Aboveground biomass and carbon stock assessment in Indian tropical deciduous forest and relationship with stand structural attributes

Behera, Soumit K.; Sahu, Nayan; Mishra, Ashish Kumar; Bargali, Surendra Singh; Behera, Mukunda Dev; Tuli, Rakesh

doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.11.046

Cited by 83 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Management interventions and increased soil moisture content in NRF than in CRF promote the establishment of different species (Meena et al 2016). Additionally, differences in TD may also contribute to differences in C density among the forest types (Baker et al 2004;Behera et al 2017). BGB/AGB ratio indicates the biomass allocation and stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of above- and belowground carbon pools in a semi-arid forest ecosystem of Delhi, India

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Assessment of carbon pools in semi-arid forests of India is crucial in order to develop a better action plan for management of such ecosystems under global climate change and rapid urbanization. This study, therefore, aims to assess the above-and belowground carbon storage potential of a semi-arid forest ecosystem of Delhi. Methods: For the study, two forest sites were selected, i.e., north ridge (NRF) and central ridge (CRF). Aboveground tree biomass was estimated by using growing stock volume equations developed by Forest Survey of India and specific wood density. Understory biomass was determined by harvest sampling method. Belowground (root) biomass was determined by using a developed equation. For soil organic carbon (SOC), soil samples were collected at 0-10-cm and 10-20-cm depth and carbon content was estimated. Results: The present study estimated 90.51 Mg ha −1 biomass and 63.49 Mg C ha −1 carbon in the semi-arid forest of Delhi, India. The lower diameter classes showed highest tree density, i.e., 240 and 328 individuals ha −1 (11-20 cm), basal area, i.e., 8.7 (31-40 cm) and 6.08 m 2 ha −1 (11-20 cm), and biomass, i.e., 24.25 and 23.57 Mg ha −1 (11-20 cm) in NRF and CRF, respectively. Furthermore, a significant contribution of biomass (7.8 Mg ha −1 ) in DBH class 81-90 cm in NRF suggested the importance of mature trees in biomass and carbon storage. The forests were predominantly occupied by Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC which also showed the highest contribution to the (approximately 40%) tree biomass. Carbon allocation was maximum in aboveground (40-49%), followed by soil (29.93-37.7%), belowground or root (20-22%), and litter (0.27-0.59%). Conclusion: Our study suggested plant biomass and soils are the potential pools of carbon storage in these forests. Furthermore, carbon storage in tree biomass was found to be mainly influenced by tree density, basal area, and species diversity. Trees belonging to lower DBH classes are the major carbon sinks in these forests. In the study, native trees contributed to the significant amount of carbon stored in their biomass and soils. The estimated data is important in framing forest management plans and strategies aimed at enhancing carbon sequestration potential of semi-arid forest ecosystems of India.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of above- and belowground carbon pools in a semi-arid forest ecosystem of Delhi, India

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dominant species are the small number of species that significantly affect other species (McNaughton & Wolf, 1970; Whittaker, 1965). Due to their high biomass, large size, high productivity, and other traits (Bouchenak‐Khelladi, Slingsby, Verboom, & Bond, 2014; Collins & Duffy, 2016), they can change environmental conditions and resource availability and thus shape community structure (Frieswyk, Johnston, & Zedler, 2007; Okullo, Greve, & Moe, 2013), community diversity (Kunte, 2008; Okullo et al., 2013), community phylogeny (Chalmandrier, Münkemüller, Lavergne, & Thuiller, 2015), trophic structure (Miller, Brodeur, Rau, & Omori, 2010), and ecosystem functions (Behera et al., 2017; Furey, Tecco, Perez‐Harguindeguy, Giorgis, & Grossi, 2014; Grime, 1998; Mokany, Ash, & Roxburgh, 2008; Seabloom et al., 2015). Both dominant species and keystone species are functionally important, but keystone species are much less abundant (Christianou & Ebenman, 2005; Hurlbert, 1997; Mouquet, Gravel, Massol, & Calcagno, 2013; Power et al., 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are dominant plant species more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects? A case study at Saihanwula Nature Reserve, China

Dai

Long

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dominant species significantly affect interspecific relationships, community structure, and ecosystem function. In the field, dominant species are often identified by their high importance values. Selective foraging on dominant species is a common phenomenon in ecology. Our hypothesis is that dominant plant groups with high importance values are more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects at the regional level. Here, we used the Saihanwula National Nature Reserve as a case study to examine the presence–absence patterns of leaf‐mining insects on different plants in a forest‐grassland ecotone in Northeast China. We identified the following patterns: (1) After phylogenetic correction, plants with high importance values are more likely to host leafminers at the species, genus, or family level. (2) Other factors including phylogenetic isolation, life form, water ecotype, and phytogeographical type of plants have different influences on the relationship between plant dominance and leafminer presence. In summary, the importance value is a valid predictor of the presence of consumers, even when we consider the effects of plant phylogeny and other plant attributes. Dominant plant groups are large and susceptible targets of leaf‐mining insects. The consistent leaf‐mining distribution pattern across different countries, vegetation types, and plant taxa can be explained by the “species‐area relationship” or the “plant apparency hypothesis.”

show abstract

“…Tropical forests and woodlands are being lost at an alarming rate due to increasing human populations and corresponding land use changes (Pimm et al, 2006;Jhariya et al, 2014;Kittur et al, 2014;Behera et al, 2017). Most of natural vegetation losses are occurring in the tropical developing countries like Ethiopia where the livelihoods of their nations are directly or indirectly linked to natural resources (UNFAO, 2010).…”

Section: Introductonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structure and regeneration status of woody plants in the Hallideghie wildlife reserve, North East Ethiopia

Endris¹,

Seid²,

Asefa³

2017

Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Aboveground biomass and carbon stock assessment in Indian tropical deciduous forest and relationship with stand structural attributes

Cited by 83 publications

References 47 publications

Assessment of above- and belowground carbon pools in a semi-arid forest ecosystem of Delhi, India

Assessment of above- and belowground carbon pools in a semi-arid forest ecosystem of Delhi, India

Are dominant plant species more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects? A case study at Saihanwula Nature Reserve, China

Structure and regeneration status of woody plants in the Hallideghie wildlife reserve, North East Ethiopia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About