Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Biomass and carbon stock estimation in different perennial fruit trees of the semi-arid region, Rajasthan, India

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.10069
Submitted
15 June 2025
Published
09-03-2026

Abstract

Fruit orchards are vital in delivering both economic and environmental services, yet their potential for carbon sequestration remains underexplored. Estimating carbon sequestration is important in semi-arid regions where vegetation cover is sparse; the perennial biomass adds litter inputs that enhance soil carbon storage and improve soil fertility. Quantifying carbon sequestration provides valuable insights into the role of fruit-based orchards in climate change mitigation in fragile ecosystems, thereby contributing to sustainable ecosystem services. The present investigation was carried out in different fruit orchards, viz. Ficus carica, Cordia myxa, Citrus limon, Citrus jambhiri and Aegle marmelos at ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Regional Research Station, Pali Marwar, Rajasthan, India. Since fruit is an economic part, a non-destructive method based on tree dimensions (tree height and diameter) was used for biomass and carbon estimation. The results revealed significant differences among different species of fruit orchard (p < 0.001). C. myxa (29.28 ± 14.18) and A. marmelos (27.04 ± 9.60) recorded total carbon stock (kg tree-1) on par with each other. Pearson correlation coefficient indicates that tree height is positively correlated with above-ground biomass (AGB) and carbon stock (0.98). Among the five fruit orchards, Soil organic carbon (SOC) was highest in C. myxa irrespective of depth (8.45 Mg ha-1). C. myxa and A. marmelos are indigenous fruit tree species that can serve as potential carbon sinks and may be promoted for farmer adoption through supportive policies in the arid and semi-arid regions of Rajasthan.

References

  1. 1. Moore FC, Baldos U, Hertel T, Diaz D. New science of climate change impacts on agriculture implies higher social cost of carbon. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01792-x
  2. 2. Betts RA, Jones CD, Knight JR, Keeling RF, Kennedy JJ. El Niño and a record CO₂ rise. Nat Clim Change. 2016;6(9):806-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3063
  3. 3. Singh NP, Bantilan C, Byjesh K. Vulnerability and policy relevance to drought in the semi-arid tropics of Asia–a retrospective analysis. Weather Clim Extrem. 2015;7:54-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2014.02.002
  4. 4. Malav LC, Yadav B, Tailor BL, Pattanayak S, Singh SV, Kumar N, et al. Mapping of land degradation vulnerability in the semi-arid watershed of Rajasthan, India. Sustainability. 2022;14(16):10198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610198
  5. 5. Sahoo UK, Nath AJ, Lalnunpuii K. Biomass estimation models, biomass storage and ecosystem carbon stock in sweet orange orchards: implications for land use management. Acta Ecol Sin. 2021;41(1):57-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2020.12.003
  6. 6. Trumper K. The natural fix?: the role of ecosystems in climate mitigation: a UNEP rapid response assessment. Nairobi: UNEP; 2009.
  7. 7. Singh MK, Yadav SK, Rajput BS, Sharma P. Carbon storage and economic efficiency of fruit-based systems in semi-arid region: a symbiotic approach for sustainable agriculture and climate resilience. Carbon Res. 2024;3:33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-024-00114-3
  8. 8. Nimbalkar SD, Patil DS, Sharma JP, Daniel JN. Quantitative estimation of carbon stock and carbon sequestration in smallholder agroforestry farms of mango and Indian gooseberry in Rajasthan, India. Environ Conserv J. 2017;18(1&2):103-7. https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.2017.181214
  9. 9. Walkley A, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934;37(1):29-38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  10. 10. Nelson DW, Sommers LE. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. Madison: ASA and SSSA; 1996. p. 961-1010. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c34
  11. 11. Patil P, Kumar AK. Biological carbon sequestration through fruit crops (perennial crops–natural “sponges” for absorbing carbon dioxide from atmosphere). Plant Arch. 2017;17:1041-6.
  12. 12. Newaj R, Chaturvedi OP, Handa AK. Recent development in agroforestry research and its role in climate change adaptation and mitigation. Indian J Agrofor. 2016;18(1):1-9.
  13. 13. Kala S, Parandiyal AK, Mina BL, Kumar A, Meena HR, Reeja S, et al. Efficacy on biomass and carbon stock production by different silvipasture systems in Chambal ravines of south-eastern Rajasthan, India. Indian J Agrofor. 2022;24(1):39-46.
  14. 14. Aryal S, Shrestha S, Maraseni T, Wagle PC, Gaire NP. Carbon stock and its relationships with tree diversity and density in community forests in Nepal. Int For Rev. 2018;20(3):263-73. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818824063069
  15. 15. Siarudin M, Rahman SA, Artati Y, Indrajaya Y, Narulita S, Ardha MJ, et al. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in degraded landscapes in West Java, Indonesia. Forests. 2021;12(6):714. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060714
  16. 16. Wünsche JN, Lakso AN. Apple tree physiology: implications for orchard and tree management. Compact Fruit Tree. 2000;33(3):82-8.
  17. 17. Pretzsch H, Biber P, Uhl E, Dahlhausen J, Rötzer T, Caldentey J, et al. Crown size and growing space requirement of common tree species in urban centres, parks and forests. Urban For Urban Green. 2015;14:466-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.04.006
  18. 18. Brahma B, Nath AJ, Deb C, Sileshi GW, Sahoo UK, Das AK. A critical review of forest biomass estimation equations in India. Trees For People. 2021;5:100098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100098
  19. 19. Keerthika A, Parthiban KT. Quantification and economic valuation of carbon sequestration from smallholder multifunctional agroforestry: a study from the foothills of the Nilgiris, India. Curr Sci. 2022;122(1):61-9. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v122/i1/61-69
  20. 20. Fernández ML, Lozano-García B, Parras-Alcántara L. Topography and land use change effects on the soil organic carbon stock of forest soils in Mediterranean natural areas. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2014;195:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.05.015
  21. 21. Wani SA, Najar GR, Akhter F, Wani MS, Mir SA. Altitudinal variations of soil physico-chemical properties in pear orchards of district Pulwama under temperate Jammu and Kashmir, India. Int J Chem Stud. 2017;5:162-6.
  22. 22. Wang L, Li Z, Wang D, Liao S, Nie X, Liu Y. Factors controlling soil organic carbon with depth at the basin scale. Catena. 2022;217:106478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106478
  23. 23. Hazarika S, Thakuria D, Sakthivel T. Combined effect of land use change, long-term soil management and orchard age on variability of soil quality of fruit orchards under monsoon climate. Environ Prog Sustain Energy. 2023;42(2):14003. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.14003

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.