending on the species, ignoring radial wood density variation increased deviations in AGB estimations up to ~ 17%. This study suggests for considering radial wood density variations, and their possible site- and species-specific influences to increase the accuracy of mangrove biomass estimations. Furthermore, these preliminary results pave the avenue for a better understanding of wood functional traits in the Sundarbans.

**Introduction**

Mangroves are carbon-rich ecosystems (Donato et al. 2011), that are distinct from other terrestrial ecosystems because they inhabit in saline intertidal habitats in the (sub) tropics (Spalding and Leal 2021). Despite their low species diversity, mangroves are one of the most productive ecosystems on Earth (Ribeiro et al. 2019; Bai et al. 2021). Carbon in mangroves, also known as 'blue carbon', is primarily stored in vegetation and soil (Nellemann and Corcoran 2009; Simard et al. 2019). However, due to rapid environmental changes, land conversions, overexploitation, and die-offs mangroves are shrinking globally (1–2% year⁻¹) (Thomas et al. 2017; Goldberg et al. 2020; Bhowmik et al. 2022). Furthermore, increased salinity due to changing climate, including sea level rise (SLR), is degrading mangrove biogeochemistry and hydrology (Ward et al. 2016; Fries et al. 2022), affecting forest structure and functions (Tully et al. 2019; Sarker et al. 2021), and consequently impacting blue carbon sequestration and storage potentials (Lovelock and Ree 2020; Zeng et al. 2021; Ahmed et al. 2023). Understanding the dynamics of mangrove biomass is therefore crucial for setting up carbon financing projects under global mechanisms, such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and carbon credits under the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2016).
Although mangroves play an important role in global climate regulation by sequestering atmospheric CO2 in tree biomass (Alongi 2020), accurate estimation of biomass remains a challenge due to uncertainties in quantification (Virgulino-Júnior et al. 2020a; Rahman et al. 2021a) which limits our understanding on their potentials in climate change mitigation. While the choice of allometric model/s remains the main source of uncertainty in biomass estimation (Vorster et al. 2020; Rahman et al. 2021a), potential uncertainties in wood density measurement should not be overlooked because it has a significant influence on tree biomass or carbon stocks (Chave et al. 2005; Bastin et al. 2015; Saeb et al. 2022). Wood (basic) density is the ratio of wood dry mass to fresh wood volume, and it is widely used as a key functional trait to integrate tree structure and functions (Chave et al. 2009; Williamson and Wiemann 2010; Momo et al. 2020), as well as biomass estimation (Plourde et al. 2015; Nam et al. 2018; Suwa et al. 2021). Wood density varies greatly in tropical regions, ranging from 0.10 to 1.53 g cm⁻³ (Zanne et al. 2009). A small variation in wood density, on the other hand, has a greater impact on scaling of tree biomass (Gillerot et al. 2018; Saeb et al. 2022). There is a growing interest in understanding mangrove wood because an accurate estimate of biomass is required to quantify their role in the global carbon cycle.

Basic wood density (henceforth, wood density) varies from individual to community level due to variation in tree growth, age, genetics and environmental factors (Muller-Landau 2004; Williamson and Wiemann 2010; Marra et al. 2014; Ramananantoandro et al. 2016; Philips et al. 2019). Soil salinity, siltation, and inundation are additional regulatory drivers of wood density variation in mangroves when compared to upland ecosystems (Santini et al. 2012; Virgulino-Jnior et al. 2020b; Sarker et al. 2021). It also varies substantially within a tree, both axially (Wassenberg et al. 2014; Demol et al. 2021) and radially (Nock et al. 2009; Bastin et al. 2015). This variation is also linked to shade tolerance of tree species. For example, the production of low-density wood in many light demanding tree species during the juvenile stage aids in height growth, which is beneficial for capturing competitive light resources (Reich et al. 2014; Pretzsch et al. 2018) although this can shorten life-span of trees (Wiemann and Williamson 1988; Chave et al. 2009; Osazuwa-Peters et al. 2014). Many shade-tolerant species, on the other hand, produce high density wood and survive longer in the understory despite being subjected to different stresses (Lawson et al. 2015). Furthermore, wood density variation is related to mechanical stability (slenderness ratio) of trees (Karlinasari et al. 2021). Higher wood density provides greater resistance to physical damages and biodegrading agents (Chave et al. 2009), increases safety in xylem hydraulic traits (McCulloh et al. 2011; van der Sande et al. 2019) and reduces the metabolism costs (Markesteijn et al. 2011; Fournier et al. 2013). However, wood density variation in mangroves is diminutively known compared to other ecosystems (Santini et al. 2012; Virgulino-Júnior et al. 2020). It is therefore crucial to understand how wood density vary in multiple mangrove species growing under contrasting habitat conditions. This will allow us to better understand and estimate the biomass and carbon in addition to their ecology.

Sundarbans (~10,000 km²), the largest solo chunk of mangrove on Earth, supports livelihoods of > 7.5 million climate affected people in the South Asia (Chowdhury et al. 2023a) and provides a low-cost nature-based (NbS) solution for coastal protection (Dasgupta et al. 2020). It also co-benefits biodiversity
conservation including globally endangered plant and animal species (Sarker et al. 2019), and sinks atmospheric CO2 (Rahman et al. 2021b). Being a Ramsar Wetland Site and a UNESCO World Heritage Site (Gopal and Chauhan 2006), this sentinel mangrove is threatened by anthropogenic disturbances as well as global climate and environmental changes (Sarker et al. 2021; Ahmed et al. 2022). Furthermore, the ecosystem occupies a number of distinct gradients of soil salinity and nutrients (Ahmed et al. 2023), which have a direct impact on biomass production and carbon storage (Rahman et al. 2015, 2021a). Because of growing global concern about blue carbon, the Sundarbans has gained traction for biomass estimation (GOB 2019). Until now, biomass estimates in this ecosystem have primarily relied on plot level mean wood density (without considering the entire radius) or mean wood density from global repositories (Mahmood et al. 2019; Rahman et al. 2015, 2021a, b). However, using single-mean wood density (e.g., mainly outer portion of the stem) data from sample plots ignores the variation of whole stems that might be erroneous due to within tree density variation, which may increase variability in biomass/carbon estimations.

Although mangroves are considered as species poor ecosystems (having only ~ 70 vascular plant species globally; Tomlinson 1986; Duke 2017), the Sundarbans has ~ 50% of them (Aziz and Paul 2015; Mahmood et al. 2019). In this study, we investigate how wood density vary across the radius of each sampled tree and how this variation influence biomass estimation in five widely distributed tree species in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. *Sonneratia apetala* Buch. - Ham. and *Avicennia officinalis* L. are the two light demanding tree species that grow primarily in Indo-Malaysian (IM) and West Pacific (WP) zones (Reef and Lovelock 2015). *Excoecaria agallocha* L., another light demanding species grows naturally throughout the Indo-West Pacific (IWP) zone (Reef and Lovelock 2015). Shade bearing *Xylocarpus moluccensis* Pierre grows in the West Pacific (WP) and *Heritiera fomes* Buch. - Ham. grows in Indo-Malaysian (IM) zone. Historically, these are dominant mangrove tree species in the Sundarbans. However, recent studies (Polidoro et al. 2010; Sarker et al. 2016; 2019) showed that their geographic distributions, populations and carbon storage capacity are declining both in the Sundarbans and globally. A better understanding on biomass dynamics of different species is therefore fundamental to formulate effective forest management plan for the Sundarbans. Therefore, we aim (i) to measure pith-to-bark wood density profiles in five major mangrove species with distinct light characters in three contrasting (low, medium and high) salinity zones in the Bangladesh Sundarbans, and (ii) to quantify the difference in biomass estimations by comparison with the method that ignores within tree wood density variations.

# Materials and methods

## Study area description

The study was conducted in the Bangladesh Sundarbans that lies in the coast of Bay of Bengal (21° 30′–22° 30′ N, 89° 00′– 89° 55′E; Fig. 1). Of its total area (6017 km²), about 69 % is land and the remaining areas are waterbodies, such as rivers, small channels and creeks (Wahid et al. 2007). It is inundated regularly twice in a day by high tides and the inundation level varies due to varying elevation and tide levels. The regional hydrology and salinity are regulated by the water enter into the Sundarbans for the
sea (the Bay of Bengal) and the Gorai river. The salinity varies spatially and temporally within the ecosystem (Siddique et al. 2021). Based on the spatial salinity variation, the ecosystem is divided into three salinity zones (Sarker et al. 2019), such as low saline zone (LSZ), mid saline zone (MSZ) and high saline zone (HSZ). Salinity also varies substantially between the seasons. For example, salinity drops due to higher monsoonal (June – September) precipitation and freshwater flows from the upstream rivers (Chowdhury et al. 2016a). Precipitation in the study areas decreases during winter (December – February) followed by pre-monsoon (March – May), and consequently increases the salinity, particularly in pre-monsoon (Siddique et al. 2021). During the post-monsoon (October – November), salinity is also low, despite lower precipitation and freshwater flows.

The Sundarbans is rich in biodiversity and home to a diverse range of tree species, including the IUCN listed globally endangered tree species *H. fomes* (Sarker et al. 2019). The Sundarbans is a part of the Indo-Malaysian mangrove system (Reef and Lovelock 2015). *H. fomes* is the most dominant and flagship tree species, while *E. agallocha* is the second most dominant tree species in the Sundarbans (Chowdhury et al. 2016a, 2023a). Other important tree species in this mangrove are *S. apetala*, *X. moluccensis*, *Ceriops decandra* (Griff.) Ding Hou, *Amoora cucullate* Roxb., *A. officinalis*, *Bruguiera sp.*, *Cynometra ramiflora* L., *Aegiceras corniculatum* (L.) Blanco, *Lumnitzera racemose* Willd., *Rhizophora mucronata* Lamk. and *X. granatum* J. Koenig. Besides a wider range of climbers, creepers, grasses and palms are available. Due to different ecological characters, tree species forms different associations in the Sundarbans which vary across the salinity gradients (Iftekhar and Snegar 2008; Sarker et al. 2016).

## Tree measurements and wood sample collection

In this study, five dominant tree species with varying diameters from two distinct shade tolerance categories (Siddiqi 2001), light-demanding (*S. apetala*, *A. officinalis* and *E. agallocha*), and shade tolerant (*X. moluccensis* and *H. fomes*), were selected for sampling. In the Sundarbans, each species was sampled in three distinct salinity zones (e.g., LSZ, MSZ, and HSZ). In each salinity zone, 10 to 15 trees were selected from each species for wood core collection. Diseased, leaning trees as well as trees near the edges of river, creeks, and trails were excluded from sampling. Tree height (m) was measured using a clinometer (Sunnto PM5-360), and diameter at breast height (DBH) over bark (cm) of each tree was measured by using a diameter tape. Slenderness ratio of tree is defined as the ratio of total height to diameter at 1.3 m above ground (Zhang et al. 2020) was calculated for each sample tree. A total of 150 (10 x 3 x 5) trees were cored at breast height (1.3 m above from the ground level) with an increment borer (4.15 mm diameter, Haglöf, Sweden), and the extracted radial cores were examined to confirm the presence of the pith. To ensure accurate measurement of green volume, wood cores were immediately placed in an airtight container to prevent them from drying out.

## (Basic) wood density measurement

The wood cores were cut into 1 cm long pieces from pith to bark. Inner wood was defined as an arithmetic mean of the innermost wood of two consecutive pieces (1cm/piece) from pith and outer wood
wood density variation between LSZ and MSZ while the mean wood density was significantly higher in HSZ (Table 1).

### AGB deviation in relation to wood density variation

In the studied species, inner wood density exhibited a positive ($R^2$ = 0.61) relation with outer wood density though the relationship was not significant (*p* > 0.05; Fig. 5). On the other hand, inner and outer wood density relation to average wood density was significant (*p* < 0.05; Fig. 6). Inner wood density overestimated mean AGB up to ~ 17% in *E. agallocha* (Table 2). The inner wood density of *X. moluccensis* and *H. fomes* produced the lowest deviation in AGB estimations among the species. Similarly, *E. agallocha* had a higher outer wood derived AGB deviation than the other studied species (Table 2). The repository wood density data (Kattage et al. 2011) underestimated AGB by 7 to 10% in the studied species (Table 2).

## Discussion

### Radial wood density variation in relation to shade tolerance characters

The radial wood density trends revealed species-specific pattern of variation among the studied mangrove species in the Sundarbans (Fig. 2). Despite the fact that light demanding species such as *S. apetala* and *A. officinalis* showed a decreasing wood density pattern from pith to bark (Fig. 2A, B), *E. agallocha* showed an increasing trend (Fig. 2C). In an earlier study, Santini et al. (2013) showed a decreasing trend of wood density in light-demanding *A. marina* in Australian mangroves. However, a decreasing radial wood density trend in light demanding mangrove species contradicts the general trend in many tropical terrestrial species (Woodcock and Shier 2002; Nock et al. 2009). Both light demanders (*S. apetala* and *A. officinalis*) are early successional species in the Sundarbans (Siddiqi 2001) and colonize newly accreted barren lands where they may face more wind stress and tidal waves on a regular basis, in addition to other environmental stresses such as salinity and siltation. Higher wood density in light demanding species during the juvenile (early) stage of growth may be advantageous for survival in a newly colonized stressful mangrove environment. Trees may reach more favorable conditions in their mature (later) stage of growth, producing low density wood that may enhance tree growth, as described for tropical terrestrial species (Woodcock and Shier 2002; Nock et al. 2009; Chowdhury et al. 2013). Mid-seral light-demanding *E. agallocha*, on the other hand, may benefit from producing low density wood early in growth because this species tends to regenerate in canopy gaps and low-density wood may allow faster growth rates in light environment (Williamson and Wiemann 2010). This species produces high density wood in the outer part of the trunk in adult stature, which may allow them to achieve required strength for mechanical stability (Hietz et al. 2013; Bossu et al. 2018).

In terms of wood density variation, both shade-tolerant species displayed two distinct radial patterns. *X. moluccensis*, for example, showed a decreasing trend, whereas *H. fomes* revealed a nearly constant
pattern of wood density across the radius (Fig. 2). However, as described for various tropical terrestrial species (Woodcock and Shier 2002; Bastin et al. 2015), a decreasing trend is common in shade tolerant species. The negative wood density trend in shade tolerant species reflects the wood allocation strategy may be due to ontogeny (e.g., Woodcock and Shier 2002; Larjavaara and Muller-Landau 2010). Shade tolerant species produce high density wood in juveniles (e.g., Hietz et al. 2013; Plourde et al. 2015), which can limit tree growth but may be advantageous for survival in the forest understory with low light environment because it reduces the risks of pathogen attacks or mechanical damage due to falling branches (Alvarez-Clare and Kitajima 2007; Lawson et al. 2015). Adult trees have reached the canopy layers and produce low density wood (e.g., Woodcock and Shier 2002; Williamson and Wiemann 2010). However, the most dominant shade tolerant *H. fomes* produces almost homogenous wood density along the radius, indicating that growth does not influence radial wood density variability even they in adult stature.

Slenderness ratio is an indicator of mechanical stability in trees (Zahang et al. 2020) with a lower value of 80 indicating biomechanically stability in trees and a higher value of 100 suggesting low stability that is susceptible to mechanical damages like wind or storms (Slodicak and Novak 2006; Kontogiannia et al. 2011). The slenderness ratios of both light demanding and shade tolerant species are generally within 100, indicating high to moderate stability in the sample trees. The slenderness ratio had no effect on wood density in light-demanding species (Fig. 3). In such cases, increasing tree diameter of light-demanding species may confer structural advantages in a fragile mangrove environment by increasing the second moment of area in the tree trunk to resist bending stresses (e.g., Niklas 1998; Gartner et al. 2004), reducing the likelihood of wind damage (Vogel 1988). Shade-tolerant species, on the other hand, demonstrated a significant positive influence of slenderness ratio on wood density variation (Fig. 3). Increasing density of wood in less stable trees may be beneficial for mechanical support of trees in a stressful mangrove environment.

Although the mean wood density varied significantly among the studied species, the difference between *A. officinalis* and *X. moluccensis* was not significant (Fig. 4A). The aggregated mean wood density of light demanding species was significantly lower than that of shade tolerant species (Fig. 4B). Recent growth studies have also revealed that the growth rate of light-demanding *S. apetala* and *E. agallocha* in the Sundarbans is higher than that of shade bearing *H. fomes* (Chowdhury et al. 2016, 2023a; Rahman et al. 2020; Siddique et al. 2021). This suggests that light demanding species require more carbon allocation for faster growth rates, which may result in lighter wood. Shade-tolerant species, on the other hand, require high carbon allocation in wood construction (high wood density), lowering growth rate to minimize transpiration and extend the functional longevity of organs to persist in saline (stressful) conditions (Poorter et al. 2010; Tomlinson et al. 2014).

## Wood density variations in relation to salinity

Even though the mean wood density of the studies species was higher at HSZ, only *E. agallocha*, *X. moluccensis*, and *H. fomes* showed a significant variation (Table 1). However, the difference in mean
wood density between LSZ and MSZ was not significant. The variation in wood density among salinity zones indicates the influence of habitat (such as salinity), as previously described for other mangroves (Virgulino-Jnior et al. 2020). High density wood formation in HSZ may be compensated by a slower growth rate in trees. Earlier studies reported that the growth rate of different mangrove species (e.g., *S. apetala*, *E. agallocha* and *H. fomes*) in HSZ is significantly lower in the Sundarbans (Chowdhury et al. 2016, 2023a; Rahman et al. 2020). Depending on the species, it is assumed that habitats regulatory variables (such as salinity, siltation, inundation), resources (such as nutrients) and forest structure (such as height, dbh, stem density) may influence tree growth (Chowdhury et al. 2023a), triggering wood anatomical adjustments that result in variable wood density in mangrove species.

The studied mangrove species produce denser wood in stressful HSZ, which could be due to anatomical changes as an adaptation mechanism to cope with higher salinity (Schmitz et al. 2007; Robert et al. 2009; Madrid et al. 2014; Jiang et al. 2021). The structure of the xylem tissues varies according to the mechanical and hydraulic demands of trees, which are primarily regulated by local environmental conditions (Robert et al. 2009; de Deurwaerder et al. 2016). Santini et al. (2012) showed that *A. marina* maintains high wood density in low saline conditions by increasing cell wall thickness. Similarly, *A. germinans*'s wood had thinner cell walls in the low saline zone and thicker cell walls in the higher salinity zones (Yáñez-Espinosa et al. 2009). Furthermore, high wood density in mangrove species is associated with low vessel lumen area and small vessel size (Preston et al. 2006; Jacobsen et al. 2009), which may provide hydraulic safety to trees in stressful saline conditions (Robert et al. 2009). Because high osmotic concentrations in saline soil can increase xylem tension forces, resulting in vessel embolisms (Cochard 2006). Water conduction dysfunction caused by embolism reduces water flow, affecting the photosynthetic capacity of trees in Australian mangroves (Lovelock et al. 2005, 2006). Sarker et al. (2021) found a positive response of regulatory variables such as salinity, siltation, and soil pH on wood density in the Sundarbans, although the effect size varies from species to species, implying a substantial growth-survival trade-off in mangrove tree species.

## Influences on biomass estimations

Wood density variation occurred at multiple scales in the Sundarbans, owing to radial variations in trees, salinity zone-specific variations, and species-specific differences (Figs. 2 & 4; Table 1), as described for terrestrial tropical forests (Chave et al. 2006; Swenson and Enquist 2007; Nock et al. 2009; Bastin et al. 2015; Phillips et al. 2019). The non-significant relationship ($r^2$ = 0.61; *p* > 0.05; Fig. 5) between inner and outer wood density in the studied species suggests that outer wood density cannot be estimated from inner wood density (and vice versa) when species-specific wood density data across the radius are unavailable. However, because of the significant relationship between inner and outer wood density (*p* < 0.05; Fig. 6), average wood density could be predicted. This also suggested that using mean wood density without taking into account radial variation could propagate AGB deviations. As a result, species with an increasing radial wood density trend overestimate AGB using inner wood density, while species with a decreasing radial wood density trend underestimate AGB. Using inner wood density, the light-demanding *E. agallocha* had the highest AGB deviations (~17%) among the studied species (Table 2).
Similarly, light demanding species had higher AGB deviations (~ 6 to 8%) due to the use of outer wood density than shade-tolerant species (Table 2). Shade tolerant *H. fomes* had the lowest AGB deviations for inner and outer wood density due to constant wood density variation across the radius. Regardless of radial variations, the repository derived wood density (Kattge et al. 2011) produced significant underestimations (7 to 10%) of AGB (Tabel 2). The existing global repositories may lack detailed salinity zone-specific radial wood density variations, which could lead to AGB estimation errors.

Despite the government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 21.85% by 2030 (Smith et al. 2021) in order to meet the SDGs, Bangladesh mangroves are still in the planning stages of participating in global carbon markets through various mechanisms such as REDD+ (GOB 2019). However, estimating tree biomass accurately remains a challenge, particularly in Bangladesh mangroves (Rahman et al. 2021a). Taking into account potential deviations in biomass estimation due to radial variation, salinity zone variation, and/or extrapolating from repositories, the use of species-specific zone-specific radial wood density improves the accuracy of AGB estimates and provides insights into the life-history variations of tree species in the Sundarbans. Wood density also varies axially from base to top (Zobel and van Buijtenen 1989), which may contribute to AGB deviations. Future research should consider axial variations to improve the accuracy of biomass estimates in mangroves. Wood density may also vary from sea to landward directions (Santini et al. 2012), so future sampling should include a broader range of samples and species from sea to landward gradients, particularly using x-ray computed tomography (Freyburger et al. 2009; Jacquin et al. 2017) that permit rapid measurement of the wood density from wood cores.

## Conclusions

This study provides insights into the extent, prevalence and significance of wood density variations across the radius, shade tolerance and salinity zones in the Sundarbans for accurate AGB estimations, and a better understanding the carbon dynamics. The light-demanding *S. apetala* and *A. officinalis* had a negative radial wood density trend whereas another light-demanding *E. agallocha* showed an increasing trend. Shade tolerant *X. moluccensis* exhibited a negative pattern of wood density while shade tolerant *H. fomes* showed a constant radial trend across the radius. Shade tolerant species had a significantly higher mean wood density than the light-demanding species. Mean wood density was also significantly higher in HSZ compared to LSZ and MSZ in the studied species except *S. apetala* and *A. officinalis*. AGB estimations without considering species-specific radial gradients increase deviations up to ~ 17% in *E. agallocha*. Species with a consistent radial wood density trend (for example, *H. fomes*) had the smallest differences in AGB estimations. Using species-specific average wood density values from the repository causes up to 10% deviations in biomass estimations in the studied species, and thus, wood density data should be used caution. Apart from radial variation, wood density varies axially from root to shoot, taking into account tree age and size, which is beyond the scope of this study. To improve the robustness of wood density values in the Sundarbans, future studies should incorporate axial variations and a larger number of samples including a wider range of tree age and size from sea to landward direction. This study also suggests that biomass estimation accuracy could be improved by taking into account multiple
patterns of wood density variations and if possible, to link these wood density models with growth and
yield models, which is important to predict carbon storage potentials in mangroves.

**Declarations**

Acknowledgements

We thank to the field crews, especially R. Sultana, M.S.R. Saimun, A. Saleh, Tokin, Mamun, Faruque and Anis for their sincere support during the fieldwork. F. A. Oyshe for her support in laboratory. We are grateful to the Bangladesh Forest Department for the permission and providing support to facilitate our field sampling. This research is supported by research grants from SUST Research Centre, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh to MQC (Project ID: FES/2020/1/05 & FES/2021/2/03).

Authors' contributions

MQC conceived the idea; MQC, SKS, AD, MBA collected the samples and analyzed in the lab; MBA, MIHI analyzed the data; MQC wrote the initial manuscript with significant contribution from MQC, SKS, JML.
Finally, all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Availability of data

The data presented in the article will be available upon request to the corresponding author.

References

1. Ahmed S, Sarker SK, Friess, D.A., Kamruzzaman, M., Jacobs, M., Islam, M.A., Alam, M.A., Suvo, M.J., Sani, M.N.H., Dey, T., Naabeh, C.S.S., 2022. Salinity reduces site quality and mangrove forest functions. From monitoring to understanding. Sci. Tot. Environ. 853, 158662.

2. Ahmed S, Sarker SK, Friess DA et al (2022) Salinity reduces site quality and mangrove forest functions. From monitoring to understanding. Sci Total Environ 853:158662.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158662

3. Ahmed S, Sarker SK, Kamruzzaman M et al (2023) How biotic, abiotic, and functional variables drive belowground soil carbon stocks along stress gradient in the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest?. J Environ Manag, 337:117772

4. Ahmed S, Sarker SK, Friess DA et al (2022) Salinity reduces site quality and mangrove forest functions. From monitoring to understanding. Sci Total Environ 853:158662.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158662

5. Alongi DM (2020) Global significance of mangrove blue carbon in climate change mitigation. Sci, 2(3):67
6. Alvarez-Clare S, Kitajima K (2007) Physical defence traits enhance seedling survival of neotropical tree species. Funct Ecol 1044-1054

7. Aziz A, Paul AR (2015) Bangladesh Sundarbans: present status of the environment and biota. Diversity 7(3):242-269

8. Bai J, Meng Y, Gou R et al (2021) Mangrove diversity enhances plant biomass production and carbon storage in Hainan island, China. Functl Ecol 35(3):774-786

9. Bastin JF, Barbier N, Réjou-Méchain M et al (2015) Seeing Central African forests through their largest trees. Sci rep,5(1):13156

10. Bhowmik AK, Padmanaban R, Cabral P, Romeiras MM (2022) Global mangrove deforestation and its interacting social-ecological drivers: A systematic review and synthesis. Sustainability 14(8):4433

11. Bossu J, Lehnebach R, Corn S et al (2018) Interlocked grain and density patterns in Bagassa guianensis: changes with ontogeny and mechanical consequences for trees. Trees 32:1643-1655

12. Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S et al (2005) Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145:87-99

13. Chave J, Muller-Landau HC, Baker TR et al (2006) Regional and phylogenetic variation of wood density across 2456 neotropical tree species. Ecoll App 16(6):2356-67

14. Chave J, Coomes D, Jansen S (2009) Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecol lett 12(4):351-366

15. Chowdhury MQ, De Ridder M, Beeckman H (2016) Climatic signals in tree rings of heritiera fomes Buch.-Ham. in the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. PLoS One 11(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149788

16. Chowdhury MQ, Khan MR Mehedi MAH (2013) Wood density variation in four plantation species growing in Bangladesh. J Indi Acad Wood Sci,10:32-38

17. Chowdhury MQ, Sarker SK, Gupta AD, Datta A (2023b) Radial Growth in Mangrove Xylocarpus granatum J. Koenig is Driven by Salinity in the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Dendrochronologia, 126082

18. Chowdhury MQ, Sarker SK, Sultana R et al (2023a) Synergistic effects of climate and salinity on radial growth of Excoecaria agallocha L. in the Sundarbans world heritage mangrove ecosystem. Estu Coast and Shelf Sci 280:108181

19. Chowdhury MQ, Ishiguri F, lizuka K et al (2009) Wood property variation in Acacia auriculiformis growing in Bangladesh. Wood Fiber Sci 359-365

20. Cochard H (2006) Cavitation in trees. Comp Rend Phys 7(9-10):1018-1026

21. Dasgupta S, Wheeler D, Sobhan MI et al (2020) Coping with Climate Change in the Sundarbans, Lessons from Multidisciplinary Studies. International Development in Focus. World Bank, Washington

22. de Deurwaerder H, Okello JA, Koedam N et al (2016) How are anatomical and hydraulic features of the mangroves Avicennia marina and Rhizophora mucronata influenced by siltation?. Trees 30:35-45

23. Demol M, Calders K, Verbeeck H, Gielen B (2021) Forest above-ground volume assessments with terrestrial laser scanning: a ground-truth validation experiment in temperate, managed forests. Ann
24. Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D et al (2011) Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat geosci 4(5):293-297

25. Duke N, Ball M, Ellison J (1998) Factors influencing biodiversity and distributional gradients in mangroves. Glob Ecol Biogeo Lett,7(1):27-47

26. Duke NC, (2017) Mangrove floristics and biogeography revisited: further deductions from biodiversity hot spots, ancestral discontinuities, and common evolutionary processes. Mangrove ecosystems: a global biogeographic perspective: structure, function, and services, pp.17-53

27. Fournier M, Dlouha J, Jaouen G, Almeras T (2013) Integrative biomechanics for tree ecology: beyond wood density and strength. J Experi Bot 64(15):4793-4815

28. Freyburge C., Longuetaud F, Mothe F, Constant T, Lebanon JM (2009) Measuring wood density by means of X-ray computer tomography. Ann For Sci 66(8):804

29. Friess DA, Adame MF, Adams JB, Lovelock CE (2022) Mangrove forests under climate change in a 2 C world. Wiley Inter Rev Clim Change 13(4):792

30. Gartner BL, Moore JR, Gardiner BA (2004) Gas in stems: abundance and potential consequences for tree biomechanics. Tree phys 24(11):1239-1250

31. Gillerot L, Vlaminck E, De Ryck DJ et al (2018) Inter-and intraspecific variation in mangrove carbon fraction and wood specific gravity in Gazi Bay, Kenya. Ecosphere 9(6):e02306

32. GOB (2019) Tree and forest resources of Bangladesh: report on the Bangladesh forest inventory
Forest Department, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka

33. Goldberg L, Lagomasino D, Thomas N, Fatoyinbo, T (2020) Global declines in human-driven mangrove loss. Glob change biol 26(10):5844-5855

34. Gopal B, Chauhan M (2006) Biodiversity and its conservation in the Sundarban mangrove ecosystem. Aqua sci 68:338-354

35. Hibar DP, Stein JL, Renteria ME et al (2015) Common genetic variants influence human subcortical brain structures. Nature 520(7546):224-229

36. Hietz P, Valencia R, Joseph Wright S (2013) Strong radial variation in wood density follows a uniform pattern in two neotropical rain forests. Func Ecol 27(3):684-692

37. Iftekhar MS, Saenger P (2008) Vegetation dynamics in the Bangladesh Sundarbans mangroves: a review of forest inventories. Wetl Ecol Manag 16:291-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-007-9063-5

38. Jacobsen AL, Pratt RB, Moe LM, Ewers FW (2009) Plant community water use and invasibility of semi-arid shrublands by woody species in southern California. Madrono 56(4):213-220

39. Jacquin P, Longuetaud F, Lebanon JM, Mothe F (2017) X-ray microdensitometry of wood: A review of existing principles and devices. Dendrochronologia 42:42-50
40. Jiang X, Zhen J, Miao J rt al (2021) Assessing mangrove leaf traits under different pest and disease severity with hyperspectral imaging spectroscopy. Ecol Indic 129:107901

41. Karlinasari L, Adzkia U, Puspitasari T et al (2021) Tree morphometric relationships and dynamic elasticity properties in tropical rain tree (Samanea saman Jacq. Merr). Forests 12(12):1711

42. Kattge J, Diaz S, Lavorel S et al (2011) TRY—a global database of plant traits. Glob change biol 17(9):2905-2935

43. Kontogianni A, Tsitsoni T, Goudelis G (2011) An index based on silvicultural knowledge for tree stability assessment and improved ecological function in urban ecosystems. Ecol Engi 37(6):914-919

44. Larjavaara M, Muller-Landau HC (2010) Rethinking the value of high wood density. Func Ecol 701-705.

45. Lawson JR, Fryirs KA, Leishman MR (2015) Hydrological conditions explain variation in wood density in riparian plants of south-eastern Australia. J Ecol 103(4):945-956.

46. Lovelock CE, Reef R (2020) Variable impacts of climate change on blue carbon. One Earth 3(2):195-211

47. Lovelock CE, Ball MC, Feller IC et al (2006) Variation in hydraulic conductivity of mangroves: influence of species, salinity, and nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Phys Plant, 127(3):457-464

48. Lovelock CE, Feller IC, McKee KL, Thompson RC (2005) Variation in mangrove forest structure and sediment characteristics in Bocas del Toro, Panama. Carib J Sci

49. Madrid EN, Armitage AR, López-Portillo J (2014) Avicennia germinans (black mangrove) vessel architecture is linked to chilling and salinity tolerance in the Gulf of Mexico. Front Plant Sci 5:503

50. Mahmood H, Siddique MRH, Rubaiot Abdullah SM (2019) Which option best estimates the above-ground biomass of mangroves of Bangladesh: pantropical or site- and species-specific models? Wetl Ecol Manag 27:553-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-019-09677-0

51. Markesteijn L, Poorter L, Bongers F et al (2011) Hydraulics and life history of tropical dry forest tree species: coordination of species' drought and shade tolerance. New phytol 191(2):480-495

52. Marra DM, Chambers JQ, Higuchi N et al (2014) Large-scale wind disturbances promote tree diversity in a Central Amazon forest. PloS one 9(8):e103711

53. McCulloh KA, Johnson DM, Meinzer FC et al (2012) Hydraulic architecture of two species differing in wood density: Opposing strategies in co-occurring tropical pioneer trees. Plant cell environ 35(1):116-125

54. Momo ST, Ploton P, Martin-Ducup O et al (2020) Leveraging signatures of plant functional strategies in wood density profiles of African trees to correct mass estimations from terrestrial laser data. Sci Re 10(1):2001

55. Muller-Landau HC (2004) Interspecific and inter-site variation in wood specific gravity of tropical trees. Biotropica 36(1):20-32
56. Nam VT, Anten NP, van Kuijk M (2018) Biomass dynamics in a logged forest: the role of wood density. J plant res 131:611-621

57. Nellemann C, Corcoran E eds (2009) Blue carbon: the role of healthy oceans in binding carbon: a rapid response assessment. UNEP/Earthprint

58. Niklas KJ (1998) Effects of vibration on mechanical properties and biomass allocation pattern of capsella bursa-pastoris (cruciferae). Ann Bot 82(2):147-156

59. Nock CA, Geihofer D, Grabner M et al (2009) Wood density and its radial variation in six canopy tree species differing in shade-tolerance in western Thailand. Ann bot 104(2):297-306

60. Osazuwa-Peters OL, Wright SJ, Zanne AE (2014) Radial variation in wood specific gravity of tropical tree species differing in growth-mortality strategies. American J bot 101(5):803-811

61. Phillips OL, Sullivan MJ, Baker TR et al (2019) Species matter: wood density influences tropical forest biomass at multiple scales. Surv geophys 40:913-935

62. Plourde BT, Boukili VK, Chazdon RL (2015) Radial changes in wood specific gravity of tropical trees: inter-and intraspecific variation during secondary succession. Funct Ecol 29(1):111-120

63. Polidoro BA, Carpenter KE, Collins L et al (2010) The loss of species: mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global concern. PloS one, 5(4):e10095

64. Poorter L, McDonald I, Alarcón A et al (2010) The importance of wood traits and hydraulic conductance for the performance and life history strategies of 42 rainforest tree species. New Phytol 185(2):481-492

65. Poorter L, Rozendaal DM, Bongers F et al (2019) Wet and dry tropical forests show opposite successional pathways in wood density but converge over time. Nat ecol evol 3(6):928-934

66. Preston KA, Cornwell WK, DeNoyer JL (2006) Wood density and vessel traits as distinct correlates of ecological strategy in 51 California coast range angiosperms. New Phytol 170(4):807-818

67. Pretzsch H, Biber P, Schütze G et al (2018) Wood density reduced while wood volume growth accelerated in Central European forests since 1870. For Ecol Manag 429:589-616

68. R Core Team (2022) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org/index.html

69. Rahman MM, Khan MNI, Hoque AKF, Ahmed I, 2015. Carbon stock in the Sundarbans mangrove forest: spatial variations in vegetation types and salinity zones. Wet Ecol Manage 23:269-283

70. Rahman MS Sass-Klaassen, U, Zuidema PA, Chowdhur MQ, Beeckman H (2020) Salinity drives growth dynamics of the mangrove tree Sonneratia apetala Buch.-Ham. in the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Dendrochronologia 62:125711

71. Rahman MM, Zimmer M, Ahmed I, Donato D, Kanzaki M, Xu M. (2021a) Co-benefits of protecting mangroves for biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. Nat. Comm. 12(1):3875

72. Rahman MS, Donoghue DNM, Bracken LJ, Mahmood H (2021b) Biomass estimation in mangrove forests: a comparison of allometric models incorporating species and structural information. Environ Res Lett 16:124002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac31ee
73. Ramananantoandro T, Ramanakoto MF, Rajoelison GL et al (2016) Influence of tree species, tree diameter and soil types on wood density and its radial variation in a mid-altitude rainforest in Madagascar. Ann For Sci 73:1113-112

74. Reef R, Lovelock CE (2015) Regulation of water balance in mangroves. Ann bot 115(3):385-395

75. Reich P, Luo Y, Bradford JB et al (2014) Temperature drives global patterns in forest biomass distribution in leaves, stems, and roots. Proceed Nation Acad Sci 111(38):13721-13726

76. Ribeiro RDA, Rovai AS, Twilley RR, Castañeda-Moya E (2019) Spatial variability of mangrove primary productivity in the neotropics. Ecosphere, 10(8):e02841

77. Robert EM, Koedam N, Beeckman H, Schmitz N (2009) A safe hydraulic architecture as wood anatomical explanation for the difference in distribution of the mangroves Avicennia and Rhizophora. Funct Ecol 649-657

78. Sæbø JS, Socolar JB, Sánchez EP et al (2022) Ignoring variation in wood density drives substantial bias in biomass estimates across spatial scales. Environ Res Let 17(5):054002.

79. Santini NS, Hua Q, Schmitz N, Lovelock CE (2013) Radiocarbon dating and wood density chronologies of mangrove trees in arid Western Australia. PloS one 8(11):e80116.

80. Santini NS, Schmitz N, Lovelock CE (2012) Variation in wood density and anatomy in a widespread mangrove species. Trees 26:1555-1563.

81. Sarker SK, Matthiopoulos J, Mitchell S, Mamun MBA (2019) 1980s–2010s: The world's largest mangrove ecosystem is becoming homogenous. Biol Conser 236:79–91. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.011.

82. Sarker SK, Reeve R, Matthiopoulos J (2021) Solving the fourth-corner problem: forecasting ecosystem primary production from spatial multispecies trait-based models. Ecol Monogr 91:e01454. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1454.

83. Sarker SK, Reeve R, Thompson J et al (2016) Are we failing to protect threatened mangroves in the Sundarbans world heritage ecosystem? Sci Rep 6:e21234. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21234

84. Schmitz N, Verheyden A, Kairo JG et al (2007) Successive cambia development in Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh. is not climatically driven in the seasonal climate at Gazi Bay, Kenya. Dendrochronologia 25(2):87-96

85. Siddiqi NA (2001) Mangrove Forestry in Bangladesh. Chittagong: Institute of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Chittagong

86. Siddique MRH, Zuidema PA, Sass-Klaassen, Chowdhury, MQ (2021) Ring width and vessel features of the mangrove Excoecaria agallocha L. depend on salinity in the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Dendrochronologia 68:125857. doi: 10.1016/j.dendro.2021.125857

87. Simard M, Fatoyinbo L, Smetanka C et al (2019) Mangrove canopy height globally related to precipitation, temperature and cyclone frequency. Nat Geosci 12(1):40-45

88. Slodicak M, Novak J, (2006) Silvicultural measures to increase the mechanical stability of pure secondary Norway spruce stands before conversion. For. Ecol. Manage 224(3):252-257
89. Smith AC, Tasnim T, Irfanullah HM et al (2021) Nature-based solutions in Bangladesh: evidence of effectiveness for addressing climate change and other sustainable development goals. Front Environ Sci 511

90. Spalding MD, Leal M (2021) The state of the world's mangroves 2021. Glob Mang Allia

91. Suwa R, Rollon R, Sharma S et al (2021) Mangrove biomass estimation using canopy height and wood density in the South East and East Asian regions. Estu Coast Shelf Sci 248:106937

92. Swenson NG, Enquist BJ (2007) Ecological and evolutionary determinants of a key plant functional trait: wood density and its community-wide variation across latitude and elevation. American J Bot 94(3):451-459

93. Thomas N, Lucas R, Bunting P et al (2017) Distribution and drivers of global mangrove forest change, 1996–2010. PloS one 12(6):e0179302

94. Tomlinson KW, Poorter L, Bongers F et al (2014) Relative growth rate variation of evergreen and deciduous savanna tree species is driven by different traits. Ann Bot 114:315-324.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcu107

95. Tomlinson PB, 1986 The Botany of Mangroves Cambridge University Press London

96. Tully K, Gedan K, Epanchin-Niell R et al (2019) The invisible flood: The chemistry, ecology, and social implications of coastal saltwater intrusion. BioSci 69(5):368-378

97. UNFCCC (2016) NDC Registry (interim). UNFCCC Secretariat, Germany Available from: http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/Pages/All.aspx, Accessed date: 11 January 2018

98. Virgulino-Júnior PC, Gardunho DC, Silva DN, Fernandes ME (2020a) Wood density in mangrove forests on the Brazilian Amazon coast. Trees 34:51-60

99. Virgulino-Júnior PCC, Carneiro DN, Nascimento Jr WR et al (2020b) Biomass and carbon estimation for scrub mangrove forests and examination of their allometric associated uncertainties. PloS one 15(3):e023000

100. Vogel S (1989) Drag and reconfiguration of broad leaves in high winds. J Experi Bot 40(8):941-948.

101. Vorster AG, Evangelista PH, Stovall AE Ex S (2020) Variability and uncertainty in forest biomass estimates from the tree to landscape scale: The role of allometric equations. Carb Bal Manag 15:1-20.

102. Wahid SM, Babel MS, Bhuiyan AR (2007) Hydrologic monitoring and analysis in the Sundarbans mangrove ecosystem, Bangladesh. J Hydrol 332:381-395.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.07.016

103. Ward RD, Friess DA, Day RH, Mackenzie RA (2016) Impacts of climate change on mangrove ecosystems: a region by region overview. Ecosys Health sust 2(4):e01211

104. Wassenberg M, Chiu HS, Guo W, Spiecker H (2015) Analysis of wood density profiles of tree stems: incorporating vertical variations to optimize wood sampling strategies for density and biomass estimations. Tree 29:551-561
105. Wiemann MC, Williamson GB (1988) Extreme radial changes in wood specific gravity in some tropical pioneers. Wood Fib Sci 344-349

106. Williamson, GB, Wiemann MC (2010) Measuring wood specific gravity... correctly. American J Bot 97(3):519-524

107. Woodcock D, Shier A (2002) Wood specific gravity and its radial variations: the many ways to make a tree. Trees 16:437-443

108. Yáñez-Espinosa L, Angeles G, López-Portillo J, Bárrales S (2009) Variación anatómica de la madera de Avicennia germinans en la Laguna de la Mancha, Veracruz, México. Bol de la Soci Bot de México (85):7-1

109. Zanne AE, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Coomes DA et al (2009) Global wood density database. Dryad

110. Zeng Y, Friess DA, Sarira,TV et al (2021) Global potential and limits of mangrove blue carbon for climate change mitigation. Curr Biol 31. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.070, 1737-1743.e3

111. Zhang X, Wang H, Chhin S, Zhang J (2020) Effects of competition, age and climate on tree slenderness of Chinese fir plantations in southern China. For Ecol Manag 458:11781

112. Zobel BJ, van Buijtenen JP (1989) Wood variation and wood properties. Wood vari causes cont 1-32

Tables

Table 1 Mean wood density variation among the salinity zones in the Sundarbans.
<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>Family</th><th>Ecological character</th><th>zone</th><th>n</th><th>Average DBH ± SD (cm)</th><th>Average height ± SD (m)</th><th>Average WD ± SD (g/cm³)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">S. apetala</td><td rowspan="3">Lythraceae</td><td rowspan="3">LD</td><td>LSZ</td><td>9</td><td>27.1 ± 10.3<sup>b</sup></td><td>14.7 ± 4.9<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.52 ± 0.07<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>MSZ</td><td>13</td><td>41.8 ± 7.4<sup>a</sup></td><td>16.7 ± 0.72<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.54 ± 0.08<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>HSZ</td><td>10</td><td>22.2 ± 9<sup>b</sup></td><td>10. ± 1.9<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.56 ± 0.09<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">A. officinalis</td><td rowspan="3">Avicenniaceae</td><td rowspan="3">LD</td><td>LSZ</td><td>10</td><td>26.6 ± 10.2<sup>a</sup></td><td>10.9 ± 3.4<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.61 ± 0.095<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>MSZ</td><td>10</td><td>19.9 ± 5.5<sup>ab</sup></td><td>7.4 ± 0.89<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.63 ± 0.07<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>HSZ</td><td>12</td><td>13.5 ± 4.7<sup>b</sup></td><td>6.7 ± 1.14<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.65 ± 0.08<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">E. agallocha</td><td rowspan="3">Euphorbiaceae</td><td rowspan="3">LD</td><td>LSZ</td><td>15</td><td>13.9 ± 1.2<sup>a</sup></td><td>7.6 ± 0.99<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.39 ± 0.06<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>MSZ</td><td>12</td><td>13.96 ± 2.1<sup>a</sup></td><td>8 ± 1.2<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.41 ± 0.07<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>HSZ</td><td>16</td><td>12.4 ± 3.3<sup>a</sup></td><td>6.3 ± 1.2<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.45 ± 0.08<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">X. moluccensis</td><td rowspan="3">Meliaceae</td><td rowspan="3">ST</td><td>LSZ</td><td>14</td><td>21.6 ± 7.1<sup>a</sup></td><td>9.6 ± 2.6<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.63 ± 0.09<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>MSZ</td><td>10</td><td>15.5 ± 7.3<sup>a</sup></td><td>6.7 ± 1.5<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.65 ± 0.08<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>HSZ</td><td>14</td><td>15.2 ± 6.7<sup>a</sup></td><td>7.04 ± 1.1<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.71 ± 0.03<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">H. fomes</td><td rowspan="3">Sterculiaceae</td><td rowspan="3">ST</td><td>LSZ</td><td>13</td><td>17.3 ± 5.3<sup>a</sup></td><td>11.1 ± 5.1<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.74 ± 0.09<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>MSZ</td><td>10</td><td>14.6 ± 5<sup>ab</sup></td><td>8.6 ± 2.14<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.76 ± 0.07<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>HSZ</td><td>9</td><td>11.1 ± 1.6<sup>b</sup></td><td>8.1 ± 1<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.81 ± 0.05<sup>a</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>
n, number of sample trees

LD, light demander; ST, shade tolerant

LSZ, low salinity zone; MSZ, mid salinity zone; HSZ, high salinity zone

SD, standard deviation; WD, wood density

Different letters indicate the is value is significantly different

<table><caption>Table 2. AGB deviations (%) using inner wood density, outer wood density and repository derived wood density. +, overestimation; –, underestimation.</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>ABG difference due to inner wood density (%)</th><th>ABG difference due to outer wood density (%)</th><th>ABG difference due to repository wood density (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>A. officinalis</i></td><td>- 4.52</td><td>+ 6.16</td><td>-9.02</td></tr><tr><td><i>E. agallocha</i></td><td>+ 17.21</td><td>-8.05</td><td>-9.32</td></tr><tr><td><i>S. apetala</i></td><td>- 6.56</td><td>+ 7.66</td><td>-9.45</td></tr><tr><td><i>X. moluccensis</i></td><td>- 3.90</td><td>+ 6.01</td><td>-7.27</td></tr><tr><td><i>H. fomes</i></td><td>+ 0.60</td><td>- 0.19</td><td>-9.95</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Figures
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1</figcaption></figure>

Sampling locations of the studied five species in three different Salinity zones in the Sundarbans. Triangle, *Heritiera fomes*; square, *Xylocarpus moluccensis*; star, *Avicennia officinalis*; Plus, *Sonneratia apetala*; circle, *Excoecaria agallocha*. Green, LSZ; Blue, MSZ; Brown, HSZ.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2</figcaption></figure>

Radial variation of wood density from pith to bark in the studied mangrove species in the Sundarbans.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3</figcaption></figure>

Wood density variation with slenderness ratio in light demanding species (A) and shade tolerant species (B).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
<caption>Figure 4</caption>

Average wood density variation among the studied species, SA, AO, and EA are light demanding (LD) species and XM and HF are shade tolerant (ST) species (A). Average wood density variation between light demanding (LD) and shade tolerance (ST) category (B). SA, *S. apetala*; AO, *A. officinalis*; EA, *E. agallocha*; XM, *X. moluccensis*; HF, *H. fomes*. Different letters indicate significantly different.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5</figcaption></figure>

Relationship between outer wood density and inner wood density at species level.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6</figcaption></figure>

Inner wood density (A) and outer wood density (B) variation with average wood density among the species.