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

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Evaluation of soil and biomass carbon stock across different land use systems in the Vitalapura sub-watershed, Kadur taluk, Chikkamagaluru district-Karnataka, India

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12590
Submitted
5 November 2025
Published
21-01-2026

Abstract

Carbon stock assessment studies at the watershed level remain limited due to the absence of standardized methodologies, leading to inconsistent and incomparable estimates across ecosystems. The present study evaluated carbon stock distribution across major land cover types in the Vitalapura sub-watershed of Kadur Taluk, Chikmagaluru District, using high-resolution QuickBird satellite imagery (0.61 m) combined with ground-truthing. The identified land cover categories included agricultural land (21.82 %), coconut plantation (16.67 %) and forest (0.45 %). Statistical analysis revealed significant variations in biomass and carbon pools among these land covers. Forests recorded the highest above ground biomass (104.29 Mg ha-1), below ground biomass (28.16 Mg ha-1) and total carbon stock (208.29 Mg C ha-1), while agricultural lands showed the lowest values. Soil organic carbon (SOC) was also greatest in forests (146.04 Mg ha-1) and least in agricultural land (77.88 Mg ha-1). Although forests had the highest per-hectare carbon stock, their limited spatial extent restricted their contribution to only 2 % of the total carbon stock. By contrast, coconut plantations and agricultural land, owing to their wider distribution, contributed 56 and 42 % of the total carbon stock, respectively. These findings demonstrate the critical role of land cover in regulating carbon sequestration potential. The study highlights the significance of coconut plantations as a major carbon pool in the sub-watershed and the comparatively reduced contribution of forests due to their limited area. Overall, the results emphasise the need for sustainable land use planning and management strategies that enhance carbon storage, conserve existing forest patches and optimise agricultural and plantation systems for improved carbon sequestration in the region.

References

  1. 1. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi L, Kurz WA, et al. The enduring world forest carbon sink. Nature. 2024;614(7948):489-94. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07602-x
  2. 2. International Energy Agency (IEA). CO₂ emissions in 2023: executive summary [Internet]. Paris: IEA; 2024 [cited 2026 Jan 3]. Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/executive-summary
  3. 3. Woodwell Climate Research Center. Global forest carbon storage, explained [Internet]. Woods Hole (MA): Woodwell Climate Research Center; 2024 [cited 2026 Jan 3]. Available from: https://www.woodwellclimate.org/global-forest-carbon-storageexplained/
  4. 4. Qiu H, Zhang J, Liu S, Li Y. Watershed carbon yield derived from gauge observations. Scientific Data. 2023;10(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02162-7
  5. 5. Zhang J, Liu S, Qiu H. Mechanisms for carbon stock driving and scenario analysis in watershed ecosystems. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2024;31(5):234-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-12947-x
  6. 6. Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science. 2004;304(5677):1623-7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
  7. 7. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science. 2011;333(6045):988-93. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609
  8. 8. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems for climate change mitigation. Nairobi: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry; 2011. p. 1–45.
  9. 9. Rahangdale CP, Koshta LD. Biomass production and carbon sequestration potential under different land-use systems in Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh. Adv Life Sci. 2016;5(21):9638-42.
  10. 10. Anonymous. Climate change: synthesis report. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva: IPCC; 2000. p. 123-4.
  11. 11. Sharma S, Rana VS, Prasad H, Lakra J, Sharma U. Appraisal of carbon capture, storage and utilization through fruit crops. Front Environ Sci. 2021;9:700768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.700768
  12. 12. Yirdaw M. Carbon stock sequestered by selected tree species plantations in Wondo Genet College, Ethiopia. J Earth Sci Clim Change. 2018;9(5):1-5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7617.1000483
  13. 13. Anonymous. Land use, land-use change and forestry: a special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 339-88.
  14. 14. Bohre P, Chaubey OP, Singhal PK. Biomass accumulation and carbon sequestration in Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. Int J Biol Sci Biotechnol. 2003;4:29-44.
  15. 15. Naresh KS, Kasturibai KV, George J. Method for non-destructive estimation of dry weight of coconut stem. J Plantation Crops. 2008;36(3):296-9.
  16. 16. Pearson T, Brown S, Ravindranath NH. Integrating carbon benefits estimates into GEF projects. Washington (DC): Global Environment Facility; 2005. p. 1-56.
  17. 17. Ravikumar D, Govindaraju. Assessment of soil fertility status of Koranahalli sub-watershed in Tarikere taluk using nutrient index approach. Earth Resour Conserv Manag. 2019;14(6):47-52.
  18. 18. Devagiri GM, Khaple A, Anithraj HB, Kushalappa CG, Krishnappa AK, Mishra SB. Assessment of tree diversity and above-ground biomass in coffee agroforest-dominated tropical landscape of India’s Central Western Ghats. I J Forest Res. 2019;2019:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9652014
  19. 19. Jafarian Z, Tayefeh SA. Carbon sequestration potential in dry farmed wheat in Kiasar region. J Agric Sci. 2013;23(1):32-41.
  20. 20. Sarangle S, Rajasekaran A, Benbi DK, Chauhan SK. Biomass and carbon stock, carbon sequestration potential under selected land use systems in Punjab. For Res Eng Int J. 2018;2(2):75-80. https://doi.org/10.15406/freij.2018.02.00042
  21. 21. Bhagya, Maheswarappa HP, Surekha, Bhat R. Carbon sequestration potential in coconut-based cropping systems. Indian J Hortic. 2017;74(1):1-5.
  22. 22. Zhao P, Liu J, Wang Q, Zhang Y, Chen X. Forest aboveground biomass estimation using airborne LiDAR: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J For. 2025;123:389-412.
  23. 23. Gupta DK, Bhatt RK, Keerthika A, Mohamed MBN, Shukla AK, Jangid BL. Carbon sequestration potential of Hardwickia binata Roxb.-based agroforestry in hot semi-arid environment of India: an assessment of tree density impact. Curr Sci. 2019;116(1):112-16.
  24. 24. Chisanga K, Bhardwaj DR, Pala NA, Thakur CL. Biomass production and carbon stock inventory of high-altitude dry temperate land-use systems in North-Western Himalaya. Ecol Process. 2018;7(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-018-0137-7
  25. 25. Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol Appl. 2000;10(2):423-36. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0423:TVDOSO]2.0.CO;2

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.