Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Biomass, Productivity and Carbon Sequestration of Tectona grandis and Gmelina arborea-Based Silvipastoral System


Affiliations
1 Department of Silviculture and Agroforestry, College of Forestry, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi 834 006, India
2 Forest Research Center for Eco-Rehabilitation, Prayagraj 211 002, India
 

This study was conducted in 2009 at Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India with Tectona grandis (teak), Gmelina arborea (gamhar) and forage crops such as Sudan grass (Sorghum sudanense) and Hybrid Napier grass (Pennisetum glaucum × Pennisetum purpureum) which were grown under silvipastoral system. Total biomass and total productivity potential of silvipastoral system were found highest with the combination of Tectona grandis and Hybrid Napier, i.e. 29.14 tonne ha–1 and 21.0 tonne ha–1 year–1 respectively, while minimum total biomass was found in sole Sudan grass (2.42 tonne ha–1) and maximum total productivity in T. grandis (2.09 tonne ha–1 year–1 ). The total carbon sequestration potential under silvipastoral system was maximum in T1: teak and Hybrid Napier grass (88.64 tonne ha–1) followed by T3: gamhar + Hybrid Napier (84.72 tonne ha–1), T2: teak + Sudan grass (77.68 tonne ha–1), and T4: gamhar + Sudan grass (77.42 tonne ha–1), while the minimum was found in T12: (33.38 tonne ha–1). Annual contribution of total litter production was 505.16 g m-2. Leaf litter in the species accounted for 95.40% and wood (branches and twigs) contributed 4.49% to total litter. The highest litterfall of 156.30 g m-2 was recorded in February followed by 151.72 g m-2 in January, while the least litterfall of 4.83 g m-2 was recorded in August.

Keywords

Biomass, Carbon Sequestration, Forage Crop, Productivity, Silvipastoral System.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Kumar, S., Agrawal, R. K., Dixit, A. K., Rai, A. K. and Rai, S. K., Forage crops and their management. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, 2012, p. 60.

  • Gupta, S. K., Raina, N. S. and Sehgal, S., Potential of silvipastoral systems in improving the forage production in the hills of Jammu and Kashimir. J. Res., SKUAST-J, 2007, 6, 149–157.

  • Lundgren, B. O. and Raintree, J. B., Cited in editorial: what is agroforestry. Agrofor. Syst., 1982, 1, 7–12.

  • Toky, O. P., Poplar an economy booster and eco-friendly agroforestry tree. Agrofor. News Lett., NRC for Agroforestry, 1997, 9, 2–3.

  • Jose, S., Walter, D. and Kumar, M., Ecological considerations in sustainable silvopasture design and management. Agrofor. Syst., 2019; https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10457-016-0065-2.

  • Jose, S., Gillespie, A. R. and Pallardy, S. G., Interspecific interactions in temperate agroforestry. Agrofor. Syst., 2004, 61, 237–255.

  • Nair, P. K. R., An Introduction to Agroforestry, Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993, p. 499.

  • Chauhan, S. K., Sharma, S. C., Beri, V., Yadav, R. and Gupta, S.

  • N., Yield and carbon sequestration potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and poplar (Populus deltoides) based agrisilvicultural system. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 2010, 80(2), 129–135.

  • Singh, V., Morphology and pattern of ischolar_main distribution in Prosopis cineraria, Dalbergia sissoo and Albizia lebbeck in an arid region of northwestern India. Trop. Ecol., 1994, 35, 133–140.

  • Lodhiyal, N., Lodhiyal, L. S. and Pangtey, Y. P. S., Structure and function of Shisham forests in Central Himalaya, India: dry matter dynamics. Ann. Bot., 2002, 89, 41–54.

  • Chaturvedi, O. P., Handa, A. K., Kaushal, R., Uthappa, A. R., Sarvade, S. and Panwar, P., Biomass production and carbon sequestration through agroforestry. Range Manage. Agrofor., 2016, 37(2), 116–127.

  • Varsha, K. M., Carbon storage potential of intensive silvopasture systems in humid tropics of Kerala, thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Kerala Agricultural University, 2015.

  • Chaturvedi, A. N. and Khanna, L. S., Forest Mensuration, International Book Distributors, Uttarakhand, India, 1982, pp. 90–183.

  • IPCC, Climate Change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.

  • IPCC, Land use change and forestry. In Revised (1996). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996.

  • Eggelston, S. et al., Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan, 2006.

  • Nizami, S. M., Assessment of the carbon stocks in sub-tropical forests of Pakistan for reporting under Kyoto Protocol. J. For. Res., 2012, 23, 377–384.

  • Bohre, P., Chaubey, O. P. and Singha, P. K., Biomass accumulation and carbon sequestration in Tectona grandis Linn.f. and Gmelina arborea Roxb. Int. J. Bio-Sci. Bio-Technol., 2013, 5(3), 153–174.

  • Behera, M. K. and Mohapatra, N. P., Biomass accumulation and carbon stocks in 13 different clones of teak (Tectona grandis Linn. F.) in Odisha, India. Curr. World Environ., 2015, 10(3), 1011–1016.

  • Mahato, D., Vegetation dynamics of chir pine forests along altitudinal gradient in Giri catchment of Himachal Pradesh. Ph D

  • thesis, College of Forestry Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni Solan, 2015.

  • Woomer, P. L., Impact of cultivation of carbon fluxes in woody savannas of South Africa. Water Air Soil Pollut., 1999, 70(1–4), 403–412.

  • Bellamy, P. H., Loveland, P. J., Bradley, R. I., Lark, R. M. and Kirk, G. J. D., Carbon losses from all soils across England and Wales. Nature, 2005, 437, 245–248.

  • Lal, R., Carbon sequestration in dry land ecosystems of west Asia and North Africa. Land Degrad. Dev., 2002, 13, 45–59.

  • Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E., Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis Chemical Methods (ed. Sparks, D. L.), Soil Science Society of America, USA, 1996, vol. 5, issue 3, pp. 961–1010.

  • Gupta, D. K., Bhatt, R. K., Keerthika, A., Noormohamed, M. B., Shukla, A. K. and Jangid, B. L., Carbon sequestration potential of Hardwickia binata Roxb. based agroforestry in hot semi-arid environment of India: an assessment of tree density impact. Curr. Sci., 2019, 116(1), 112–116.

  • Negi, J. D. S., Bahuguna, V. K. and Sharma, D. C., Biomass production and distribution of nutrients in 20 years old teak (Tectona grandis) and gamhar (Gmelina arborea) plantation in Tripura. Indian For., 1990, 116, 681–686.

  • Swamy, K. R., Shivaprasad, D., Bammanahalli, S., Lamani, N. and Shivanna, H., Carbon storage potential of shelter belt agroforestry system in northern transitional zone of Karnataka, India. J. Appl. Nat. Sci., 2017, 9(3), 1390–1396.

  • Giri, N., Rawat, L. and Kumar, P., Assessment of biomass carbon stock in a Tectona Grandis Linn F. plantation ecosystem of Uttarakhand, India. Int. J. Eng. Sci., 2014, 3(5), 46–53.

  • Sahu, K. P., Singh, L., Alone, R. A., Jhariya, M. K. and Pawar, G. V., Biomass and carbon storage pattern in an age series of teak plantation in dry tropics. Vegetos, 2013, 26(1), 205–217.

  • Tokey, O. P., Pradeep, K. and Prem, K., Structure and function of traditional agroforestry systems in the western Himalaya-1. Biomass and productivity. Agrofor. Syst., 1989, 9, 47–70.

  • Dhyani, S. K., Ram, A. and Dev, I., Potential of agroforestry systems in carbon sequestration in India. Indian J. Agricul. Sci., 2016, 86(9), 1103–1112.

  • Nair, P. K. R., Nair, V. D., Kumar, B. M. and Showalter, J. M., Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv. Agron., 2010, 108, 237–307.

  • Kakkar, R. and Nagaraja, R., Studies on carbon sequestration in forest research plantations of Bangalore research circle. My For., 2011, 47(1), 5–10.

  • Kumar, T., Kumari, B., Arya, S. and Kaushik, P., Tree growth, litterfall and leaf litter decomposition of Eucalyptus tereticornis based agri-silviculture system. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci., 2019, 8(4), 3014–3023.

  • Hosur, G. C. and Dasog, G. S., Effect of tree species on soil properties. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 1995, 43(2), 256–259.


Abstract Views: 201

PDF Views: 97




  • Biomass, Productivity and Carbon Sequestration of Tectona grandis and Gmelina arborea-Based Silvipastoral System

Abstract Views: 201  |  PDF Views: 97

Authors

Preeti Toppo
Department of Silviculture and Agroforestry, College of Forestry, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi 834 006, India
P. R. Oraon
Department of Silviculture and Agroforestry, College of Forestry, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi 834 006, India
Bijay Kumar Singh
Forest Research Center for Eco-Rehabilitation, Prayagraj 211 002, India
Abhay Kumar
Department of Silviculture and Agroforestry, College of Forestry, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi 834 006, India

Abstract


This study was conducted in 2009 at Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India with Tectona grandis (teak), Gmelina arborea (gamhar) and forage crops such as Sudan grass (Sorghum sudanense) and Hybrid Napier grass (Pennisetum glaucum × Pennisetum purpureum) which were grown under silvipastoral system. Total biomass and total productivity potential of silvipastoral system were found highest with the combination of Tectona grandis and Hybrid Napier, i.e. 29.14 tonne ha–1 and 21.0 tonne ha–1 year–1 respectively, while minimum total biomass was found in sole Sudan grass (2.42 tonne ha–1) and maximum total productivity in T. grandis (2.09 tonne ha–1 year–1 ). The total carbon sequestration potential under silvipastoral system was maximum in T1: teak and Hybrid Napier grass (88.64 tonne ha–1) followed by T3: gamhar + Hybrid Napier (84.72 tonne ha–1), T2: teak + Sudan grass (77.68 tonne ha–1), and T4: gamhar + Sudan grass (77.42 tonne ha–1), while the minimum was found in T12: (33.38 tonne ha–1). Annual contribution of total litter production was 505.16 g m-2. Leaf litter in the species accounted for 95.40% and wood (branches and twigs) contributed 4.49% to total litter. The highest litterfall of 156.30 g m-2 was recorded in February followed by 151.72 g m-2 in January, while the least litterfall of 4.83 g m-2 was recorded in August.

Keywords


Biomass, Carbon Sequestration, Forage Crop, Productivity, Silvipastoral System.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv121%2Fi12%2F1594-1599