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

Research communications

Vol. 13 No. sp5 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Assessment of carbon sequestration potential in existing agroforestry systems of Ayodhya district, Uttar Pradesh

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12650
Submitted
9 November 2025
Published
01-07-2026

Abstract

Agroforestry systems, which integrate trees into agricultural landscapes, offer significant potential for carbon sequestration. This study evaluates carbon sequestration under prevalent agroforestry systems in Sohawal and Rudauli blocks of Ayodhya district, Uttar Pradesh. Carbon storage was assessed in tree biomass, soil and deadwood using standardised protocols across various agroforestry practices. Results indicated that Agri-Horticulture (AH) (Mango + Mustard) had the highest 107 cm average tree girth at breast height (GBH) in Sohawal, while AH (Mango + Wheat) had the highest (103.4 cm) in Rudauli. Agri-Silviculture (AS) (Eucalyptus + Wheat) recorded the tallest average tree height (12.58 m) in Sohawal and AS (Eucalyptus + Mustard) was the tallest in Rudauli (16.10 m). The highest basal area was found in AH  (Mango + Mustard) (0.091 m3) in Sohawal and AH (Mango + Wheat) (0.085 m3) in the Rudauli block. Volume peaked in AH (Mango + Wheat) (0.67 m3) in Sohawal and AS (Eucalyptus + Mustard) (0.68 m3) in Rudauli. Above-ground biomass (AGB) was highest in AS (Eucalyptus + Wheat) (17.48 Mg h-1) in Sohawal and AS (Eucalyptus + Mustard) (31.87 Mg h-1) in Rudauli. Below-ground biomass (BGB) followed similar trends, with   4.37 Mg h-1 and 7.97 Mg h-1 respectively. The highest total carbon storage was observed in AS (Eucalyptus + Wheat) (10.92 Mg h-1) in Sohawal and AS (Eucalyptus + Mustard) (19.92 Mg h-1) in Rudauli. Soil organic carbon (SOC) ranged from 0.21 % to 0.32 %, with the Teak + Wheat AS system recording the highest SOC (0.31–0.32 %) in both blocks. Overall, the findings underscore the carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems, supporting their role in sustainable land use, increasing species diversity and climate change mitigation as well as providing economic returns.

 

References

  1. 1. Afroz MS, Ashraf SMK, Rana MT, Ripta SK, Asha SBR, Urmi SMST, et al. Agroforestry: a sustainable land-use practice for enhancing productivity and carbon sequestration in Madhupur Sal Forest, Bangladesh. Sustainability. 2025;17:3697. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083697
  2. 2. Naveen Y, Priya Rajendra M, Chiranjeeva Reddy M, Sarvade S, Gouthami G, Sri Ram M, et al. Evaluating agroforestry systems for sustainable land management and climate resilience in Siddipet District, central agroclimatic zone, Telangana, India. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2025;49(8):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2025.2508203
  3. 3. Datta P, Behera B, Rahul DB. India's approach to agroforestry as an effective strategy in the context of climate change: an evaluation of 28 state climate change action plans. Agric Syst. 2024;214:103840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103840
  4. 4. Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Showalter JM. Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv Agron. 2010;108:237–307.
  5. 5. Yasin G, Nawaz MF, Sinha D, Qadir I, Altaf M, Ashraf MN, et al. Agroforestry status, services and its role in climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration under semi-arid conditions. Trees For People. 2024;17:100640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100640
  6. 6. Warf B. Population and land degradation. In: Kitchin R, Thrift N, editors. Encyclopedia of geography. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications; 2010. p. 2233–2236. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412939591.n905
  7. 7. Grantham HS, Duncan A, Evans TD, Jones KR, Beyer HL, Schuster R, et al. Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40 % of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nat Commun. 2020;11:5978. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3
  8. 8. Meyerson FAB. Population growth and deforestation: a critical and complex relationship. Washington (DC): Population Reference Bureau; 2024.
  9. 9. Muluneh MG. Impact of climate change on biodiversity and food security: a global perspective—a review article. Agric Food Secur. 2021;10:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-021-00318-5
  10. 10. Rolo V, Rivest D, Mallard E, Moreno G. Agroforestry potential for adaptation to climate change: a soil-based perspective. Soil Use Manag. 2023;39:1006–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12932
  11. 11. Kumar V. Multifunctional agroforestry systems in tropics region. Nat Environ Pollut Technol. 2016;15(2):365–376.
  12. 12. Chiang F, Mazdiyasni O, AghaKouchak A. Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration and intensity. Nat Commun. 2021;12:2754. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22314-w
  13. 13. Beillouin D, Schauberger B, Bastos A, Ciais P, Makowski D. Impact of extreme weather conditions on European crop production in 2018. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2020;375:20190510. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0510
  14. 14. Bolan S, Padhye LP, Jasemizad T, Govarthanan M, Karmegam N, Wijesekara H, et al. Impacts of climate change on the fate of contaminants through extreme weather events. Sci Total Environ. 2024;909:168388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168388
  15. 15. Omokpariola DO, Agbanu-Kumordzi C, Samuel T, Kiswil L, Moses GS, Adelegan AM. Climate change, crop yield and food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Discov Sustain. 2025;6:678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01580-4
  16. 16. Simane B, Kapwata T, Naidoo N, Cisse G, Wright CY, Berhane K. Ensuring Africa’s food security by 2050: the role of population growth, climate-resilient strategies and putative pathways to resilience. Foods. 2025;14(2):262. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14020262
  17. 17. Hasegawa T, Fujimori S, Havlík P, Valin H, Bodirsky BL, Doelman JC, et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8(8):699–703. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x
  18. 18. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100. 2017. https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100
  19. 19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. 2025.
  20. 20. Husson B, Bluhm BA, Cyr F, Danielson SL, Eriksen E, Fossheim M, et al. Borealization impacts shelf ecosystems across the Arctic. Front Environ Sci. 2024;12:1481420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1481420
  21. 21. Yang D, Liu Y. Human activities unevenly disturbed climatic impacts on vegetation dynamics across natural-anthropogenic-integrated ecosystem types in China. Habitat Int. 2025;103451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103451
  22. 22. Simmons CT, Matthews HD. Assessing the implications of human land-use change for the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11(3):035001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035001
  23. 23. O'Connor JP. Modeling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations as a function of fossil-fuel and land-use change CO₂ emissions coupled with oceanic and terrestrial sequestration. Climate. 2020;8:61. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8050061
  24. 24. Jayakrishnan KU, Bala G, Cao L, Caldeira K. Contrasting climate and carbon-cycle consequences of fossil-fuel use versus deforestation disturbance. Environ Res Lett. 2022;17:064020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac69fd
  25. 25. Ciais P, Sabine C, Bopp L, Brovkin V, Canadell J, Chhabra A, et al. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al., editors. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2013. p. 465–570. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.015
  26. 26. Jamilah M, Becker A, Lee SL, Quiros TEAL, Chee SY, Evans C, et al. Socioeconomic impacts linked to land use and land use changes affecting blue carbon ecosystems in Southeast Asia: a systematic map. Ocean Coast Manag. 2025;267:107643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107643
  27. 27. Thurston GD, De Matteis S, Murray K, Scheelbeek P, Scovronick N, Budolfson M, et al. Maximising the public health benefits from climate change. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:3852–3853. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00859
  28. 28. Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA. Root biomass allocation in the world's upland forests. Oecologia. 1997;111:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050201
  29. 29. IPCC. Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Kanagawa (Japan): Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; 2003.
  30. 30. Sheikh MA, Kumar M, Bussmann RW, Todaria NP. Forest carbon stocks and fluxes in physiographic zones of India. Carbon Balance Manag. 2011;6:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-6-15
  31. 31. IPCC. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol. 4, Agriculture, forestry and other land use. Hayama, Kanagawa (Japan): Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; 2006.
  32. 32. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd; 1973.
  33. 33. 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;37:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  34. 34. Mani S, Parthasarathy N. Above-ground biomass estimation in ten tropical dry evergreen forest sites of peninsular India. Biomass Bioenergy. 2007;31(5):284–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.08.006
  35. 35. Jothivel S. Diversity of wood specific gravity among forest trees, Kolli Hills, southern Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Environ Biol. 2016;6(1):29–33.
  36. 36. Kant S. Biomass and carbon stock estimation under different land use system of semi-arid region of Bundelkhand [MSc thesis]. Banda (India): Banda University of Agriculture and Technology; 2022. 84 p.
  37. 37. Akinnifesi FK, Smucker AJM, Kang BT. Below-ground dynamics in agroforestry systems. Ann Arid Zone. 1999;38(3–4):239–273. https://doi.org/10.56093/aaz.v38i3%20&%204.65595
  38. 38. Lanner RM. On the insensitivity of height growth to spacing. For Ecol Manag. 1985;13(3–4):143–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(85)90030-1
  39. 39. Kumar V, Kanhamu TK, Tiwari A. Tree nutrition and productivity changes in mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla King) based agrisilvicultural system in the humid tropics. Agrofor Syst. 2025;99:51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01149-0
  40. 40. Zhang Y, Chen HYH. Individual size inequality links forest diversity and aboveground biomass. J Ecol. 2015;103:1245–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12425
  41. 41. Behera SK, Sahu N, Mishra AK, Bargali SS, Behera MD, Tuli R. Aboveground biomass and carbon stock assessment in Indian tropical deciduous forest and relationship with stand structural attributes. Ecol Eng. 2017;99:513–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.11.046
  42. 42. Poorter L, van der Sande MT, Thompson J, Arets EJMM, Alarcon A, Alvarez-Sanchez J, et al. Diversity enhances carbon storage in tropical forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2015;24:1314–1328. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12364
  43. 43. Dănescu A, Albrecht AT, Bauhus J. Structural diversity promotes productivity of mixed, uneven-aged forests in southwestern Germany. Oecologia. 2016;182:319–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3623-4
  44. 44. Ali A, Mattsson E. Individual tree size inequality enhances aboveground biomass in homegarden agroforestry systems in the dry zone of Sri Lanka. Sci Total Environ. 2017;575:6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.022
  45. 45. Chavan SB, Dhillon RS, Sirohi C, Uthappa AR, Jinger D, Jatav HS, et al. Carbon sequestration potential of commercial agroforestry systems in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India: poplar- and eucalyptus-based agroforestry systems. Forests. 2023;14:559. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14030559
  46. 46. Peichl M, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Huss J, Abohassan RA. Carbon sequestration potentials in temperate tree-based intercropping systems, southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst. 2006;66(3):243–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-0361-8
  47. 47. Shalima Devi GM, Anil Kumar KS. Characteristics of coffee growing soils and their organic carbon stocks in Karnataka State. Agropedology. 2009;19(1):6–14.
  48. 48. Moreno G, Obrador JJ, Cubera E, Dupraz C. Fine root distribution in dehesas of central-western Spain. Plant Soil. 2005;277(1):153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-6805-0
  49. 49. Howlett DS, Mosquera-Losada MR, Nair PKR, Nair VD. Soil carbon storage as influenced by tree cover in the dehesa cork oak silvopasture of central-western Spain. J Environ Monit. 2011;13:1897–1904. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1EM10059A
  50. 50. Bargali SS, Bargali K, Singh L, Ghosh L, Lakhera ML. Acacia nilotica-based traditional agroforestry system: effect on paddy crop and management. Curr Sci. 2009;96(4):581–587.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.