Skip to main content

Table 6 Comparative review between biomass and carbon stock estimates in similar forest types reported under previous investigations and the present study

From: Stand structure and species diversity regulate biomass carbon stock under major Central Himalayan forest types of India

RegionReference Comment AGBD AGCD TBD TCD
Tropical to sub-tropical forests with presence of S. robusta
Present study (F1 and F2) Mixed and pure S. robusta dominant forest 457.1–1001.8 208.5–451.9 566.2–1280.8 258.2–577.8
Nepal1 No correlation between species richness and biomass carbon 254 ± 72 120 ± 34
Cambodia2 Biomass carbon of tropical evergreen and semi-evergreen forest 163.8 ± 7.8
Tripura3 No correlation between species diversity and biomass 110.5–179.9 55.3–89.9 139.3–226.6 167.6–219.7
Meghalaya4 Tropical semi-evergreen Sal plantation 406.0 203.2
Meghalaya5 Primary tropical old-growth forest 323.7 158.4 374.5 182.3
Uttarakhand6
(Dehradun)
Moist deciduous Shiwalik Sal forest 268.6–347.7 338.4–438.2 169.2–219.1
Uttarakhand7
(Pauri Garhwal)
Negative correlation between species diversity and total carbon density 279.6 ± 37.6 346.5 ± 45.5 159.4 ± 20.9
Sub-tropical Pine forest
Present study F3 P. roxburghii and A. nepalensis association forest 471.8 215.7 596.2 272.5
Nepal8 Sub-tropical pine forest 86.0 38.7
Nepal9 Monospecific forest stands had higher biomass carbon than mixed stands 89.6 ± 7.4
China10 Six forest types with Pinus elements 51.8–120.5
Korea11 74-year-old P. koraiensis plantation 339.9
USA, Wyoming12 Unmanaged P. ponderosa forest 185.4
Meghalaya13 Old-growth P. kesiya forest 419.7 205.7 460.5 224.4
Meghalaya14 Weak positive correlation between tree species diversity and biomass 63–74.7
Uttarakhand 15 (Pauri Garhwal) Van Panchayat managed non-degraded pine forest 790.5 490.3
Uttarakhand 16 (Garhwal) Old-growth forest 363.4 ± 9.9 167.2 ± 4.6 447.7 ± 12 205.9 ± 5.5
Uttarakhand 17 (Kumaon) Monospecific P. roxburghii forest 210.8 ± 36.6
Temperate forests
Present study (F4–F7) Ban oak forest, temperate deciduous forest, Moist deodar forest and Kharsu Oak forest 499.4–758.8 229.1–350.2 634.2–968.6 290.9–437.5
Belgium 18 Temperate forest 101.0
USA19 Mid-Atlantic temperate forests 81–266 101–326
USA, Kentucky20 90-year-old second growth temperate mixed deciduous forest 108.3–111.0
Jammu and Kashmir 21 C. deodara dominant forest 393.7 ± 221.3 496.7 ± 278.9
Manipur22 Largest sacred grove in Manipur, India 962.9–1130.8 481.5–565.4
Uttarakhand 23 (Kumaon) Q. oblongata forest 387.3 ± 43.9  
Uttarakhand 24 (Garhwal) Ridge top Q. oblongata forest 497.32 228.75
Uttarakhand 25 (Kumaon) Temperate deciduous A. indica forest 397.2 501.8
Uttarakhand 16 (Garhwal) Old-growth temperate deciduous A. indica forest 429.8 ± 14.6 193.4 ± 6.6 527.6 ± 17.5 237.4 ± 7.8
Uttarakhand 16 (Garhwal) Old-growth temperate C. deodara forest 546.7 ± 20.5 251.5 ± 9.4 667.6 ± 24.5 307.1 ± 11.3
Uttarakhand 26 (Garhwal) Q. semecarpifolia dominant forests 136.9–221.4 179.6–285.9
Uttarakhand 27 (Garhwal) Q. semecarpifolia dominant forest with northern slopes having greater biomass 190.5–287.1 238.2–355.7 107.2–160.1
Uttarakhand 25 (Kumaon) Temperate Q. semecarpifolia dominant forest 459.7 590.2
Uttarakhand 28 (Tehri) Sem Mukhem sacred forest 1224.9   1549.7 774.8
Sub-alpine forest
Present study F8 A. spectabilis dominant forest 485.9 223.8 607.9 279.9
Poland29 A. alba dominant forest 0.3–293.6
USA30 Old-growth A. amabilis forest 464.8
Sikkim31 Species diversity and richness have positive relation with biomass carbon 191.3 134.2
Uttarakhand32 (Garhwal) Treeline ecotone forest 32–387
  1. AGBD: Mg ha−1; AGCD: Mg C ha−1; TBD: Mg ha−1; and TCD: Mg C ha−1
  2. References: 1: Thapa Magar and Shrestha 2015; 2: Samreth et al. 2012; 3: Banik et al. 2018; 4: Baishya et al. 2009; 5: Baishya and Barik 2015; 6: Shahid and Joshi 2015; 7: Sharma et al. 2010; 8: Baral et al. 2009; 9: Pariyar et al. 2019; 10: Guo et al. 2010; 11: Son et al. 2007; 12: Tinker et al. 2010; 13: Baishya and Barik 2011; 14: Gogoi et al. 2020; 15: Vikrant and Chauhan 2014; 16: Dimri et al. 2017a; 17: Chaturvedi and Singh 1987; 18: Walle et al. 2005; 19: Jenkins et al. 2001; 20: Newman et al. 2006; 21: Dar and Sahu 2018; 22: Waikhom et al. 2018; 23: Rawat and Singh 1988; 24: Sharma et al. 2016; 25: Adhikari et al. 1995; 26: Dimri et al. 2017a b; 27: Sharma et al., 2011; 28: Pala et al. 2013; 29: Jagodziński et al. 2019; 30: Turner and Singer 1976; 31: Rai et al. 2018; and 32: Rai et al. 2020
\