Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Biomass production and carbon stock inventory of high-altitude dry temperate land use systems in North Western Himalaya

  • 1,
  • 3Email author,
  • 2 and
  • 3
Ecological Processes20187:22

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-018-0134-8

Received: 27 January 2018

Accepted: 24 May 2018

Published: 18 June 2018

Abstract

Introduction

Carbon stock estimation in different land use systems is necessary for curbing global climatic crisis. In the present study, high-altitude dry temperate land use systems (LUS) at three altitudinal ranges “A1, 1900–2170 m.a.s.l., A2, 2170–2440 m.a.s.l., and A3, 2440–2710 m.a.s.l.” were selected based on lapse rates in Kinnur district of Himachal Pradesh, India. The study was aimed at estimating the difference in biomass and carbon stocks in different land use systems and recommendation of the suitable environment-friendly land use for the region. Six land use systems viz.; agriculture, horticulture, agrihorticulture, agri-horti-silviculture, silvipasture, and barren land common at all the three altitudes were selected for experimental setup.

Results

Maximum mean aboveground biomass (84.65 t ha− 1), belowground biomass (19.50 t ha− 1), and total biomass (104.10 t ha− 1) were recorded in the silvipasture land use system. Total biomass production of different land use systems followed the order: silvipasture > agri-horti-silviculture > agrihorticulture > horticulture > agriculture > barren land respectively. Maximum soil organic carbon (1.41%) was recorded in silvipasture land use systems, which however remained statistically at par with the organic carbon contents of horticulture. Soil organic carbon, irrespective of the land use system increased with increase in altitudinal range and decreased with increase in soil depth. Maximum carbon density (155.77 t ha− 1) in 0–100 cm layer was in agri-horticulture LUS. The order of carbon density under different land use systems was agri-horticulture > agri-horti-silviculture > silvipasture > horticulture > agriculture > barren land. Irrespective of the land use system, the carbon density at different altitudinal gradient followed the trend A1, 1900–2170 m.a.s.l., > A3, 2440–2710 m.a.s.l and > A2, 2170–2440 m.a.s.l.

Conclusions

The outcome of the study can play an important role, while selecting different land use systems and different crop combinations for effective management of carbon budget to mitigate climate change and global warming issues in other fragile Himalayan ecosystems.

Keywords

  • Altitude
  • Agroforestry
  • Management
  • Carbon density
  • Mitigation

Introduction

Livelihood opportunities can be enhanced, and vulnerability of natural resources to climate change can be reduced through adoption of suitable land use systems (Pandey 2007; De Stefano and Jacobson 2017). Agroforestry as a traditional land use system and resource management has potential to improve the livelihoods by providing ecosystem services like food, fruits, fodder, and firewood (Pandey 2007). Appropriate policy responses combining agroecosystems as key assets can strengthen adaptation and help to build the resilience of communities and households to local and global change (AFD et al. 2003). Pandey (2007) argues that adaptive management of natural resources and agroecosystems will improve economy and bring better results. Land management actions that enhance the uptake of CO2 or reduce its emissions have the potential to remove a significant amount of CO2 from the atmosphere by locking through non-destructive (Pandey 2007).

Apart from CO2, the atmospheric concentration of CH4 has increased to 1774 ppb in 2005 from the preindustrial value of 715 ppb (148% increase) (IPCC 2007). N2O continues to rise at the rate of 0.26% per year, measured at 319 ppb in 2005, 18% higher than its pre-industrial value (IPCC 2007). The participating countries, including the USA at the third meeting of the FCCC in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% or more below 1990 levels by 2012 (https://unfccc.int/). According to the Kyoto protocol, only newly carbon sequestered through agroforestry practices is considered as carbon credits and can be sold to industrialized countries to meet their emission reduction targets, although there is pressure to include soil carbon also (Lal 2004). The problem in the Himalayas is complex, having intricate linkages between social, economic, and ecological concerns (Singh 2006). Landholding is often so small that for the survival of poor families, agroforestry land use system becomes a lifeline for sustaining daily needs. The introduction of more woody perennials in and around the orchards and other agriculture landscapes of the Himalayan region can enhance and safeguard the biodiversity and in turn will improve livelihood opportunities (Singh et al. 2017). These agroforestry land use systems provide ecosystem services by becoming reservoirs for carbon stock storage and mitigation of climate change along with the sustenance of livelihood (Rajput et al. 2015; Gokhale and Pala 2011; Pala et al. 2015).

Albrecht and Kandji (2003) reported carbon sequestration potential of tropical agroforestry systems between 12 and 228 Mg ha− 1, with a median value of 95 Mg ha− 1. Therefore, in the next 50 years, 1.1–2.2 Pg C could be stored in the terrestrial ecosystems based on the global estimates of the area suitable for the agroforestry (Albrecht and Kandji 2003). Introduction of more and more tree-based land use systems like agroforestry is one alternative to deal with problems related to land use and CO2-induced global warming (Albrecht and Kandji 2003). The significance of agroforestry with respect to C sequestration and other CO2 mitigating effects has gained praise in the past as well as in the present throughout the globe, but there is still paucity of quantitative data on specific systems. Several authors (Rajput et al. 2015; Rajput et al. 2017; Shah et al. 2014; Devi et al. 2013; Saha et al. 2018) in the past few years have carried their studies on carbon and climate change issues in other regions of the state of Himachal Pradesh, India, but no literature is available for higher altitudes from the region. The study is therefore the maiden attempt covering high-altitude dry temperate land use systems in Kinnur district off Himachal Pradesh, India, for estimation of above- and belowground carbon stock. This study will be helpful to estimate the potential of different land use systems and can be useful in providing information for planners, policy makers, and farmers for effective management in a climate change mitigation and carbon budgeting of the dry temperate region of the Himalayan ecosystem.

Methods

Study area

The study area is located in Kinnaur district of Himachal Pradesh, India, which lies in the north western part of the state having an elevational range from 1000 to over 6000 m above mean sea level (Fig. 1). The area is famous for the Kinnaur Kailash, a sacred mountain, close to the Tibetan border. The experimental plots were laid between 31° 05′ 50″ and 32° 05′ 15″ North Latitude and 77° 45′ and 79° 00′ 35″ East Longitude between 1600 and 2710 m.a.s.l. The area experiences high hill dry temperate climatic conditions due to its high elevation, with long winters from October to May and short summers from June to September. The texture of the soil is sandy to loamy sand with pH of 6.0–6.8 having entisols and inceptisols as soil type. Kinnaur is a tribal district, which is one of the smallest but prosperous districts in India. The population and geographic area of the district is 83,950 and 6401 km2, respectively. This is a mountainous district and covers around 47% areas under rocks/non-vegetation. The glaciers occupy 4%, i.e., 235.39 km2 area. The area under agriculture is 3% of the total area. Snow/clouds cover is 10% of the area. The economy of the district is predominantly agrarian and about 64% of the population is dependent on farming for livelihood (Chisanga 2012). Portions of Kinnaur district are situated high in the Himalayas, where vegetation is sparse and consists primarily of hardy grasses. Alpine species such as juniper, pine, fir, cypress, and Rhododendron can be found at elevations between 3500 and 5000 m, primarily in middle Kinnaur (Chisanga 2012). At lower-altitude, tree species like oak, chestnut, maple, birch, alder, magnolia, apple, and apricot are found (HFS 2013).
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Map of Himachal Pradesh showing location of experimental sites (www.himadventures.net)

Experimental setup and design

For conducting this study, six land use systems, viz. agriculture (T1), horticulture (T2), agrihorticulture (T3), agri-horti-silviculture (T4), silvipasture (T5), and barren (T6), which are common in the three altitudinal ranges, viz. (A1) 1900–2170 m.a.s.l., (A2) 2170–2440 m.a.s.l., and (A3) 2440–2710 m.a.s.l., were selected based on the lapse rate (1 °C fall in temperature as we rise by 270 m in the Himalayan hills). For biomass and carbon estimation, RBD (factorial) design with 18 treatment combinations {6 (land use systems) × 3 (altitudinal ranges)} and for soil carbon RBD (factorial) with 54 treatment combinations {6 (land use systems) × 3 (altitudinal ranges) × 3 (soil layers)} were applied to observe the difference (Table 1).
Table 1

Experimental details indicating specific tree crop combination and their distribution in the study area

Land use system/elevation range

Code

Tree-crop combination

Plot size m2

Net cropped area (ha)

Area under trees (ha)

Area under grasses ha

No. of trees ha−1

Average age of the tree component

Agriculture

A

 

50 × 20

     

 1900–2170 m

 

Pea – Maize, Wheat – Rajmash

 

1.00

Annual

 2170–2440 m

 

Barley – Rajmash,

 

1.00

Annual

 2440–2710 m

 

Peas – cabbage

 

1.00

Annual

Horticulture

H

 

50 × 20

     

 1900–2170 m

 

Apple

 

1.00

185

25 year (A)

 2170–2440 m

 

Apple

 

1.00

212

20 year (A)

 2440–2710 m

 

Apple

 

1.00

400

18 year (A)

Agri-horticulture

AH

 

50 × 20

     

 1900–2170 m

 

Apple + Peas – Maize, Apple + Wheat – Rajmash, Apple + Barley – Rajmash

 

0.9

1.0

185

25 year (A)

 2170–2440 m

 

Apple – Peas – Cabbage, Apple + Wheat – Rajmash, Apple + Barley – Rajmash

 

0.9

1.0

212

20 year (A)

 2440–2710 m

 

Apple + Wheat – Rajmash, Apple + Barley – Rajmash,

 

0.9

1.0

400

18 year (A)

Agri-horti-silviculture

AHS

 

50 × 20

     

 1900–2170 m

 

Robinia + Apple – Pea + Maize, Ailanthus altissima + Apple – Pea + Maize,

 

0.3

0.4

55

~40 year (R)

Salix tetraperma + Apple + Pea – Maize

 

0.4

0.3

63

~40 year (B-S)

 2170–2440 m

 

Robinia + Apple + Pea – Cabbage, Populus ciliata + Apple + Wheat – Rajmash

   

120

~50 year (A-I)

Cedrus deodara + Apple + Barley – Rajmash

 

0.5

0.2

100

~60 year (F-S)

 24,410–2710 m

 

Cedrus deodara + Apple + Wheat – Rajmash, P. gerardiana + Apple +Wheat – Rajmash, Cedrus deodara + Apple + Barley– Rajmash

   

100

60 cm diameter (C)

Silvipasture

SP

 

50 × 20

    

26.4 cm diameter (P)

 1900–2170 m

 

Pinus gerardiana + Grasses + Artemisia inbia + A. brevifolia

 

0.4

0.6

160

~70 year (A-I)

 2170–2440 m

 

Pinus gerardiana + A. brevifolia + Grasses

 

0.5

0.5

171

~70 year (Ab)

 2440–2710 m

 

Cedrus deodara + A.brevifolia + Lespedeiza gerardiana + Grasses

 

0.7

0.3

159

60 cm diameter (C)

Barren land

BL

 

50 × 20

     

 1900–2170 m

 

Artemisia inbia + Grasses, Artemisia inbia + Grasses, Myrsine species + Grasses

 

0.4

0.6

50

~70 year (A-I)

 2170–2440 m

 

A. inbia + Grasses, A. inbia + Grasses, A.brevifolia + Grasses

 

0.3

0.7

60

~60 year (L)

 2440–2710 m

 

Grasses + Lespedeiza gerardiana, Grasses + Lespedeiza gerardiana, Grasses + Lespedeiza gerardiana

 

0.4

0.6

50

~60 year (Ab)

A, apple; P, Pinus gerardiana; C, Cedrus deodara; B-S, Ailanthus altissima; F-S, Populus ciliata; S, Salix tetraperma; A-I, Artemisia inbia; Ab, A. brevifolia; L, Lespedezia gerardiana; R, Robinia

Methodology

Three plots of size (50 m × 20 m) were selected for enumeration of trees for biomass estimation at every altitudinal land use. All the trees falling in the plots were enumerated. The diameter at breast height (dbh) was measured with caliper and height with Ravi’s multimeter. Local volume equation developed for specific tree species and region were used for calculating the volume of the trees of the sample plot. Where volume equations were not available for the concerned species, form factor was calculated using a Spiegel relascope to find out the tree volume using the formula given by Pressler (1865) and Bitterlich (1984). Specific gravity values were also used to determine the biomass, and stem cores were taken to find out specific gravity using a maximum moisture method (Smith 1954). Total number of branches, irrespective of size, were counted on each of the selected tree and divided based on basal diameter into three groups, viz., < 6 cm, 6–10 cm and > 10 cm. Branch biomass and leaf biomass of forest tree species were measured by methods given by Chidumaya (1990) and Jenkin et al. (2003), respectively. Leaf carbon content was estimated by multiplying with a factor of 0.5 “IPCC default value”. Addition of stem, branch, and leaf biomass was taken as total tree biomass and was converted into its carbon content by multiple shoot ratio (apple = 0.33; plum = 0.35) Rajput et al. (2015). Fallen leaves and pruned wood under each tree were collected, weighed, subsampled, and oven dried at 65 ± 5 °C to a constant weight.

Shrub biomass

Shrub biomass was estimated using two 5 m × 5 m quadrates in every main plot. All the shrubs occurring within the borders of the quadrate were enumerated. The diameter of all tillers was measured at base with the help of a caliper (Chaturvedi and Khanna 1982). Local volume equations developed for specific shrub species and region were used for calculating the volume of the woody shrubs of the sample plots.

Grass biomass

Grass biomass was estimated using five 1 m × 1 m quadrates inside the every mail plot. Within the borders of laid quadrat, total grass biomass present were cut at ground level and collected samples were weighted, subsampled, and oven dried at 65 ± 5 °C to a constant weight and converted into carbon by multiplying with a IPCC default value factor of 0.5 (Rajput et al. 2015).

Belowground biomass and carbon stock/density

Belowground biomass of trees and shrubs was calculated by using Cairns et al. (1997) equation and as per the IPCC guidelines. Belowground biomass of the grasses and herbs was measured by using root to shoot ratio given by Mokany et al. (2006). Carbon stock was obtained by multiplying the biomass with the IPCC default value (0.5) and carbon density as carbon in tons hectare− 1.

Soil organic carbon (%)

Three composite soil samples were collected from every plot at different layers, viz. 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm, and 40–100 cm (Fig. 2). The composite soil samples were air dried, ground with mortar and pestles, and sieved with a 2-mm mesh sieve before analysis. The weight of the pebbles was measured and its proportion was calculated to know the percentage of pebble in each sample. Organic carbon (%) was calculated by Walkley and Black (1934). Actual mass of the soil was taken into consideration while calculating the carbon density. Bulk density was calculated by a specific gravity method (Singh 1980). Soil carbon (t ha− 1) was calculated by the method of Nelson and Sommers 1996.
$$ \left[\mathrm{Soil}\kern0.5em \mathrm{bulk}\kern0.5em \mathrm{density}\kern0.5em \left({\mathrm{gm}}^{\hbox{-} 3}\right)\times \mathrm{Soil}\kern0.5em \mathrm{depth}\kern0.5em \left(\mathrm{cm}\right)\times \mathrm{Soil}\kern0.5em \mathrm{Organic}\kern0.5em \mathrm{Carbon}\left(\%\right)\right]\times 100 $$
(1)
Figure 2
Fig. 2

Depthwise variation of soil organic carbon (%) at three altitudes

Methods suggested by Gomez and Gomez (1984) have been employed for the analysis of data in the present study.

Results

Biomass production levels

Aboveground biomass

The maximum overall aboveground biomass (84.65 t ha− 1) is recorded in the silvipasture system and minimum (5.4 t ha− 1) in barren LUS. The LUS recorded the aboveground biomass in the ascending order as barren land, agriculture, horticulture, agri-horticulture, agri-horti-silviculture, and silvipasture respectively (Table 2). The aboveground biomass increased with increase in altitudinal ranges. Maximum aboveground biomass (41.06 t ha− 1) is recorded at the highest altitude, i.e., A3 (2440–2710 m.a.s.l.), which is significantly higher than A1 and A2. No consistent trend is observed at the land use level with the increase in altitudinal ranges. Maximum aboveground biomass is noticed in the silvipasture system at the A3 (2440–2710 m.a.s.l.) altitudinal range, whereas minimum is found in barren LUS at the A3 altitudinal range and is significantly lower than all other LUS (Table 2).
Table 2

Aboveground, belowground and total biomass (t ha− 1) in different land use systems across three altitudes

 

Aboveground biomass (t ha− 1)

Belowground biomass (t ha− 1)

Total biomass (t ha− 1)

A1

(1900–2170 m)

A2

(2170–2440 m)

A3

(2440–2710 m)

Mean

A1

(1900–2170 m)

A2

(2170–2440 m)

A3

(2440–2710 m)

Mean

A1

(1900–2170 m)

A2

(2170–2440 m)

A3

(2440–2710 m)

Mean

Agriculture

6.66

4.98

4.98

5.54

1.33

1.75

1.00

1.36

7.99

6.73

5.99

6.79

Horticulture

18.78

23.58

18.93

20.43

6.22

7.78

6.25

6.75

25.00

31.36

25.17

27.18

Agri-horticulture

26.05

18.73

21.67

22.15

8.59

6.29

7.15

7.34

34.64

25.02

27.89

29.18

Agri-horti-silviculture

85.49

59.79

36.18

60.49

23.08

15.68

10.04

16.27

108.60

75.48

46.21

76.75

Silvipasture

31.27

59.93

162.80

84.65

6.87

16.16

35.47

19.50

38.13

75.95

198.20

104.10

Barren land

5.38

8.94

1.87

5.40

2.70

4.47

0.95

2.71

8.08

13.41

2.82

8.10

Mean

28.94

29.33

41.06

 

8.13

8.69

10.14

 

37.01

37.99

51.05

 
 

SE(d)

CD0.05

SE(d)

CD0.05

SE(d)

CD0.05

T

5.86

11.91

1.46

2.96

7.30

14.85

A

4.15

8.42

1.03

2.10

5.17

10.50

T × A

7.18

10.15

1.79

2.53

8.95

12.65

Belowground biomass

Irrespective of altitudinal gradients, maximum mean belowground biomass (19.50 t ha− 1) is recorded in the silvipasture system (Table 2), whereas minimum belowground biomass (1.36 t ha− 1) is recorded in the agriculture land use. Among altitudinal ranges, maximum belowground biomass production (35.47 t ha− 1) is recorded in the silvipastoral system at the A3 altitudinal range followed by 23.08 t ha− 1 in agri-horti-silviculture at A1 altitude. The minimum belowground biomass is recorded in the barren land use system at the A3 altitudinal range, which is lower than all other LUS.

Total biomass

Total biomass (above + below) is significantly influenced by LUS, altitudinal gradient and interaction effect between LUS and altitudinal gradient (Table 2). Maximum mean total biomass (104.10 t ha− 1) is accumulated in the T5 (silvipasture) LUS, and minimum (6.79 t ha− 1) is recorded under T1 (agriculture), which is significantly at par with T6 (barren land). Maximum mean total aboveground biomass is observed in the altitudinal ranges 2440–2710 m.a.s.l., which is significantly higher than A1 (1900–2170 m) and A2 (2170–2440 m), whereas minimum total biomass (37.01 t ha− 1) is recorded in the lowest altitudinal range, i.e., A1, and is significantly at par with A2. The value of total biomass decreased with increase in altitudinal ranges in T1 and T4, whereas in T5, the value increased with the increase in the altitudinal range. Maximum total biomass (198.20 t ha− 1) is noticed in the silvipasture system at A3 and minimum is in the barren LUS at the same altitudinal range.

Biomass carbon density

Total biomass carbon density

The total biomass carbon density is higher (52.88 t ha− 1) in T5 (silvipasture) LUS (Table 3). Minimum biomass carbon density (3.34 t ha− 1) is observed in agriculture land but is significantly at par with T6 (barren land) LUS. In the altitudinal range, the maximum biomass carbon density (25.52 t ha− 1) is recorded at A3 (2440–2710 m). Minimum value of mean biomass carbon density is recorded in A1 (1900–2170 m.a.s.l.), which however remained statistically at par with A2. In the interaction effect between the LUS and altitudinal range, maximum total biomass carbon stock (99.10 t ha− 1) is displayed by silvipasture LUS at the elevation range of A3 (2440–2710 m) and minimum value (1.41 t ha− 1) is recorded in barren LUS at an elevation range of 2440–2710 m.a.s.l.
Table 3

Biomass carbon density, total ecosystem carbon density and soil to plant carbon density (t ha−1) in different land use systems across three altitudes

 

Biomass carbon density (t ha−1)

Total ecosystem carbon density (soil + plant) (t ha− 1)

Soil to plant carbon density (t ha− 1)

A1

(1900–2170 m)

A2

(2170–2440 m)

A3

(2440–2710 m)

Mean

A1

(1900–2170 m)

A2

(2170–2440 m)

A3

(2440–2710 m)

Mean

A1

(1900–2170 m)

A2

(2170–2440 m)

A3

(2440–2710 m)

Mean

Agriculture

3.82

3.36

2.82

3.34

163.21

109.35

135.68

136.08

41.73

31.54

47.11

23.10

Horticulture

12.49

15.68

12.75

13.64

163.66

161.59

137.22

154.16

12.10

9.31

9.76

5.97

Agri-horticulture

17.32

12.51

13.94

14.59

163.77

135.39

199.93

166.36

8.46

9.82

13.34

6.06

Agri-horti-silviculture

54.28

37.73

23.11

38.37

176.51

166.04

148.68

163.74

2.25

3.40

5.43

2.12

Silvipasture

19.07

40.48

99.10

52.88

146.41

133.44

205.70

161.85

6.68

2.50

1.08

1.93

Barren land

4.04

6.70

1.41

4.05

86.88

106.59

71.27

88.25

20.50

14.91

49.55

12.94

Mean

18.50

19.41

25.52

 

150.07

135.40

149.75

 

15.29

11.91

21.05

 
 

SE(d)

CD0.05

SE(d)

CD0.05

SE(d)

CD0.05

T

3.64

7.39

9.43

19.18

2.99

6.08

A

2.57

5.23

6.67

13.55

2.12

4.29

T × A

4.45

6.30

11.55

16.35

3.67

5.18

Total ecosystem carbon density

The data presented in Table 3 reveals that maximum total ecosystem carbon density (166.36 t ha− 1) is in the agri-horticulture LUS. The order of carbon density under different land use systems is agri-horticulture > agri-horti-silviculture > silvipasture > horticulture > agriculture > barren land. Irrespective of the land use system, the carbon density at different altitudinal gradients followed the trend A1 > A3 > A2. However, A1 and A3remained statistically at par with one another but both displayed significantly higher values than A2. Maximum total carbon density (205.70 t ha− 1) is recorded in the treatment combination of T5A3, which however remained statistically at par with T3A3. In general, barren LUS displayed quite low values of the total carbon density than other treatment combinations.

Soil to plant carbon density ratio

Irrespective of altitudinal gradient, maximum soil to plant carbon density ratio (23.10:1) is recorded in agriculture LUS. In the altitudinal ranges, irrespective of the LUS, the A3 altitudinal range displayed maximum soil to plant carbon density ratio and followed the trend A3 > A1 > A2. In the interaction effect between LUS and altitudinal gradient, no definite trend could be established in different LUS with altitudinal gradient. In agriculture, horticulture and barren land lower values were recorded at the A2 altitudinal range. The soil to plant carbon density ratio increased with increasing altitude in agri-horticulture and agri-horti-silviculture LUS and the trend was just reverse in silvipasture LUS. Maximum and minimum values of soil to plant carbon density ratios are recorded in the treatment combinations of T6A3 and T4A1, respectively (Table 3).

Soil organic carbon

The mean maximum organic carbon (1.41%) is recorded in silvipasture, and mean minimum organic carbon content (1.33%) is found in agriculture LUS. In the altitudinal range, maximum carbon percent (1.39%) is displayed by 2440–2710 m.a.s.l. and remained statistically at par with the value of percent carbon recorded in 2170–2440 m.a.s.l. (Fig. 3). The minimum value of percent carbon (1.36%) is recorded in the 1900–2170-m altitudinal range. In the L1 (0–20 cm), soil layer depicted significantly higher values of organic carbon than other two layers under study (Table 4). Altitudinal range A3 (2440–2710 m.a.s.l.) under horticulture LUS displayed higher organic carbon percent, whereas minimum value of organic carbon percent (1.31%) is recorded both each in agri-horticulture and agriculture LUS at the 1900–2170-m elevation range. All the altitudinal ranges displayed identical values (1.40%) of organic carbon (%) at 0–20 cm soil layer. At each altitudinal range, the value of organic carbon declined with increasing soil depth (Fig. 3). But the rate of decrease in the organic carbon content is more pronounced at the A2 (2170–2440 m) altitudinal range than at A1 and A3 (Figs. 3 and 4).
Figure 3
Fig. 3

Variation of SOC (%) in different land use systems along altitudinal gradient

Table 4

Depth, land use and altitudinal wise soil carbon density (t ha−1) and soil organic carbon (%) status of study area

Land use Systems

soil carbon density (t ha−1)

Soil organic carbon (%)

(1900–2170 m)

(2170–2440 m)

(2440–2710 m)

(1900–2170 m)

(2170–2440 m)

(2440–2710 m)

L1

(0–20 cm)

L2

(20–40 cm)

L3

(40–100 cm)

L1

(0–20 cm)

L2

(20–40 cm)

L3

(40–100 cm)

L1

(0–20 cm)

L2

(20–40 cm)

L3

(40–100 cm)

L1

(0–20 cm)

L2

(20–40 cm)

L3

(40–100 cm)

L1

(0–20 cm)

L2

(20–40 cm)

L3

(40–100 cm)

L1

(0–20 cm)

L2

(20–40 cm)

L3

(40–100 cm)

Agriculture

31.65

31.13

96.61

20.13

22.84

63.02

28.89

28.70

75.28

1.34

1.28

1.27

1.38

1.29

1.26

1.41

1.40

1.29

Horticulture

27.50

30.03

93.62

29.60

27.79

88.52

24.84

24.16

75.47

1.39

1.39

1.29

1.42

1.38

1.37

1.43

1.42

1.42

Agri-horticulture

27.32

26.70

92.50

24.84

24.09

73.86

34.27

36.74

114.99

1.43

1.26

1.25

1.43

1.36

1.29

1.43

1.41

1.40

Agri-horti-silviculture

26.69

24.14

71.39

24.49

25.29

78.53

23.68

24.67

77.23

1.40

1.39

1.37

1.41

1.40

1.37

1.42

1.34

1.30

Silvipasture

25.06

26.40

75.87

20.55

19.84

54.96

23.68

20.62

62.31

1.46

1.44

1.38

1.43

1.40

1.37

1.43

1.40

1.40

Barren land

22.72

18.69

41.43

24.67

15.27

59.96

19.98

16.73

33.68

1.41

1.30

1.40

1.41

1.41

1.39

1.41

1.39

1.37

SE (d)

4.93

0.03

CD0.05

6.97

0.05

Figure 4
Fig. 4

Status of SOC (%) in different land use systems

Maximum soil organic carbon percent (1.48%) is recorded in 0–20 cm soil layer under silvipasture LUS, and minimum value of carbon percent (1.31%) is recorded in 40–100 cm soil layer of T1 (agriculture) and T5 (silvipasture) displaying identical values. Under each land use system, soil organic carbon decreased with increasing soil depth. The decline is more marked under the silvipasture system than any other LUS. Maximum soil carbon percent (1.46%) is recorded at 0–20 cm soil layer of the silvipasture system at the 1900–2170-m altitudinal range, whereas minimum value of soil organic carbon (1.25%) is recorded at 40–100 cm soil layer in agri-horticulture LUS in the 1900–2170-m altitudinal range. In general, in all the land use systems, the soil organic carbon (%) declined at each altitudinal gradient with increasing soil depth (Figs. 4 and 5).
Figure 5
Fig. 5

Variation of SOC (%) in three altitudinal ranges and soil depths

Soil carbon density

Maximum carbon density (151.77 t ha− 1) in 0–100 cm layer is in agri-horticulture LUS and minimum in the barren land. Irrespective of the land use, maximum carbon density (131.57 t ha− 1) is recorded at the A1 (1900–2170 m.a.s.l) altitudinal range, which is found to be significantly higher than A2 (2170–2440 m.a.s.l) (Fig. 6). The significantly highest values of soil carbon density (185.99 t ha− 1) is found in agri-horticulture LUS situated at an altitudinal range of 2440–2710 m.a.s.l., whereas minimum values are displayed by barren LUS at an altitude of 2440–2710 m.a.s.l. At L1 (0–20 cm) as well as L2 (20–40 cm) soil layer, the carbon density did not vary significantly at a different altitude. However, at 40–100 cm soil layer, maximum carbon density is recorded at the A1 altitudinal range which is found to be significantly higher than treatment combinations of L3A2 and L3A3. The data shows that carbon density at L1 (0–20 cm) and L2 (20–40 cm) layer did not vary appreciably among different LUS at all altitudinal gradients, except for barren land (Fig. 7). However, wide variation exist at L3 (40–100 cm) layer at the three altitudinal ranges. Soil carbon density does not vary significantly between L1 and L2 layer at different altitude under different LUS (Figs. 6 and 7).
Figure 6
Fig. 6

Variation of SCD t ha−1 in different land use systems along altitudinal gradient

Figure 7
Fig. 7

Depthwise variation of soil carbon density t ha− 1 at three altitudes

Discussion

Introduction of more and more tree-based land use systems like agroforestry is one alternative to deal with problems related to land use and global warming (Albrecht and Kandji 2003; Li et al. 2012). The amount of C sequestered largely depends on the agroforestry system, structure and functions, determined by environmental and socio-economic factors (Albrecht and Kandji 2003). Maximum aboveground biomass (84.65 t ha − 1) was recorded in the silvipasture system, followed by agri-horti-silviculture. Maximum belowground biomass (19.50 t ha− 1) was also in the silvipasture which was found significantly higher than all other LUS. Analysis of biomass production from published literature showed strong variations (1–37 Mg ha− 1) depending on climate, soil type and system management (Viswanath et al. 1998; Kang et al. 1999). Silvipastoral systems help in greater accumulation of soil organic matter and thus more carbon storage when compared to grass only or tree only (Kaur et al. 2002). The plant component of the silvipastoral system invests higher proportion of growth into the development of the root system compared to those growing singly (Swamy and Puri 2005). Mangalassery et al. (2014) also reported highest total plant biomass in the silvipastoral system involving acacia + C. ciliaris followed by acacia +C. setegerus. The results of the present study indicate that total biomass production is influenced by the old age tree layer, herbaceous nature of plants, nature and number of woody components and is supported by the findings of Rajput et al. (2015, 2017).

The LUS recorded the aboveground biomass in ascending order as barren land, agriculture, horticulture, agri-horticulture, agri-horti-silviculture and silvipasture respectively. Kumar et al. (2012) also reported the highest above- and lowest belowground biomass in the silvipasture and agriculture land use systems of north western Himalaya. The values reported by Kumar et al. (2012) are on the higher side of the present study and may be due to difference in an altitudinal range of 1000 m. The biomass carbon storage capacity reported in our fruit-based LUS was quiet low than reported by Sanneh (2007) and Singh (2010) for fruit-based agroforestry systems of the wet temperate north western Himalaya. This variation can be attributed to the prevailing climatic conditions like temperature and rainfall pattern, which affects the biomass carbon accumulation in the fruit-based LUS.

In the present study, increase in biomass with increasing altitude has got support from reported literature of Zhao et al. (2014), Zhu et al. (2010), Rajput et al. (2015) and Rajput et al. (2017). The above variation in the biomass level at different altitudes can be explained on the basis of combined effect of age of woody species, soil organic carbon (%) and human population density. It is clearly evident from the data that a major contributor of biomass at different altitudinal ranges is woody perennial and the average age of tree species increases with increasing altitudinal. This may be one of the major reasons for biomass variation at different altitudinal ranges.

A higher level of organic carbon at the upper altitudinal range might have been favorable for more biomass production. Similar views were also expressed by Lehmann et al. (1998), Sanneh (2007) and Singh (2010). Population density at these high-altitude dry regions is normally very low than plain areas due to freezing cold in winter months and hence less disturbance and anthropogenic pressure. The frequency of rainfall and snowfall and their intensity keeps on increasing as we move upward in the higher hills of Kinnaur district and lower elevation ranges falls under almost complete shadow zone.

Biomass carbon density of different land use systems

The differences in the productivity of agroforestry systems may also be due to differences in soil conditions, phenology of dominant species (Gupta and Singh 1981), better root networking and efficient and economical use of limited resources for maintaining higher photosynthetic activities, leaf area index, better light interceptions and water use efficiency (Sehgal 1999). The biomass carbon densities in the present study might be varying due to variation in temperature and other locality factors and hence affecting the carbon density across different land uses. The maximum biomass carbon density is in the silvipasture system (52.88 t ha− 1), which differed significantly from other LUS and followed the trend: silvipasture > agri-horti-silviculture > agri-horticulture > horticulture > agriculture.

Species density and management practices have also been observed to influence biomass under different agroforestry systems in hilly agro ecosystems Rajput et al. (2015, 2017). Management practices, input components, disturbance levels and site quality may have influenced the variability in the carbon density of different LUS. In the present study, the mean and total carbon densities reported are at par with the values of Shah et al. (2013) for the forests of solan Himachal Pradesh. Fang et al. (2005) from temperate forests of Japan and Manhas et al. (2006) in temperate Indian forests reported vegetation C density of 53.60 and 47.42 t ha− 1respectively and are both are almost neck to neck with the values of the present study. The lower biomass and carbon densities in the barren and agriculture land use systems may be due to poor fertility and intensive management practices. Proper design and management of such agroforestry/farm forestry plantations can increase biomass accumulation rates, making them effective carbon sinks (Shepherd and Montagnini 2001). Maikhuri et al. (2000) observed aboveground biomass of 3.9 t ha− 1 year− 1 from the Central Himalayan agroforestry system to 1.1 t ha− 1 year− 1 compared to degraded forestlands.

Soil organic carbon and soil carbon density

It is clear from the data that organic carbon (%) varied significantly under soil layers of different LUS, under different altitudinal ranges and their interaction effects. Maximum organic carbon percent was in the silvipasture system, which however remained statistically at par with all other LUS except agriculture and agri-horticulture. The greater soil organic carbon density of the silvipastoral system could be due to more total root biomass offered by the system that facilitates organic matter in the top as well as deep layers, thus making carbon less prone to oxidation as observed for deep-rooted grasses (Fisher et al. 1994). Significantly increased organic carbon contents in soils under these land-based use systems may be ascribed to more leaf litter deposition followed by decomposition and root turn over from trees (Kater et al. 1992; Rajput et al. 2015, 2017) and extremely low-temperature conditions between October and March months, whereas in agriculture and agri-horticulture high amount of organic carbon gets exhausted due to the intensive cultivation in these LUS and removal of high amount of harvest annually in the form of agriculture produce, fruits and pruned branches. The introduction of trees may increase the SOC stocks in agricultural systems and support the potential of agroforestry systems (Don et al. 2011; Li et al. 2012; Poeplau and Don 2015).

The carbon fixed by the plants is the primary source of organic matter input into the soil, which provides substrate for microbial process accumulation of soil organic matter. The belowground allocation of photosynthates is also an important factor for improving soil organic carbon content (Kaur et al. 2002). The result from the present study also demonstrates that maximum accumulation of soil organic carbon is in the surface layer and decreased with increase in soil depth. Gradual decline in the availability towards lower soil layers could be due to more accumulation and mineralization and reduced root biomass in deeper soil layers. The other reason may be cycling of nutrients and depositing them in surface soils (Shah et al. 2013). Sanneh (2007) and Singh (2010) have also reported decrease of soil organic carbon with increase in soil depth from the same state. The carbon density values under different LUS in the present study are quite higher than the values reported by Rajput et al. (2015, 2017) for subtropical and temperate regions of the northwestern Himalayas. Shah et al. (2014) reported carbon density values of 190.89 t ha− 1 for the pine forests of subtropical parts of the sub-Himalayan region and are more than the reported values of the present study. Similar results were reported by Bandana (2011) for the forests of Solan, Himachal Pradesh, who reported a soil C density of 156.64–238.53 t ha− 1 and Raina et al. (1999) reported a soil C density of 140.30–261.30 t ha− 1 in the Garhwal Himalaya, India.

Total ecosystem carbon density (plant and soil) was reported highest in the agri-horticulture and closely followed by agri-horti-silviculture, silvipasture > horticulture > agriculture > barren land. The carbon density in the tree-based agroforestry systems is appreciably higher than agriculture and barren LUS. A higher amount of carbon stock in the tree-based LUS can be ascribed to continuous locking up of carbon in trees and regular addition of leaf litter to the soil, which helps in the buildup of carbon in the soil layers and in turn helps in greater productivity of the systems. The ratio ranges from 1:1 in tropical forests to 5:1 in boreal forest and much larger factors in grasslands and wetlands (IPCC 2000). Lower soil-plant carbon density means that these systems have more carbon in the plant components which need to be protected in order to avoid these systems becoming source of CO2 in future.

Conclusions

The carbon stock storage and climate change mitigation cannot be easily achieved in the high-altitude Himalayan regions, because of the type of land use available, cold climate and the land holding capacity of the people. As evident from the results, maximum biomass density capacity has been reported for the silvipasture system followed by the agri-horti-silviculture system. Fruit-based systems, viz., horticulture and agri-horticulture displayed about four times more carbon storage potential than the agriculture land use system. In the altitudinal ranges, 1900–2170 m.a.s.l displayed higher carbon storage potential than A3 and A2. These fruit-based LUS, like horticulture, agri-culture and agri-horti-silviculture are first choice of the farmers of the region because fruit grown under these land uses are of high quality, have better storage life and have low disease infestation and at the same time fulfill both objectives of carbon mitigation and economic growth.

Abbreviations

a.s.l.: 

Above sea level

IPCC: 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LUS: 

Land use system

Mg: 

Mega gram

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

KC, DRB and CLT did the field work and data analysis. DBR and NAP drafted and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data and ethics approval is not required.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Soil Fertility and Agroforestry Research, Zambia Agriculture Research Institute (ZARI), Chilaga, Zambia
(2)
Department of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya Pundibari, Cooch Behar, India
(3)
Department of Silviculture and Agroforestry, Dr Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, India

References

  1. AFD ADB DFID (2003). Poverty and climate change: reducing the vulnerability of the poor through adaptation, DFID, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht A, Kandji ST (2003) Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agri Eco Envi 99:15–27View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandana D (2011) Biomass and carbon density under natural and plantation ecosystems in mid-hill subhumid conditions of Himachal Pradesh. MSc thesis, Dr YS. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, NauniGoogle Scholar
  4. Bitterlich W (1984) Relaskop idea slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. Farnham Royal, BuckinghamshireGoogle Scholar
  5. Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA (1997) Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia 111:1–11View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaturvedi AN, Khanna LS (1982) Forest mensuration. International Book Distributors, Dehradun, p 403Google Scholar
  7. Chidumaya EN (1990) Above ground biomass structure and productivity in a Zambezian woodland. Forest Ecol Manage 36:33–46View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Chisanga K (2012) Carbon storage potential and bio-economic appraisal of different land use systems in dry temperate north western Himalayas, M.Sc. Thesis. Dr Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P.). India, p 127Google Scholar
  9. De Stefano A, Jacobson (2017) Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agrofor Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0147-9
  10. Devi B, Bhardwaj DR, Panwar P, Pal S (2013) Carbon allocation, sequestration and carbon dioxide mitigation under plantation forests of north western Himalaya, India. Ann of For Res 56:123–135Google Scholar
  11. Don A, Schumacher J, Freibauer A (2011) Impact of tropical land-use change on soil organic carbon stocks—a metaanalysis. Glob Change Biol 17:1658–1670 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02336.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang JY, Oikawa T, Kato T, Mo WH, Wang ZH (2005) Biomass carbon accumulation by Japan’s forests from 1947 to 1995. Glo Biogeo Cyc 19:GB2004Google Scholar
  13. Fisher M, Rao I, Ayarza M, Lascano C (1994) Carbon storage by introduced deep-rooted grasses in the south American savannas. Nature 266:236–238View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Gokhale Y, Pala NA (2011) Ecosystem Services in Sacred Natural Sites (SNSs) of Uttarakhand: a preliminary survey. J Biodivers 2:107–115View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedure for agriculture research. Willey, New York, 680Google Scholar
  16. Gupta SR, Singh JS (1981) Influence of floristic composition on the net primary production and dry matter turnover in tropical grassland. Aust J Econ 7:363–374View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. HFS (2013) Himachal Pradesh Forest Department hpforest.nic.in/files/HP%20 Forest % 20 Statistics2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2000) Land use, Land use change and Forestry: A special report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. IPCC (2007) Summary for policy makers. In Climate change 2007: the physical science basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Solomon, S. et al., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 996Google Scholar
  20. Jenkin JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2003) National scale biomass estimation for United States tree species. For Sci 49:12–33Google Scholar
  21. Kang BT, Caveness FE, Tian G, Kolawole GO (1999) Long-term alley cropping with four species on an Alfisol in Southwest Nigeria-effect on crop performance, soil chemical properties and nematode population. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 54:145–155View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Kater LJM, Kante S, Budelman A (1992) Karite (Vitellaria paradoxa) and nere (Parkia biglobosa) associated with crops in South Mali. Agrofor Syst 18(2):89–105View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaur B, Gupta S, Singh G (2002) Carbon storage and nitrogen cycling in silvipastoral system on sodic soils in north western India. Agrofor Syst 54:21–29View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Kumar S, Verma KS, Kumar N (2012) Aboveground carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems of Western Himalaya. J Tree Sci 31(1&2):20–27Google Scholar
  25. Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123:1–22View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehmann J, Poidy N, Schroth G, Zech W (1998) Short term effects of soil amendment with three legume biomass on carbon and nitrogen in particle size separates in Central Togo. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1545–1552View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Li DJ, Niu SL, Luo YQ (2012) Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 195:172–181 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04150.x View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Maikhuri RK, Semwal RL, Rao KS (2000) Growth and ecological impacts of traditional agroforestry tree species in Central Himalaya. India Agrofor Syst 48:257–271View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Mangalassery S, Dayall D, Meena SL, Ram B (2014) Carbon sequestration in agroforestry and pasture systems in arid northwestern India. Curr Sci 107(8):25Google Scholar
  30. Manhas RK, Negi JDS, Kumar R, Chauhan PS (2006) Temporal assessment of growing stock, biomass and carbon stock of Indian forests. Clim Chang 74:191–221View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Mokany Y, Raison RJ, Prokushkin AS (2006) Critical analysis of root:shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Glob Chang Biol 11:1–13Google Scholar
  32. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1996) Total carbon, organic matter. In: Sparks DL et al (eds) Method of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 961–1010Google Scholar
  33. Pala NA, Negi AK, Todaria NP (2015) Ecological status and socio-cultural significance of Sem mukhem temple landscape in Garhwal Himalaya. India Indian Forester 141:496–504Google Scholar
  34. Pandey DN (2007) Multifunctional agroforestry systems in India. Curr Sci 92:445–663Google Scholar
  35. Poeplau C, Don A (2015) Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops-a meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 200:33–41 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.024View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Pressler M (1865) Das Gesetzder. Stamlildung, Leipzig, p 153Google Scholar
  37. Raina AK, Jha MN, Pharasi SC (1999) Morphology, mineralogy, genesis and classification of soils of Garhwal Himalayas developed on different parent materials. Ann For 7:269–276Google Scholar
  38. Rajput BS, Bhardwaj DR, Pala NA (2015) Carbon dioxide mitigation potential and carbon density of different land use systems along an altitudinal gradient in north-western Himalayas. Agrofor Sys DOI. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9788-8 Springer
  39. Rajput BS, Bhardwaj DR, Pala NA (2017) Factors influencing biomass and carbon storage potential of different land use systems along an elevational gradient in temperate northwestern Himalaya. Agrofor Sys DOI. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9948-5
  40. Saha S, Rajwar GS, Kumar M (2018) Soil properties along altitudinal gradient in Himalayan temperate forest of Garhwal region. Acta Ecol Sinica 38:1–8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Sanneh A (2007) Status of carbon stock under different landuse systems in wet temperate North Western Himalaya. M.Sc. Thesis. Dr Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P.). India, p 81Google Scholar
  42. Sehgal S (1999) Influence of coppicing and pollarding on water use efficiency, light transmission and root characteristics in agroforestry tree species, M.Sc. Thesis, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P.) IndiaGoogle Scholar
  43. Shah S, Sharma DP, Pala NA, Tripathi P, Dar MA (2013) Carbon stock and density of soils under chir pine (Pinus roxburghii Sargent) forests of Solan Forest division, Himachal Pradesh. Ind J Soil Conser 41(3):279–286Google Scholar
  44. Shah S, Sharma DP, Tripathi P, Pala NA (2014) Carbon partitioning in subtropical Pinus roxburghii sergant, forest Solan, India. J Trop Sci 26(3):355–361Google Scholar
  45. Shepherd D, Montagnini F (2001) Carbon sequestration potential in mixed and pure tree plantations in the humid tropics. J Trop For Sci 13:450–459Google Scholar
  46. Singh JS (2006) Sustainable development of Indian Himalayan region: linking ecological and economic concerns. Curr Sci 90(6):784–788Google Scholar
  47. Singh R, Bhardwaj DR, Pala NA, Rajput BS (2017) Variation in floral diversity of eight agro-ecosystems along elevational gradient in northwestern Himalaya. Range Manage Agroforestry 38(2):181–190Google Scholar
  48. Singh RA (1980) Soil physical analysis. Kalyani Publishers, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  49. Singh VP (2010) Addressing the challenges of climate change for securing sustainable livelihoods in India. IFAD investment strategy for India. COSOP Document for India, at IFAD, Rome, p 27Google Scholar
  50. Smith DM (1954) Maximum moisture content method for determining specific gravity of small wood samples. Forest Products Laboratory, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  51. Swamy S, Puri S (2005) Biomass production and c-sequestration of Gmelina arborea in plantation and agroforestry system in India. Agrofor Syst 64:181–195View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Viswanath S, Kaushik PK, Prakasam U (1998) Biomass production and survival of Sesbania sesban in alley cropping. Forest Farm Commun Tree Res Rep 3:59–61Google Scholar
  53. Walkley A, Black IA (1934) An examination of Degtjareff method for detemination soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–37View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhao J, Kang F, Wang L, Yu X, Zhao W (2014) Patterns of biomass and carbon distribution across a chronosequence of Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) forests. PLoS One 9(4):e94966. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094966 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhu B, Wang X, Fang J, Piao S (2010) Altitudinal changes in carbon storage of temperate forests on Mt Changbai, Northeast China. J Plant Res 123(4):439–452View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement