See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281149366

Carbon sequestration potential in agroforestry system in India: an analysis for

carbon project

Article  in  Agroforestry Systems · August 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s10457-015-9840-8

CITATIONS READS

44 2,609

3 authors:

Rajni Sharma Sanjeev Chauhan

Punjab Agricultural University Punjab Agricultural University
33 PUBLICATIONS   215 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   548 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abhishek Mani Tripathi

Global Farm Solutions Inc.
34 PUBLICATIONS   149 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Defining growth, quality and biomass production of different bamboo species in central plains of Punjab View project

Tree crop interaction for sustainability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanjeev Chauhan on 26 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agroforest Syst
DOI 10.1007/s10457-015-9840-8
Carbon sequestration potential in agroforestry system
in India: an analysis for carbon project
Rajni Sharma . Sanjeev K. Chauhan .
Abhishek M. Tripathi
Received: 21 March 2015 / Accepted: 11 August 2015
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract India is a large developing country with
more than seventy per cent population earning their
livelihood from diverse land use activities. Changing
climate is a worry for the nation but the country cannot
afford to slow down the developing/developmental
activities. Landuse activities in irrigated agro-ecosys-
tems have started shifting from traditional agriculture
to smart agriculture to meet the country’s food
requirements and secure livelihood security. But this
shift has been achieved at the cost of natural resources
R. Sharma  S. K. Chauhan (&)
Department of Forestry & Natural Resources, Punjab
Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India
e-mail: chauhanpau@rediffmail.com;
chauhanpau@pau.edu
R. Sharma
e-mail: rajni@dr.com
A. M. Tripathi
Global Change Research Center AS CR, v.v.i., Bělidla
986/4a, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic
e-mail: manicfre@gmail.com
A. M. Tripathi
Institute of Agriculture Systems and Bioclimatology,
Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University in Brno,
Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
A. M. Tripathi
Institute of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood
Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1,
613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
and degradation of environment. Realizing the bene-
fits of climate smart agriculture in the changing
scenario, farmers are adapting slowly to it but
appropriate details of climate vulnerability and pack-
age of climate smart agriculture including tree-crop
interaction are very limited for adoption. It is impor-
tant to assess the strengths and weaknesses of carbon
sequestration (CS) projects with respect to their
practical potential rather than biophysical potential
for registration under clean development mechanism
for additional income. There is a need to address the
technical, economic, legal and social issues of the
adopters because they have to lock their land for long
time for CS projects, therefore confidence building
measures are essentially required to make them
aware/motivate for adoption of trees on their farms
for mitigation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and
adaptation against changing climate. However, the
potential of agroforestry (AF) systems has not been
reflected in registration of CS projects due to lack of
best practices in AF, procedures and methodologies
for carbon accounting, etc., which requires thorough
review to develop appropriate models for payments of
environmental benefits. Poplar based AF has been
considered here as an example to understand the
process of accounting CS and its practical applicabil-
ity for environmental payments.
Keywords Agroforestry  Biophysical and practical
potential  Carbon sequestration  Institutional
mechanism  Poplar based agroforestry
123

Introduction
Anthropogenic activities have affected the biosphere,
through changes in the land use and other develop-
mental activities, in turn changing the natural balance
of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Never
before in the human civilization, environmental issues
have brought climate change at central stage, which
has become one of the most important global
challenges facing humanity with implications on
agriculture, natural ecosystems, drinking/irrigation
water supply, health (human/animal/plant), ecological
refuse, developmental activities, etc. This has gener-
ated world over an increasing awareness about the
adverse impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on
climate and prompted to generate suitable remedial
measures through different mechanisms for GHG
mitigation. The clean development mechanism
(CDM) has been seen as one of the potential for
mutually shared benefits for investors and project
developers, where investors (Annex 1 countries with
restriction to cut GHG emissions) benefit by obtaining
reductions in costs lower than in their own countries,
and the developer (Non-annex 1 countries usually
developing/under developed nations) gains in the form
of finance, efficient technology and sustainable devel-
opment benefits.
The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
other GHGs in the atmosphere has considerably
increased over the last century and is set to rise
further. The largest proportion of this is a result from
the burning of fossil fuels and the conversion of
tropical forests to agricultural land. Since 1750,
atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by 30 %,
with a steep increase observed during the last 50 years
(IPCC 2001). With an annual increase of 0.5 % or 3.6
GT (1 gigaton = 109 ton) C year-1, atmospheric CO2
concentration is expected to double until the mid to
late twenty first century (Bouwman 1990). So, there is
a growing international scientific, political, adminis-
trative and social concern to develop ways to slow
down the addition of GHGs to the atmosphere. One
way to manage carbon is to use energy more efficiently
to reduce fossil fuel combustion. Another way is to
increase our use of low—carbon and carbon free fuels/
technologies (nuclear power and renewable sources
such as solar energy, wind power, and biomass fuels).
The third practically feasible and much affordable
alternative is to manage carbon through ‘carbon
123
Agroforest Syst
sequestration’. Agroforestry (AF), a combination of
perennials and annuals, providing multiple benefits
such as fuel, fodder, small timber, etc., which are the
common tangible benefits, while soil fertility improve-
ment, biodiversity enhancement, carbon sequestration
(CS), environmental amelioration, etc. are intangible
benefits. The intangible effects due to no price tag
attached with them have least realized in spite of their
enormous benefits (Hymavathi et al. 2010). The
central idea of tree-crop interface is to enable trees
to make use of resources of light, water, nutrients, etc.
that crops otherwise fail to acquire (Cannel et al.
1996). AF systems are more complex than monocul-
ture tree/crop situations, which enhances the multi-
functionality of agricultural landscapes by balancing
improved productivity with sustainable ecosystem
services (soil health, hydrology, biodiversity, CS,
etc.). Trees on agricultural landscape are commonly
considered to be carbon sinks (Dixon 1995; Swami
and Puri 2005; Sileshi et al. 2007; Chauhan et al.
2012b; Murthy et al. 2013) because the integration of
trees results in greater CO2 sequestration from the
atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis and
lead to an enhancement of carbon storage in tree
components for long term storage (Chauhan et al.
2007; Newaj and Dhyani 2008; Nair et al. 2009a;
Kaonga and Bayliss-Smith 2009; Arora et al. 2013)
and soil including below ground biomass (Nair et al.
2009b, 2010; Saha et al. 2010; Pinho et al. 2012; Gupta
and Sharma 2013; Sharma et al. 2014).
AF is an important path to prosperity for poor
people in the Northwestern Indian states (Punjab,
Haryana, Uttrakhand and western Uttar Pradesh)
those have been bypassed by the green revolution
(Chauhan and Mangat 2006; Chauhan and Chauhan
2009). A key advantage of agroforestry, however, is
that it provides direct benefits to poor farmers in
developing countries and global environment pay
offs. The focus on trees, as opposed to other vegeta-
tion is because trees (live as well as harvested)
sequester a relatively large quantity of carbon for
longer period. This is accomplished by accumulating
biomass in living trees, harvesting followed by long
term locking, fossil fuel substitution, and soil carbon.
Protecting the existing forests and woodlots, and
establishing new plantations, will help us limit
greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time
assist biodiversity conservation, addressing issues
such as land degradation/salinity/water logging/
Agroforest Syst
erosion, and in some cases generating income from
timber and/or carbon rights and on-farm/off-farm
employment. In nutshell, agroforestry provides syn-
ergy between climate change mitigation and adapta-
tion. The biomass produced in the system mitigate
while the moderation of meteorological parameters
help in adaptation (Monteith et al. 1991), the temper-
ature (air and soil) remains less under plantations than
the projected 2–4.5 °C with a best estimate of 3 °C by
IPCC (www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4).
Poplar has extensively been studied and adopted by
the farmers in north western states in India (Dogra
et al. 2014; Chauhan et al. 2015); therefore, this paper
reviews the scientific literature generated in India to
analyze the reasons for low number of CDM A/R
projects with poplar based agroforestry system as an
example. A huge potential has been projected for
foreign investment for carbon projects leading to
sustainable development in developing nations but as
such very limited details have been attempted includ-
ing impact assessment of already registered projects to
encourage new initiatives for environmental payment
under carbon projects.
Carbon sequestration (CS) in agroforestry (AF)
system
Removing atmospheric carbon (C) and storing it in the
terrestrial biosphere is one of the options, which have
been proposed to compensate CO2 emissions. Agricul-
tural lands are believed to be a major potential sink and
could absorb large quantities of carbon if trees are
judiciously included and managed together (simultane-
ously/sequentially) with crops. The importance of AF as
a land-use system is receiving wider recognition not only
in terms of agricultural sustainability but also in issues
related to climate change. It is a dynamic, natural
resource management practice that, through the integra-
tion of trees in the agricultural landscape, diversifies and
sustains production for increased social, economic and
environmental benefits. Trees are investments whose
value rises over time and in developing countries they
respond to diversified demands of food, fodder, fuel,
fiber, etc. and reduce pressure from traditional forests.
Several studies have shown that the inclusion of
trees in the agricultural landscape often improve the
productivity of systems while providing opportunities
to create jobs, economic benefits and carbon sinks.
The CS potential of afforestation/reforestation (A/R)
is specific to the ecosystem, species, growth rate,
management involved, etc. and it is, therefore, vari-
able. The prominent role of forestry and AF systems in
CS has increased global interest to stabilize green-
house gas emissions. It has been reported that 630
million hectares area would be available for agro-
forestry, which has the potential to sequester 586 Mt C
per year by 2040 (Watson et al. 2000). Annual carbon
mitigation of about 0.072 Gt has been projected by
Singh and Lal (2000a) with conservative productivity
of 5.5 t per hectare per year through short rotation
plantations on 40 million hectares. But effective
carbon offsets can be achieved through long term
carbon storage in plant-soil system rather than
estimating only addition in the system and ignoring
the leakage in project area (Plieninger 2011). Usually,
the initial carbon and later additions are least studied at
time scale but only estimated as carbon storage, which
is very different than long term accounting of CS.
The carbon storage in plant biomass is feasible in the
perennial agroforestry systems (perennial-crop combi-
nations, agroforestry, windbreaks, hedgerow intercrop-
ping, etc.), which allow full time tree growth where the
wood component represents an important part to the
total biomass. Moreover, the CS in agroforestry systems
is a dynamic process. At the initial stage, the carbon and
the nitrogen (N) from the vegetation and the soil is lost,
then there is quick accumulation during fast growth
phase and at maturity or harvesting when the system
returns back to agriculture or new plantation, some part
of the carbon is released back though major portion is
stored in the stem and the root system. The root system,
in general contributes to the soil carbon pool and the
major share of stem wood carbon goes to the durable
products and on an average 50 per cent of the stem wood
carbon is converted to products like lumber and
plywood that have a long life span. Rotation length of
trees affects the carbon stocks in biomass and soil. The
short rotation tree species most preferred in the AF
interventions due to their potential to meet growing
domestic and industrial requirements are very less
suited to long term locking of carbon. For example, the
productivity of poplar (Populus deltoides) is more than
the shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) but its carbon sink
potential is less because of its shorter rotation and the
relatively low storage time of the wood products. Dewar
and Cannell (1992) reported less carbon storage in mini-
rotation species than long term plantations. They
123

emphasized that wood products formed a modest
fraction of the total biomass, thus wood products are
not a critical factor in long term carbon storage.
Similarly, Kaul et al. (2010) emphasized that the
amount of wood harvested annually decrease with
increase in rotation length, which increases the carbon
stock of trees with increasing rotation length. Soil
carbon also increase with increase in rotation length.
They reported 156 Mg Cha-1 total long-term average
carbon stocks in biomass and wood products for slow
growing long rotation forests (sal, Shorea robusta and
teak, Tectona grandis) and 101–134 Mg Cha-1 for fast
growing short rotation plantations (poplar and eucalyp-
tus). The relationship of soil carbon dynamics with tree
rotation is not fully clear and inconsistent trend
predominates (Yang et al. 2011) probably because of
inconsistent residue incorporation (quality and quan-
tity), variable decomposition rate, leaching/oxidation
rate, etc. (Pretty et al. 2002). Short rotation species,
however have positive environmental impact than the
agricultural crop cultivation through increase in carbon
storage in landscape, fossil fuel substitution and indirect
conservation of natural forests.
AF system assessment needs changes in four main
carbon pools (above ground biomass, below ground
biomass, soils and inter-cultivated crops). Carbon
monitoring/accounting, however, requires specialized
equipments and trained personnel. It requires baseline
determination of pre-project carbon pool in biomass,
soils and standing litter crop, establishment of perma-
nent sample plots for periodic measurement of
changes in carbon pool, measure carbon stored in
non-project area, net differences of carbon accumu-
lated in project and non-project land uses on long-term
basis. It also requires partitioning of roots, wood and
foliage for each species and changes in vegetation
pattern (natural forest, forest plantation, agroforestry,
agriculture ecosystem, etc.) for accounting the carbon
storage potential in a specific ecosystem.
All the fast growing species proportionately to their
biomass productivity conserve carbon in the system.
In India, Populus, Eucalyptus, Leucaena, Acacia,
Melia, Anthocephalus, Gmelina, Bombax, Salix, Ca-
suarina, Ailanthus, bamboo, etc. are common fast
growing trees for different regions and can be
incorporated in the AF system to sequester large
proportion of carbon in the system. AF as such can
be justified in many other ways as increasing soil
carbon, greatly benefit agricultural productivity and
123
Agroforest Syst
sustainability. CS potential was reported to be 115, 64
and 56 t ha-1 (Gera et al. 2006) under poplar block,
poplar boundary and Eucalyptus boundary plantations
under irrigated agro-ecosystem on farmer’s fields. The
area under both the species is increasing every year
because of huge industrial wood demand. However,
AF alone cannot solve the current climatic problems
but can only be one among a range of strategies. There
is however still more work to be done to improve our
understanding of CS and greenhouse gas mitigations
through AF interventions and sustainable socio-eco-
nomic impacts. Replacing forests by AF intervention
will reduce the carbon stocks but establishing trees on
treeless land will offer better options for carbon
storage than intensively cultivated agricultural land
besides conserving traditional forests by meeting
forest products demand from outside forest area.
The concept of CS through AF has been brought to
the discussion table and its potential has been acknowl-
edged but yet not recognized due to complications in
procedures for accounting practical long term storage
rather than measuring the stocks and other related
issues/risks. Very limited authentic data on CS through
AF interventions are available today in comparison to
the agriculture and forestry. The above-ground woody
biomass of AF trees, comprising of majority of carbon
sequestered in the system, is readily observed (Chauhan
et al. 2012b, 2015). The majority of available literature
on carbon estimates is based on default values used for
fresh biomass versus dry biomass, biomass carbon
percentage 45–50 % of dry biomass, aboveground
versus below ground ratio, etc.
The financial viability of the system is at the central
stage and it will become a powerful tool as soon as the
detailed scientific information is generated. Simultane-
ous to direct output/product and CDM benefits from
intercropping system, the system will help in reducing
the deforestation from the forest to meet the immediate
requirement and help in CS in conventional forests,
which otherwise are depleting under the pressure of
increasing industrial/domestic timber demands. It is
important to mention that the potential as envisaged in
developed countries would be very difficult to realize in
developing world due to the increasing pressure on land
resources for multiple products. The biophysical poten-
tial would remain different than the achievable poten-
tial of AF systems (Luedeling et al. 2011) because
the variation in different agroforestry systems is gov-
erned by structure/functions of different associated
Agroforest Syst
components and prevailing environment including
management/socio-economic factors (Plieninger 2011;
Nair et al. 2010; Thomas et al. 2010). Nair (2012) have
highlighted a number of issues (methodologies-sam-
pling, measurements, computation, analysis, interpre-
tation, technicalities in developing projects, etc.) for less
consistent data in agroforestry. Commonly used model
(CO2 FIX, PRO_COMP, ROTHC, CENTURY, etc.)
based estimates does not fit well to reality (Nair 2012;
Ajit et al. 2013; Luedeling et al. 2014), therefore
resulting in only 0.02 % of total registered A/R CDM
projects with reduced incentive for the farmers to adopt
agroforestry for carbon trading and very little informa-
tion on impact of registered CDM projects on sustain-
able agricultural development (Thomas et al. 2010;
Green and Unruh 2010). The CER market in agro-
forestry is still very small, therefore, the direct benefits
remain the driving force at local level for the adoption of
on-farm trees with increased industrial requirements.
Potential of poplar based AF farms as carbon sinks
Poplar (Populus deltoides) is a fast growing industrial
softwood recommended for growing in association
with agricultural crops in the Indo-Gangatic plains in
India. Poplar, though an exotic species (native of
USA) was introduced only in early 1950s in India but
became very popular among farmers for its increased
demand in major wood based industries i.e., ply-
wood/plyboard, paper and pulp, match stick, etc.
(Jones and Lal 1989; Newman 1997; Chandra 2011).
Recently poplar based AF systems have been assessed
extensively for carbon farming (Gera et al. 2006,
2011; Chauhan et al. 2010a, b, 2012b, 2015; Rizvi
et al. 2011; Sharma and Sharma 2011; Benbi et al.
2012; Arora et al. 2013; Kanime et al. 2013), therefore,
based on the analysis of Luedeling et al. (2011),
studies have been used to analyze the theoretical and
practically achievable potential for carbon sequestra-
tion in poplar based agroforestry plantations.
Biophysical potential
The onfarm area under poplar plantation is increasing
every year because of huge demand from wood based
industries (Rizvi et al. 2014; Wani and Malik 2014) and
pressure for diversification in traditional crop rotations
for enhanced economics and saving of depleting natural
resources (Prasad and Nagrajan 2004; Khullar et al.
2010; Rani et al. 2011; Chauhan et al. 2013). Interna-
tional Poplar Commission Workshop in 2012 at
Dehradun, India reflects the importance of the species
for environmental and livelihood security in India. As
mentioned above, huge potential of poplar based
intercropping systems in reducing the atmospheric
CO2 concentration compared to sole cropping systems
has been reported invariably. However, existing scien-
tific data is still insufficient to develop projects for C
trading, and an understanding of plant/climate relation-
ships is essentially required to guide the future policies
on environmental payments. Theoretical estimates of
CO2 assimilation on biophysical component basis
(Fig. 1) depicts that the agri-silvicultural systems are
highly efficient to mitigate carbon dioxide in biomass
pool (Chauhan and Chauhan 2009). However, these
figures are sometimes misleading and hold true only if
harvested products are transformed into durable prod-
ucts, and litter (leaves, branches and bark)/roots are
allowed to decompose in the soil to buildup soil organic
carbon (SOC) and followed on a long-term basis with
uniform management practices.
Variable estimates of carbon sequestration under
poplar based systems have been reported in most of the
recent publications, which reflects discrepancies in
accounting methodology (Table 1). Benbi et al.
(2012) reported that poplar based agroforestry system
contains higher concentration and greater stock of soil
organic carbon than maize–wheat and rice–wheat
system but majority of organic carbon (56–60 %) is in
an easily oxidizable labile form, which could be easily
lost with change in land use.
The high carbon storage in agroforestry may be due
to the increased growth and assimilation rates of
intercropped tree components as compared to mono-
cropping systems. This may also be due to the
additional carbon pool in the trees and the increased
soil carbon pool resulting from litter fall and fine root
turnover. Poplar timber locks up carbon in its wood
products for longer periods, thereby making it the
major carbon assimilator of this type of agroforestry
system. Poplar–wheat based agroforestry system, thus
prove better than traditional agricultural systems,
providing the best land use option for increased CS.
But poplar is raised either in block or at the farm
boundary, with which the same combination
(poplar ? wheat crop) at same age and adjoining site
123
 Agroforest Syst

140 Sole wheat

120 Wheat under poplar

Poplar
100
Poplar + wheat
80

60

40

20

0
1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year 6 year 7 year
Age of plantation

Fig. 1 Projected CO2 assimilation (t ha-1) in poplar based agri-silvicutural system on biophysical basis

Table 1 Comparisons of carbon stocks of Populus deltoides plantations in India

Age (years) Location, State Tree density (t ha-1) AGB carbon stock (t ha-1) References

Block plantation
8 Pantnagar, Uttrakhand 200–1000 29.07–71.89a Pingale et al. (2014)
3–7 Yamunanagar, Haryana 500 26.43–65.62 Rizvi et al. (2011)
3–7 Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh 500 26.10–52.11 Rizvi et al. (2011)
9 Bagwala, Uttrakhand 500 22.04–23.23b Yadava (2010)
6 SBS Nagar, Punjab 740 30.08 Chauhan et al. (2010b)
6 Central Punjab 500 66.0 Gera et al. (2011)
1–11 Haldwani, Uttrakhand 500 0.51–90.12 Arora et al. (2013)
Boundary plantation
8 Pantnagar, Uttrakhand 70 7.81 Kanime et al. (2013)
3–7 Yamunanagar, Haryana 200 7.55–21.35 Rizvi et al. (2011)
3–7 Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh 200 4.96–25.24 Rizvi et al. (2011)
9 Bagwala, Uttrakhand 130 5.84 Yadava (2010)
6 SBS Nagar, Punjab 160 12.42 Chauhan et al. (2012a, b)
6 Central Punjab 250–290 37.0 Gera et al. (2011)
a -1
Five densities i.e., 22, 250,333, 500 and 1000 trees ha
b
Two models (poplar ? wheat; poplar ? lemon grass)

would lead to different storage potential (Table 2) due
to differential growth and reduced number of tree on
boundary than in block (Chauhan et al. 2015). Site
conditions (specifically location and weather), tree
densities/age, crop combinations, silvicultural prac-
tices, etc. at individual farmer level also varies thus
leading to variable biomass productivity (Table 3).
Even accounting carbon storage at variable ages at the
same site lead to variable biomass potential due to
reduced growth increment after 5 years (Chauhan et al.
2009, 2010b, 2011, 2012a). But as mentioned by Nair
and Nair (2014), the available literature estimates tried
to insert round peg in square hole, thus leaving much
space for under/over-estimation. Principally, agro-
forestry systems are need based and site specific,
therefore variable at each farm level, which lead to
performance risk at verification stage due to non-
repetition of projected values in different carbon pools.

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 2 Comparisons of biomass carbon sequestration rate in poplar based agroforestry systems in India
Age (years) Location, State Tree density (t ha-1) Carbon sequestration rate (t ha-1 year-1) References

Block plantation
9 Bagwala, Uttrakhand 500 1.96–2.06 Yadava (2010)
8 Pantnagar, Uttrakhand 70 2.73 Kanime et al. (2013)
6 SBS Nagar, Punjab 740 9.24a Chauhan et al. (2015)
Boundary plantation
9 Bagwala, Uttrakhand 130 0.88 Yadava (2010)
8 Pantnagar, Uttrakhand 70 0.43 Kanime et al. (2013)
6 SBS Nagar, Punjab 160 5.45a Chauhan et al. (2015)
Estimates have been made with coal substitution through biomass in system excepting 42 per cent timber biomass as long lived
carbon storage in products
a
Includes inter-cultivated biomass as well (Table 4)

Table 3 Comparisons of biomass carbon stocks in Populus deltoides plantations in Punjab state, India at two different sites
Location Ladhowal, Ludhiana (Chauhan et al. 2011) Balachaur, SBS Nagar (Chauhan et al. 2010b)

Latitude (N) 30° 540 31° 650

0
Longitude (E) 75° 48 76° 230
Altitude (m above mean sea level) 247 355
Soil
(0–15) Loam Sandy loam
(15–30) Sandy loam Loamy sand
Density (tree ha-1) 493 740
Age (years) 6 6
Name of landowner Mr. Daljeet Singh Mr. OP Choudhary
Biomass carbon stock (t ha-1)a 37.30 30.08
100 km apart from each other
a
Intermittent pruning biomass not included

Technical potential methodologies adopted, management practices, plant-

Considering the biophysical feasibility, technical
potential is equally important to quantify the actual
carbon sequestration potential. Farmers adopt the
techniques which suit them economically. Even
farmers would not care for the technical guidance to
earn more on short term experiences. Importantly,
agroforestry adopters are raising plantations only to
earn more than the traditional crop rotations.
The projected variable estimates of poplar based
agroforestry system are due to prevailing conditions of
management including geometry of planting, density
of trees, differential inter-cultivated crop components,
ing stock quality, etc., but the carbon project operate on
best recommended practices with assured repetitive
results for appropriate validation and verification.
Majority of the estimates are either based on invariably
used default values (e.g., conversions related to dry
biomass from fresh biomass; below ground biomass
form above ground biomass; carbon values from dry
biomass, timber volume to biomass, etc.), allometric
equations/models, differential methodologies, etc.
with their least practical applicability, thus resulting
in very low number of carbon projects under A/R in
agroforestry. Over the time, old species/clones/vari-
eties have been replaced with new ones with variable

123

tree form and wood characteristics but the same
biomass prediction equations are being used to quan-
tify the biomass without verification for their applica-
bility. Prediction modeling have been developed for
estimating poplar biomass and CS potential (Ajit et al.
2011, 2013), but the local prevailing conditions have
been ignored in developing these predictive models,
therefore the practical applicability of such models
become misleading. Chaturvedi et al. (2014) reported
discrepancies in litter carbon estimates through
Rothamsted carbon model (RothC) and moderate
resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) mod-
els may be due to different temperature controls for the
MODIS algorithm and the RothC model, and simple
assumptions made in the RothC calculation. Kumar
et al. (1998); Thomas et al. (2010) and Nair (2012)
have also pointed out the limitations in procedures and
estimations for unreliability of published data for
environmental payments.
Poplar trees enhance organic carbon in the soil
through litter addition and root decomposition. Soil is
very variable at individual farm level and there is little
scope for verification of the projected SOC, probably
also due to measurements at limited scale (site specific
estimations on top 15 cm layer only) through faulty
methods of estimation as well (Walkley and Black’s
method of 1934 and rarely following combustion
method). Benbi et al. (2012) reported that the SOC is
more labile in nature in agroforestry system and
enhanced SOC level would be lost as soon the site is
exposed on tree harvesting/change in landuse. Major-
ity of the farmers in India are small and marginal, they
are under constraint to lock their land under planta-
tions over a long period, thus keep changing the
landuse. Root biomass itself is not appropriately
quantified due to dynamic behavior. Roots contribute
substantially in the total estimated value but these are
again accounted on the basis of default values (below
ground biomass = above ground biomass 9 0.20 or
0.25). But in energy deficit countries, roots are not
allowed to be decomposed but harvested, therefore
practically very little is added in the soil for SOC
buildup. Dhiman (2009) estimated that only 1.04 Mt C
out of 2.5 Mt C is locked in poplar based products for
different durations and the remaining is released back
in the form of fuel and only a marginal fraction of 0.3
Mt C is added to soil through leaf litter every year.
Complete biomass is exported from the system and
utilized rather than stored (Plate 1). Rarely the leakage
123
Agroforest Syst
at different levels of operation are accounted including
quantification of microbial biomass.
Economic potential
Poplar based agroforestry systems have become very
popular amongst farmers due to substantially higher
economic returns from timber than the traditional crop
rotation of rice (summer) and wheat (winter) in north-
western states of India (Chauhan and Mangat 2006;
Chauhan et al. 2007; Wani and Malik 2014; Dogra
et al. 2014). However, the benefits of environmental
services are yet to be realized economically from these
AF systems. Preliminary studies by Gera et al. (2011)
observed better internal rate of returns with carbon
benefits than without carbon benefits in poplar based
system (block and boundary plantations) but there are
certain reservations on the part of farmers (continuity
in adoption of tree-crop interface, transaction costs in
developing agroforestry carbon project, techni-
cal/marketing/legal constraints, uncertainty in carbon
market, very low prices of tCERs, etc.) to develop
CDM projects. Policy initiatives on climate smart
landuse can benefit the farmers to earn from carbon
market and mitigate the green house gases to amelio-
rate the environment. Remunerative CS payments will
encourage landholders to adopt less intensive prac-
tices. The prices of carbon are regulated by the market
on demand–supply scale, but the eligible carbon
emission rate (CER) under afforestation/reforestation
are only one per cent of their total requirements,
which limits the unit carbon prices and not enough to
encourage farmers to invest in growing trees than
continue usual crop cultivation. At present, agro-
forestry systems are economically viewed for their
tangible benefits only and carbon prices are not
attractive to lock land for extended period.
Practical potential
Majority of publications reflect the positive aspects of
the agroforestry plantation for enhanced carbon storage.
Even Indian forests are presented on positive note
(Ravindranath and Somasekhar 1995; Lal and Singh
2000; Singh and Lal 2000b; Mahapatra 2008; Melkania
2009; Priyadarshni and Rao 2013) without referring
that the forest land in India is not eligible under CDM
Agroforest Syst
Ply board making
Leaves are collected as they hamper
germination of crops
Leaves and branches chipped at farm itself
Pruning material transported for energy Bioenergy unit uses all plant waste including roots
Plate 1 Practical potential—most of the photographs reflect that the maximum possible biomass is taken away from the agroforestry
system, thus, the biophysical projections of carbon sequestration in agroforestry system are very different than the practical possibility
due to time schedule in basic definitions of afforestation
and reforestation but the scientific information gener-
ated may become useful in post-CDM scenario i.e.
reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degra-
dation (REDD? initiative). However, land outside
traditional forests in India is eligible to develop carbon
project. The positive aspect of plantations for CS is
obvious but practically these aspects are very different
from projections. As mentioned above, scientific liter-
ature based on the assumption that timber produced is
locked on long term basis for many years, other
vegetative parts (litter and underground biomass) is
allowed to decompose in soil but actual situation is very
different. Only 40–45 % of the total biomass goes to
durable products and rest is used for energy purposes
(nothing is allowed to be added in the soil, even the
roots have price tag for energy purpose, thus
uprooted—Plate 1). Rarely the pruned material is
Litter addition Coal making
Leaves and
branches are
chipped for
bio-energy units
Veneer waste and
saw dust for
bio-energy units
Cooking fuel
dried; crushed and added in the soil for organic matter
buildup (Plate 2—rarely followed) rather it is taken
away from the system and used as fuel.
Presently the carbon prices are very low for the
temporary carbon emission reduction (tCER) units,
which serve as a disincentive for the farmers to
preserve higher carbon stock in plantation activities.
Majority of farmers are small and marginal, therefore
locking their land for long term with carbon market
perspective is uncertain and not appreciated. They
have to focus more on direct payments from biomass
than locking land for carbon credits. Farmers are
certain to shift to the practice that gives the higher
returns. However, a viable option may be to develop
biomass energy projects to replace fossil fuel (coal),
which would result into long-term emission credits
instead of temporary credits. In India, out of 982 CDM
projects, 828 projects have been registered in energy
123

Plate 2 Pruning material
crushed under the tractor
wheel and added in soil for
SOC buildup
sector (renewable/non-renewable—approximately 144
are biomass based units), therefore, it is practically
viable. Though the additional carbon revenue is not
shared with biomass suppliers but certainly carbon
market is open for such interventions. An effort has
been made to calculate the energy value (Table 4) of
poplar based agroforestry system to realize long-term
benefits, which reflects good practical potential to
harness carbon market by Chauhan et al. (2015). This
potential can still be increased though complete use of
biomass for fossil fuel replacement instead of 42 per
cent timber for long-term locking, but it would lead to
lower direct revenue from fuelwood than timber.
The adopters are not even sure of policies and
procedures for developing projects but with the
support of governments or NGOs, limited number of
projects have been registered but still uncertain to
continue for practical reasons. The Haryana cooper-
ative afforestation project at Sirsa, Haryana got
registered but farmers could not continue the enthu-
siasm due to failure of credit sale therefore, they feel it
is better to have one bird in hand than two in bush i.e.,
selling of trees or shifting to alternative landuse would
be a better economic option than continuing with
CDM project for uncertain environmental service
payments.
AF carbon projects could not be encouraged in
general because the farmers are not adopting tree-crop
interventions for environmental services but as usual
123
Agroforest Syst
profitable landuse activity than traditional crop rota-
tions. Poplar based AF interventions pay far more than
the traditional crop rotations, therefore farmers would
not wait for the payments of environmental services
rather harvest trees for direct payments. Also the one
per cent cap of CDM A/R CERs in its emission
accounting, which is only 121 Million tons CO2
equivalent itself, requires only 4–8 million ha of short
rotation plantations with little to offer to the adopters
of tree farming.
Keeping in view the low number of project under
plantations (no project during 2014 and only one
project during 2013 in India), Indian Council of
Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) has with-
drawn from the business as designated entity for
validation of A/R projects under CDM for almost
negligible business mainly due to uncertainties in
second commitment period, leading to very low
market prices for tCERs. In Lima, Peru (Conference
of parties—COP 20/Conference of the Parties serving
as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol—
CMP 10), parties agreed to include agroforestry and
silvo-pastoral activities (revegetation) as the only new
additional land use, land-use change and forestry
(LULUCF) activity in CDM and hopefully issue will
take practical shape in next meeting (COP 21) at Paris,
France in 2015. Inclusion of agroforestry as a possible
activity in second commitment period is likely to
benefit farmers in India who have been practicing
Agroforest Syst

Table 4 CS in poplar based agroforestry models (Chauhan et al. 2015)

Treatmentsa Total Long lived Heat from Carbon storage Total C Total C
biomassb timber carbon biomass from coal sequestration sequestration
(t ha-1) storage (t combustion substitute (t (t C/ha)c (t C/ha/year)
C/ha) (9109) C/ha)

Block plantation
Trees ? wheat straw 77.14 9.23 1022.04 17.17 28.96 4.82
Trees without wheat straw 48.49 9.23 506.34 8.50 20.27 3.38
Boundary plantation
Trees ? wheat ? rice straw 86.47 3.18 1444.32 24.26 27.86 4.64
Trees ? rice straw 57.49 3.18 922.68 15.50 19.10 3.18
Trees without rice and wheat straw 14.83 3.18 154.80 2.60 6.20 1.03
a
Calculations made with the presumption that wheat straw is used as fodder, whereas, rice straw is used as fuel
b
Tree and crop (grain ? straw) biomass
c
Includes soil as well as long lived carbon storage in timber

agroforestry in a big way by raising short rotation trees
in addition to poplar (Populus deltoides) i.e., Euca-
lyptus spp., Leucaena leucocephala, Ailanthus
excelsa, Salix alba, Melia composita, Casuarina
equisetifolia, Gmelina arborea, etc. in conjunction
with agricultural crops.
Conclusion
Climate change has attracted global attention to address
sustainable development (production ? conservation)
with equitable human rights and responsibilities. This
challenge has opened-up new opportunities for the
developing/under developed nations to attract invest-
ments in GHG mitigation projects to trade carbon.
LULUCF was an important consideration in CDM (A/
R) for the first commitment period with projected 50
million tons C annual trading (Satyanarayana 2004) but
practically it could not become reality due to non-
repetitive performance in projected activities due to
complex procedures, lack of good practices in agro-
forestry, low awareness among stakeholders, high
transaction cost, associated multiple risks, etc. There
are huge gaps between scientific and operational
capabilities in developing world to make the environ-
mental payments a reality, therefore, the constraints
highlighted in this paper needs to be addressed properly
to make use of academic research. It is also important to
generate system specific measurements than the general
estimates as the interventions are variable at farmers
level in diversified agroforestry systems and models.
Appropriate technical information dissemination and
policy support to the AF adopters can play an important
role in environmental services and employment gener-
ation even if the additional carbon payments are not
realized in near future. The enhanced demand for
biomass carbon can play a positive role in reducing
emission through natural system of photosynthesis with
additional tangible benefits. There is projected 630
million hectares potential area for AF, which could
sequester 0.586 million tons C per year by 2040 (Nair
et al. 2009a, 2012). Adaptation to changing climate
seems equally effective strategy than the mitigation in
developing economies like India, China, Brazil, etc.
Implementation of AF Policy (2014) in India, which
regards tree-crop interface an important option to
support climate smart agriculture to scale up the
practical realization of carbon benefits with appropriate
technological and market support, would open up the
new avenues for the farmers. There is need to address
associated risk and uncertainties as confidence building
measure to enhance long lived carbon pools in this
complex landuse system. Industries should pass-on
carbon benefits to the tree growers as corporate social
responsibility and academic institutions should stan-
dardize the technologies for appropriate accounting of
carbon rather than estimates in different landuse
systems.
Acknowledgments Authors express their gratitude to the
scientists associated in quantifying the CS potentials of AF
interventions and supporting the policy institutions to address
the landuse change in climate change discussions. We are also
thankful to Mr.VRS Rawat (Scientist-E, Forest and Climate

123

Change Division, ICFRE Dehradun, India) for his valuable
interactions on the subject. Suggestions of anonymous
reviewers in improving the text are also acknowledged.
References
Ajit, Das DK, Chaturvedi OP, Jabeen N, Dhyani SK (2011)
Predictive models for dry weight estimation of above and
below ground biomass components of Populus deltoides in
India: development and comparative diagnosis. Biomass
Bioenerg 35:1145–1152
Ajit, Dhyani SK, Ramnewaj Handa AK, Prasad R, Alam B,
Rizvi RH, Gupta G, Pandey KK, Jain A (2013) Modeling
analysis of potential carbon sequestration under existing
agroforestry systems in three districts of Indo-Gangetic
plains in India. Agrofor Syst 87:1129–1146
Arora G, Chaturvedi S, Kaushal R, Nain A, Tewari S, Alam NM,
Chaturvedi OP (2013) Growth, biomass, C stocks and
sequestration in age series Populus deltoides plantations in
Tarai region of central Himalaya. Turk J Agric For 38:1–11
Benbi DK, Kaur Kiranbir, Toor AS, Singh Pritpal, Singh Har-
gopal (2012) Soil C pools under poplar-based agroforestry,
rice-wheat, and maize-wheat cropping systems in semi-
arid India. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 92:107–118
Bouwman AF (1990) Exchange of greenhouse gases between
terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. In: Bouwman
AF (ed) Soils and the greenhouse effect. Willey, New
York, pp 61–127
Cannel MGR, Van Noordwijk M, Ong CK (1996) The central
hypothesis: tree must acquire resources that the crops
would not otherwise acquire. Agrofor Syst 33:27–31
Chandra JP (2011) Development of poplar based agroforestry
system. Indian J Ecol 38:51–60
Chaturvedi S, Patra S, Mandal D, Sena DR, Mishra PK,
Melkania U, Alam NM (2014) Comparative estimation of
litter carbon inputs by two different modeling approaches
in central Himalayan forests. Indian J Soil Conserv
42(2):135–142
Chauhan SK, Chauhan R (2009) Exploring carbon sequestration
in poplar-wheat based integrated cropping system. Asia-
Pac Agrofor News 35:9–10
Chauhan SK, Mangat PS (2006) Poplar based agroforestry is
ideal for Punjab, India. Asia-Pac Agrofor News 28:7–8
Chauhan SK, Dhillon WS, Srinidhi HV (2007) Adoption of
horti-silvicultural models in Punjab, India. Asia-Pac
Agrofor News 29:12–13
Chauhan SK, Nanda RK, Brar MS (2009) Adoption of poplar
based agroforestry as an approach for diversified agricul-
ture in Punjab. Indian For 135:671–677
Chauhan SK, Sharma SC, Beri V, Ritu Yadav S, Gupta N
(2010a) Yield and carbon sequestration potential of wheat
(Triticum aestivum) and poplar (Populus deltoides) based
agri-silvicultural system. Indian J Agri Sci 80(2):129–135
Chauhan SK, Sharma SC, Chauhan R, Gupta N (2010b) Accounting
poplar and wheat productivity for carbon sequestration agri-
silvicultural system. Indian For 136:1174–1182
Chauhan SK, Gupta N, Walia R, Yadav S, Chauhan R, Mangat
PS (2011) Biomass and carbon sequestration potential of
123
Agroforest Syst
poplar-wheat inter-cropping system in irrigated agro-
ecosystem in India. J Agri Sci Technol A 4:575–586
Chauhan SK, Brar MS, Sharma R (2012a) Performance of
poplar (Populus deltoides Bartr.) and its effect on wheat
yield under agroforestry system in irrigated agro-ecosys-
tem, India. Casp J Environ Sci 10(1):53–60
Chauhan SK, Sharma R, Sharma SC, Gupta N (2012b) Evalu-
ation of poplar (Populus deltoides Bartr. Ex Marsh.)
boundary plantation based agri-silvicultural system for
wheat-paddy yield and carbon storage. Int J Agric For
5:239–246
Chauhan SK, Dhillon WS, Singh N, Sharma R (2013) Physio-
logical behaviour and yield evaluation of agronomic crops
under agri-horti-silviculture system. Int J Plant Res 1:1–8
Chauhan SK, Sharma R, Singh B, Sharma SC (2015) Biomass
production, carbon sequestration and economics of on-
farm poplar plantations in Punjab, India. J Appl Nat Sci
7(1):452–458
Dewar RC, Cannell MGR (1992) Carbon sequestration in the
trees, products and soils of forest plantations: an analysis
using UK examples. Tree Physiol 11:49–71
Dhiman RC (2009) Carbon footprint of planted poplar in India.
ENVIS For Bull 9(2):70–81
Dixon RK (1995) Agroforestry systems: sources or sinks of
greenhouse gases? Agrofor Syst 31:99–116
Dogra AS, Nautiyal S, Nautiyal DP (2014) Contribution of
Populus deltoides to farm economy of Punjab. Indian For
140(8):758–762
Gera M, Mohan G, Bisht NS, Gera N (2006) Carbon seques-
tration potential under agroforestry in Roopnagar District
of Punjab. Indian For 132:543–555
Gera M, Mohan G, Bisht NS, Gera N (2011) Carbon potential of
agroforestry under CDM in Punjab State of India. Indian J
For 34:1–10
Green AG, Unruh JD (2010) Clean development mechanism
afforestation and reforestation projects: implications for
local agriculture. CAB Rev Perspect Agric, Vet Sci, Nutr
Nat Resour 5(57):1–11
Gupta MK, Sharma SD (2013) Carbon sequestration in the soils
under different land uses in Yamunanagar district of Har-
yana. Indian J For 36(1):17–22
Hymavathi HN, Kandya AK, Patel LP (2010) Beneficial effects
of multiple plantation patterns in agroforestry systems.
Indian For 136:465–475
IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. In:
Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, Van der
Linden PJ, Dai X, Mashell K, Johnson CA (eds) Contri-
bution of working group I to the third assessment report of
the international panel on climate change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, p 881
Jones N, Lal P (1989) Commercial poplar planting in India under
agroforestry system. Commonw For Rev 68(1):19–26
Kanime N, Kaushal R, Tewari SK, Raverkar KP, Chaturvedi S,
Chaturvedi OP (2013) Biomass production and carbon
sequestration in different tree based systems in central
Himalayan Tarai region. For Trees Livelihoods 22(1):
38–50
Kaonga ML, Bayliss-Smith TP (2009) Carbon pool in tree
biomass and the soil in improved fallows in eastern Zam-
bia. Agrofor Syst 76:37–51
Agroforest Syst
Kaul M, Mohren GMJ, Dadhwal VK (2010) Carbon storage and
sequestration potential of selected tree species in India.
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 15:489–510
Khullar V, Gill RIS, Singh B, Kaur N (2010) Economic evalu-
ation of poplar (Populus deltoides) based forestry and
agroforestry models in Punjab, India. Indian J Soc Res
51:51–67
Kumar BM, George SJ, Jamaludin V, Suresh TK (1998) Com-
parison of biomass production, tree allometry and nutrient
use efficiency of multipurpose trees grown in wood lot and
silvipastoral experiments in Kerala, India. For Ecol Manag
112:145–163
Lal M, Singh R (2000) Sustainable forestry in India for carbon
mitigation. Curr Sci 78:563–567
Luedeling E, Sileshi Gudeta, Beedy Tracy, Dietz Johannes
(2011) Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry
systems in Africa. In: Mohan Kumar B, Ramachandran
Nair PK (eds) Carbon sequestration potential of agro-
forestry systems—opportunities and challenges. Springer,
New York, pp 61–84
Luedeling E, Kindt R, Huth NI, Koenig K (2014) Agroforestry
systems in a changing climate-challenges in projecting
future performance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:1–7
Mahapatra AK (2008) Forestry based carbon sequestration
option for India. Indian J For 31:483–490
Melkania NP (2009) Carbon sequestration in Indian natural and
planted Forests. Indian For 135:380–392
Monteith JL, Ong CK, Corlett JE (1991) Microclimatic inter-
action in agroforestry systems. For Ecol Manag 45:31–44
Murthy IK, Gupta M, Tomar S, Munsi M, Tiwari R (2013)
Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in
India. J Earth Sci Climate Change 131:1–7
Nair PKR (2012) Carbon sequestration studies in agroforestry
systems: a reality check. Agrofor Syst 86:243–253
Nair PKR, Nair VD (2014) Solid-fluid-gas: the state of knowl-
edge on carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry
systems in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:22–27
Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009a) Agroforestry as a
strategy for C sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:10–23
Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Halle SG (2009b) Soil carbon
sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems: a feasibility
appraisal. Environ Sci Policy 12:1099–1111
Nair PKR, Nair VD, Mohan BK, Showalter JM (2010) Carbon
sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv Agron
108:237–307
Newaj R, Dhyani SK (2008) Agroforestry systems for C
sequestration: present status and scope. Indian J Agrofor
10:1–9
Newman SM (1997) Poplar agroforestry in India. For Ecol
Manage 90:13–17
Pingale B, Bana OPS, Banga A, Chaturvedi S, Kaushal R,
Tewari S (2014) Accounting biomass and carbon dynamics
in Populus deltoides plantation under varying density in
tarai of central Himalaya. J Tree Sci 33:1–6
Pinho RC, Miller RP, Alfaia SS (2012) Agroforestry and the
improvement of soil fertility: a view from Amazonia. App
Environ (Article ID 616383):1–11
Plieninger T (2011) Capitalizing on the carbon sequestration
potential of agroforestry in Germany’s agricultural land-
scapes: realigning the climate change mitigation and
landscape conservation agendas. Landsc Res
36(4):435–454
Prasad R, Nagrajan S (2004) Rice-wheat cropping system—
food security and sustainability. Curr Sci 87:1334–1335
Pretty JN, Ball AS, Li XY, Ravindranath NH (2002) The role of
sustainable agriculture and renewable resource manage-
ment in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and increasing
sinks in China and India. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond Ser
A-Math Phys Eng Sci 360:1741–1761
Priyadarshni P, Rao BRP (2013) Standing biomass and carbon
stocks across forest types of southern Andhra Pradesh,
India. Indian J For 36:309–320
Rani S, Chauhan SK, Kumar R, Dhatt KK (2011) Bio-economic
appraisal of flowering annuals for seed production under
poplar (Populus deltoides) based agroforestry system. Trop
Agric Res 22(2):125–133
Ravindranath NH, Somasekhar BS (1995) Potential and eco-
nomics of forestry options for carbon sequestration in
India. Biomass Bioenerg 8:323–336
Rizvi RH, Dhyani SK, Yadav RS, Ramesh Singh (2011) Bio-
mass production and carbon stock of poplar agroforestry
systems in Yamunanagar and Saharanpur districts of north-
western India. Curr Sci 100(5):736–742
Rizvi RH, Dhyani SK, Newaj R, Kamarkar PS, Saxena A (2014)
Mapping agroforestry area in India through remote sensing
and preliminary estimates. Ind Farming 63(11):62–64
Saha SK, Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar MB (2010) Carbon
storage in relation to soil size fractions under tropical tree-
based landuse systems. Plant Soil 328:433–446
Satyanarayana M (2004) How forest producers and rural farmers
can benefit from clean development mechanism. In: Sim
HC, Appanah, Youn YC (eds) Proceedings of workshop on
forests for poverty reduction: opportunities with CDM,
environmental services and biodiversity, RAP Publishing:
North Carolina, pp 22:35–40
Sharma U, Sharma V (2011) Soil as a sink for Csequestration:
how agroforestry can help? Indian J Agrofor 13:65–77
Sharma H, Gupta MK, Chauhan PS (2014) Carbon sequestra-
tion: status of sequestered soil organic carbon under dif-
ferent landuse in Jhalwar district of Rajasthan. Indian For
140:780–785
Sileshi G, Akinnifesl FK, Ajayi OC, Chakeredza S, Kaonge M,
Matakala PW (2007) Contributions of agroforestry to
ecosystem services in the miombo eco-region of eastern
and southern Africa. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 1(4):68–80
Singh R, Lal M (2000a) Sustainable forestry in India for carbon
mitigation. Curr Sci 78(5):563–567
Singh R, Lal M (2000b) Carbon sequestration potential in Indian
forests. Environ Monit Assess 60:315–327
Swami SL, Puri S (2005) Biomass production and C seques-
tration of Gmelina arborea in plantation and agroforestry
system in India. Agrofor Syst 64:181–195
Thomas S, Dargusch P, Harrison S, Herbohn J (2010) Why are
there so few afforestation and reforestation clean devel-
opment mechanism projects. Land Use Policy 27:880–887
Wani NR, Malik TH (2014) Role of poplars in agroforestry
systems in India. NY Sci J 7(2):50–56
Watson R, Noble IP, Bolin B, Ravindernath NH, Verado DJ,
Dokken DJ (2000) Landuse change and forestry. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, p 375
123
 Agroforest Syst

Yadava AK (2010) Biomass production and carbon seques- Yang Y, Luo Y, Finzi AC (2011) Carbon and nitrogen dynamics
tration in different agroforestry systems in tarai region of during forest stand development: a global synthesis. New
central Himalaya. Indian For 136:234–244 Phytol 190:977–980

123

View publication stats