Journal of Forest and Environmental Science

Institute of Forest Science, kangwon National University (강원대학교 산림과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessment of Biomass and Carbon Stock in Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) Forests under Two Management Regimes in Tripura, Northeast India

  • Banik, Biplab (Plant Taxonomy & Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Botany, Tripura University) ;
  • Deb, Dipankar (Agroforestry& Forest Ecology Laboratory, Department of Forestry & Biodiversity, Tripura University) ;
  • Deb, Sourabh (Agroforestry& Forest Ecology Laboratory, Department of Forestry & Biodiversity, Tripura University) ;
  • Datta, B.K. (Plant Taxonomy & Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Botany, Tripura University)
  • Received : 2017.10.30
  • Accepted : 2018.03.20
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We investigated tree composition, stand characteristics, biomass allocation pattern and carbon storage variability in Sal forests (Shorea robusta Garten.) under two forest management regimes (Sal forest and Sal plantation) in Tripura, Northeast India. The results revealed higher species richness (29 species), stand density of $1060.00{\pm}11.12stems\;ha^{-1}$ and diversity index ($1.90{\pm}0.08$) in Sal forest. and lower species richness (4 species), stand density of $ 230.00{\pm}37.22stems\;ha^{-1}$ and diversity index ($0.38{\pm}0.15$) in Sal plantation. The total basal cover $33.02{\pm}4.87m^2ha^{-1}$) and dominance ($0.76{\pm}0.08$) were found higher in Sal plantation than the Sal forest ($22.53{\pm}0.38m^2ha^{-1}$ and $0.23{\pm}0.02$ respectively). The total vegetation carbon density was recorded higher in Sal plantation ($219.68{\pm}19.65Mg\;ha^{-1}$) than the Sal forest ($167.64{\pm}16.73Mg\;ha^{-1}$). The carbon density estimates acquired in this study suggest that Sal plantation in Tripura has the potentiality to store a large amount of atmospheric carbon inspite of a very low species diversity. However, Sal forests has also an impending sink of carbon due to presence of large number of young trees.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexandrov GA. 2007. Carbon stock growth in a forest stand: the power of age. Carbon Balance Managt 2: 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-2-4
  2. Ayyappan N. Parthasarthy N. 1999. Biodiversity inventory of trees in a large scale permanent plot of tropical ev- ergreen forest at Varagalaiar, Anamalai, Western Ghats, India. Biodivers Conserv 8: 1533-1554. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008940803073
  3. Baishya R, Barik SK, Upadhaya K. 2009. Distribution pat- tern of above ground biomass in natural and plantation forests of humid tropics in north east India. Trop Ecol 50: 295-304.
  4. Baishya R, Barik SK. 2011. Estimation of tree biomass carbon pool and net primary production of an old-growth Pinus kesiya Royle ex Gordon forest in north-eastern India. Ann For Sci 68: 727-736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-011-0089-8
  5. Barik SK, Mishra SK. 2008. Assessment of the contribution of forests to the economy of the north-eastern states of India. Int Forest Rev 10: 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.10.2.349
  6. Behera SK, Misra MK. 2006. Above ground tree biomass in a recovering tropical sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) forest of Eastern Ghats India. Biomass Bioenergy 30: 509- 521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.01.003
  7. Bhat DM, Ravindranath NH. 2011. Above ground standing biomass and carbon stock dynamics under a varied degree of anthropogenic pressure in tropical rain forests of Uttara Kannada district Western Ghats, India. Taiwania 56: 85-96.
  8. Borah N, Nath AJ, Das AK. 2013. Aboveground biomass and carbon stocks of tree species in tropical forests of Cachar District Assam Northeast India. Int J Ecol Environ Sci 39: 97-106.
  9. Brown S, Lugo AE. 1984. Biomass of tropical forests: a new estimate based on forest volume. Science 223: 1290-1293. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.223.4642.1290
  10. Clark DB, Clark DA. 2000. Landscape-scale variation in forest structure and biomass in a tropical rain forest. Forest Ecol Manag 137: 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00327-8
  11. Curtis JT, McIntosh RP. 1950. The interrelations of certain analytic and synthetic Phytosociological characters. Ecology 31: 434- 455. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931497
  12. Dadhwal VK, Singh S, Patil P. 2009. Assessment of phy- tomass carbon pools in forest ecosystems in India. NN- RMS Bulletin, 41-57, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun.
  13. De Jong BHJ, Cairns MA, Haggerty PK, Ramirez-Marcial N, Ochoa- Gaona S, Mendoza-Vega J, Gonzalez-Espinosa M, March-Mifsut I. 1999. Land-use change carbon flux between 1970's and 1990's in central highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Environ Manage 23: 373-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900193
  14. De Jong BHJ, Ochoa-Gaona S, Castillo-Santiago MA, Ramirez-Marcial N, Cairns MA. 2000. Carbon flux and patterns of land-use/land-cover change in the Selva Lacandona, Mexico. Ambio 29:504-511. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-29.8.504
  15. Devagiri GM, Money S, Singh S, Dadhwal VK, Patil P, Khaple A, Devakumar AS, Hubballi S. 2013. Assessment of above ground biomass and carbon pool in different vegetation types of south western part of Karnataka India using spectral modelling. Trop Ecol 54: 149-165.
  16. Deka J, Tripathi OP, Khan ML. 2012. High dominance of shorea robusta gaertn. in alluvial plain Kamrup sal forest of Assam NE India. Int J Ecosystem 2: 67-73. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ije.20120204.04
  17. Dirzo R, Raven PH. 2003. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28: 137-167. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105532
  18. Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA, Solomon AM, Trexler MC, Wisniewski J. 1994. Carbon pools and fux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263:185-190. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.263.5144.185
  19. Dutta G, Devi A (2013) Plant diversity and community structure in tropical moist deciduous sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) forest of Assam northeast India. J Environ Appl Bioreseach 1: 1-6.
  20. Fahey TJ, Woodbury PB, Battles JJ, Goodale CL, Hamburg SP, Ollinger SV, Woodall CW. 2010. Forest carbon stor- age: ecology, management, and policy. Front Ecol Environ 8: 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1890/080169
  21. Fan S, Gloor M, Mahlman J, Pacala S, Sarmiento J, Taka- hashi T, Tans P 1998. A large terrestrial carbon sink in North America implied by atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide data and models. Science 2825388: 442- 446.
  22. Fang JY, Wang GG, Liu GH, Xu SL 1998. Forest biomass of China: an estimate based on the biomass-volume relationship. Ecolo Appl 8: 1084-1091.
  23. FAO. 2006. Global forest resources assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper 147, FAO, Rome.
  24. FAO. 2010. Global forest resources assessment 2010. For. pap. 163, FAO, Rome.
  25. FAO. 2012. Global forest land use change from 1990 to 2005. FAO Forestry Paper 169, FAO, Rome.
  26. FSI. 1996. Volume Equations for Forests of India Nepal and Bhutan. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India, Dehradun.
  27. FSI. 2011. India State of Forest Report 2011, Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dehradun.
  28. FSI. 2013. India State of Forest Report 2013, Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dehradun.
  29. FSI. 2015. India State of Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dehradun.
  30. Gibbs HK, Brown S, Niles JO, Foley JA. 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ Res Lett 2(045023)
  31. Grace PR, Post WM, Hennessy K. 2006. The potential impact of climate change on Australia's soil carbon resources. Carbon Balance Manag 1: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-1-1
  32. Gupta PK. 2000. Methods in Environmental Analysis Water Soil and Air (2nd Edition), https://www.en.climate-data.org. Climate Data Sources. Accessed on 7 Dec 2011, http://www.forest.tripura.gov.in. Tripura Forest Department. Offcial website, Government of Tripura. Accessed on 7 December, 2017, http://www.tspcb.tripura.gov.in. Tripura State Pollution Control Board. Offcial website. Government of Tripura. Accessed on 7 December, 2017.
  33. Houghton RA. 2005. Aboveground Forest Biomass and the Global Carbon balance. Glob Chang Biol 11: 945-958. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00955.x
  34. IPCC. 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Agriculture Forestry and other Land Use (AFOLU), Institute of Global Environmental Strategies, Havana, Japan.
  35. Jha CS, Singh JS. 1990. Composition and dynamics of dry tropical forest in relation to soil texture. J Veg Sci 1: 609–614. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235566
  36. Jordan CF, Farnworth EG. 1982. Natural vs. plantation for- ests: A case study of land reclamation strategies for the humid tropics. Environ Manage 66: 485-492.
  37. Justine MF, Yang W, Wu F, Tan B, Khan MN, Zhao Y. 2015. Biomass Stock and Carbon Sequestration in a Chrono- sequence of Pinus massoniana Plantations in the Upper Reaches of the Yangtze River. Forests 6: 3665-3682; doi:10.3390/f6103665.
  38. Keith H, Lindenmayer DB, MacKey BG, Blair D, Carter L, McBurney L, Okada S, Konishi-Nagano T. 2014. Accounting for biomass carbon stock change due to wild- fire in temperate forest landscapes in Australia. PLoS ONE 9(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107126.
  39. Ketterings QM, Coe R, Van Noordwijk M, Ambagau Y, Palm CA. 2001. Reducing uncertainty in the use of allo- metric biomass equations for predicting above-ground tree biomass in mixed secondary forests. Forest Ecol Manag 146: 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00460-6
  40. Kent M, Coker P. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach. Wiley, Baffns Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, UK, p 363.
  41. Kushwaha SPS, Nandy S. 2012. Species diversity and com- munity structure in sal (Shorea robusta) forests of two different rainfall regimes in West Bengal India. Biodivers Conserv 21: 1215-1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0264-8
  42. Liao C, Luo Y, Fang C, Li B. 2010. Ecosystem carbon stock influenced by plantation practice: Implications for planting forests as a measure of climate change mit- igation. PLoS ONE 5(5), e10867. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0010867.
  43. Majumdar K, Choudhary BK, Datta BK. 2016. Aboveground woody biomass carbon stocks potential in selected tropical forest patches of tripura northeast india. Open J Ecol 6: 598-612. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2016.610057
  44. Mandal G, Joshi SP. 2014. Biomass accumulation and carbon sequestration potential of Shorea robusta and Lantana camara from the dry deciduous forests of Doon Valley western Himalaya India. Int J Environ Biol 4: 157-169.
  45. Mao R, Zeng DH, Hu YL, Li LJ, Yang D. 2010. Soil organ- ic carbon and nitrogen stocks in an age-sequence of poplar stands planted on marginal agricultural land in Northeast China. Plant Soil 332: 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0292-7
  46. Masera OR, Bellon MR, Segura G. 1995. Forest management options for sequestering carbon in Mexico. Biomass Bioenergy 8: 357-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(95)00028-3
  47. Mills AJ, Cowling RM. 2010. Below-ground carbon stocks in intact and transformed subtropical thicket landscapes in semi-arid South Africa. J Arid Environ 74: 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.07.002
  48. Mishra A, Sharma CM, Sharma SD, Baduni NP. 2000. Effect of aspect on the structure of vegetation community of moist Bhavar and Tarai Shorea robusta forest in Central Himalaya. Indian For 126: 634-642.
  49. Montagnini F, Porras C. 1998. Evaluating the role of plantations as carbon sinks. Environ Manage 223: 459-470.
  50. Muller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. New York John Wiley Sons, p 547
  51. Nag A, Gupta H. 2014. Population structure and natural regeneration of Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) in dry deciduous forests of West Bengal. Int J Sci Res Environ Sci 2: 421-428.
  52. Negi JDS, Chahaun PS. 2002. Green house gases (GHGs) Mitigation Potential by Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) Forest in Doon Valley. Indian For 128: 771-778.
  53. Pacala SW, Hurtt GC, Moorcroft PR, Caspersen JP. 2001. Carbon storage in the US caused by land-use change. Present and Future of Modeling Global Envi- ronmental Change: Toward Integrated Modeling, Eds., T. Matsuno and H. Kida:145-172.
  54. Pande PK. 2002. Structure and function of tropical dry de- ciduous teak forest as per their disturbance magnitude with emphasis on regeneration and management. Final Technical Report (CFRHRD/2; TFRI/18), ICFRE, Dehradun, India, 65.
  55. Pande PK, Patra AK. 2010. Biomass and productivity in sal and miscellaneous forests of Satpura plateau (Madhya Pradesh) India. Adv Bio Biotech 1: 30-38.
  56. Pandey SK, Shukla RP. 2003. Plant diversity in managed Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn f) forest of Gorakhpur India: species composition regeneration and conservation. Biodivers Conserv 12: 2295-2319. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024589230554
  57. Parthasarathy N, Kinbal V, Kumar LP. 1992. Plant species diversity and human impact in tropical wet evergreen forest of southern Western Ghats. In Indo-French Workshop on Tropical Forest Ecosystems: Natural Functioning and Anthropogenic Impact, 26-27 November 1992, Pondicherry: French Institute.
  58. Pearson TR, Brown SL, Birdsey RA. 2007. Measurement guidelines for the sequestration of forest carbon. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-18. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 42 p
  59. Peichl M, Arain MA. 2006. Above-and belowground eco-system biomass and carbon pools in an age-sequence of temperate pine plantation forests. Agric For Meteorol 140: 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.08.004
  60. Pielou EC. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J Theor Biol 13: 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0
  61. Rabha D. 2014a. Species composition and structure of Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) forests along distribution gradients of Western Assam Northeast India. Trop Plant Res 1: 16-21.
  62. Rabha D. 2014b. Above ground biomass and carbon stocks of an undisturbed regenerating Sal (Shorea robus- ta Gaertn.) forest of Goalpara District Assam Northeast India. Int J Environ 3: 147-155.
  63. Ravindranath NH. Chaturvedi RK. Murthy IK. 2008. Forest conservation, afforestation and reforestation in India: Implications for forest carbon stocks. Curr Sci 94: 216- 222.
  64. Redondo-Brenes A. 2007. Growth, carbon sequestration, and management of native tree plantations in humid regions of Costa Rica. New Forests 34: 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-007-9052-9
  65. Sahu SC, Sharma J, Ravindranath NH. 2015. Carbon stocks and fluxes for forests in Odisha (India). Trop Ecol 56: 77-85.
  66. Salunkhe O, Khare PK, Sahu TR, Singh S. 2016. Estimation of tree biomass reserves in tropical deciduous forests of Central India by non destructive approach. Trop Ecol 57: 153-161.
  67. Sedjo RA, Sohngen B Jagger P. 1998. Carbon sinks in the post Koyoto world, REF climate issue brief no. 13, Internet edition. 11 p
  68. Shrestha R, Karmacharya SB, Jha PK. 2000. Vegetation analysis of natural and degraded forests in Chitrepani in Siwalik region of Central Nepal. Trop Ecol 41: 111-114.
  69. Shannon CE, Wiener W. 1963. The mathematical theory of communities. University of Illinois press Urbana, p 111- 117.
  70. Simpson EM. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
  71. Singh OP, Datta B, Rao CN. 1991. Pedochemical charac- terisation and genesis of soils in relation to altitude in Mizoram. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 39: 739-750.
  72. Shin MY, Miah MD, Lee KH. 2007. Potential contribution of the forestry sector in Bangladesh to carbon sequestration. J Environ Manag 82: 260-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.12.025
  73. Subedi BP, Pandey SS, Pandey A, Rana EB, Bhattarai S, Banskota TR, Charmakar S, Tamrakar R. 2010. Forest Carbon Stock Measurement: Guidelines for measuring carbon stocks in community-managed forests. Cooperation between: Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB) - Federation of Community Forest Users, Nepal (FECOFUN) - International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) - Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD). 69 p.
  74. Taylor AR, Wang JR, Chen HY. 2007. Carbon storage in a chronosequence of red spruce (Picea rubens) forests in central Nova Scotia, Canada. Can J For Res 37: 2260-2269. https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-080
  75. Thapa-Magar KB, Shrestha BB. 2015. Carbon stock in community managed hill sal (Shorea robusta) forests of central Nepal. J Sustain Forest 34: 483-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2015.1031251
  76. Thapa N, Upadhaya K, Baishya R, Barik SK. 2011. Effect of plantation on plant diversity and soil status of tropical forest ecosystems in Meghalaya Northeast India. Int J Ecol Environ Sci 37: 61-73.
  77. Terakunpisut J, Gajaseni N, Ruankawe N. 2007. Carbon sequestration potential in aboveground biomass of Thong pha phun national forest, Thailand. Appl Ecol Env Res 5: 93-102.
  78. Upadhaya K, Thapa N, Barik S K. 2015. Tree diversity and biomass of tropical forests under two management regimes in Garo hills of North-eastern India. Trop Ecol 56: 257-268.
  79. Vitousek PM, D'Antonio CM, Loope LL, Rejmanek M, West- brooks R. 1997. Introduced species: A signifcant component of human-caused global change. N Z J Ecol.
  80. Visalakshi N. 1995. Vegetation analysis of two tropical dryevergreen forests in southern India. Trop Ecol 36: 117-142.
  81. Walkley A, Black IA. 1934. An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modifcation of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37: 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  82. Young R, Wilson BR, McLeod M, Alston C. 2005. Carbon storage in the soils and vegetation of contrasting land uses in northern New South Wales, Australia. Soil Res 43: 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR04032