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

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp9 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Effect of spacing on the growth, biomass production and carbon stocks of sandalwood (Santalum album L.) trees under farm conditions in Western Maharashtra, India

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13852
Submitted
27 January 2026
Published
27-10-2026

Abstract

In recent years, farmers have started growing Santalum album L. in states of India like Maharashtra. This has brought a major change to local agroforestry. In this research we wanted to understand how three different tree spacings (3.05 x 3.05 m, 3.66 x 3.66 m and 3.66 x 4.57 m) alter actual tree growth and carbon (C) storage in Western Maharashtra. We made sure to track the exact land conditions across our 24 study sites. The soil types were neutral to moderately alkaline Vertic and Typic Haplustepts with a pH of 7.1–8.1 and the 10 year local rainfall stayed between 112.03 and 233.45 mm. Field data were gathered on standard traits like tree height, thickness (DBH) and wood volume for two age groups (1–5 years and 6–10 years). To find the final biomass weights, we applied the standard equations along with the scaling methods. All collected datasets were carefully checked using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The field records showed a very clear link between planting density and growth (P < 0.001). Young trees (1–5 years) grew quite easily because they had plenty of open space. In this young group, the widest rows of 3.66 x 4.57 m gave the best average DBH of 0.09 m. These wide plots recorded a total biomass of 1.33 Mg ha-1 and a CO2 mitigation value of 2.44 Mg ha-1. But things took a tough turn as the trees hit the 6–10 years mature stage. Heavy crowding on these dry Vertic soils started blocking growth in the tightest 3.05 x 3.05 m layout. This resource stress capped the mature DBH at just 0.07 m and dragged the stand biomass down to 2.09 Mg ha-1. In comparison, the medium spacing of 3.66 x 3.66 m hit the perfect sweet spot by keeping individual trees healthy while protecting the farm's overall yield. In the mature stage, this intermediate spacing hit a top average height of 4.79 m, the best DBH of 0.12 m and a great stand volume of 40.43 m3 ha-1. Due to these superior dimensions, the medium plots maximised mature biomass at 4.30 Mg ha-1 and kept a peak net C stock of 2.15 Mg C ha-1. This adds up to a solid climate benefit of 7.89 Mg CO2 ha-1. Since the interaction between age and spacing was non-significant, we can safely say this medium setup stays highly stable over time. In short, these real-world numbers give a reliable roadmap for connecting private sandalwood farming with global climate programs like reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+).

References

  1. 1. Shukla P, Singh B, Saini A, Haldar S, Singh J. A new population of Santalum album L. (sandalwood) from Agali Forest Range, Kerala, India. Curr Sci. 2016;110(2):148.
  2. 2. Vignesh M, Sivaprakash M, Balasubramanian A, Tilak M, Radhakrishnan S, Prasath CH, et al. Effect of spacing on the growth of sandalwood (Santalum album L.) trees under farm conditions in Tamil Nadu, India. Pharm Innov. 2022;11(7):785–7. https://doi.org/10.22271/tpi.2022.v11.i7j.13784
  3. 3. Berry N, Ranjan T, Kumar P. Impact of stand density on biomass production and carbon stocks in sandalwood (Santalum album L.) plantations in Maharashtra, India. J Sci Res Rep. 2025;31(10):65–75. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2025/v31i103550
  4. 4. Gairola S, Aggarwal PS, Ravikumar GS. Status of production and marketing of sandalwood (Santalum album L.). In: Gairola S, Rathore TS, Joshi G, Arun Kumar AN, Aggarwal PK, editors. Proc National Seminar on Conservation, Improvement, Cultivation and Management of Sandal. Bangalore: Institute of Wood Science and Technology; 2008. p. 1–8.
  5. 5. Doddabasawa, Chittapur BM. Sandalwood plantations – points to ponder. Curr Sci. 2021;120(7):1184–93. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v120/i7/1184-1193
  6. 6. Arunkumar AN, Dhyani A, Joshi G. Santalum album. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T31852A2807668.
  7. 7. Viswanath S, Chakraborty S. Indian sandalwood cultivation prospects in India. In: Arunkumar AN, Joshi G, Warrier RR, Karaba NN, editors. Indian Sandalwood. Materials Horizons: From Nature to Nanomaterials. Singapore: Springer; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6565-3_19
  8. 8. Mishra B, Chakraborty S, Sandhya MC, Viswanath S. Sandalwood farming in India: problems and prospects. Indian J Trop Biodiv. 2018;26(1):1–12.
  9. 9. Subasinghe SMCUP. Sandalwood research: a global perspective. J Trop For Environ. 2013;3(1). https://doi.org/10.31357/jtfe.v3i1.1117
  10. 10. Thomson LA. Looking ahead – global sandalwood production and markets in 2040, and implications for Pacific Island producers. Aust For. 2020;83(4):245–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2020.1841441
  11. 11. Kongsager R, Napier J, Mertz O. The carbon sequestration potential of tree crop plantations. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2013;18:1197–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9417-z
  12. 12. Kalaiselvi B, Dharumarajan S, Lalitha M, Vasundhara R, Srinivasan R, Karthika KS, et al. Carbon sequestration potential of natural sandalwood forest in Southern Western Ghats, India. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 2023;71(3):287–98. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0228.2023.00033.6
  13. 13. Handavu F, Syampungani S, Sileshi GW, Chirwa PWC. Aboveground and belowground tree biomass and carbon stocks in the miombo woodlands of the Copperbelt in Zambia. Carbon Manag. 2021;12(3):307–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2021.1926330
  14. 14. Ravula R, Reddy MC, Rajendra MP, Bodiga S, Sihag K, Sharma MRC. Carbon sequestration potential of Eucalyptus plantations in central agroclimatic zone of Telangana State. Indian J Agrofor. 2022;24(2):76–81.
  15. 15. Kumar M, Ravula R, Reddy GC, Bodiga S, Reddy MC, Rajendra MP. Life cycle assessment and carbon balance of eucalyptus and bamboo plantations in Semi-Arid, India. Environ Monit Assess. 2025;198(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-025-14861-2
  16. 16. NBSS&LUP. Bhoomi Geoportal: National Portal for Soil Land Use Mapping. ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur, India; 2026. https://bhoomi.nbsslup.in
  17. 17. MahaRain. Daily Rainfall Information System. Planning Department, Government of Maharashtra, India; 2025. https://maharain.gov.in
  18. 18. Fulkerson DE. A photographic method for measurement of tree height: more accurate and simpler than other methods? J Hortic For. 2021;13(1):35–43. https://doi.org/10.5897/JHF2020.0661
  19. 19. Chaturvedi AN, Khanna LS. Forest mensuration. Dehradun: International Book Distributors; 1982.
  20. 20. Chave J, Réjou-Méchain M, Búrquez A, Chidumayo E, Colgan MS, Delitti WBC, et al. Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob Change Biol. 2014;20(10):3177–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12629
  21. 21. Seabold S, Perktold J. Statsmodels: econometric and statistical modelling with Python. SciPy. 2010;7(1):92–6. https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011
  22. 22. Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods. 2020;17(3):261–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-020-0772-5
  23. 23. Hunter JD. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput Sci Eng. 2007;9(3):90–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
  24. 24. Waskom ML. Seaborn: statistical data visualization. J Open Source Softw. 2021;6(60):3021. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.