Soil conservation at the gully plot scale in the tropical volcanic landscape of Sumbing

Edwin Maulana; Junun Sartohadi; Muhammad Anggri Setiawan; Edwin Maulana; Junun Sartohadi; Muhammad Anggri Setiawan

doi:10.3934/environsci.2023045

AIMS Environmental Science

2023, Volume 10, Issue 6: 832-846. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023045

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Soil conservation at the gully plot scale in the tropical volcanic landscape of Sumbing

1.
Doctoral Program in Environmental Science, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Teknika Utara, Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia
2.
Department of Soil, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Flora, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, 55281, Indonesia
3.
Research Center for Land Resources Management, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Karang Malang, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
4.
Department of Environmental Geography, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Kaliurang, Bulaksumur Yogyakarta, 55281, Indonesia
5.
Research Center for Disaster Management, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Mahoni Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, 55281 Indonesia

Received: 27 September 2023 Revised: 22 November 2023 Accepted: 10 December 2023 Published: 14 December 2023

Gully erosion has the ability to transport enormous amounts of soil material, which can degrade tropical volcanic landscapes as the highest potential of agricultural land. It is critical to understand gully erosion control activities in order to reduce the initiation and development of gully erosion. The goals of this study were to: 1) classify the different forms of gully control; 2) pinpoint the advantages and disadvantages of the gully control system; and 3) suggest forthcoming changes to gully erosion control systems in tropical volcanic landscapes. Field surveys employing random sampling were used to collect data on gully erosion points and control system. The findings of the study were explained using exploratory descriptive analysis. The research findings demonstrate that gully erosion control was accomplished through biological (vegetative), mechanical and combination methods, which were classified into nine categories. While mechanical methods have benefits in terms of strength in slowing the rate of gully growth, biological systems have advantages in terms of cost and energy. Adopting a continuous live wicker and wicker check dam system might assist in preventing cracks in the gully dimension. This study's findings can potentially reduce gully erosion susceptibility for local communities and are expected to be implemented globally in settings with similar features. Further research could be conducted on multiple tropical volcanoes with comparable issues in order to improve the performance of research results.

Keywords:

Citation: Edwin Maulana, Junun Sartohadi, Muhammad Anggri Setiawan. Soil conservation at the gully plot scale in the tropical volcanic landscape of Sumbing[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(6): 832-846. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023045

Related Papers:

[1]	Oğuzhan Bahadır . On lightlike geometry of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 12845-12862. doi: 10.3934/math.2021741
[2]	Fatemah Mofarreh, S. K. Srivastava, Anuj Kumar, Akram Ali . Geometric inequalities of $\mathcal{PR}$ -warped product submanifold in para-Kenmotsu manifold. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19481-19509. doi: 10.3934/math.20221069
[3]	Aliya Naaz Siddiqui, Mohammad Hasan Shahid, Jae Won Lee . On Ricci curvature of submanifolds in statistical manifolds of constant (quasi-constant) curvature. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3495-3509. doi: 10.3934/math.2020227
[4]	Mehmet Atçeken, Tuğba Mert . Characterizations for totally geodesic submanifolds of a $K$ -paracontact manifold. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(7): 7320-7332. doi: 10.3934/math.2021430
[5]	Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Meraj Ali Khan . Ricci curvature of contact CR-warped product submanifolds in generalized Sasakian space forms admitting nearly Sasakian structure. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2132-2151. doi: 10.3934/math.2021130
[6]	Mohd. Aquib, Amira A. Ishan, Meraj Ali Khan, Mohammad Hasan Shahid . A characterization for totally real submanifolds using self-adjoint differential operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(1): 104-120. doi: 10.3934/math.2022006
[7]	Tanumoy Pal, Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Meraj Ali Khan, Biswabismita Bag, Shyamal Kumar Hui, Foued Aloui . Generalized warped product submanifolds of Lorentzian concircular structure manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 17997-18012. doi: 10.3934/math.2024877
[8]	Biswabismita Bag, Meraj Ali Khan, Tanumoy Pal, Shyamal Kumar Hui . First chen inequality for biwarped product submanifold of a Riemannian space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 9917-9932. doi: 10.3934/math.2025454
[9]	Rongsheng Ma, Donghe Pei . $\ast$ -Ricci tensor on $(\kappa, \mu)$ -contact manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 11519-11528. doi: 10.3934/math.2022642
[10]	Mohammad Aamir Qayyoom, Rawan Bossly, Mobin Ahmad . On CR-lightlike submanifolds in a golden semi-Riemannian manifold. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 13043-13057. doi: 10.3934/math.2024636

Abstract

1. Introduction

The study of statistical manifolds lies at the intersection of differential geometry and information theory (see ^[1,17]), where the geometry of parameter spaces of statistical models is examined through the lens of Riemannian and affine geometry. These manifolds, equipped with structures such as the Fisher information metric and connections, provide a rich framework for understanding various aspects of statistical inference and information processing. The significance of statistical manifolds extends to numerous applications, including machine learning, information theory, and theoretical physics, making them an essential topic of study in modern mathematics. The exponential family is a class of probability distributions that is commonly used in statistics and information theory. This family provides a rich example of a statistical manifold that can help illustrate the key concepts of Riemannian metrics and affine connections.

Sasakian geometry ^[24] has emerged as a fundamental area in differential geometry, characterized by its deep connections to Kähler and contact geometry. Sasakian manifolds are contact metric manifolds that exhibit a rich structure, allowing them to be seen as odd-dimensional counterparts to Kähler manifolds. These manifolds find applications in diverse areas, such as string theory, CR geometry, and even in the study of certain types of foliations. Furuhata et al. introduced the statistical counterpart of Sasakian manifolds in ^[8,10]. They continued their study in ^[11], examining Sasakian statistical manifolds from the perspective of warped products within statistical geometry, and also explored the concept of invariant submanifolds in the same ambient space. Kazan et al. ^[13] investigated Sasakian statistical manifolds with semi-symmetric metric connections, providing examples to support their findings. Lee et al. ^[14] established optimal inequalities for submanifolds in the same ambient space, expressed in terms of Casorati curvatures with a pair of affine connection and its conjugate affine connection. Uddin et al. ^[21] introduced the concept of nearly Sasakian statistical structures, presenting a non-trivial example and discussing different classes of submanifolds, including invariant and anti-invariant, within these manifolds. More recently, a new notion of mixed $3$ -Sasakian statistical manifolds was investigated in ^[16].

In ^[5], Chen introduced the CR $\delta$ -invariant for CR-submanifolds of Kähler manifolds and established a sharp inequality involving this invariant for anti-holomorphic warped product submanifolds in complex space forms. Drawing inspiration from this research, Al-Solamy et al. ^[2,3] gave an optimal inequality for this invariant specifically for anti-holomorphic submanifolds in complex space forms. This inequality was extended by proving an optimal inequality for the contact CR $\delta$ -invariant on contact CR-submanifolds in Sasakian space forms ^[15]. Siddiqui et al. ^[19] developed equivalent inequalities for this invariant in the context of a generic submanifold in trans-Sasakian generalized Sasakian space forms. More recently, Siddiqui et al. ^[20] gave two optimal inequalities involving the CR $\delta$ -invariant for generic statistical submanifolds in holomorphic statistical manifolds of constant holomorphic sectional curvature.

Building on the aforementioned findings, this paper explores the generic submanifolds in a Sasakian statistical manifold. We then derive an optimal inequality for the contact CR $\delta$ -invariant on contact CR-submanifolds in a Sasakian statistical manifold of constant $\phi$ -sectional curvature.

2. Preliminaries

Definition 2.1. Let $(M, G)$ be a Riemannian manifold, where $G$ is a Riemannian metric. A pair $(\tilde{D}, G)$ is called a statistical structure on $M$ if

(1) $\tilde{D}$ is of torsion-free, and

(2) The Codazzi equation: $(\tilde{D}_{X} G)(Y, Z) = (\tilde{D}_{Y} G)(X, Z)$ holds for any $X, Y, Z \in \Gamma(TM)$ .

Here $\tilde{D}$ is an affine connection on $M$ . A manifold equipped with such a statistical structure is referred to as a statistical manifold.

For an affine connection $\tilde{D}$ on $(M, G)$ , the dual connection $\tilde{D*}$ of $\tilde{D}$ with respect to $G$ is defined by the formula

$\begin{eqnarray*} XG(Y , Z) = G(\tilde{D}_{X}Y , Z) + G(Y , \tilde{D*}_{X} Z). \end{eqnarray*}$

We denote $\tilde{D}^{0}$ as the Levi-Civita connection of $G$ , which satisfies the relation: $2\tilde{D}^{0} = \tilde{D}+\tilde{D*}$ .

Given a statistical structure $(\tilde{D}, G)$ on $M$ , the statistical curvature tensor field $\tilde{\mathcal{R}} \in \Gamma(TM^{(1, 3)})$ is defined as

$\begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{\mathcal{R}} = \frac{1}{2}[\tilde{R}+ \tilde{R*}]. \end{eqnarray*}$

For a point $q \in M$ and a plane $\mathcal{L} = X \wedge Y$ spanned by orthonormal vectors $X, Y \in T_{q}M$ , the statistical sectional curvature $\tilde{S}^{\tilde{D}, \tilde{D*}}$ of $(M, \tilde{D}, G)$ for $X \wedge Y$ is defined as

$\begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{S}^{\tilde{D}, \tilde{D*}}(X \wedge Y ) = G(\tilde{\mathcal{R}}(X, Y )Y, X). \end{eqnarray*}$

For two statistical manifolds $(N, D, g)$ and $(M, \tilde{D}, G)$ , an immersion $h : N \rightarrow M$ , $h$ is called a statistical immersion if the statistical structure induced by $h$ from $(\tilde{D}, G)$ coincides with $(D, g)$ .

For any $X, Y \in \Gamma(TN)$ , the corresponding Gauss formulas ^[22] are

$\begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{D}_{X} Y & = & D_{X}Y + B(X, Y), \\ \tilde{D*}_{X} Y & = & {D*}_{X}Y + {B*}(X, Y), \end{eqnarray*}$

where $B$ and ${B*}$ are symmetric and bilinear, called the imbedding curvature tensors of $N$ in $M$ for $\tilde{D}$ and $D$ , respectively. Next, we have the linear transformations $A$ and ${A*}$ defined by

$\begin{eqnarray*} g(A_{V}X, Y)& = &G({B*}(X, Y), V), \\ g({A*}_{V}X, Y)& = &G(B(X, Y), V), \end{eqnarray*}$

for any $V\in \Gamma(TN^{\perp})$ . Further, in ^[22] the corresponding Weingarten formulas are as follows:

$\begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{D}_{X} V & = & D^{\perp}_{X}V - A_{V}X, \\ \tilde{D*}_{X} V & = & {D*}^{\perp}_{X}V - {A*}_{V}X, \end{eqnarray*}$

where the connections $D^{\perp}$ and ${D*}^{\perp}$ are Riemannian dual connections with respect to the induced metric on $\Gamma(TN^{\perp})$ .

The mean curvature vector field of a $r$ -dimensional statistical submanifold $(N, D, g)$ in any statistical manifold $(M, \tilde{D}, G)$ with respect to both affine connections is as follows:

$\begin{eqnarray*} H = \frac{1}{r} trace_{G}(B), \quad {H*} = \frac{1}{r} trace_{G}({B*}). \end{eqnarray*}$

We respectively symbolize the Riemannian curvature tensors of $\tilde{D}$ (respectively, $\tilde{D*}$ ) and $D$ (respectively, ${D*}$ ) by $\tilde{R}$ (respectively, $\tilde{R*}$ ) and $R$ (respectively, ${R*}$ ). Then, the corresponding Gauss equations for conjugate affine connection are given by ^[22]

$\begin{eqnarray} \tilde{R}_{X, Y, Z, W}& = &R_{X, Y, Z, W} + G(B (X, Z), {B*} (YW))-G ({B*} (X, W), B(Y, Z)), \end{eqnarray}$

(2.1)

$\begin{eqnarray} \tilde{R*}_{X, Y, Z, W}& = &{R*}_{X, Y, Z, W} + G({B*} (X, Z), B (YW)) -G (B (X, W), {B*}(Y, Z)), \end{eqnarray}$

(2.2)

where $\tilde{R}_{X, Y, Z, W} = G(\tilde{R}(X, Y)Z, W)$ and $\tilde{R*}_{X, Y, Z, W} = G(\tilde{R*}(X, Y)Z, W)$ . Thus, we have the Gauss formula for both affine connections:

$\begin{eqnarray} 2\tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{X, Y, Z, W}& = &2 \mathcal{R}_{X, Y, Z, W} + G(B (X, Z), {B*} (Y, W)) -G ({B*} (X, W), B(Y, Z)) \\ &&+ G({B*} (X, Z), B (Y, W))-G (B (X, W), {B*}(Y, Z)), \end{eqnarray}$

(2.3)

where $2 \mathcal{R} = R+{R*}$ .

The Codazzi equation for both affine connections:

$\begin{eqnarray} 2\tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{X, Y, Z, V}& = & G(((\tilde{D}_{X}B) (Y, Z)), V)-G((\tilde{D}_{Y}B)(X, Z), V) \\ &&+G(({\tilde{D}*}_{X}{B*} )(Y, Z), V)-G(({\tilde{D}*}_{Y}{B*})(X, Z), V). \end{eqnarray}$

(2.4)

Definition 2.2. A quadruplet $(\tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ is called a Sasakian statistical structure on $M$ if the following formula holds:

$\begin{eqnarray*} K_{X}\phi Y = -\phi K_{X}Y, \end{eqnarray*}$

where $K_{X}Y = \tilde{D}_{X}Y-\tilde{D}^{0}_{X}Y$ satisfies $K_{X}Y = K_{Y}X$ and $G(K_{X}Y, Z) = G(Y, K_{X}Z)$ .

Theorem 2.3. Let $(\tilde{D}, G)$ be a statistical structure and $(G, \phi, \xi)$ an almost contact metric structure on $M$ . Then $(\tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ is a Sasakian statistical structure on $M$ if and only if

$\begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{D}_{X}(\phi Y ) - \phi \tilde{D*}_{X}Y & = & G(\xi, Y )X - G(X, Y )\xi\\ \tilde{D}_{X}\xi & = & \phi X + G(\tilde{D}_{X}\xi, \xi)\xi. \end{eqnarray*}$

Let $(M, \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ be a Sasakian statistical manifold, and $c \in \mathbb{R}$ . The Sasakian statistical structure is said to be of constant $\phi$ -sectional curvature $c$ if

$\begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{\mathcal{R}}(X, Y)Z & = & \frac{c + 3}{4}\{G(Y, Z)X -G(X, Z)Y\}+\frac{c - 1}{4}\{G(\phi Y, Z)\phi X\\ &&- G(\phi X, Z)\phi Y - 2G(\phi X, Y)\phi Z -G(Y, \xi )G(Z, \xi )X \\ &&+ G(X, \xi )G(Z, \xi )Y + G(Y, \xi )G(Z, X)\xi -G(X, \xi )G(Z, Y)\xi \}, \end{eqnarray*}$

holds for $X, Y, Z \in \Gamma(TM)$ .

Definition 2.4. Let $(N, D, g)$ be a statistical manifold in a Sasakian statistical manifold $(M, \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ . For $X, Y \in \Gamma(TN)$ .

(1) $N$ is said to be doubly totally contact umbilical, if

$\begin{eqnarray*} B(X, Y) = \bigg[g(X, Y)-\eta(X)\eta(Y)\bigg]V^{\perp}+ \eta(X)B(Y, \xi)+\eta(Y)B(X, \xi), \end{eqnarray*}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray*} {B*}(X, Y) = \bigg[g(X, Y)-\eta(X)\eta(Y)\bigg]V^{\perp}+ \eta(X){B*}(Y, \xi) +\eta(Y){B*}(X, \xi), \end{eqnarray*}$

where $V^{\perp}$ represents any vector field normal to $N$ .

(2) $N$ is said to be doubly totally contact geodesic if $V^{\perp} = 0$ , that is,

$\begin{eqnarray*} B(X, Y) = \eta(X)B(Y, \xi)+\eta(Y)B(X, \xi), \end{eqnarray*}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray*} {B*}(X, Y) = \eta(X){B*}(Y, \xi)+\eta(Y){B*}(X, \xi). \end{eqnarray*}$

Definition 2.5. A statistical submanifold $(N, D, g)$ in a Sasakian statistical manifold $(M, \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ is called a generic statistical submanifold (or simply generic submanifold) in $M$ if

(1) $\phi T_{q}N^{\perp} \subset T_{q}N$ , $q \in N$ , and

(2) $\xi$ is tangent to $N$ .

The tangent space $T_{q}N$ at any point $q \in N$ is decomposed as

$\begin{eqnarray*} T_{q}N = \mathcal{H}_{q}N \oplus \phi T_{q}N^{\perp}, \end{eqnarray*}$

where $\mathcal{H}_{q}N$ denotes the orthogonal complement of $\phi T_{q}N^{\perp}$ . Consequently, we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} \phi \mathcal{H}_{q}N = \mathcal{H}_{q}N \backslash \{\xi\}. \end{eqnarray*}$

3. On generic statistical submanifolds

Lemma 3.1. Let $(N, D, g)$ be a generic submanifold in a Sasakian statistical manifold $(M, \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ . Then we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} A_{{\mathbf F}Y}Z = A_{{\mathbf F}Z}Y, \quad {A*}_{{\mathbf F}Y}Z = {A*}_{{\mathbf F}Z}Y, \end{eqnarray*}$

for $Y, Z \in \Gamma(\phi TN^{\perp})$ .

Proof. For $X, Y\in \Gamma(TN)$ , we know

$\begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{D}_{X}\phi Y - \phi \tilde{D*}_{X} Y = \eta(Y)X-g(X, Y)\xi. \end{eqnarray*}$

Since $\phi X = {\mathbf P}X + {\mathbf F}X$

$\begin{array}{c} D_{X} {\mathbf P} Y + B(X, {\mathbf P} Y) + D^{\perp}_{X} {\mathbf F}Y -A_{{\mathbf F}Y}X -\phi {D*}_{X}Y - \phi {B*}(X, Y) = \eta(Y)X-g(X, Y)\xi.\\ D_{X} {\mathbf P} Y + B(X, {\mathbf P} Y) + D^{\perp}_{X} {\mathbf F}Y -A_{{\mathbf F}Y}X -{\mathbf P} {D*}_{X}Y -{\mathbf F} {D*}_{X}Y- \phi {B*}(X, Y) = \eta(Y)X-g(X, Y)\xi. \end{array}$

In comparison, we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} \phi {B*}(X, Y) = D_{X} {\mathbf P} Y - {\mathbf P} {D*}_{X}Y - A_{{\mathbf F}Y}X -\eta(Y)X+g(X, Y)\xi, \end{eqnarray*}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray*} B(X, {\mathbf P} Y) & = & - D^{\perp}_{X} {\mathbf F}Y + {\mathbf F} {D*}_{X}Y. \end{eqnarray*}$

In particular, for $Y, Z\in \Gamma(\phi TN^{\perp})$

$\begin{eqnarray*} G( \phi {B*}(X, Y), Z) = g(D_{X} {\mathbf P} Y, Z) - g({\mathbf P} {D*}_{X}Y, Z) - g(A_{{\mathbf F}Y}X, Z) -\eta(Y)g(X, Z)+\eta(Z)g(X, Y). \end{eqnarray*}$

We notice that ${\mathbf P}\phi T_{q}N^{\perp} = 0$ and $\phi {\mathbf P} T_{q}N \subset \mathcal{H}_{q}N$ . So, we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} G( \phi {B*}(X, Y), Z) = - g(A_{{\mathbf F}Y}X, Z), \end{eqnarray*}$

which can be reduced further as

$\begin{eqnarray*} g(A_{{\mathbf F}Z}Y, X) = g(X, A_{{\mathbf F}Y}Z), \end{eqnarray*}$

that is, $A_{{\mathbf F}Y}Z = A_{{\mathbf F}Z}Y$ . Similarly, one can show that ${A*}_{{\mathbf F}Y}Z = {A*}_{{\mathbf F}Z}Y$ . □

Lemma 3.1 implies the following result:

Proposition 3.2. Let $(N, D, g)$ be a generic submanifold in a Sasakian statistical manifold $(M, \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ of codimension greater than 1. If $N$ is doubly totally contact umbilical, then $N$ is doubly totally contact geodesic.

Proposition 3.3. Let $(M(c), \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ be a $(2s+1)$ -dimensional Sasakian statistical manifold of constant $\phi$ -sectional curvature $c$ and $(N, D, g)$ be an $(r+1)$ -dimensional generic submanifold in $M(c)$ , with $r > s$ and $r\geq 3$ . If $N$ is of codimension greater than 1 and totally contact umbilical, then $c = -3$ .

Proof. When $M$ is not a statistical hypersurface, that is, $N$ is of codimension greater than or equal to $2$ , then Proposition 3.2 implies that $B$ and ${B*}$ of $N$ are of the following form:

$\begin{eqnarray*} B(Y, Z) = g(Y, \xi){\mathbf F}Z+g(Z, \xi){\mathbf F}Y, \quad {B*}(Y, Z) = g(Y, \xi){\mathbf F}Z+g(Z, \xi){\mathbf F}Y. \end{eqnarray*}$

The covariant derivatives of $B$ and $B^{*}$ are defined as

$\begin{eqnarray*} (\tilde{D}_{X} B)(Y, Z)& = &D^{\perp}_{X}(B(Y, Z))-B(D_{X}Y, Z)-B(Y, D_{X}Z)\\ & = & g(Y, {D*}_{X}\xi){\mathbf F}Z+g(Z, {D*}_{X}\xi){\mathbf F}Y+g(Y, \xi)D^{\perp}_{X}{\mathbf F}Z\\ &&+g(Z, \xi)D^{\perp}_{X}{\mathbf F}Y-g(Z, \xi){\mathbf F}D_{X}Y-g(Y, Z){\mathbf F}D_{X}Z, \end{eqnarray*}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray*} ({\tilde{D}*}_{X} {B*})(Y, Z)& = &{D*}_{X}({B*}(Y, Z))-{B*}({D*}_{X}Y, Z)-{B*}(Y, {D*}_{X}Z)\\ & = & g(Y, D_{X}\xi){\mathbf F}Z+g(Z, D_{X}\xi){\mathbf F}Y+g(Y, \xi){D*}^{\perp}_{X}{\mathbf F}Z\\ &&+g(Z, \xi){D*}^{\perp}_{X}{\mathbf F}Y-g(Z, \xi){\mathbf F}{D*}_{X}Y-g(Y, Z){\mathbf F}{D*}_{X}Z. \end{eqnarray*}$

So, we derive

$\begin{eqnarray*} (\tilde{D}_{X} B)(Y, Z) = g(Y, {\mathbf P}X){\mathbf F}Z+g(Z, {\mathbf P}X){\mathbf F}Y +g({D*}_{X}\xi, \xi)g(Y, \xi){\mathbf F}Z+g({D*}_{X}\xi, \xi)g(Z, \xi){\mathbf F}Y, \end{eqnarray*}$

$\begin{eqnarray*} (\tilde{D}_{Y} B)(X, Z) = g(X, {\mathbf P}Y){\mathbf F}Z+g(Z, {\mathbf P}Y){\mathbf F}X +g({D*}_{Y}\xi, \xi)g(X, \xi){\mathbf F}Z+g({D*}_{Y}\xi, \xi)g(Z, \xi){\mathbf F}X, \end{eqnarray*}$

$\begin{eqnarray*} ({\tilde{D}*}_{X} {B*})(Y, Z) = g(Y, {\mathbf P}X){\mathbf F}Z+g(Z, {\mathbf P}X){\mathbf F}Y +g(D_{X}\xi, \xi)g(Y, \xi){\mathbf F}Z+g(D_{X}\xi, \xi)g(Z, \xi){\mathbf F}Y, \end{eqnarray*}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray*} ({\tilde{D}*}_{Y} {B*})(X, Z) = g(X, {\mathbf P}Y){\mathbf F}Z+g(Z, {\mathbf P}Y){\mathbf F}X +g(D_{Y}\xi, \xi)g(X, \xi){\mathbf F}Z+g(D_{Y}\xi, \xi)g(Z, \xi){\mathbf F}X. \end{eqnarray*}$

Further, we use these expressions in the Codazzi equation (2.4) as

$\begin{eqnarray*} 2\tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{X, Y, Z, V}& = & G(((\tilde{D}_{X}B) (Y, Z)), V)-G((\tilde{D}_{Y}B)(X, Z), V) \nonumber\\ &&+G(({\tilde{D}*}_{X}{B*} )(Y, Z), V)-G(({\tilde{D}*}_{Y}{B*})(X, Z), V)\nonumber\\ &&\frac{c-1}{4}\bigg[g({\mathbf P}Y, Z){\mathbf F}X-g({\mathbf P}X, Z){\mathbf F}Y-2g({\mathbf P}X, Y){\mathbf F}Z\bigg]\nonumber \\ & = &2g(Y, {\mathbf P}X){\mathbf F}Z+g(Z, {\mathbf P}X){\mathbf F}Y-g(Z, {\mathbf P}Y){\mathbf F}X\nonumber\\ &&+g(Y, \xi)\bigg[g(D_{X}\xi, \xi)+g({D*}_{X}\xi, \xi)\bigg]+g(X, \xi)\bigg[g(D_{Y}\xi, \xi)+g({D*}_{Y}\xi, \xi)\bigg]. \end{eqnarray*}$

From which we arrive at

$\begin{eqnarray*} &&\frac{c+3}{4}\bigg[-g({\mathbf P}Y, Z){\mathbf F}X+g({\mathbf P}X, Z){\mathbf F}Y+2g({\mathbf P}X, Y){\mathbf F}Z\bigg]\nonumber \\ &&+g(Y, \xi)\bigg[g(D_{X}\xi, \xi)+g({D*}_{X}\xi, \xi)\bigg]+g(X, \xi)\bigg[g(D_{Y}\xi, \xi)+g({D*}_{Y}\xi, \xi)\bigg] = 0. \end{eqnarray*}$

For $Y \in \mathcal{H}_{q}N$ , we put $Z = {\mathbf P}Y$ . Then ${\mathbf F}Y = 0$ and ${\mathbf FP}Y = 0$ . Thus, we conclude that $c = -3$ . □

4. A geometric inequality

Following the analogy of Chen's CR $\delta$ -invariant, Mihai et al. ^[15] defined the contact CR $\delta$ -invariant for an odd-dimensional contact CR-submanifold in a Sasakian space form. Here, we define the statistical Chen's CR $\delta$ -invariant on a $(r + 1)$ -dimensional contact CR-submanifold $(N, D, g)$ in the $(2s+1)$ -dimensional Sasakian statistical manifold $(M(c), \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ of constant $\phi$ -sectional curvature $c$ as follows:

$\begin{eqnarray*} \delta^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})(q) = scal^{D, D*} (q) - scal^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D}_{q}), \end{eqnarray*}$

where $scal^{D, D*}$ and $scal^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})$ denote the scalar curvature of $N$ and the scalar curvature of the invariant distribution $\mathcal{D} \subset TN$ , respectively.

Orthonormal frames on differentiable manifolds provide a powerful tool for simplifying complex geometric and physical problems. They offer a structured way to understand local properties of the manifold (metric tensors), aid in defining connections and curvature, and play a crucial role in both theoretical and applied contexts like Riemannian and Lorentzian geometry. If $\dim(\mathcal{D}) = 2\alpha + 1$ and $\dim(\mathcal{D}^{\perp}) = \beta$ and let $\{v_{0} = \xi, v_{1}, v_{2}, \cdots, v_{r}\}$ be an orthonormal frame on $N$ such that $\{v_{0}, v_{1}, \cdots, v_{2\alpha}\}$ are tangent to $\mathcal{D}$ and $\{v_{2\alpha + 1}, \cdots, v_{\beta}\}$ are tangent to $\mathcal{D}^{\perp}$ . Then the partial mean curvature vectors $H1$ and $H2$ (respectively, $H1*$ and $H2*$ for both affine connections) of $N$ are given by

$\begin{eqnarray*} &&H1 = \frac{1}{2\alpha + 1} \sum\limits_{I = 0}^{2\alpha}B(v_{I}, v_{I}), \quad H2 = \frac{1}{\beta} \sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha + 1}^{2 \alpha + \beta} B(v_{a}, v_{a}), \\ &&H1* = \frac{1}{2\alpha + 1} \sum\limits_{I = 0}^{2\alpha}B(v_{I}, v_{I}), \quad H2* = \frac{1}{\beta} \sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha + 1}^{2 \alpha + \beta} B(v_{a}, v_{a}). \end{eqnarray*}$

A contact CR-submanifold $(N, D, g)$ of a Sasakian manifold $(M, \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ is said to be doubly minimal if $H = H* = 0$ . Likewise, it is referred to as doubly $\mathcal{D}$ -minimal or doubly $\mathcal{D}^{\perp}$ -minimal if $H1 = H1* = 0$ or $H2 = H2* = 0$ , respectively.

According to the definition of the contact CR $\delta$ -invariant, we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} \delta^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})& = &\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta} S^{D, D*}(\xi, v_{a}) + \sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta} S^{D, D*}(v_{I}, v_{a}) \\ &&+ \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{2\alpha+1\leq a \neq b \leq 2\alpha+\beta} S^{D, D*}(v_{a}, v_{b})\\ & = & \bigg(\frac{c+3}{4}\bigg)\bigg(\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta} g(v_{a}, v_{a})\bigg)-\bigg(\frac{c-1}{4}\bigg)\bigg(\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta} g(v_{a}, v_{a})\bigg)\\ &&+ \frac{\beta(4\alpha +\beta-1)}{2}\bigg(\frac{c+3}{4}\bigg)\\ &&+\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G(B(v_{I}, v_{I}), {B*}(v_{a}, v_{a}))-G(B(v_{I}, v_{a}), {B*}(v_{I}, v_{a}))]\\ &&+\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G({B*}(v_{I}, v_{I}), B(v_{a}, v_{a}))-G({B*}(v_{I}, v_{a}), B(v_{I}, v_{a}))]\\ &&+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G(B(v_{a}, v_{a}), {B*}(v_{b}, v_{b}))-G(B(v_{a}, v_{b}), {B*}(v_{a}, v_{b}))]\\ &&+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G({B*}(v_{a}, v_{a}), B(v_{b}, v_{b}))-G({B*}(v_{a}, v_{b}), B(v_{a}, v_{b}))]. \end{eqnarray*}$

We use ${B*}(X, \xi) = B(X, \xi) = 0$ and obtain

$\begin{eqnarray*} \delta^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})& = & \beta\bigg(1+ \frac{(4\alpha +\beta-1)(c+3)}{8}\bigg) \\ &&+\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G(B(v_{I}, v_{I}), {B*}(v_{a}, v_{a}))-G(B(v_{I}, v_{a}), {B*}(v_{I}, v_{a}))]\\ &&+\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G({B*}(v_{I}, v_{I}), B(v_{a}, v_{a}))-G({B*}(v_{I}, v_{a}), B(v_{I}, v_{a}))]\\ &&+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G(B(v_{a}, v_{a}), {B*}(v_{b}, v_{b}))-G(B(v_{a}, v_{b}), {B*}(v_{a}, v_{b}))]\\ &&+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G({B*}(v_{a}, v_{a}), B(v_{b}, v_{b}))-G({B*}(v_{a}, v_{b}), B(v_{a}, v_{b}))]. \end{eqnarray*}$

Given that $2B^{0} = B+{B*}$ , we deduce

$4H^{02} = H^{2} + {H*}^{2} + 2G(H, {H*})$

and

$4B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{02} = B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{2} + {B*}_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{2} + 2G(B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}, {B*}_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}).$

So, we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} \delta^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})& = & \beta\bigg(1+ \frac{(4\alpha +\beta-1)(c+3)}{8}\bigg) \\ &&+4\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G(B^{0}(v_{I}, v_{I}), B^{0}(v_{a}, v_{a}))-G(B^{0}(v_{I}, v_{a}), B^{0}(v_{I}, v_{a}))]\\ &&-\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G(B(v_{I}, v_{I}), B(v_{a}, v_{a}))-G(B(v_{I}, v_{a}), B(v_{I}, v_{a}))]\\ &&-\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G({B*}(v_{I}, v_{I}), {B*}(v_{a}, v_{a}))-G({B*}(v_{I}, v_{a}), {B*}(v_{I}, v_{a}))]\\ &&+2\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G(B^{0}(v_{a}, v_{a}), B^{0}(v_{b}, v_{b}))-G(B^{0}(v_{a}, v_{b}), B^{0}(v_{a}, v_{b}))]\\ &&-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G(B(v_{a}, v_{a}), B(v_{b}, v_{b}))-G(B(v_{a}, v_{b}), B(v_{a}, v_{b}))]\\ &&-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[G({B*}(v_{a}, v_{a}), {B*}(v_{b}, v_{b}))-G({B*}(v_{a}, v_{b}), {B*}(v_{a}, v_{b}))]. \end{eqnarray*}$

From ^[15], we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} &&4\bigg[\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}G(B^{0}(v_{I}, v_{I}), B^{0}(v_{a}, v_{a}))+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}G(B^{0}(v_{a}, v_{a}), B^{0}(v_{b}, v_{b}))\\ &&-\frac{1}{2}G(B^{0}(v_{a}, v_{b}), B^{0}(v_{a}, v_{b}))\bigg]\\ & = & 2(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}H^{02} -2(2\alpha +1)^{2}{H1}^{02}-2B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{02}. \end{eqnarray*}$

Similarly, we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} &&-\bigg[\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}G(B(v_{I}, v_{I}), B(v_{a}, v_{a}))+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}G(B(v_{a}, v_{a}), B(v_{b}, v_{b}))\\ &&-\frac{1}{2}G(B(v_{a}, v_{b}), B(v_{a}, v_{b}))\bigg]\\ & = & -\frac{(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}}{2}H^{2} +\frac{(2\alpha +1)^{2}}{2}{H1}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{2}, \end{eqnarray*}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray*} &&-\bigg[\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}G({B*}(v_{I}, v_{I}), {B*}(v_{a}, v_{a}))+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a, b = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}G({B*}(v_{a}, v_{a}), {B*}(v_{b}, v_{b}))\\ &&-\frac{1}{2}G({B*}(v_{a}, v_{b}), {B*}(v_{a}, v_{b}))\bigg]\\ & = &- \frac{(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}}{2}{H*}^{2} +\frac{(2\alpha +1)^{2}}{2}{H1*}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}{B*}_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{2}. \end{eqnarray*}$

So, we derive

$\begin{eqnarray*} \delta^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})& = & \beta\bigg(1+ \frac{(4\alpha +\beta-1)(c+3)}{8}\bigg) \\ &&+2(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}H^{02} -\frac{(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}}{2}(H^{2} + {H*}^{2})\\ &&-2(2\alpha +1)^{2}{H1}^{02}+\frac{(2\alpha +1)^{2}}{2}({H1}^{2}+{H1*}^{2})\\ &&-2B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{02}+\frac{1}{2}(B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{2}+{B*}_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{2})\\ &&-\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[4B_{Ia}^{02}-B_{Ia}^{2}-{B*}_{Ia}^{2}]. \end{eqnarray*}$

In the final equation, we use the following inequalities for both affine connections (analogous to those obtained for the Levi-Civita connection in ^[15]):

$\begin{eqnarray*} B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{2} \geq \frac{3\beta^{2}}{\beta + 2}{H2}^{2}, \quad {B*}_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{2} \geq \frac{3\beta^{2}}{\beta + 2}{H2*}^{2} \end{eqnarray*}$

with equality holds if and only if the following conditions are met:

(1) $B^{a}_{aa} = 3B^{a}_{bb}$ and ${B*}^{a}_{aa} = 3{B*}^{a}_{bb}$ , for $2\alpha + 1 \leq a \neq b \leq 2\alpha + \beta$ ;

(2) $B^{a}_{bc} = 0$ and ${B*}^{a}_{bc} = 0$ for $a, b, c \in \{2\alpha + 1, \cdots, 2\alpha + \beta\}$ , $a\neq b \neq c$ .

Thus, we find that

$\begin{eqnarray} \delta^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})&\geq& \beta\bigg(1+ \frac{(4\alpha +\beta-1)(c+3)}{8}\bigg) \\ &&+2(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}H^{02} -\frac{(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}}{2}(H^{2} + {H*}^{2}\\ &&-2(2\alpha +1)^{2}{H1}^{02}+\frac{(2\alpha +1)^{2}}{2}({H1}^{2}+{H1*}^{2})\\ &&-2B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{02}+\frac{3\beta^{2}}{2(\beta + 2)}({H2}^{2}+{H2*}^{2})\\ &&-\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}[4B_{Ia}^{02}-B_{Ia}^{2}-{B*}_{Ia}^{2}]. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.1)

By drawing on the analogy with ^[3] and Lemma 3.1, we obtain the following inequalities:

$\begin{eqnarray} \sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}(B_{Ia}^{2}+{B*}_{Ia}^{2})+\frac{(2\alpha+ 1)^{2}}{2}(H1^{2} + {H1*}^{2}) +\frac{3\beta^{2}}{4(\beta + 2)}({H2}^{2}+{H2*}^{2})\\ \geq \frac{3\beta^{2}}{4(\beta+2)}({H2}^{2} + {H2*}^{2}). \end{eqnarray}$

(4.2)

By substituting (4.2) into (4.1), we obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} &&\delta^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})- \beta\bigg(1+ \frac{(4\alpha +\beta-1)(c+3)}{8}\bigg) \\ &&-2(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}H^{02} +2(2\alpha +1)^{2}{H1}^{02}+ 2B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{02}\\ &&+4\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}B_{Ia}^{02}\\ &\geq& \frac{(2\alpha +1)^{2}}{2}({H1}^{2}+{H1*}^{2})-\frac{(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}}{2}(H^{2} + {H*}^{2})\\ &&+\frac{3\beta^{2}}{2(\beta + 2)}({H2}^{2}+{H2*}^{2})+\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha}\sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha+1}^{2\alpha +\beta}(B_{Ia}^{2}-{B*}_{Ia}^{2})\\ &\geq& \frac{3\beta^{2}}{2(\beta+2)}({H2}^{2} + {H2*}^{2})-\frac{(2\alpha + \beta +1)^{2}}{2}(H^{2} + {H*}^{2}). \end{eqnarray}$

(4.3)

On the other hand, we have the following relation for the contact CR $\delta$ -invariant $\delta^{0}(\mathcal{D})$ of $N$ with respect to Levi-Civita connection, given by ^[15]

$\begin{eqnarray} \delta^{0}(\mathcal{D}) & = &\frac{(2\alpha + \beta + 1)^{2}}{2} H^{02} + \beta \bigg(1+ (4\alpha + \beta- 1)\bigg)\frac{ c + 3}{8} \\ &&-\frac{(2\alpha + 1)^{2}}{2} {H1}^{02} -\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{2\alpha} \sum\limits_{a = 2\alpha + 1}^{2\alpha+\beta}B^{02}(v_{I}, v_{a})- \frac{1}{2}B_{\mathcal{D}^{\perp}}^{02}. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.4)

Putting (4.4) into (4.3), we obtain

$\begin{eqnarray*} &&\delta^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})+3\beta\bigg(1+ \frac{(4\alpha +\beta-1)(c+3)}{8}\bigg)-4\delta^{0}(\mathcal{D})\nonumber \\ &\geq& \frac{3\beta^{2}}{2(\beta+2)}({H2}^{2} + {H2*}^{2})-\frac{(2\alpha + \beta + 1)^{2}}{2}(H^{2} + {H*}^{2}). \end{eqnarray*}$

Hence, we have:

Theorem 4.1. Let $(M(c), \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ be a $(2s+1)$ -dimensional Sasakian statistical manifold of constant $\phi$ -sectional curvature $c$ and $(N, D, g)$ be a $(r+1)$ -dimensional generic submanifold in $M(c)$ , with $\dim(\mathcal{D}) = 2\alpha + 1$ and $\dim(\mathcal{D}^{\perp}) = \beta$ . Then

$\begin{eqnarray} \delta^{D, D*}(\mathcal{D})&\geq& 4\delta^{0}(\mathcal{D})-3\beta\bigg(1+ \frac{(4\alpha +\beta-1)(c+3)}{8}\bigg)\\ &&+ \frac{3\beta^{2}}{2(\beta+2)}({H2}^{2} + {H2*}^{2})-\frac{(r+1)^{2}}{2}(H^{2} + {H*}^{2}). \end{eqnarray}$

(4.5)

Furthermore, the equality in (4.5) holds identically if and only if the following conditions are met:

(1) $N$ is doubly $\mathcal{D}$ -minimal,

(2) $N$ is mixed totally geodesic with respect to both affine connections, and

(3) there exists an orthonormal frame $\{v_{2\alpha+1}, v_{2\alpha+2}, \cdots, v_{2\alpha+\beta}\}$ of $\mathcal{D}^{\perp}$ such that

(a) $B^{a}_{aa} = 3B^{a}_{bb}$ and ${B*}^{a}_{aa} = 3{B*}^{a}_{bb}$ , for $2\alpha + 1 \leq a \neq b \leq 2\alpha + \beta$ ,

(b) $B^{a}_{bc} = 0$ and ${B*}^{a}_{bc} = 0$ for $a, b, c \in \{2\alpha + 1, \cdots, 2\alpha + \beta\}$ , $a\neq b \neq c$ .

It is evident that the equality case of (4.3) holds identically when $N$ is doubly $\mathcal{D}$ -minimal, and mixed totally geodesic with respect to both affine connections. It is worth noting that the equality in (4.5) holds identically if and only if the three conditions from Theorem 4.1 are met.

5. Conclusion and Remarks

(1) In the early 1990s, the renowned author B.-Y. Chen introduced the concept of $\delta$ -invariants (see ^[4,6,7]) to address an open question concerning minimal immersions proposed by S.S. Chern in the 1960s, as well as to explore applications of the well-known Nash embedding theorem. Chen specifically defined the CR $\delta$ -invariant for anti-holomorphic submanifolds in complex space forms. Building on this work, we extended this study to the statistical version of contact CR $\delta$ -invariant.

(2) In fact, Furuhata et al. introduced a novel notion of $U$ sectional curvature for statistical manifolds $(M, \tilde{D}, G)$ in ^[12] as follows:

$\begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{S}^{U}(X\wedge Y)& = &G(U(X, Y)Y, X)\\ & = &2G(\tilde{R}^{0}(X, Y)Y, X)-G(\tilde{\mathcal{R}}(X, Y)Y, X)\\ & = & (2\tilde{S}^{0}-\tilde{S}^{\tilde{D}, \tilde{D*}})(X\wedge Y), \end{eqnarray*}$

where $\tilde{R}^{0}$ is the Riemannian curvature tensor for $\tilde{D}^{0}$ on $M$ . They also defined a corresponding $\delta$ -invariant $\delta^{U}$ based on this new concept of $U$ sectional curvature for statistical manifolds. It would be of significant interest to reformulate such an optimal inequality by defining a new notion for the (contact) CR $\delta^{U}$ -invariant for (contact) CR-submanifolds in a (respectively, Sasakian statistical manifold) holomorphic statistical manifold.

(3) It would be of significant interest to check whether Proposition 3.3 is valid for any codimension. We have already established its validity for codimension greater than or equal to $2$ . Thus, the remaining case to consider is when $N$ is a hypersurface, that is, of codimension 1.

(4) From ^[9,18], we note that a contact CR-submanifold $(N, D, g)$ in a Sasakian statistical manifold $(M, \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ is said to be mixed foliate with respect to $\tilde{D}$ (respectively, ${\tilde{D}*}$ ) if $N$ is mixed totally geodesic with respect to $\tilde{D}$ (respectively, ${\tilde{D}*}$ ) and $\mathcal{D}$ is completely integrable. Now, let us consider a $(r+1)$ -dimensional generic submanifold $(N, D, g)$ in a $(2s+1)$ -dimensional Sasakian statistical manifold $(M(c), \tilde{D}, G, \phi, \xi)$ of constant $\phi$ -sectional curvature $c$ , where $\dim(\mathcal{D}) = 2\alpha + 1$ and $\dim(\mathcal{D}^{\perp}) = \beta$ . If $N$ satisfies the equality case of (4.5) and $\mathcal{D}$ is integrable, then it follows from Theorem 4.1 that $N$ is mixed foliate with respect to $\tilde{D}$ (respectively, ${\tilde{D}*}$ ).

(5) In ^[10], Furuhata et al. constructed Sasakian statistical structures on the $(2s+1)$ -dimensional unit hypersphere $\mathbb{S}$ in $(2s+2)$ -dimensional Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}$ . They showed that $\mathbb{S}$ is a Sasakian statistical manifold of constant statistical sectional curvature 1 and of constant $\phi$ -sectional curvature $c = 1$ as well by setting $K_{X}Y = G(X, \xi)G(Y, \xi)\xi$ . Building in this, we consider $N = \mathbb{S}^{s_{1}}(r_{1})\times \cdots \times \mathbb{S}^{s_{k}}(r_{k})$ and an immersion $N\rightarrow \mathbb{S}^{m+k+1}$ from ^[23], where $m = s_{1}+s_{2}+\cdots+s_{k}$ , $\sum_{i = 1}^{k}r_{i}^{2} = 1$ . It is straightforward to observe that $N$ is a generic statistical submanifold of a Sasakian statistical manifold $\mathbb{S}^{m+k+1}$ , provided that all $s_{i}$ are odd.

(6) Let $\mathbb{E}^{2s+1}(-3)$ be a Sasakian space form of constant $\phi$ -sectional curvature $-3$ with Sasakian structure $(G, \phi, \xi)$ on $\mathbb{E}^{2s+1}(-3)$ as:

$\begin{eqnarray*} &&G = \left ( \large \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{1}{4}(\delta_{ij}+y^{i}y{^j})& 0 & \frac{-1}{4}y^{i}\\ 0 & \frac{1}{4} \delta_{ij} & 0 \\ \frac{1-}{4}y^{j} & 0 & \frac{1}{4} \\ \end{array} \right ), \quad \phi = \left ( \large \begin{array}{ccc} 0& \delta^{i}_{j} & 0\\ -\delta^{i}_{j} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & y^{j} & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ), \\ \end{eqnarray*}$

$\begin{eqnarray*} &&\xi = (0, 0, \cdots, 0, 0, 2), \quad G(\cdot, \xi) = (-y^{1}, \cdots, -y^{s}, 0, \cdots, 0, 1), \end{eqnarray*}$

where $(x^{1}, \cdots, x^{n}, y^{1}, \cdots, y^{n}, z)$ denotes the cartesian coordinates. Now, we can construct a Sasakian statistical structure on $(\mathbb{E}^{2s+1}(-3), G, \phi, \xi)$ by setting $K_{X}Y = G(X, \xi)G(Y, \xi)\xi$ satisfies Definition 2.2.

Further, we consider $N^{2s} = \mathbb{S}^{2s-1}\times \mathbb{E}^{1}$ . Then $N^{2s}$ is doubly totally contact umbilical submanifold of $\mathbb{E}^{2s+1}(-3)$ .

Author contributions

Aliya Naaz Siddiqui: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing-Original draft preparation, Writing-Reviewing and Editing. Meraj Ali Khan: Visualization, Investigation, Supervision. Amira Ishan: Project administration, Funding acquisition. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, Taif University, for funding this work.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Pourghasemi HR, Yousefi S, Kornejady A, et al. (2017) Performance assessment of individual and ensemble data-mining techniques for gully erosion modeling. Sci Total Environ 609: 764–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.198 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.198
[2]	Raji SA, Akintuyi AO, Wunude EO, et al. (2023) A machine learning-based spatial statistical method for modelling different phases of gully development in South-Eastern Nigeria. Ecol Inform 75: 102101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102101 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102101
[3]	Majumdar S, Kose M, Chatterjee U (2021) Gully Erosion Mapping by Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Techniques and Geoinformatics in Adana Province, Turkey. Earth Syst Environ https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-020-00198-y doi: 10.1007/s41748-020-00198-y
[4]	Vanmaercke M, Panagos P, Vanwalleghem T, et al. (2021) Measuring, modelling and managing gully erosion at large scales: A state of the art. Earth-Science Rev 218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103637 doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103637
[5]	Phinzi K, Holb I, Szabó S (2021) Mapping Permanent Gullies in an Agricultural Area Using Satellite Images: Efficacy of Machine Learning Algorithms. Agronomy 11: 333. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020333 doi: 10.3390/agronomy11020333
[6]	Tang J, Xie Y, Liu C, et al. (2022) Effects of rainfall characteristics and contour tillage on ephemeral gully development in a field in Northeastern China. Soil Tillage Res 218: 105312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105312 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.105312
[7]	Kariminejad N, Pourghasemi HR, Hosseinalizadeh M (2022) Analytical techniques for mapping multi ‑ hazard with geo ‑ environmental modeling approaches and UAV images. Sci Rep 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18757-w doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-18757-w
[8]	Liu Z, Shen X, Wei Y, et al. (2023) Soil depth mapping and its linkage to gully erosion rate prediction in granite areas of southern China. Soil Tillage Res 231: 105711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2023.105711 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2023.105711
[9]	Blanco-Sepúlveda R, Enríquez-Narváez F, Lima F (2021) Effectiveness of conservation agriculture (tillage vs. vegetal soil cover) to reduce water erosion in maize cultivation (Zea mays L.): An experimental study in the sub-humid uplands of Guatemala. Geoderma 404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115336 doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115336
[10]	Eekhout JPC, de Vente J (2022) Global impact of climate change on soil erosion and potential for adaptation through soil conservation. Earth-Science Rev 226: 103921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.103921 doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.103921
[11]	Du X, Jian J, Du C, et al. (2022) Conservation management decreases surface runoff and soil erosion. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 10: 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.08.001 doi: 10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.08.001
[12]	Borrelli P, Robinson DA, Fleischer LR, et al. (2017) An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat Commun 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7 doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7
[13]	Zhang Y, Qin X, Qiu Q, et al. (2023) Soil and water conservation measures reduce erosion but result in carbon and nitrogen accumulation of red soil in Southern China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 346: 108346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108346 doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2023.108346
[14]	Wen X, Zhen L (2020) Soil erosion control practices in the Chinese Loess Plateau: A systematic review. Environ Dev 34: 100493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100493 doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100493
[15]	Liu X, Li H, Zhang S, et al. (2019) Gully erosion control practices in Northeast China: A review. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185065 doi: 10.3390/su11185065
[16]	Wen Y, Kasielke T, Li H, et al. (2021) May agricultural terraces induce gully erosion? A case study from the Black Soil Region of Northeast China. Sci Total Environ 750: 141715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141715 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141715
[17]	Lira-Caballero VG, Martínez-Menez MR, Romero-Manzanares A, et al. (2018) Initial floristic composition of rehabilitated gullies through bioengineering in the Mixteca Region, Sierra Madre del Sur, Mexico. J Mt Sci 15: 2120–2135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-018-4899-0 doi: 10.1007/s11629-018-4899-0
[18]	Ezezika OC, Adetona O (2011) Resolving the gully erosion problem in Southeastern Nigeria: Innovation through public awareness and community-based approaches. J Soil Sci Environ Manag 2: 286–291. http://www.academicjournals.org/JSSEM
[19]	Peterson RB, Kapiyo RA, Campbell EM, et al. (2018) Gully Rehabilitation Trusts: Fighting soil erosion through community participation in western Kenya. J Rural Stud 58: 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.028 doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.028
[20]	Maulana E, Sartohadi J, Setiawan MA (2023) AHP GIS-Based Gully Erosion Susceptibility Modelling in Tropical Volcano Environment. Journal of Hunan University Natural Sciences.
[21]	Wida WA, Maas A, Sartohadi J (2019) Pedogenesis of Mt. Sumbing Volcanic Ash above The Alteration Clay Layer in The Formation of Landslide Susceptible Soils in Bompon Sub-Watershed. Ilmu Pertanian (Agricultural Science) 4: 15. https://doi.org/10.22146/ipas.41893 doi: 10.22146/ipas.41893
[22]	Effendy Z, Setiawan MA, Mardiatno D (2019) Geospatial-Interface Water Erosion Prediction Project (GeoWEPP) application for the planning of Bompon Watershed conservation-prioritized area, Magelang, Central Java, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 256. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/256/1/012017 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/256/1/012017
[23]	Nugraha SS, Sartohadi J (2018) Faktor yang Berpengaruh Terhadap Tingkat Kerapatan Erosi Parit Di Daerah Aliran Sungai Kaliwungu. J Penelit Pengelolaan Drh Aliran Sungai 2: 73–88. [in Bahasa] https://doi.org/10.20886/jppdas.2018.2.1.73-88 doi: 10.20886/jppdas.2018.2.1.73-88
[24]	Wilkinson SN, Kinsey-Henderson AE, Hawdon AA, et al. (2018) Grazing impacts on gully dynamics indicate approaches for gully erosion control in northeast Australia. Earth Surf Process Landforms 43: 1711–1725. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4339 doi: 10.1002/esp.4339
[25]	Luffman IE, Nandi A, Spiegel T (2015) Gully morphology, hillslope erosion, and precipitation characteristics in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge province, southeastern USA. Catena 133: 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.05.015 doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2015.05.015
[26]	Wang R, Sun H, Yang J, et al. (2022) Quantitative Evaluation of Gully Erosion Using Multitemporal UAV Data in the Southern Black Soil Region of Northeast China: A Case Study. Remote Sens 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061479 doi: 10.3390/rs14061479
[27]	Bennett SJ, Wells RR (2019) Gully erosion processes, disciplinary fragmentation, and technological innovation. Earth Surf Process Landforms 44: 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4522 doi: 10.1002/esp.4522
[28]	Lufira RD, Andawayanti U, Cahya EN, et al. (2022) Land conservation based on erosion and sedimentation rate (case study of Genting Watershed Ponorogo Regency). Phys Chem Earth 126: 103143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2022.103143 doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2022.103143
[29]	Gábris G, Kertész Á, Zámbó L (2003) Land use change and gully formation over the last 200 years in a hilly catchment. Catena 50: 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00141-8 doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00141-8
[30]	Zhang C, Wang Y, Shao M (2021) Controlling gully- and revegetation-induced dried soil layers across a slope–gully system. Sci Total Environ 755: 142444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142444 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142444
[31]	Tang WJ, Liu HH, Liu BY (2013) Effects of gully erosion and gully filling on soil degradation in the black soil region of Northeast China. J Mt Sci 10: 913–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2560-5 doi: 10.1007/s11629-013-2560-5
[32]	Yitbarek TW, Belliethathan S, Stringer LC (2012) The onsite cost of gully erosion and cost-benefit of gully rehabilitation: A case study in Ethiopia. L Degrad Dev 23: 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1065 doi: 10.1002/ldr.1065
[33]	Liu H, Zhang T, Liu B, et al. (2013) Effects of gully erosion and gully filling on soil depth and crop production in the black soil region, northeast China. Environ Earth Sci 68: 1723–1732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1863-0 doi: 10.1007/s12665-012-1863-0
[34]	de la Torre--Robles L, Muñoz--Robles C, Huber--Sannwald E, et al. (2023) Functional stability: From soil aggregates to landscape scale in a region severely affected by gully erosion in semi-arid central Mexico. Catena 222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106864 doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106864
[35]	Wang R, Li P, Li Z, et al. (2021) Effects of gully head height and soil texture on gully headcut erosion in the Loess Plateau of China. Catena 207: 105674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105674 doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2021.105674
[36]	Liu J, Liu H (2020) Soil erosion changes during the last 30 years and contributions of gully erosion to sediment yield in a small catchment, southern China. Geomorphology 368: 107357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107357 doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107357
[37]	Yan Y, Zhang X, Liu J, et al. (2021) The effectiveness of selected vegetation communities in regulating runoff and soil loss from regraded gully banks in the Mollisol region of Northeast China. L Degrad Dev 32: 2116–2129. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3866 doi: 10.1002/ldr.3866
[38]	Yazie T, Mekonnen M, Derebe A (2021) Gully erosion and its impacts on soil loss and crop yield in three decades, northwest Ethiopia. Model Earth Syst Environ 7: 2491–2500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-01018-y doi: 10.1007/s40808-020-01018-y

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)