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

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp2 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Estimation of diversity, biomass and carbon sequestration potential of woody vegetation in scarce rainfall zone of Andhra Pradesh

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13763
Submitted
21 January 2026
Published
21-05-2026

Abstract

This study was conducted in four districts (Anantapur, Kurnool, Nandyal and Sri Satya Sai) of Andhra Pradesh, India under the scarce rainfall zone (SRZ), where woody floral diversity plays a crucial role in storing carbon and supporting the ecosystem. We found that varying number of tree species in each district such as 34 in Anantapur, 53 in Kurnool, 56 in Nandyal and 50 in Sri Satya Sai district. The diversity of woody species was measured using the Shannon diversity index and Simpson's index. The results showed that Sri Satya Sai had the highest diversity (1.43), while Anantapur had the lowest (1.19). Simpson’s index ranged from 0.94 to 0.97, indicating variations in species composition. Nandyal district had the highest above-ground biomass (AGB) 430.16 Mg ha-1, below-ground biomass of 111.84 Mg ha-1, total biomass density of 542.10 Mg ha-1 and carbon density of 271.00 Mg ha-1. Effective conservation and management strategies are necessary to enhance carbon storage and protect biodiversity in semi-arid regions like Andhra Pradesh.

References

  1. 1. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. ISBN 4-88788-032-4; TRN: JP07CC058.
  2. 2. Shahid M, Joshi SP. Carbon stock variation in different forest types of western Himalaya, Uttarakhand. J For Environ Sci. 2018;34(2):145–52.
  3. 3. Zhao M, Yang J, Zhao N, Liu Y, Wang Y, Wilson JP, et al. Estimation of China's forest stand biomass carbon sequestration based on the continuous biomass expansion factor model and seven forest inventories from 1977 to 2013. For Ecol Manage. 2019;448:528–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.06.036
  4. 4. Harvey CA, Dickson B, Kormos C. Opportunities for achieving biodiversity conservation through REDD. Conserv Lett. 2010;3(1):53–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00086.x
  5. 5. Basuki TM, Van Laake PE, Skidmore AK, Hussin YA. Allometric equations for estimating the above-ground biomass in tropical lowland Dipterocarp forests. For Ecol Manage. 2009;257(8):1684–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.027
  6. 6. Rajendran A, Aravindhan V, Sarvalingam A. Biodiversity of the Bharathiar University campus, India: A floristic approach. Int J Biodivers Conserv. 2014;6(4):308–19. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2014.0679
  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. Gebeyehu G, Soromessa T, Bekele T, Teketay D. Species composition, stand structure and regeneration status of tree species in dry Afromontane forests of Awi Zone, northwestern Ethiopia. Ecosyst Health Sustain. 2019;5(1):199–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2019.1664938
  9. 9. Tan ZD, Ramdzan KNM, Denoun LML, Aziz MK, Ibrahim A, Jayathilake HM, et al. Aboveground and soil carbon in novel forest ecosystems in Singapore: A case study of abandoned plantation secondary forests. Plants People Planet. 2025;7(6):1803–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.70047
  10. 10. Waring B, Neumann M, Prentice IC, Adams M, Smith P, Siegert M. Forests and decarbonization - roles of natural and planted forests. Front For Glob Change. 2020;3:58. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00058
  11. 11. Pugh TAM, Lindeskog M, Smith B, Poulter B, Arneth A, Haverd V, et al. Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:4382–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810512116
  12. 12. Basher T, Akter F. The role of plants in carbon sequestration: Mechanisms, ecosystem contributions and their impact on mitigating climate change. Aust Herbal Insight. 2022;5(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.25163/ahi.519943
  13. 13. Houghton RA, Nassikas AA. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2017;31(3):456–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GB005546
  14. 14. Sanderman J, Hengl T, Fiske GJ. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(36):9575–80. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706103114
  15. 15. Pan YD, Birdsey RA, Phillips OL, Jackson RB. The structure, distribution and biomass of the world's forests. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2013;44:593–622. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135914
  16. 16. Kumar V, Tiwari A. Importance of tropical homegardens agroforestry system. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(9):1002–19. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.122
  17. 17. Mlambo D, Ulman Y, Álvarez-Álvarez P, Chavan SB, editors. Agroforestry for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA; 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/978-2-8325-6456-1
  18. 18. IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat; 2019.
  19. 19. Andres SE, Standish RJ, Lieurance PE, Mills CH, Harper RJ, Butler DW, et al. Defining biodiverse reforestation: Why it matters for climate change mitigation and biodiversity. Plants People Planet. 2023;5(1):27–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10329
  20. 20. Fahrudin A, Sakti AD, Komara HZ, Sumarga E, Choiruddin A, Hendrawan VSA, et al. Optimizing afforestation and reforestation strategies to enhance ecosystem services in critically degraded regions. Trees For People. 2024;18:100700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100700
  21. 21. Chen S, Tian L, Zhang B, Zhang G, Zhang F, Yang K, et al. Quantifying the impact of large-scale afforestation on the atmospheric water cycle during rainy season over the Chinese Loess Plateau. J Hydrol. 2023;619:129326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129326
  22. 22. Felipe-Lucia MR, Soliveres S, Penone C, Manning P, Van Der Plas F, Boch S, et al. Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4
  23. 23. Rewald B, Ammer C, Hartmann H, Malyshev AV, Meier IC. Editorial: Woody plants and forest ecosystems in a complex world-ecological interactions and physiological functioning above and below ground. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00173
  24. 24. Walker LR, Landau F, Velázquez E, Shiels AB, Sparrow AD. Early successional woody plants facilitate and ferns inhibit forest development on Puerto Rican landslides. J Ecol. 2010;98(3):625–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01641.x
  25. 25. Wahid PA. Radioisotope studies of root activity and root-level interactions in tree-based production systems: A review. Appl Radiat Isot. 2001;54(5):715–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-8043(00)00347-X
  26. 26. Dreyer I. Nutrient cycling is an important mechanism for homeostasis in plant cells. Plant Physiol. 2021;187(4):2246–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab217
  27. 27. Fontaine S, Abbadie L, Aubert M, Barot S, Bloor JMG, Derrien D et al. Plant-soil synchrony in nutrient cycles: Learning from ecosystems to design sustainable agrosystems. Glob Change Biol. 2023;30:e17034. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17034
  28. 28. Rezzi S, Schwab CN, Kourmpetis Y, Kussmann M, Canarelli S, Darioli R. Nutrient efficiency at the core of nutrition and sustainability. Front Nutr. 2024;10:1248895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2023.1248895
  29. 29. Mensah S, Noulèkoun F, Dimobe K, Seifert T, Glèlè Kakaï R. Climate and soil effects on tree species diversity and aboveground carbon patterns in semi-arid tree savannas. Sci Rep. 2023;13:11509. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38225-3
  30. 30. Amanuel S, Liu Q, Genetu A, Yenesew A. The effect of tree spacing on the growth and biomass of Wattle trees in northwestern Ethiopia. Forests. 2025;16(2):251. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16020251
  31. 31. Houghton RA, Skole DL, Nobre CA, Hackler JL, Lawrence KT, Chomentowski WH. Annual fluxes of carbon from deforestation and regrowth in the Brazilian Amazon. Nature. 2000;403(6767):301–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002062
  32. 32. Bhebhe ZM, Liu X, Zhang Z, Paudyal DR. Estimation of tree diameter at breast height and biomass from allometric models using LiDAR data. Remote Sens. 2025;17(14):2523. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17142523
  33. 33. Kirby KR, Potvin C. Variation in carbon storage among tree species: Implications for the management of a small-scale carbon sink project. For Ecol Manage. 2007;246(2–3):208–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.072
  34. 34. Cherlnet A, Leml T. The role of forest ecosystems for carbon sequestration and poverty alleviation in Ethiopia. Int J For Res. 2023;3838404. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3838404
  35. 35. Xu K, Zou G, Hu H. Forest carbon sequestration functions and mitigation strategies for global climate change. In: Forest science-advances towards sustainable development and climate resilience. 2025. p. 212. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1009089
  36. 36. Bharghavi K, Reddy TL, Kapa H, Rajesh P, Sushmitha H, Reddy KK . Decadal analysis of monsoon climate variability and drought indicators in Rayalaseema. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 2025;39:4985–5009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-025-03059-0
  37. 37. He C, Fan F, Qiao X, Zhou Z, Xu H, Li S, et al. Sampling origins and directions affect the minimum sampling area in forest plots. J Veg Sci. 2024;35(1):e13232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.13232
  38. 38. Kumar BM. Do carbon stocks and floristic diversity of tropical homegardens vary along an elevational gradient? Agrofor Syst. 2023;97:751–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00821-7
  39. 39. 25. Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S, Cairns MA, Chambers JQ, Eamus D, et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia. 2005;145(1):87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x
  40. 40. IPCC. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. IGES; 2006.
  41. 41. Pearson TRH, Walker S, Brown S. Sourcebook for land use-land change and forestry projects. Winrock International; 2005.
  42. 42. Muluneh MG, Worku BB. Carbon storages and sequestration potentials in remnant forests of different patch sizes in northern Ethiopia. Agric Food Secur. 2022;11(1):57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00395-0
  43. 43. Birdsey RA. Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. USDA Forest Service; 1992. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.94267
  44. 44. Pearson TRH, Brown S, Ravindranath NH. Integrating carbon benefits estimates into GEF projects. Global Environment Facility; 2005.
  45. 45. Nair PKR, Nair VD. Solid-fluid-gas: the state of knowledge on carbon-sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2014;6:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.014
  46. 46. Haq SM, Waheed M, Darwish M, Siddiqui MH, Goursi UH, Kumar M, et al. Biodiversity and carbon stocks of the understory vegetation as indicators for forest health in the Zabarwan Mountain Range. Ecol Indic. 2024;159:111685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111685
  47. 47. Kahlon RZ, Butt I, Ahamad MI. Spatial variability of biomass and carbon stock in Jhelum and Chakwal districts of Pakistan. Nat Appl Sci Int J. 2024;5(2):1–13. https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.nasij/5.2.1
  48. 48. Gautam RK, Dhakal DP, Bhattarai P. Carbon secrets: Quantifying biomass and carbon stock potential of Sal in a community forest. Forestry. 2025;22(1):10–8. https://doi.org/10.3126/forestry.v22i1.84753
  49. 49. Iryanthony SB, Wirasatriya A, Pribadi R, Purnomo PW, Muchtar E, Basyuni M, et al. UAV imagery for estimating biomass in mangroves of Rembang. Biodiversitas. 2025;26(5):2065–78. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d260505
  50. 50. Joshi RK, Garkoti SC. Ecosystem carbon stocks in white oak forests in the central Himalaya. J Biosci. 2023;48:12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-023-00336-4
  51. 51. Nath AJ, Sileshi GW, Laskar SY, Pathak K, Reang D, Nath A, et al. Quantifying carbon stocks in agroforestry systems. J Clean Prod. 2021;281:124831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124831
  52. 52. Capellesso ES, Cequinel A, Marques R, Sausen TL, Bayer C, Marques MC. Co-benefits in biodiversity conservation and carbon stock during forest regeneration. For Ecol Manage. 2021;492:119222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119222
  53. 53. Yang L, Zhang J, Wang J, Gu Y, Han S. Tree species diversity and forest productivity. For Ecol Manage. 2023;548:121409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121409
  54. 54. Van Con T, Thang NT, Khiem CC, Quy TH, Lam VT, Van Do T, et al. Relationship between biomass and species diversity in tropical forests. For Ecol Manage. 2013;310:213–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.034
  55. 55. Pandey R, Rawat M, Thakur S, Rana SK, Bhatt ID. Above-ground biomass and soil organic carbon stock in temperate forests of Himalaya. Land Degrad Dev. 2026;1–18.
  56. 56. Torres AB, Lovett JC. Using basal area to estimate aboveground carbon stocks in forests. Forestry. 2013;86:267–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cps084
  57. 57. Behera SK, Sahu N, Mishra AK, Bargali SS, Behera MD, Tuli R. Aboveground biomass and carbon stock in Indian tropical deciduous forest. Ecol Eng. 2017;99:513–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.11.046

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.