Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2025)

Age-dependent variations in carbon sequestration in mango orchards on alfisols in tropical climates

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.4660
Submitted
14 August 2024
Published
18-12-2024 — Updated on 01-01-2025
Versions

Abstract

Understanding carbon fluxes from land-use transitions is vital for climate change mitigation, as activities like deforestation and urban expansion alter carbon storage and emissions. These alterations impact the carbon cycle, affecting the balance between carbon dioxide (CO2) absorption and its emission into the atmosphere. A thorough understanding of land use and land-use change dynamics in a specific region is essential for this analysis. Notably, the growing cultivation of fruit crops on agricultural land greatly enhances carbon sequestration potential. This study found that carbon sequestration in mango orchards increased with age of the trees. On average, 115.57 t C/ha was sequestered in Dhenkanal and 130.48 t C/ha in Rayagada. In these orchards, above-ground carbon constituted 24.45% in Dhenkanal and 27.69% in Rayagada of the total carbon sequestered per hectare, using the recommended 8 m x 8 m tree spacing. Collecting fundamental data on the carbon content of various land-use and land-use change categories at the regional level is crucial for effective climate change mitigation. This study provides novel insights into carbon stocks in mango orchards relative to tree age, enhancing our understanding of the carbon cycle within mango cultivated systems. Subsequent research should encompass mango orchards from many regions around the country, employing higher sample sizes to more accurately measure carbon sequestration in farmed mango orchards countrywide.

References

  1. Gitay H, Brown S, Easterling WE, Jallow B, Antle J, Apps MJ, et al. Chapter 5: Ecosystems and their services. In: IPCC working group II contribution to the third assessment report on mitigation of climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; 2001:235–342. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/wg2TARchap5.pdf
  2. Achard F, Eva HD, Stibig HJ, Mayaux P, Gallego J, Richards T, et al. Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science. 2002;297:999-1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070656
  3. Houghton RA. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management (1850-2000). Tellus B: Chem Phys Meteorol. 2003;55:378-90. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.01450.x
  4. Fearnside PM, Laurance WF. Tropical deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol Appl. 2004;14(4):982-86. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5225
  5. Hudson JM, Gherini SA, Goldstein RA. Modeling the global carbon cycle: Nitrogen fertilisation of the terrestrial biosphere and the ``missing CO2 sink. Global Biogeochem Cy. 1994;8:307-33. https://doi.org/10.1029/94GB01044
  6. Houghton RA. Tropical deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Schwartzman S, editor. Tropical deforestation and climate change. IPAM - Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia; Washington DC - USA: Environ. lDef; 2005. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20880378
  7. Dadhwal VK, Kushwaha SPS, Singh S, Patel NR, Nayak RK, Patil P, et al. Recent results from EO studies on Indian carbon cycle assessment. International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences,. 2011; Volume XXXVIII-8/W20. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXVIII-8-W20-3-2011
  8. Ravindranath NH, Somasekhar BS, Gadgil M. Carbon flows in Indian forest. Clim Change. 1997;35(3):297-320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005303405404
  9. Horticultural statistics at a glance. NHB and horticulture statistics division department of agriculture, cooperation and farmers welfare ministry of agriculture and farmers welfare government of India. 2017. https://nhb.gov.in/statistics/Publication/Horticulture%20At%20a%20Glance%202017%20for%20net%20uplod%20(2).pdf
  10. Production: Horticulture Crops: Fruits: Mango: Odisha. CEIC.: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/india/production-of-horticulture-crops-in-major-states-fruits-mango/production-horticulture-crops-fruits-mango-odisha
  11. Ganeshamurthy AN, Ravindra V, Venugopalan R, Malarvizhi Mathiazhaganand, 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
  12. Nelson DW, Sommers LE. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 Chemical methods. 1996;5: 961-1010. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c34
  13. Bernoux M, Carvalho MCS, Volkoff B, Cerri CC. Brazil's soil carbon stocks. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2002;66:888-96. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.8880
  14. Dash PK, Mishra A, Saren S .Characterization and taxonomic classification of soils under a toposequence located in Eastern India. Environment and Ecology. 2019;37:1240-49. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20193520812
  15. Ganeshamurthy AN, Reddy YTN. Fitness of mango for colonization in low fertility soils and dry lands: Examination of leaf life-span, leaf nutrient resorption and nutrient use efficiency in elite mango varieties. Agric Res. 2015;4(3):254-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-015-0164-8
  16. Selvaraj A, Sivasankari J, Dhivya P, Thirunavukkarasu A, Jayaraman, Perumal K. Carbon sequestration potential, physicochemical and microbiological properties of selected trees Mangifera indica L., Manilkara zapota L., Cocos nucifera L. and Tectona grandis L. Biosci disc. 2016;7(2):131-39. https://jbsd.in/Vol%207%20No%202/Ananthi131-139.pdf
  17. Eneji IS, Ofoegbu Obinna, Emmanuel T. Sequestration and carbon storage potential of tropical forest reserve and tree species located within Benue state of Nigeria. J Geosci Environ Prot. 2014;2:157-66. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2014.22022
  18. Chavan BL, Rasal GB. Potentiality of carbon sequestration in six year 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-Six-Year-Ages-Young.pdf
  19. 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
  20. Sharma S, Rana VS, Prasad H, Johnson Lakra, Umesh Sharma. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Ganeshamurthy AN, Rupa TR, Alivelu K, Rajendiran S, Laxman RH. A biomass estimation model for nondestructive estimation of guava tree biomass. Research Square. 2022 Nov 28;1-15. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2310563/v1
  24. 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 semi-arid tropics. Curr Sci. 2009;7:1039-46. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4014.1764
  25. Ganeshamurthy AN. Annual report, IIHR, Bengaluru, India. 2012. https://www.iihr.res.in/sites/default/files/iihr%20annual%20report%202013_0.pdf
  26. 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
  27. 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

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.