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

Research Articles

Early Access

Carbon sequestration potential of Casuarina equisetifolia plantations at harvest age in tropical region of India

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.5987
Submitted
19 October 2024
Published
14-03-2025
Versions

Abstract

Studying the carbon stock of tree plantations is essential for mitigating climate change, as trees act as carbon dioxide sinks by fixing carbon during photosynthesis and storing excess carbon as biomass. With a significant emphasis on the role of carbon in global warming, Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) activities have the potential to provide a “sink” for carbon from our atmosphere and act as a reservoir. In current study, the sequestered carbon dioxide from atmosphere by Casuarina plantations was calculated and converted into carbon by a particular plantation using the globally accepted formula developed by the IPCC. Simultaneously, the soil organic carbon of the particular Casuarina plantations was also estimated. Finally, the carbon stock of Casuarina equisetifolia plantations were estimated under different management practices. The various management practices like pruning, irrigation and fertilizer application also improves the carbon sink potential of the tree plantations. The mean carbon concentration ranged from 41% (leaf litter) to 46% (wood) in the different components of Casuarina equisetifolia. The plantations recorded a carbon accumulation of 9.12 Mt C ha?¹ year?¹ in biomass components alone at the harvest age of 3 years in the tropical region of Tamil Nadu, India. Proper management practices in tropical regions worldwide have the potential to further enhance carbon stocks in plantations. This data will be ready reckoner for future Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects for controlling global warming.

References

  1. NOAA, Citing online sources. Mauna Loa dataset. 2023. (Available from http://co2now.org/)
  2. Singh YV, Yadav SS, Gupta SR, Meena RS, Lal R, Sheoran NS, Jhariya MK. Carbon sequestration potential and CO2 fluxes in a tropical forest ecosystem. Ecol Engin. 2022;Vol 176: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106541
  3. Meizhi L, Song Y, Lu D, Qiu Z. Geospatial environmental influence on forest carbon sequestration potential of tropical forest growth in Hainan Island, China. Front Environ Sci. 2022;10:807105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.807105
  4. Gurumurthi K. Casuarina in India: Recent advances, 1-2: Casuarina improvement and utilization. In: Gurumurthi K, Nicodemus A, Siddappa, editors. Institute of Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding, Coimbatore, India; 2001.
  5. Nicodemus A. Casuarina: A guide for cultivation. Money spinning trees 1. Institute of Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding (Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education) Coimbatore-2; 2009.
  6. DES. Report on directorate of economics and statistics, Tamil Nadu Government, Chennai, Tamil Nadu; 2022.
  7. Soumit BK, Mishra S, Sahu N, Manika N, Singh SN, Anto S, et al. Assessment of carbon sequestration potential of tropical tree species for urban forestry in India. Ecol Engin. 2022;181:106692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106692
  8. Dhruw SK, Singh L, Singh AK. Storage and sequestration of carbon by leguminous and non-leguminous trees on red lateritic soil of Chhattisgarh. Indian Forester. 2009;135(4):531?38.
  9. Dey SK. A preliminary estimation of carbon stock sequestrated through Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantation in Northeastern region of India. Indian Forester. 2005;11:1429?36.
  10. Negi JDS, Manhas RK, Chauhan PS. Carbon allocation in different components of some tree species of India: a new approach for carbon estimation. Curr Sci. 2003;85(11):1528?31.
  11. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englowood Cliffs, N.J. 1962;132:181.
  12. Batjes NH. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European J of Soil Sci. 1996;47(2):151?63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1996.tb01386.x
  13. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers, 4th Edition, ICAR. New Delhi; 1985
  14. Montagnini F, Porras C. Evaluating the role of plantations as carbon sinks: An example of an integrative approach from the humid tropics. Environ Manag. 1998;22(3):459?70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900119
  15. Kraenzel M, Castillo A, Moore T, Potvin C. Carbon storage of harvest-age teak (Tectona grandis) plantations, Panama. Forest Ecol and Manag. 2003;173:213?25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00002-6
  16. Jha MN, Gupta MK, Saxena A, Kumar R. Soil organic carbon store in different forest of India. Indian Forester. 2003;129(6):714?24.
  17. Singh P, Dubey P, Jha KK. Biomass production and carbon storage at harvest age in superior Dendroclamus strictus Nees. Plantation in dry deciduous forest region of India. Indian J of Forestry. 2006;29(4):353?60. https://doi.org/10.54207/bsmps1000-2006-543QD5
  18. Ramachandran A, Jayakumar S, Haroon RM, Bhaskaran A, Arockiasamy DI. Carbon sequestration: estimation of carbon stock in natural forests using geospatial technology in the Eastern Ghats of Tamil Nadu, India. Curr Sci. 2007;92(3):323?31.
  19. Ravindranath NH, Chaturvedi RK, Murthy K. Forest conservation, afforestation and restoration in India: Implications for forest carbon stocks. Curr Sci. 2008;95(2):216?22.
  20. Chauhan SK, Naveen G, Sudhir Y, Rajni C. Biomass and carbon allocation in different parts of agroforestry tree species. Indian Forester. 2009;135(7):981?93.
  21. Sharma R, Pradhan L, Kumari M, Bhattacharya P. Assessment of carbon sequestration potential of tree species in Amity University Campus Noida. Environ Sci Proceed. 2020;3(52):pp. 2?9. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECF2020-08075
  22. Daniel D, Terra MCNS, Pinto LOR, Calegario N, Maciel SM. Above and belowground carbon stock in a tropical forest in Brazil. Acta Scientiarum. Agron. 2020;43:e48276. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v43i1.48276
  23. Marcio V, Rodríguez-Soalleiro R. A complete assessment of carbon stocks in above and belowground biomass components of a hybrid Eucalyptus plantation in Southern Brazil. Forests. 2019;10:536. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10070536
  24. Du H, Zeng F, Peng W, Wang K, Zhang H, Liu L, Song T. Carbon storage in a Eucalyptus plantation chronosequence in Southern China. Forests. 2015;6:1763–78. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6061763
  25. Vallejos-Barra O, Daniluk-Mosquera G, Moras G, Ponce-Donoso M, Conteras MA. Above-ground carbon absorption in young Eucalyptus globulus plantations in Uruguay. Sci For. 2014;42:9–19.
  26. Bhanudas. Carbon sequestration potential under Populus deltoides intercropped with wheat based agroforestry system. M.Sc. thesis, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand; 2009
  27. Fang S, Xue J, Tang L. Biomass production and carbon sequestration potential of poplar plantations with different management patterns. J of Environ Manag. 2007;85(3):672–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.09.014
  28. Dhand V, Tripathi AK, Manhas RK, Negi JD, Chauhan PS. Estimation of carbon content in some forest tree species. Indian Forester. 2003;129(7):918?22.
  29. Gielen B, Liberloo M, Bognert J, Calfapietra C, De Angelis P, Miglietta F, et al. Three years of free-air CO2 enrichment (POPFACE) only slightly affect profiles of light and leaf characteristics in closed canopies of Populus. Global Change Biol. 2003;1022?37. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00644.x
  30. Xing Z, Bourque CP, Swift DE, Clowater CW, Krasowski M, Meng FR. Carbon and biomass partitioning in balsam fir (Abies balsamea). Tree Physiol. 2005;25(9):1207?17. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.9.1207
  31. Adalarasan R. Carbon sequestration potential of teak (Tectona grandis Linn. f) as influenced by fertilization and irrigation. Ph.D. thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu; 2008
  32. Nunes LJR, Raposo MAM, Meireles CIR, Gomes CJP, Ribeiro NMCA. Carbon sequestration potential of forest invasive species: A case study with Acacia dealbata Link. Resourc. 2021;10(5):51. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10050051
  33. Dadhwal VK, Nayak SR. A preliminary estimate of biogeochemical cycle of carbon for India. Sci and Culture. 1993;59(1 & 2):9?13.
  34. Chhabra A, Palria S, Dadhwal VK. Growing stock-based forest biomass in Indian forests. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2002;22(3):187?94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(01)00068-X
  35. Ravindranath NH, Somashekhar BS, Gadgil M. Carbon flows in Indian forests. Climate Change. 1997;35:297?320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005303405404
  36. Lal M, Singh R. Carbon sequestration potential of Indian Forests. Environ Monitoring and Assessment. 2000;60:315?27. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006139418804
  37. Manhas RK, Negi JDS, Kumar R, Chauhan PS. Temporal assessment of growing stock, biomass and carbon stock of Indian forests. Indian Forester. 2006;74(1-3):191?221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-9011-4
  38. Singh P, Lodhiyal LS. Biomass and carbon allocation in 8-year-old poplar (Populus deltoides Marsh) plantations in tarai agroforestry systems of Central Himalaya, India. New York Sci J. 2009;2(6):49–53.
  39. Jana BK, Biswas S, Majumder M, Roy PK, Mazumdar A. Carbon sequestration rate and aboveground biomass carbon potential of four young species. J of Ecol and Nat Environ. 2009;1(2):015?024.
  40. Hugh BCA, Berningerc FA, Larjavaarad M, Appiah M. Above-ground carbon stocks and timber value of old timber plantations, secondary and primary forests in southern Ghana. Forest Ecol and Manag. 2020;471-118236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118236
  41. Haripriya GS. Carbon budget of the Indian forest ecosystem. Climate Change. 2003;56:291?319. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021724313715
  42. Updegraff K, Baughman MJ, Taff SJ. Environmental benefits of cropland conversion to Hybrid Poplar: economic and policy considerations. Biomass Bioenergy. 2004;27:411?28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.05.002
  43. Niu X, Duiker SW. Carbon sequestration potential by afforestation of marginal agricultural land in the Midwestern U.S. Forest Ecol and Manag. 2006;223:415?27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.044
  44. Chavan BL, Rasal GB. Sequestered standing carbon stock in selective campus at Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India. Int J of Engineer Sci and Technol. 2010;7:3003?07.
  45. Rajendra J, Dhyani BS. Biomass, carbon density and diversity of tree species in tropical dry deciduous forests in Central India. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2019;39(4):289?99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2018.09.009
  46. Tarun ADAK, Rajan S, Singh VK. Dynamics of soil and tree carbon storage in different agroforestry/tree based land use systems. J of Agri Physics. 2018;18(1):127?34.
  47. Guillermo OF, Guevara M, Gilabert H, Montes CR, Arellano EC, Barría-Knopf B, et al. Baseline of carbon stocks in Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus spp. plantations of Chile. Forests. 2020;11:1063. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11101063
  48. Premetilake MMSN, Perera GAD, Kulasooriya SA, Ratnayake RR. Variation in above and below ground carbon storage in a Eucalyptus grandis plantation established in a grassland with a chronosequence of age. Trop Ecol. 2023;64(1): https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-022-00286-2
  49. Garten CT, Wullschleger SD, Classen AT. Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration under hybrid Poplar. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2011;35:214?26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.013
  50. Torraspapel. Available from http://www.thepapereffect.com. 2010.
  51. Pirard R. Pulpwood plantations as carbon sinks in Indonesia. In: Murdiyarso D,Herawati H, editors. Carbon forestry: who will benefit? Proceedings of workshop on carbon sequestration and sustainable livelihoods, held in Bogor on 16-17 February 2005.
  52. Ruiz P, Montero G, Rio M. Biomass models to estimate carbon stocks for hardwood tree species. Forest Systems. 2012;221(1):42?52. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2112211-02193

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.