CC BY
55
Региональные проблемы. 2018. Т. 21, № 3(1). С. 41-45. DOI: 10.31433/1605-220X-2018-21-3(1)-41-45.
UDK 504.7:332.362(549.3)
CARBON SEQUESTRATION POTENTIALITY AND ITS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT LAND USE SYSTEMS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF BANGLADESH
M.S. Bari1*; M B. Abubakar2 and M.S. Rahman1 :Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur, Bangladesh 2Kano University of Science and Technology, Kano, Nigeria Email: barimdshafiqul@gmail.com (*corresponding author)
This study was conducted to evaluate the carbon sequestration potentiality of different land use systems in the Northern part of Bangladesh. Common land use systems like cropland, roadside, homestead and orchard were used. Data were recorded from both tree growth parameters (height and diameter at breast height) and under storied vegetation (herbs, shrubs and crops) in order to estimate the total land use biomass accumulation. Complete measure of 40 m line transects in cropland, 40*5 m quadrant in roadside, 40*40 m quadrant in both orchard and homestead were used. At every sampling point, under stories biomass sample were taken from 1*1 m quadrant. The results showed that there was significant difference of carbon sequestration potentiality of different land use systems. For the main effect of different land use systems on carbon sequestration, there was significantly difference in respect of tree height (m), dbh (cm), carbon sequestration per tree (t ha'1) and total carbon sequestration by the land use systems (t ha'1). The highest total carbon sequestration (325.33 t ha'1) was recorded from double roadside land use system and the lowest (36.51 t ha'1) was obtained from cropland land use system. However, in case of economic of carbon sequestration, among the six land use systems double roadside gave maximum (4879.95$ t ha'1) monitory returned. So, double roadside tree plantation is a better land use option for reducing atmospheric carbon. Therefore, more emphasis should be given in roadside plantation for mitigating the green house effects.
Keywords: carbon sequestration, land use, road side plantation, Bangladesh.
Introduction
Tropical forests play an important role in the global carbon cycle [16]. They contain about 40% of global terrestrial carbon, account for more than half of global gross primary productivity, and sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere [3, 7, 18]. Carbon is stored in forests predominantly in live biomass and in soils, with smaller amounts in coarse woody debris [15]. In tropical forests worldwide, about 50% of the total carbon is stored in aboveground biomass and 50% is stored in the top 1 m of the soil [6].
The problem of global climate change is considered to be one of the most important to the environment; it has been at the center of scientific debate in recent years. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from land use and land use changes, predominantly from forested areas, account for 33% of global CO2 emissions between 1850 and 1998 [4]. Increasing demand for food, fodder, fuel and round wood is rising the pressure on land-use systems, and conservation and sustainable development of land-use systems are critical for meeting those demands sustainably and stabilizing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to mitigate global climate change [23].
The carbon storage capacity in agroforestry varies across species and geography [17]. Trees and shrubs in different land use systems act as carbon sinks. They absorb carbon (as CO2) through photosynthesis and store it in their aboveground and be-lowground biomass. This process is called 'carbon sequestration'. IPCC [9] described carbon sequestration as the process of removal of carbon from the atmosphere and stored it in the biosphere. Moreover, the amount of carbon in any land use system depends on the structure and function of different components within the systems put into practice [1, 24]. The developing countries are bearing the maximum brunt of global warming and climate change, although their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is much less than that of the developed countries.
It is, therefore, important that countries like Bangladesh to take serious steps which contribute in fighting climate change through the role of land use practices to mitigate climate change. The establishment of agroforestry based land use system will help in substantial and productive agriculture and climate change mitigation. However, in Bangladesh, the amounts of carbon sequestration by different land use system are unknown. The study was performed
to assess the potentiality of different Agroforestry related land use systems for carbon sequestration in the Northern region of Bangladesh.
Materials and Methods Study Area and observations The study was conducted in the northern part of Bangladesh located in the districts of Dinajpur. A stratified random sampling method was used in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four (4) replications as representative areas where different agroforestry related land use systems like homestead agroforestry, cropland agroforestry, orchard based agroforestry and road side plantation were practiced. Indeed, Dinajpur district includes three Agro-ecological Regions: Old Himalyan Piedmont Plain (AEZ-1), Tista Meander Flood Plain (AEZ-3) and Level Barind Tract (AEZ-25) and the ecosystems vary among the AEZs. Therefore, one site from each of the AEZs was selected. So, the study consist of six (6) land use systems (viz; Boundary crop land, single roadside plantations, double roadside plantations, homestead agro-forestry, litchi orchard and mango orchard) and three (3) agro-ecological zones (viz. AEZ 1, AEZ 3 and AEZ 25). So, twenty four observations were recorded from each AEZ having total of seventy two (72) observations. Seven (7) years aged Eucalyptus tree was selected as an experimental tree in cropland and Roadside plantations. Similarly, same age was also considered in case of Orchard. In homestead, age was not used due to high variability and species diversity. Hence, only matured trees with diameter greater than 5cm (dbh) were considered for this experiment. Leaf litter, herb, grass or rice biomass was sampled using 1*1m quadrant method.
Tree Biomass Estimation The biomass of tree is the sum of aboveground and belowground biomass content. For accurate measure of biomass in tree, it has to be felled. To avoid this, the standing woody biomass has been estimated using important growth parameter such as DBH and height. Tree height and DBH are the most common independent variables needed for the estimation of tree volume [2].
Aboveground biomass estimation (AGB). The aboveground biomass (AGB) has been calculated by multiplying volume of biomass and wood density; the volume was calculated based on diameter and height [19]. In this system, the following allometric equation for estimating biomass (kg per tree) of tree diameter 5-60 cm of different zones developed by [5] was used:
(AGBhst = 0.0509 x pD2H, where (AGB)est - Estimated aboveground tree bio-
mass (kg per tree), D - diameter at breast height (DBH) (cm), H - tree height (m), p - Wood specific gravity (Mg m-3) [5].
Belowground Tree biomass (BGB). Below-ground tree biomass (BGTB) of trees was calculated by multiplying the above ground biomass (AGTB) with a default value of 0.26, provided by [8] as a factor of root: shoot ratio. Average root biomass content of all trees was 26% of aboveground biomass: Below ground biomass =
= .- :: d\j-:■ 2-i:.
Total Biomass. Total tree biomass (TTB) is the sum of the above and below ground biomass [25]: Total biomass = AGB + BGB.
Estimation of carbon stock in trees (t C/ha). Generally, for any plant species 50% of its biomass is considered as carbon storage [20]:
Carbon Storage = Biomass x 0.5.
Estimation of carbon stock in Leaf litter, herb, and grass (LHG) or under stories biomass (t C ha-1). The carbon content in under stories biomass (LHG) was calculated by multiplying with IPCC [2006] default carbon fraction of 0.47:
LHG (kgm~2) = Biomass x 0.47.
Estimation of Carbon Sequestered (t ha'1). To estimate carbon sequestration of crops and trees the biomass carbon was multiplied with a factor of 3.67 for all species a formula used by Rajput [22]: Estimated Carbon sequestration (t iia-1) =
= BioTnass carbon x 3,67,
Total Land use carbon sequestration (t ha'1). In order to achieve the total carbon sequestration by a particular land use system, total of trees and below-ground litter fall, shrubs, herbs or rice were summed [21]:
Total land nje carbon sequestration = = Tree C02 sequestration + +LHG C02 sequestration.
Estimation ofEconomic Value of Carbon Credits (US$ t ha-1). One ton of net sequestered or mitigated carbon dioxide from plant biomass in a land use is equal to one carbon credit. Therefore, total carbon credit in a land use systems was calculated from CO2-eq values of retained biomass in respective land use systems. The carbon credits were calculated from the total land use carbon sequestration from tree and crop biomass using the guidelines of IPCC in 1996. However, according to Vivan [26] the monetary value of one ton CO2 is equivalent to US$15. In this study, the value of Vivian [26] was used. All data were statisti-
Tree biomass and carbon stock of different land use systems
Table 1
Land Use System TH DBH AGB BGB TTB AGCS BGCS TTCS
(m) (cm) (kg per (kg per (kg per t (kg per t (kg per (kg per t
tree) tree) ree) ree) tree) ree)
Boundary Cropland (Tj) 11.32b 13.52e 63.48cd 16.51bc 79.99cd 31.74cd 8.25cd 39.99cd
Single Roadside (T2) 14.23a 16.31c 116.75a 30.35a 147.10a 58.37a 15.18a 73.55a
Double Roadside (T3) 14.53a 15.12d 101.95ab 26.51a 128.46ab 50.98ab 13.25ab 64.23ab
Homestead Plat (T4) 10.21b 13.02e 53.23d 13.84c 67.07d 26.61d 6.92cd 33.53d
Litchi Orchard (T5) 5.86c 21.12b 79.81bc 0.75b 100.56bc 39.91bc 10.38d 50.28bc
Mango Orchard (T6) 6.94c 22.24a 105.49a 27.42a 132.92a 52.75a 13.71a 66.46a
CV% 8.3 7.3 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 4.5
In a column, figures having similar letter(s) do not differ significantly where as figure's bearing different letter(s) differ significantly (as per DMRT)
cally analyzed using computer package R-studio and MS Excel 2007.
Results and Discussion
Tree biomass of different Land use systems. The study found that the total tree biomass (TTB) significantly varied with the land use systems (Table 1). The highest TTB (147.1 kg) per tree was found from Single Roadside (T2) which was followed by Mango orchard (T6) and Double Roadside (T3). On the other hand, the lowest TTB (67.07 kg) per tree was recorded from Homestead (T4) which was followed by Cropland (T1) and Litchi Orchard (T5). Wide variation of total biomass occurs due to heterogeneity of different land use systems. Khaki and Wani [11] estimated maximum total ground biomass (181.34 t ha-1) in Shorea robusta pure forest, which was followed by Agrisilviculture system (46.02 t ha-1) and lowest in natural grass land (4.47 t ha-1).
Tree carbon stock of different Land use systems. The trend of carbon stock (TTCS) per tree was
also followed as per tree biomass content, as shown in Table 1.
Total carbon sequestration of different land use systems (t C ha'1). The study found that the total carbon sequestrations per hectares (TLUCseq) by the land use systems were highly influenced (Table 2). The highest TLUCseq (325.33 t ha-1) was recorded from Double Roadside (T3) which was followed by Single Roadside (T2) and Homestead (T4). However, the lowest TLUCseq (36.51 t ha-1) was recorded from Cropland (T1) which was followed by Litchi orchard (T5) and Mango orchard (T6). Several studies have been conducted to explore the effects of land use systems on Carbon sequestration and other biophysical factors that affect the systems [13, 14]. Kursten [12] stated that by adding trees in a system, it can increase the C storage capacity of the land use systems.
Economic value of carbon sequestration (US$ t ha-1). The economic value of carbon sequestration provides market for GHG reduction in monetary val-
Table 2
Land Use System NT/ha TTCS LHG/RCS TTCseq LGCseq TLUCseq
(tC ha-1) (tC ha-1) (t ha-1) (t ha-1) (t ha-1)
Boundary Cropland (Tj) 158.9e 6.39d 3.56d 23.47d 13.05d 36.51c
Single Roadside (T2) 420.0c 30.68b 11.52b 112.58b 42.29b 154.87b
Double Roadside (T3) 1166.7a 75.43a 13.22a 276.83a 48.51a 325.33a
Homestead Plant (T4) 988.9b 33.51b 7.69c 122.99b 28.22c 151.27b
Litchi Orchard (T5) 216.6d 10.74cd 2.19e 39.62cd 8.03e 47.65c
Mango Orchard (T6) 220.0d 14.64c 2.61e 53.72c 9.58e 63.30c
CV% 21.7 19.9 4.5 19.9 4.5 16.1
In a column, figures having similar letter(s) do not differ significantly where as figure's bearing different letter(s) differ significantly (as per DMRT)
Total Carbon sequestrations of different land use system
Figure. Economic value of carbon sequestration (US$ t ha-1)
ue (Figure). According to Vivian [26] one (1) ton of carbon was sold at US$15. So, the highest carbon price (4879.95 $ t ha-1) was recorded from Double roadside (T3) which was followed by single roadside (T2) and Homestead (T4). On the other hand, the lowest carbon price (547.65 $ t ha-1) was obtained from Cropland (T1) which was followed by Litchi orchard (T5) and Mango orchard (T6).
Conclusions The finding of this study showed that different land use system had significant effects on biomass and carbon accumulation. Planting of multipurpose tree species in non-forest land like cropland, roadside, homestead etc. can serve a dual purpose by promoting carbon sequestration and production of non timber forest product for local people. The present investigation finds out that seven (7) year old Eucalyptus plantation in double roadside strip gave the highest sequestration ability of CO2 due to its high biomass stand density. Finally, it may be concluded that since forest plantations cannot be extended to many large areas of Bangladesh due to high population pressure and demand of agricultural land, roadside agroforest-ry land use system will be a better option for larger tree plantation coverage and reduction in GHGs effects.
REFERENCES:
1. Albrecht A, Kandji S (2003) Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), c/o International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya 99: 15-27.
2. Avery TE, Burkhart HE (2001) Forest Measurements (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 456.
3. Beer C, Reichstein M, Tomelleri E, et al. (2010) Terrestrial Gross Carbondioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate. Science 329: 834-838. Doi: 10.1126/sci-
ence.1184984.
4. Bolin B, Sukumar R (2000).Global Perspective. Chapter 1 in Watson RT, IR Noble, B Bolin, NH Ravindranath, DJ Verardo, DJ Dokken (Eds), 2000. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. A Special Report of the IPCC.
5. Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S, et al. (2005) Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145: 87-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x.
6. Dixon RK, Winjum JK, Andrasko KJ, Lee JJ, Schroeder PE (1994) Integrated Systems: Assessment of Promising Agroforestry and Alternative Land Use Practices to Enhance Carbon Conservation and Sequestration. Clim Change 27(1): 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098474.
7. Grace J (2004) Understanding and managing the global carbon cycle. J Ecol 92: 189-202. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00874.x.
8. Hangarge LM, Kulkarni DK, Gaikwad VB, Ma-hajan DM, Chaudhari N (2012) Carbon Sequestration potential of tree species in Somjaichi Rai (Sacred grove) at Nandghur village, in Bhor region of Pune District, Maharashtra State, India. Annals Biol Res 3(7): 3426-3429.
9. IPCC (2000) IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. A special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Approved at IPCC Plenary XVI (Montreal, 1-8 May, 2000). IPCC Secretariat, c/o World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. At http ://www.ipcc.ch/..
10. IPCC (2006) Agriculture, forestry and other land use. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (Eds) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan.
11. Khaki BA, Wani AA (2011) Carbon sequestration potential of biomass under different agroforest-ry land use systems in Poanta area of Himachal Pradesh. Indian Forestry Congress, Conference, New Delhi.
12. Kursten E (2000) Fuelwood production in agro-foretry systems for sustainable land use and CO2 mitigation. Ecol Engineering 16: 569-572.
13. Lal R, Kimble JM, Follet RF, Cole CV (1998) Land conversion and restoration In: The potential of U.S. cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect, R Lal et al. (Eds). Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea M. I. p. 35-51.
14. Lal R, Follett RF, Kimble J (1999) Managing U.S. cropland to sequester carbon is soil. J Soil Water Conservation.53: 374-381.
15. Malhi Y, Aragao LEOC, Metcalfe DB, et al. (2009) Comprehensive Assessment of Carbon Productivity, Allocation and Storage in Three Amazonian Forest. Global Change Biol 15: 1255-1274.
16. Masera OR, Garza-Caligans JF, Kanninen M, et al. (2003) Modelling Carbon Sequestration in Afforestation, Agroforestry and Forest Management Projects: The CO2 FIX V.2 Approach. Ecol Modell 164: 177-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00419-2.
17. Newaj R, Dhyani SK (2008) Agroforestry for carbon sequestration: Scope and present status. Indian J Agroforestry 10: 1-9.
18. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, et al. (2011) A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World's Forest. Science 333: 88-993. Doi: 10.1126/sci-ence.1201609.
19. Pandya IY, Salvi H, Chahar O, Vaghela N (2013) Quantitative Analysis on Carbon Storage of 25 Valuable Tree Species of Gujarat, Incredible India. Indian J Sci Res 4(1): 137-141.
20. Pearson T, Walker S, Brown S (2005) Sourcebook for land-use, land-use change and forestry projects. Arlington, 19-35.
21. Pearson TR, Brown SL, Birdsey RA (2007) Measurement guidelines for the sequestration of forest carbon, general technical report, USAID forest service.
22. Rajput BS (2010) Bio-economic appraisal and carbon sequestration potential of different land use systems in temperate north-western Himalayas. PhD Thesis, Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (HP). India.
23. Ravindranath NH, Madelene O (2008) Carbon Inventory Methods: Handbook for Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Carbon Mitigation and Round wood Production Projects.
24. Schroeder P (1993) Agroforestry systems: integrated land use to store and conserve carbon. Clim Res 3: 53-60.
25. Sheikh MA, Kumar M, Bussman RW, Todaria NP (2011) Forest carbon stocks and fluxes in physiographic zones of India. Carbon Balance Manag 6.
26. Vivian JB (2010) Potential economic value of carbon sequestration in Kakamega forest and surrounding farms. A Thesis submitted to graduate school. Egerton University.
