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

Research Articles

Early Access

Biomass stock and carbon accumulation potential of Quercus lanata Sm. dominated forest in the central Himalayan region

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14861
Submitted
5 April 2026
Published
30-10-2026

Abstract

Forests play a vital role in global carbon cycles by storing large amounts of biomass and serving as major carbon sinks. This study quantified tree biomass, carbon stock, productivity and carbon sequestration potential across three Quercus lanata (Syn. Quercus lanuginosa) dominated forest sites in the Kumaun Himalaya, Uttarakhand, of which two are located in Nainital and one in Pithoragarh districts, at elevations ranging from 1950 to 2200 m. Across all the sites, total tree density varied between 590 and 1115 individuals ha-¹. The tree biomass was estimated by measuring the circumference of trees at breast height. Biomass was estimated using non-destructive allometric equations and carbon stock and sequestration rates were calculated. Across all 3 sites, the tree biomass ranged between 298.49 t ha-¹ and 441.79 t ha-¹ and the carbon stock varied between 141.78 t C ha-¹ and 209.85 t C ha-¹. Forest productivity ranged between 5.39 t ha-¹ yr-1 and 12.34 t ha-¹ yr-1, while carbon sequestration ranged from 2.56 to 5.86 t C ha-¹yr-¹. Quercus lanata was the dominant species at all sites, contributing the largest share in total tree biomass and carbon. The findings emphasise the important role of Q. lanata forests in carbon storage and climate change mitigation. This study provides key baseline data to support strategies aimed at increasing carbon sequestration and maintaining forest ecosystem functions in Himalayan temperate forests.

References

  1. 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546013
  2. 2. Hirst AC. The Southern Ocean response to global warming in the CSIRO coupled ocean–atmosphere model. Environ Model Softw.1999;14:227–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(98)00075-9
  3. 3. Kuuluvainen T, Gauthier S. Young and old forest in the boreal: critical stages of ecosystem dynamics and management under global change. For Ecosyst. 2018;5(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-018-0142-2
  4. 4. Zhao J, Kang F, Wang L, Yu X, Zhao W, Song X, et al.. Patterns of biomass and carbon distribution across a chronosequence of Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) forests. PLoS One. 2014;9(4): e94966. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094966
  5. 5. Pugh TA, 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 USA. 2019;116(10):4382–4387. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810512116
  6. 6. Liu Z, Ciais P, Deng Z, Lei R, Davis SJ, Feng S, et al. Near-real-time monitoring of global CO₂ emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):5172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18922-7
  7. 7. Kindermann G, Obersteiner M, Sohngen B, Sathaye J, Andrasko K, Rametsteiner E et al.. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710616105
  8. 8. Food and Agriculture Organization; United Nations Environment Programme. The State of the World’s Forests 2020: Forests, Biodiversity and People. Rome: FAO; 2020. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8642en
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Popkin G. How much can forests fight climate change? Nature.2019;565(7737):280–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00122-z
  11. 11. Favero A, Daigneault A, Sohngen B. Forests: carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? Sci Adv. 2020;6(13: eaay 6792. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay6792
  12. 12. Yama G, Tripathi OP, Das DN. Modelling of total soil carbon using readily available soil variables in the temperate forest of eastern Himalaya, northeast India. Geol Ecol Landsc. 2021;5(3):209–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2019.1706295
  13. 13. Brown SL, Schroeder P, Kern JS. Spatial distribution of biomass in forests of the eastern USA. For Ecol Manage. 1999;123(1):81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00017-1
  14. 14. Raha D, Dar JA, Pandey PK, Lone PA, Verma S, Khare PK, et al. Variation in tree biomass and carbon stocks in three tropical dry deciduous forest types of Madhya Pradesh, India. Carbon Management. 2020;11(2):109–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2020.1712181
  15. 15. Midgley GF, Bond WJ, Kapos V, Ravilious C, Scharlemann JPW, Woodward F. Terrestrial carbon stocks and biodiversity: key knowledge gaps and policy implications. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2010; 2:264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.06.001
  16. 16. Negi VS, Maletha A, Pathak R, Maikhuri RK. Expansion of a native species and its impacts on alpine ecosystems in the Indian Himalaya. Biologia. 2021;76(3):889–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-021-00693-1
  17. 17. Shrestha UB, Gautam S, Bawa KS. Widespread climate change in the Himalayas and associated changes in local ecosystems. PLoS One. 2012;7(5): e36741. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036741
  18. 18. Shrestha S, Yao T, Kattel DB, Devkota LP. Precipitation characteristics of two complex mountain river basins on the southern slopes of the central Himalayas. Theor Appl Climatol.2019;138(1–2):1159–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-019-02897-7
  19. 19. Global warming of 1.5°C: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940
  20. 20. Tripathi A, Singh GS. Perception, anticipation and responses of people to the changing climate in the Gangetic Plain of India. Current Science. 2013;1673–84.
  21. 21. Rawat YS, Singh JS. Structure and function of oak forests in the central Himalaya. I. Dry matter dynamics. Ann Bot. 1988;62(4):397–411. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a087673
  22. 22. Mandal RA, Laake P. Carbon sequestration in community forests: an eligible issue for CDM. Banko Janakari. 2005;15(2):64–72. https://doi.org/10.3126/banko.v15i2.353
  23. 23. Bargali K, Bisht S, Bargali S, Rawat P, Rawat YS. Carbon pool in Quercus lanuginosa (D. Don) forest of Askot Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Himalaya in relation to stand attributes. Indian For. 2022;148(7):709–17. https://doi.org/10.36808/if/2022/v148i7/168610
  24. 24. Negi SS, Naithani HB. Oaks of India, Nepal and Bhutan. Dehra Dun: International Book Distributors; 1995.
  25. 25. Rawat, A.S, Singh J, Bisht S. Structural attributes and biomass distribution of treeline species in the Western Himalayas. Indian J. for. Res. 48(3): 227–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113511
  26. 26. Shah S, Singh N, Tewari A, Mishra R, Tewari LM, Tariq M, et al. Degradation of oak forests in the Himalaya: impacts on diversity, carbon stock and regeneration. Trees For People. 2025;101080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2025.101080
  27. 27. Huang C, Zhang Y, Bartholomew B. Quercus franchetii. In: Flora of China. Vol. 4. St. Louis (MO) & Cambridge (MA): Missouri Botanical Garden & Harvard University Herbaria; 2012.
  28. 28. Singh SP, Singh JS. Structure and function of the central Himalayan oak forests. Proc Indian Acad Sci (Plant Sci.). 1986;96(3):159–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03053301
  29. 29. Troup RS. Silviculture of Indian Trees. Vol I–III. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1921.
  30. 30. Fartyal A, Khatri K, Bargali K, Bargali SS. Altitudinal variation in plant community, population structure and carbon stock of Quercus semecarpifolia forest in Kumaun Himalaya. J Environ Biol. 2022;43(1):133–146. https://doi.org/10.22438/jeb/43/1/MRN-2003
  31. 31. Saxena AK, Singh JS. A phytosociological analysis of woody species in forest communities of a part of the Kumaun Himalaya.Vegetatio.1982;50:3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00120674
  32. 32. Saxena AK, Singh JS. Tree population structure of certain Himalayan forest associations and implications concerning their future composition. Vegetatio. 1984;58(2):61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00044928
  33. 33. Misra R. Ecology Workbook. Calcutta, India: Oxford & IBH Publishing; 1968.
  34. 34. Curtis JT, McIntosh RP. The interrelationship of certain analytic and synthetic phytosociological characters. Ecology.1950;31:438–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931497
  35. 35. Magnussen S, Reed D. Modeling for estimation and monitoring of carbon stocks: a review of sampling, modeling and error propagation techniques. Environ Manage. 2004;33(4):481–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-9106-0
  36. 36. Peichl M, Arain MA. Above- and belowground ecosystem biomass and carbon pools in an age-sequence of temperate pine plantation forests. Agric For Meteorol 2006;140(1–4):51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.08.004
  37. 37. Gairola S, Sharma CM, Ghildiyal SK, Suyal S. Live tree biomass and carbon variation along an altitudinal gradient in moist temperate valley slopes of the Garhwal Himalaya (India). Current Science. 2011; 101:1862–1870.
  38. 38. Yam GY, Tripathi OP. Floristic diversity, community characteristics and above-ground biomass of woody species in subtropical forests of Ziro Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. Indian Forester. 2015;141(12):1269–1277.
  39. 39. Bhandari MS, Meena RK, Shankhwar R, Pandey S, Kant R, Barthwal S, et al. Global warming scenario depicts enhanced spatial distribution of Quercus lanata in the western Himalayas. Int J Glob Warm. 2020;22(3):255–271. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2020.110861
  40. 40. Singh SP, Adhikari BS, Zobel DB. Biomass, productivity, leaf longevity and forest structure in the Central Himalaya. Ecol Monogr.1994;64(4):401–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937143
  41. 41. Dhar U, Rawal RS, Samant SS. Structural diversity and representativeness of forest vegetation in a protected area of Kumaun Himalaya, India: implications for conservation. Biodivers Conserv. 1997;6:1045–62. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018375932740
  42. 42. Rana BS, Singh SP, Singh RP. Biomass and net primary productivity in central Himalayan forests along an altitudinal gradient. For Ecol Manage. 1989;27(3–4):199–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(89)90107-2
  43. 43. Verma AK, Garkoti SC. Population structure, soil characteristics and carbon stock of regenerating banj oak forests in Almora, central Himalaya. For Sci Technol. 2019;15(3):117–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2019.1620135
  44. 44. Joshi VC, Negi VS, Bisht D, Sundriyal RC, Arya D. Tree biomass and carbon stock assessment of subtropical and temperate forests in the Central Himalaya, India. Trees For People. 2021; 6:100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100147
  45. 45. Dimri S, Baluni P, Sharma CM. Biomass production and carbon storage potential of selected old-growth temperate forests in Garhwal Himalaya, India. Proc Natl Acad Sci India Sect B Biol Sci. 2017; 87:1327–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-016-0708-0
  46. 46. Adhikari BS, Rawat YS, Singh SP. Structure and function of high-altitude forest of Central Himalaya I. Dry matter dynamics. Ann Bot. 1995;75:237–248. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1995.1017

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.