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

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2025)

Changes in carbon sequestration with age of trees in guava orchards at different locations in a tropical climate on Alfisols

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.4456
Submitted
25 July 2024
Published
07-01-2025 — Updated on 21-01-2025
Versions

Abstract

Understanding changes in carbon (C) fluxes resulting from land-use change patterns is essential for formulating effective climate change mitigation strategies. This study conducted at two different locations focuses on the dynamics of carbon sequestration in guava orchards as a function of tree age, a land-use type that is increasingly prevalent in agricultural regions. Through comprehensive sampling in different agro-climatic zones, the carbon content stored in tree biomass, litter, weeds and soil layers was assessed, the evaluation of which provided insights into carbon levels in different environmental contexts. Carbon sequestration was observed to increase with guava orchard age, with mean carbon stocks of 106.84 t C/ha in Dhenkanal and 114.35 t C/ha in Rayagada. In guava orchards aboveground carbon accounted for 21.22% and 22.38% of total carbon sequestered per hectare at the recommended spacing of 6 × 6 m in Dhenkanal and Rayagada, respectively. Our findings provide critical baseline data on carbon stocks in guava orchards as a function of tree age, contributing to the understanding of the carbon cycle in these cultivated ecosystems. This study highlights the importance of region-specific data, and suggests future research to include guava orchards in other regions with larger sample sizes to comprehensively assess carbon sequestration potential nationwide.

References

  1. Mitra SK, Gurung MR, Pathak PK. Guava production and improvement in India: an overview. International workshop on tropical and subtropical fruits. Acta Hortic. 2008;4:787. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.787.4
  2. Production: horticulture crops: fruits: guava: Odisha. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; 2024. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/india/production-of-horticulture-cropsin-major-states-fruits-mango/production-horticulture-cropsfruits-mango-odisha
  3. FAO. Support to national forest assessments. FAO Forestry Department website; 2005.
  4. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Good practice guidance or land use, land-use change and forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama; 2003. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/GPG_LULUCF_FULLEN.pdf
  5. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol 4, Agriculture, Forestry and other land use (AFLOLU). Institute for Global Environmental strategies, Hayama, Japan; 2006. https://www.ipccnggip. iges.or. jp/public/ 2006gl/vol4.html
  6. Ganeshamurthy AN, Rupa TR, Alivelu K, Rajendiran S, Laxman RH. A biomass estimation model for nondestructive estimation of guava tree biomass. Res Sq. 2022 Nov 28;1-15. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2310563/v1
  7. Birdsey RA. Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. Gen Tech Rep WO-59 Washington, DC: US. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; 1992. p. 51. https://doi.org/10.2737/WO-GTR-59
  8. Ganeshamurthy AN, Ravindra V, Venugopalan R, Malarvizhi M, Bhat RM. Biomass distribution and development of allometric equations for non-destructive estimation of carbon sequestration in grafted mango trees. J Agric Sci. 2016;8:201-11. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v8n8p201
  9. Nelson DW, Sommers LE. Methods of soil analysis part 3, chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America Book. 1996;5:961-1010. https://doi.org/10. 2136/ sssa books er5.3.c34
  10. Bernoux M, Eschenbrenner V, Cerri CC, Melillo JM, Feller C. LULUCF-based CDM: too much ado for a small carbon market. Clim Policy. 2002;2:379-85. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.888
  11. Dash PK, Mishra A, Saren S. Characterization and taxonomic classification of soils under a toposequence located in eastern India. Environ Ecol. 2019;37:1240-49. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20193520812
  12. Chavan BL, Rasal GB. Potentiality of carbon sequestration in sixyear ages young plant from University campus of Aurangabad. Global J Res Eng. 2011;7:15-20. https://globaljournals.org/GJRE_Volume11/3-Potentiality-of-Carbon-Sequestration-in-SixYear-Ages-Young.pdf
  13. Sureshbhai PJ, Thakur NS, Jha SK, Kumar V. Productivity and carbon sequestration under prevalent agroforestry systems in Navsari district, Gujarat, India. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(9):3405-22. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.419
  14. Sharma S, Rana VS, Prasad H, Johnson L, Umesh S. Appraisal of carbon capture, storage and utilization through fruit crops. Front Environ Sci. 2021;9:1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.700768
  15. Usuga JCL, Toro JAR, Alzate MVR, Tapias AJL. Estimation of biomass and carbon stocks in plants, soil and forest floor in different tropical forests. For Ecol Manag. 2010;260(10):1906-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.08.040
  16. Chandran P, Ray SK, Durge SL, Raja P, Nimkar AM, Bhattacharyya T, et al. Scope of horticultural land-use system in enhancing carbon sequestration in ferruginous soils of the semiarid tropics. Curr Sci. 2009;7:1039-46. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4014.1764
  17. Ganeshamurthy AN. Annual report. IIHR, Bengaluru, India; 2012. https://www.iihr.res.in/sites/default/files/iihr%20annual%20report%202013_0.pdf
  18. Gupta MK. Soil organic carbon pools under different land use in Haridwar district of Uttarakhand. Indian For. 2011;137(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.54207/bsmps1000-2008-45GJM2
  19. Chhabra A, Palria S, Dadhwal AK. Soil organic carbon pools in indian forests. For Ecol Manag. 2003;173:187-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00016-6
  20. Ordonez JAB. Carbon content in vegetation, litter and soil under 10 different land-use and land-cover classes in the Central Highlands of Michoacan, Mexico. For Ecol Manag. 2008;255:2074-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.024

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.