Carbon Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcmt20

Estimating carbon stocks and biomass

accumulation in three different agroforestry
patterns in the semi-arid region of Pakistan

Ghulam Yasin, Shafeeq Ur Rahman, Muhammad Farrakh Nawaz, Ihsan

Qadir, Muhammad Zubair, Sadaf Gul, Muhammad Safdar Hussain,
Muhammad Zain & Muhammad Athar Khaliq

To cite this article: Ghulam Yasin, Shafeeq Ur Rahman, Muhammad Farrakh Nawaz, Ihsan Qadir,
Muhammad Zubair, Sadaf Gul, Muhammad Safdar Hussain, Muhammad Zain & Muhammad
Athar Khaliq (2021) Estimating carbon stocks and biomass accumulation in three different
agroforestry patterns in the semi-arid region of Pakistan, Carbon Management, 12:6, 593-602, DOI:
10.1080/17583004.2021.1987332

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2021.1987332

Published online: 11 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 479

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcmt20
CARBON MANAGEMENT
2021, VOL. 12, NO. 6, 593–602
https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2021.1987332

Estimating carbon stocks and biomass accumulation in three different

agroforestry patterns in the semi-arid region of Pakistan
Ghulam Yasina,b, Shafeeq Ur Rahmanc,d
, Muhammad Farrakh Nawaze, Ihsan Qadirb,
Muhammad Zubairb, Sadaf Gulf, Muhammad Safdar Hussaine, Muhammad Zainc and
Muhammad Athar Khaliqg
a
Department of Forestry, Range and Wildlife Management, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan; bDepartment of Forestry
and Range Management, Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan, Pakistan; cFarmland Irrigation Research Institute, Chinese
Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Xinxiang, China; dKey Laboratory of High-efficient and Safe Utilization of Agriculture Water
Resources of CAAS, Xinxiang, China; eDepartment of Forestry and Range Management, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad,
Pakistan; fDepartment of Botany, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan; gDepartment of Soil and Environmental Sciences, Ghazi
University Dera Ghazi Khan, Punjab, Pakistan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Due to higher atmospheric greenhouse gasses concentrations, global warming is undoubtedly Agroforestry; biomass;
the most critical environmental issue that needs an immediate solution. Agroforestry has carbon stock; global
attained worldwide recognition to cope with this global problem due to its greater potential to warming; soil carbon
sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide along with other ecosystem services, including food
security. However, quantitative information about the biomass and carbon sequestration in
poplar-maize agroforestry systems is not available in semi-arid climatic zones in Pakistan. The
current study was carried out to evaluate the vegetation biomass and carbon stocks under
three poplar-maize agroforestry planting patterns under semi-arid climatic conditions in a sub-
division Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, Pakistan. The data was collected in three agroforestry
patterns like; A (192 trees ha1), B (255 trees ha1), and C (296 trees ha1). Allometric equa-
tions were used to estimate the biomass and carbon stock in plant species. Results showed
that the poplar tree carbon stock among three planting patterns was significantly different,
with maximum carbon stock of 35.62 t ha1 in pattern C, and it was 8% and 33.5% greater
than the carbon stock of pattern B and pattern A, respectively. The maximum aboveground
biomass assimilated by maize crop was (11.95 t ha1) in pattern B, and it was 10.3% and 3.6%
greater than pattern A and pattern C, respectively. The grain yield was highest in pattern A as
compared to the other two patterns. Additionally, the maximum soil carbon stock in soil was
estimated (22.72 t ha-1) in pattern C, at 0-15 cm depth, while it was 13.42% and 6.61% greater
than pattern A and pattern B, respectively. In conclusion, the findings of this study suggested
that pattern C with maximum biomass production and carbon stocks is the optimum poplar
maize planting pattern in requisites of both financial and environmental benefits in the form of
carbon sequestration.

Introduction Agroforestry is an effective management strat-

Anthropogenic activities like excessive changes in
land use patterns, clearing of forests, and burning
of fossil fuels are liable for the continuous emission
of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), prompting
climate change across the globe [1]. CO2 is consid-
ered a major greenhouse gas and the largest sin-
gle contributor (> 70%) to global warming due to
its rapid increase in the air since industrialization
[2]. The annual accumulation rate of CO2 in the
atmosphere is about 3.5 ppm, thus creating real
threats to the global environment [3]. If this add-
ition continues till the next century, the earth’s
temperature will rise possibly 2  C, resulting in 20-
30% destruction of ecosystems worldwide [1,4,5].
egy for enhancing the ecosystem services gener-
ated by agricultural lands. Agroforestry systems are
considered a potential source in alleviating climate
change across the globe [6]as trees planted on
farmlands greatly enhance the capability of those
systems to capture and store carbon [4,7]. It was
estimated that agricultural lands have more than
10% tree cover around the globe [7–9]. These agro-
forestry systems support 1.2 billion people from the
tropics and developing countries around the world
[10]. This land-use system is currently storing about
45.3 Pg carbon, of which more than 75% is stored in
woody vegetation [7,10]. Furthermore, it is reported
that the agroforestry systems can stock about 6.3

CONTACT Shafeeq Ur Rahman malikshafeeq1559@gmail.com Farmland Irrigation Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural
Sciences, Xinxiang 453003, China.

Current address: Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Bahadur Sub-Campus Layyah, Pakistan
ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
594 G. YASIN ET AL.
Gt of atmospheric carbon by 2050 with a sequestra-
tion rate of greater than 600 Mt C yr1 [11], making
these systems a potential source of sequestering a
greater amount of carbon as equated to other exist-
ing land-use options [8,12].
Poplar (Populus deltoides,\W. Bartram ex
Marshall) is widely recognized as an important tree
species for enhancing the carbon capturing cap-
acity of agroforestry systems throughout the
globe. Poplars are fast-growing, have short rota-
tions, and can be grown in most geographic
regions of the world [13–16]. In Punjab, Pakistan,
poplar is extensively planted in agricultural lands
as a windbreak and meets demands for plywood
and fuelwood at the national level [17].
Agroforestry systems have received less atten-
tion in the ecosystem services literature than forest
ecosystems [18]. Several researchers have docu-
mented the role of poplar-based agroforestry sys-
tem in climate change mitigation through CO2
sequestration around different worldwide regions
[19–21]; however, limited information regarding
agroforestry contribution to carbon storage in
Pakistan is available. Therefore, the present
research study was conducted to evaluate the
impact of three different poplar maize agroforestry
planting patterns on carbon accumulation in
woody as well as in crop biomass and soil in the
semi-arid climatic region of Pakistan.
Material and methods
Study site
This study was performed in Jaranwala, a subdiv-
ision of district Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan. It is
situated at an elevation of 184 m in the southeast
of district Faisalabad. The area comprises 683.42
square miles and experiences four distinct seasons:
winter, spring, summer & monsoon. The soil is fer-
tile and suitable for the cultivation of various
crops, fruits, and vegetables. The site has semi-arid
climatic conditions and receives about 58.5% of its
total annual rainfall (512 mm) during the monsoon.
The average temperature of the area is 24.8  C
throughout the year. (https://en.climate-data.org/
location/jaranwala-3067/).
Experimental establishment and
sampling procedure
Populus deltoides have been planted across the
whole study area as a shelterbelt forest tree. The
sampling plots of the study area have 7-10 years
old poplar trees. Three commonly observed poplar
maize cropping patterns with planting densities of
192 trees ha1 (Pattern A), 255 trees ha1 (Pattern
B) & 296 trees ha1 (Pattern C), respectively, were
investigated (Figure 1). The maize (Zea mays L.) cul-
tivar ‘Syngenta  8611’ was mostly sown by farmers
commercially in the study area for the production
of grains at a seed rate of 25 kg ha1. Overall, the
rate of fertilizers applied by farmers (N: P: K) was
250: 150: 100 kg ha1. A total of 25 villages were
selected for tree inventory, crop, and soil sampling
across the whole study area (Figure 2). Overall, 75
plots (0.405 ha), 3 from each village, 1 for each spe-
cific poplar maize agroforestry pattern, were ran-
domly selected by adopting the method described
by Ajit et al. [22] and Yasin et al. [7].
Estimation of biomass and carbon
Tree biomass and carbon
Field visits were conducted from May-July 2017 for
tree inventory, and all the poplar trees of each
selected agroforestry pattern were measured. Tree
biomass and carbon were determined by using a
non-destructive approach. Tree height and diam-
eter (DBH, in cm) were measured by using Haga
altimeter and digital caliper, respectively. The
height was initially measured in feet and then con-
verted into meters for each tree. Species-specific
allometric equations described by Li [23]were used
to estimate the tree biomass. Tree carbon was cal-
culated by considering 50% of the dry biomass as
carbon, described by Thomas [24].
Crop biomass and carbon
A two-meter square quadrat was used to measure
the crop biomass at its full maturity in August
2017. Two quadrates were placed in each plot of
three selected poplar maize agroforestry patterns
after 15 rows distance. Thus, a total of 150 quad-
rats were placed in 75 plots across the whole study
area. For measuring the total biomass, whole plant
material within the quadrate was harvested, exca-
vated, dried, and then weighted. To calculate
aboveground biomass, the maize crop was divided
into four components: leaf, stalk, cob, and grain.
For measuring crop belowground biomass, root
excavation was done downwards up to 45 cm until
no extra roots were found. After computing the
fresh weight of crop components in the field, sub-
samples of each component were taken to the
laboratory to quantify carbon. The measured bio-
mass of samples was then scaled biomass per hec-
tare across the study area.

Figure 1. Diagram representing the three different poplar planting patterns in the semi-arid region of Pakistan.
For carbon concentration estimation, each
component’s plant material was oven-dried at 70  C,
ground, and deposited in airtight bags. Carbon con-
centration in crop samples was measured by adopt-
ing the wet combustion method with potassium
dichromate, as described by Xie et al. [13]. The car-
bon of each component of the maize crop was then
calculated by multiplying their mass to the calcu-
lated carbon concentration and then scaled carbon
per hectare across the study area.
Soil carbon estimation
In selected poplar maize agroforestry patterns, soil
samples were collected randomly for measuring soil
carbon across the whole study area. Samples were
taken with the help of a soil auger at three depths:
0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, and 30-45 cm. Overall, 225 samples
were taken, 25 for each depth and 75 for each pattern.
A 100 cm3 stainless steel cylinder was used to
assess the bulk density separately for each depth.
Then, the percentage of organic carbon was
CARBON MANAGEMENT 595
computed by adopting the method described by
De Vos et al. [25]. In the end, by multiplying the
values of bulk density, % organic carbon, and soil
depth, air-dried soil carbon ha1 for each depth
was quantified Cook et al. [26].
Statistical analysis
One-way analysis of variance procedure of Minitab
17 statistical software program was used to ana-
lyze the collected data. The comparison of means
was performed for significant effects by adopting
the least significant difference (LSD) test at a 5%
probability level.
Results and discussion
Poplar biomass and carbon stock
The results showed that there was no significant
difference (p < 0.05) between the growth parame-
ters like height and DBH among three different
agroforestry patterns (Table 1). However, the
596 G. YASIN ET AL.
Figure 2. Study area map indicating sampling plots distribution.
Table 1. Growth parameters: Diameter and height of
poplar trees in three different agroforestry planting pat-
terns in the semi-arid region.
Planting Patterns DBH (cm) Height (m)
Pattern A 15.51 ± 2.28 10.35 ± 1.51
Pattern B 16.21 ± 1.83 11.02 ± 1.34
Pattern C 15.71 ± 2.46 10.83 ± 1.37
above and belowground biomass of poplar trees
was observed different (p < 0.05) significantly
across all three planting patterns with maximum
total biomass in pattern C (74.22 t ha1), as
depicted in Table 2. Based on biomass accumula-
tion and carbon proportion, the amount above
and belowground carbon of poplar was found in
the order of pattern C > pattern B > pattern A.
The maximum total carbon stock was estimated
in pattern C and significantly different from pat-
terns B and A. For example, the total carbon stocks
of poplar measured in Pattern C were 35.62 t ha1,
and it was 8% and 33.5% greater than the carbon
stock of pattern B and pattern A, respectively
(Figure 3).
Trees can fix atmospheric carbon due to their
different physiological characteristics and are con-
sidered a significant source to alleviate the impacts
of changing climate on a sustained basis [27,28].
The biomass and carbon capturing the perspective
of various agroforestry systems are extremely
inconstant and are highly dependent on various
drivers like the type of species, species richness,
tree density, age, site features, and management
practices [12,29]. The density of carbon in biomass
is a clear indication of its biomass assimilation. In
the present study, tree biomass ranged from 55.60
t ha1 to 74.22 t ha1, while carbon stock ranged
from 26.68 t ha1 to 35.62 t ha1 across all three
planting patterns. Similar variations of biomass
and carbon accumulation were reported by various
researchers, viz. Yasin et al. (2018) in bund planting
agroforestry systems, Nawaz et al. [30] in the semi-
arid region of Pakistan, Rajput et al. [31] in
northwest Himalaya, India and Xie et al. [13] in the
temperate desert region of northwestern China.
Similarly, Takimoto et al. [32] documented a higher
rate of carbon stocks in traditional agroforestry
systems than improved agroforestry systems on
barren lands. This might be due to the young age
of improved agroforestry systems as compared to
traditional ones. In the present study, the biomass
and sequestered carbon were measured in the 7-
10 years old trees, which is comparatively greater
than the estimates described by Peichl et al. [33],
and Fang et al. [16]. This might be due to the

Table 2. Above and belowground biomass of poplar trees in three different agroforestry planting patterns
in the semi-arid region.
Planting Patterns Aboveground biomass (t ha-1)
c b
Pattern A 45.76 ± 5.01
Pattern B 57.91b ± 5.08
Pattern C 62.68a ± 4.25
Figure 3. Above and belowground carbon of poplar trees in three different agroforestry planting patterns in the semi-
arid region.
difference in the number of poplar stems per hec-
tare. For instance, Peichl et al. [33] estimated the
average carbon stocks (15.1 t C ha1) for 13 years
old poplar at a stem density of 111 trees ha1,
whereas Fang et al. [16] measured 7.8 t C ha1 for
five years old poplar at a tree density of 250 trees
ha1, whereas the range of poplar stems in the pre-
sent study was 192 trees ha1 to 296 trees ha1
across three planting patterns. As mentioned above,
we found the highest tree carbon stock in model C
((296 trees ha1) than that of other agroforestry pat-
terns (192 trees ha1 & 250 trees ha1). This can be
because of the relatively greater number of trees per
hectare as compared to the other two planting pat-
terns. However, Xie et al. [13] documented a com-
paratively higher carbon stock (36.46 t ha1) in
twenty (20) years old poplar-based agroforestry sys-
tem at a tree density of 269 trees ha1 in the tem-
perate desert region of northwestern China.
Maize biomass and carbon stock
The maximum aboveground biomass assimilated by
maize crop was (11.95 t ha1) in pattern B, and it
was 10.3% and 3.6% greater than pattern A and pat-
tern C, respectively. However, these findings were
CARBON MANAGEMENT 597
Belowground biomass (t ha-1) Total biomass (t ha-1)
9.84 ± 2.17 55.60c ± 5.87
10.78ab ± 1.81 68.69b ± 5.22
11.54a ± 1.36 74.22a ± 4.32
not different (p < 0.05) statistically (Figure 4). The
highest grain yield and belowground biomass of
maize crops were achieved in pattern A, but no stat-
istical difference was observed among various pat-
terns. The grain yield in pattern A was 2.52 t ha1
which was 7.2% and 13.5% higher than pattern B
and C, respectively, whereas belowground biomass
in pattern A was 2.38 t ha1, and it was 3.5% and
13.9% greater than that of pattern B and pattern C
respectively. The concentration of carbon in different
maize crop components viz. leaf, stalk, cob, grain,
and root were significantly different among all pat-
terns (p < 0.05) (Table 3). For the crop stalk and cob,
the maximum carbon concentration (2.34 t ha1 and
1.53 t h1) was achieved in pattern C and was
9.34%, 1.32% greater than pattern B, and 32.2%,
10.9% greater than pattern A, respectively. The car-
bon stock of root in pattern B was 45.9% and 20.3%
higher than pattern A and pattern C, respectively.
Furthermore, the highest total carbon stock (7.07 t
ha1) of the maize crop was attained in pattern B,
and it was significantly different (p < 0.05) among
different patterns (Table 3). Since the amount of bio-
mass that was assimilated by maize crop in the
aboveground portion was removed from the study
area and the remaining root biomass was the only
598 G. YASIN ET AL.

Figure 4. Biomass and yield production of maize crop in three different agroforestry planting patterns in the semi-
arid region.

Table 3. Carbon concentration and stock of maize crop Table 4. Soil bulk density, organic carbon (%) and carbon
in three different agroforestry planting patterns in the stock in three different agroforestry planting patterns in
semi-arid region. the semi-arid region.
Crop Components Pattern A Pattern B Pattern C Soil Depth Pattern A Pattern B Pattern C
Carbon Concentrations (g kg-1) Bulk density (g cm-3)
Leaf 403.97b ± 7.92 400.93b ± 10.14 413.55a ± 7.15 0-15 cm 1.56b ± 0.03 1.58a ± 0.04 1.59a ± 0.03
Stalk 429.01a ± 5.77 432.04a ± 6.85 424.12b ± 8.76 15-30 cm 1.53b ± 0.04 1.55a ± 0.03 1.57a ± 0.04
Root 418.01a ± 4.88 401.0.3b ± 5.89 413.88c ± 6.23 30-45 cm 1.46b ± 0.03 1.47b ± 0.02 1.49a ± 0.04
Cob 423.20b ± 6.19 431.19a ± 5.56 429.52a ± 9.63 Organic carbon (%)
Grain 436.36b ±5.16 448.49a ±10.05 440.16b ±8.38 0-15 cm 0.85c ± 0.05 0.89b ± 0.03 0.95a ± 0.04
-1
Carbon Stock (t ha ) 15-30 cm 0.74c ± 0.04 0.80b ± 0.06 0.86a ± 0.04
Leaf 1.13b ± 0.22 1.33a ± 0.12 1.25a ± 0.13 30-45 cm 0.68c ± 0.04 0.71b ± 0.05 0.75a ± 0.06
Stalk 1.77c ± 0.27 2.14b ± 0.29 2.34a ± 0.24 Soil carbon stock (t ha-1)
Root 0.61c ± 0.16 0.89a ± 0.20 0.74b ± 0.17 0-15 cm 20.03c ± 1.58 21.31b ± 0.89 22.72a ± 1.07
Cob 1.38b ± 0.14 1.51a ± 0.12 1.53a± 0.11 15-30 cm 17.21c ± 1.29 18.99b ± 1.40 19.97a ± 1.03
Grain 1.06b ± 0.17 1.18a ± 0.15 0.98c ± 0.20 30-45 cm 15.10c ± 1.62 15.76b ± 1.45 16.83a ± 1.40
Total 5.97c ± 0.43 7.07a ± 0.41 6.78b ± 0.36 Total 52.34c ± 2.40 56.07b ± 2.11 59.53a ± 2.46
Means sharing the same lowercase letters are non-significant Means sharing the same lowercase letters are non-significant
at p < 0.05. at p < 0.05.

source of organic matter; therefore, we did not
include the carbon stock of the aboveground portion
of maize while calculating the total carbon stock in
all three planting patterns.
Apart from trees, the crops also contribute sig-
nificantly to overall biomass and carbon stock in
the agroforestry systems. Such as, Yadav et al. [29]
reported that crops are contributing 19-27% to the
system total biomass. In this study, commercial
seeds of maize crops were cultivated in three
planting patterns, and the aboveground biomass
contribution of maize was 10.83 t ha1 to 11.95 t
ha1. Similarly, Xie et al. [13] and Fang et al. [16]
has also documented the same range of above-
ground biomass in poplar maize intercropping and
maize-wheat double cropping system. Similar to
biomass, our results indicate that the aboveground
maize components stored more carbon
concentration, viz. 87-89% of the total carbon stock in
the maize crop. Our results are in line with those
received by Ajit et al. [22], Xie et al. [13], Yadav et al.
[34], and Chauhan et al. [35]. Oelbermann et al. [36]
found that carbon concentration in the aboveground
portion of maize, wheat, and soybean contributed
86%, 88%, and 89% of the total carbon stock, respect-
ively. Similarly, Fang et al. [16] documented 1.42 times
more carbon stock in an agroforestry system with
wheat-maize double cropping as compared to the
wheat-soybeans double-cropping scheme.
Soil organic carbon and carbon stock
The bulk density of soil (g cm3), organic carbon
(%), and soil carbon stock (t ha1) decreased when
the level of soil depth increase. Data from Table 4
indicates significant differences in soil bulk density,

carbon concentration, and soil carbon stock in the
same soil layer across all three poplar maize plant-
ing patterns. The bulk density of the soil did not
change significantly (p < 0.05) for pattern B and
pattern C, at 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm soil depth. The
maximum soil bulk density was measured in pat-
tern C at all three depths viz. 1.59 g cm-3 at 0-
15 cm, 1.57 g cm3 at 15-30 cm, and 1.49 g cm3 at
30-45 cm as compared to pattern A and pattern B,
respectively, which might be due to inadequate
soil management in some agricultural systems. So,
if the soil is compacted at a 15 cm depth, the bulk
density will decrease with depth until it is back to
increase at some point. The soil organic carbon
content was greater in the soil upper soil (0-15 cm)
surface, and it gradually decreased across all three
planting patterns as the soil depth increased. At 0-
15 cm soil depth, the maximum soil organic carbon
(0.95%) was estimated in pattern C, and it was
11.76%, 6.74% greater than pattern A and pattern
B, respectively.
Similarly, the soil carbon stock was found in the
order of pattern C > pattern B > pattern A for all
three depths and was significantly (p < 0.05) differ-
ent across all planting patterns. For example, the
maximum soil carbon stock in soil was estimated
(22.72 t ha1) in pattern C, at 0-15 cm depth, while
it was 13.42% and 6.61% greater than pattern A
and pattern B, respectively. Likewise, the highest
soil carbon stock (19.97 t ha1 and 16.83 t ha1)
was computed in pattern C, followed by pattern B
(18.99 t ha1 and 15.76 t ha1), whereas the low-
est soil carbon stock was measured in pattern A
(17.21 t ha1 and 15.10 t ha1) at 15-30 cm and
30-45 cm depth, respectively. Overall, at 0-45 cm
soil depth, the total carbon stock in soil was differ-
ent (p < 0.05) significantly across all planting pat-
terns, with the maximum amount in pattern C
(59.53 t ha1) and minimum in pattern A (52.34 t
ha1) as depicted in Table 4.
It has been studied that the soil is an important
pool of carbon and has been proved as an impera-
tive source to mitigate greenhouse gasses [37]. It
plays a crucial role while storing a sufficient
amount of atmospheric carbon in the soil ecosys-
tem throughout the world [38]. Tree species
enhanced the topsoil fraction of carbon, nitrogen,
and phosphorus contents compared to the pas-
ture. Soil fractionation demonstrated that larger lit-
ter induced by tree species subsequently
enhanced free and bounded organic matter seg-
ments and ultimately enhanced stabilized fraction
of soil organic fractions. Hence, tree species were
CARBON MANAGEMENT 599
established to increase soil C sequestrations in the
soil through the process of photosynthesis. Plants
assimilate carbon and return some of it to the
atmosphere through respiration. The carbon that
remains as plant tissue is then consumed by ani-
mals or added to the soil as litter when plants die
and decompose [39]. The comparison and storage
of carbon present in soils of various agroforestry
systems and other land use land covers (LULC) can
be arranged, ranked, in the given order: (1) forests
> (2) agroforests > (3) plantations > (4) crops
([12]. Moreover, various studies across Africa and
Asia also indicated that trees would not instantly
start retaining carbon into soils to baseline level
nor enhance it for shorter periods [13,40–42].
Several studies have documented that the agroe-
cosystems stored a greater amount of carbon than
monocropping systems across the world
[16,23,33,43,44]. This higher soil organic carbon in
agroecosystems connected to a greater quantity of
biomass carbon reverted to soil mostly in the form
of litter, ultimately stabilizing the soil organic mat-
ter while lowering decomposition rates [45]. These
differences are also connected to structural com-
ponents, cropping systems, and management
techniques with esteem to space and time [29].
The current study revealed that the overall carbon
stock in soil (0-45 cm) was found in the order: pat-
tern C > pattern B > pattern A and was signifi-
cantly different across all planting patterns. The
soil carbon stock in patterns B and C was higher
significantly than that of pattern A, this may be
related to a greater addition of litter through the
poplar tree species due to their greater tree stem
density ha1 in patterns B and C, respectively, and
eventually resulting in greater carbon input to the
soil as compared to pattern A [13,16,46].
Ecosystem total carbon stock
Overall, ecosystem carbon stock (vegetation þ soil)
was estimated for each planting pattern and then
compared for all three soil depths. The total eco-
system carbon stock results were significantly dif-
ferent (p < 0.05) across the studied patterns and
are represented in Table 5. Overall, at all three soil
depth ranges, the highest total carbon stocks were
exhibited by pattern C: 59.08 t ha1, 79.05 t ha1,
and 95.89 t ha1, while the notably lowest total
carbon stocks were measured in pattern A: 47.32 t
ha1, 64.53 t ha1, and 79.63 t ha1 at 0-15, 0-30
and 0-45 cm respectively. In recent decades, agro-
forestry has been considered a major opportunity
to combat current CO2 prompted climatic issues
600 G. YASIN ET AL.
Table 5. Total ecosystem carbon stock (biomass þ soil) of
three different agroforestry planting patterns in the
semi-arid region.
Total Carbon Stock Pattern A Pattern B
Biomass þ 0-15 cm soil 47.32c ± 3.01 55.16b ± 3.32
Biomass þ 0-30 cm soil 64.53c ± 3.68 74.15b ± 4.06
Biomass þ 0-45 cm soil 79.63c ± 4.02 89.92b ± 4.36
and land-use change problems across the globe.
For example, the amount of carbon stored (5.8 t C
ha1  8.2 t C ha1) in the silvopasture system
was higher than the pasture system in the North
American temperate region [47]. Similarly, Li [23]
demonstrated that poplar based agroforestry sys-
tem stores carbon two times greater than the
monocrop system, which might be due to woody
trees. In this study, the range of measured total
ecosystem carbon stock was 79.63 t ha1 to 95.89
t ha1 in three agroforestry planting patterns. This
amount of stored carbon is more or less similar to
the total ecosystem carbon stored in northwestern
China [13], northwest Himalaya, and central
Himalaya regions of India [31,48] in a similar tree
crop combination. Moreover, various agroforestry
systems’ total ecosystem carbon stock was 31 t C
ha1 to 173.90 t C ha1 in different Indian states
[14,29,35,49]. These estimations are far above the
ecosystem carbon stock of the present study.
However, the calculated carbon stock in the pre-
sent study is slightly greater than the amount
stored in silvopastoral systems (15-18 Mg C ha1)
of low humid tropics of northern Asia [50]. These
variations of carbon storage across different agroe-
cosystems around the globe were attributed to
the differences in climatic conditions, kind of sys-
tem, their functional and structural features, spe-
cies type, stand composition, density, and soil
type [6,12].
Conclusion
Agroforestry is feasible to cope with climate
change, especially in developing countries like
Pakistan, with less than 2% forest cover. The pur-
pose of our study was to better approximate car-
bon estimates in three different poplar maize
agroforestry planting patterns and to determine
the optimal planting pattern of poplar trees on
agricultural lands. This study’s total estimated car-
bon stock ranged from 47.32 t ha1 to 95.89 t
ha1 across all poplar maize planting patterns. A
better agroforestry planting pattern for a particular
region should be established by comparing greater
profits, yields, and carbon storage capacity. Our
study found the higher poplar planting density
(296 trees ha1) in poplar maize agroecosystems
as the optimal system with maximum biomass and
total carbon stock. However, maize yield was not
Pattern C
59.08a ± 2.62
significantly different across all three planting pat-
79.05a ± 3.13 terns. Therefore, this planting pattern should be
95.89a ± 3.37
adopted in other climatic regions of the country,
especially semi-arid, to enhance the financial and
environmental benefits in the form of carbon cap-
ture. Moreover, similar studies should be con-
ducted to find the optimum planting pattern for
various tree species with different crops and intro-
duce various policy programs supporting and pro-
moting agroforestry to enhance the country’s
forest cover.
Acknowledgments
We are thankful to Higher Education Commission, Pakistan
(HEC) for providing all the facilities and funds to complete
this work under NRPU project # 2459.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
Data availability statement
All data set is associated with the paper. Moreover, an
excel sheet for raw data will be provided on request after
acceptance of paper.
References
1. Nawaz MF, Shah SAA, Gul S, et al. Carbon sequestra-
tion and production of eucalyptus camaldulensis
plantations on marginal sandy agricultural lands. Pak
J Agric Sci. 2017;54(02):335–342. doi:10.21162/
PAKJAS/17.4432.
2. Gupta DK, Bhatt R, Keerthika A, et al. Carbon seques-
tration potential of hardwickia binata roxb. based
agroforestry in hot semi-arid environment of India:
an assessment of tree density impact. Curr Sci. 2019;
116(1):112–116. doi:10.18520/cs/v116/i1/112-116.
3. Alemu B. The role of Forest and soil carbon seques-
trations on climate change mitigation. Res J Agr
Environ Manage. 2014;3:492–505.
4. Agevi H, Onwonga R, Kuyah S, et al. Carbon stocks
and stock changes in agroforestry practices: a review.
Trop Subtropical Agroecosyst. 2017;20(1).
5. McMahon SM, Harrison SP, Armbruster WS, et al.
Improving assessment and modelling of climate
change impacts on global terrestrial biodiversity.
Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26(5):249–259. doi:10.1016/j.
tree.2011.02.012.
6. Possu WB, Brandle JR, Domke GM, et al. Estimating
carbon storage in windbreak trees on US agricultural
lands. Agroforest Syst. 2016;90(5):889–904. doi:10.
1007/s10457-016-9896-0.

7. Yasin G, Nawaz MF, Martin TA, et al. Evaluation of
agroforestry carbon storage status and potential in
irrigated plains of Pakistan. Forests. 2019;10(8):640.
doi:10.3390/f10080640.
8. Nawaz MF, Mazhar K, Gul S, et al. Comparing the
early stage carbon sequestration rates and effects on
soil physico-chemical properties after two years of
planting agroforestry trees. J Basic Appl Sci. 2017;13:
527–533. doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2017.13.86.
9. Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Coe R, et al. 2009. Trees on
farm: analysis of global extent and geographical pat-
terns of agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper-World
Agroforestry Centre.
10. Zomer RJ, Neufeldt H, Xu J, et al. Global tree cover
and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contri-
bution of agroforestry to global and national carbon
budgets. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29987–29912. doi:10.1038/
srep29987.
11. Deka M, Wani M, Afaq HM. Assessment of carbon
sequestration of different tree species grown under
agroforestry system. J Adv Environ Sci. 2016;1:
149–153.
12. Ramachandran Nair P, Mohan Kumar B, Nair VD.
Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J
Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2009;172(1):10–23. doi:10.1002/
jpln.200800030.
13. Xie T, Su P, An L, et al. Carbon stocks and biomass
production of three different agroforestry systems in
the temperate desert region of northwestern China.
Agroforest Syst. 2017;91(2):239–247. doi:10.1007/
s10457-016-9923-1.
14. Arora G, Chaturvedi S, Kaushal R, et al. Growth, bio-
mass, carbon stocks, and sequestration in an age ser-
ies of populus deltoides plantations in tarai region of
Central himalaya. Turk J Agric For. 2014;38:550–560.
doi:10.3906/tar-1307-94.
15. Gera M. Poplar culture for speedy carbon sequestra-
tion in India: a case study from terai region of uttar-
akhand. Envis Forestry Bulletin. 2012;12:75–83.
16. Fang S, Li H, Sun Q, et al. Biomass production and
carbon stocks in poplar-crop intercropping systems: a
case study in northwestern Jiangsu, China. Agroforest
Syst. 2010;79(2):213–222. doi:10.1007/s10457-010-
9307-x.
17. Yasin G, Nawaz M, Siddiqui M, et al. Biomass, carbon
stocks and CO2 sequestration in three different aged
irrigated populus deltoides bartr. Ex marsh. Bund
planting agroforestry systems. Appl Ecol Env Res.
2018;16(5):6239–6252. doi:10.15666/aeer/1605_
62396252.
18. McNeely JA, Schroth G. Agroforestry and biodiversity
conservation–traditional practices, present dynamics,
and lessons for the future. Biodivers Conserv. 2006;
15(2):549–554. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-2087-3.
19. Fang S, Xue J, Tang L. Biomass production and car-
bon sequestration potential in poplar plantations
with different management patterns. J Environ
Manage. 2007;85(3):672–679. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.
2006.09.014.
20. Rizvi R, Dhyani S, Yadav R, et al. Biomass production
and carbon stock of poplar agroforestry systems in
CARBON MANAGEMENT 601
Yamunanagar and Saharanpur districts of northwest-
ern India. Curr Sci. 2011;100(5):736–742.
21. Jha KK. Root carbon sequestration and its efficacy in
forestry and agroforestry systems: a case of populus
euramericana I-214 cultivated in mediterranean con-
dition. Not Sci Biol. 2018;10(1):68–78. doi:10.15835/
nsb10110181.
22. Ajit HA, Dhyani S, Bhat G, et al. Quantification of car-
bon stocks and sequestration potential through exist-
ing agroforestry systems in the hilly Kupwara district
of kashmir valley in India. Current Science. 2017;
113(4):782–785. doi:10.18520/cs/v113/i04/782-785.
23. Li Q. 2008. The research on carbon storage of popu-
lous-crop intercropping system in the huanghuaihai
plain [master dissertation]. Zhengzhou: Henan
Agricultural University.
24. Thomas SC, Martin AR. Carbon content of tree tis-
sues: a synthesis. Forests. 2012;3(2):332–352. doi:10.
3390/f3020332.
25. De Vos B, Lettens S, Muys B, et al. Walkley–black ana-
lysis of forest soil organic carbon: recovery, limita-
tions and uncertainty. Soil Use Manage. 2007;23(3):
221–229. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2007.00084.x.
26. Cook RL, Binkley D, Mendes JCT, et al. Soil carbon
stocks and forest biomass following conversion of
pasture to broadleaf and conifer plantations in south-
eastern Brazil. For Ecol Manage. 2014;324:37–45. doi:
10.1016/j.foreco.2014.03.019.
27. Iglesias DJ, Quinones A, Font A, et al. Carbon balance
of citrus plantations in Eastern Spain. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment. 2013;171:103–111. doi:10.
1016/j.agee.2013.03.015.
28. Liguori G, Gugliuzza G, Inglese P. Evaluating carbon
fluxes in orange orchards in relation to planting
density. J Agric Sci. 2009;147(6):637–645. doi:10.1017/
S002185960900882X.
29. Yadav R, Gupta B, Bhutia P, et al. Biomass and carbon
budgeting of sustainable agroforestry systems as
ecosystem service in Indian Himalayas. Int J
Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 2019;26(5):460–470. doi:
10.1080/13504509.2019.1600597.
30. Nawaz M, Yousaf M, Yasin G, et al. Agroforestry status
and its role to sequester atmospheric CO2 under
semi-arid climatic conditions in Pakistan. Appl Ecol
Env Res. 2018;16(1):645–661. doi:10.15666/aeer/1601_
645661.
31. Rajput BS, Bhardwaj D, Pala NA. Factors influencing
biomass and carbon storage potential of different
land use systems along an elevational gradient in
temperate northwestern Himalaya. Agroforest Syst.
2017;91(3):479–486. doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9948-5.
32. Takimoto A, Nair PR, Nair VD. Carbon stock and
sequestration potential of traditional and improved
agroforestry systems in the West African Sahel. Agric
Ecosyst Environ. 2008;125(1–4):159–166. doi:10.1016/
j.agee.2007.12.010.
33. Peichl M, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, et al. Carbon
sequestration potentials in temperate tree-based
intercropping systems, Southern Ontario, Canada.
Agroforest Syst. 2006;66(3):243–257. doi:10.1007/
s10457-005-0361-8.
602 G. YASIN ET AL.
34. Yadav R, Gupta B, Bhutia P, et al. Socioeconomics
and sources of livelihood security in Central himalaya,
India: a case study. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol.
2017;24(6):545–553. doi:10.1080/13504509.2016.
1239233.
35. Chauhan S, Sharma R, Singh B, et al. Biomass produc-
tion, carbon sequestration and economics of on-farm
poplar plantations in Punjab, India. JANS. 2015;7(1):
452–458. doi:10.31018/jans.v7i1.631.
36. Oelbermann M, Voroney RP, Thevathasan NV, et al.
Soil carbon dynamics and residue stabilization in a
costa rican and Southern canadian alley cropping
system. Agroforest Syst. 2006;68(1):27–36. doi:10.
1007/s10457-005-5963-7.
37. McKechnie J, Colombo S, Chen J, et al. Forest bioen-
ergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in green-
house gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environ
Sci Technol. 2011;45(2):789–795. doi:10.1021/
es1024004.
38. Lal R. Carbon sequestration. Philos Trans R Soc Lond
B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1492):815–830. doi:10.1098/rstb.
2007.2185.
39. Hoosbeek MR, Remme RP, Rusch GM. Trees enhance
soil carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling in a sil-
vopastoral system in South-Western Nicaragua.
Agrofor Syst. 2018;92:263–273.
40. Kell DB. Large-scale sequestration of atmospheric car-
bon via plant roots in natural and agricultural ecosys-
tems: why and how. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol
Sci. 2012;367(1595):1589–1597. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.
0244.
41. Walker SM, Desanker PV. The impact of land use on
soil carbon in miombo woodlands of Malawi. For
Ecol Manage . 2004;203(1–3):345–360. doi:10.1016/j.
foreco.2004.08.004.
42. Kaya B, Nair P. Soil fertility and crop yields under
improved-fallow systems in Southern Mali.
Agroforestry Systems. 2001;52(1):1–11. doi:10.1023/
A:1010717629129.
43. Tashi S, Singh B, Keitel C, et al. Soil carbon and nitro-
gen stocks in forests along an altitudinal gradient in
the Eastern Himalayas and a meta-analysis of global
data . Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22(6):2255–2268. doi:10.
1111/gcb.13234.
44. Choudhary B, Saxena K. An assessment of soil organic
carbon, total nitrogen and tree biomass in land uses
of a village landscape of Central Himalaya, India.
Global J Environ Res. 2015;9:27–42.
45. Sollins P, Swanston C, Kleber M, et al. Organic C and
N stabilization in a Forest soil: evidence from sequen-
tial density fractionation. Soil Biol Biochem. 2006;
38(11):3313–3324. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.04.014.
46. Chauhan SK, Sharma S, Chauhan R, et al. Accounting
poplar and wheat productivity for carbon sequestra-
tion in agri-silvicultural system. Indian Forester. 2010;
136:1174–1182.
47. Udawatta RP, Jose S. Agroforestry strategies to
sequester carbon in temperate North America.
Agroforest Syst. 2012;86(2):225–242. doi:10.1007/
s10457-012-9561-1.
48. Verma A, Kaushal R, Alam N, et al. Predictive models
for biomass and carbon stocks estimation in grewia
optiva on degraded lands in western Himalaya.
Agroforest Syst. 2014;88(5):895–905. doi:10.1007/
s10457-014-9734-1.
49. Sharma R, Xu J, Sharma G. Traditional agroforestry in
the Eastern himalayan region: Land management sys-
tem supporting ecosystem services. Trop Ecol. 2007;
48:189.
50. Winjum JK, Dixon RK, Schroeder PE. Estimating the
global potential of Forest and agroforest management
practices to sequester carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut.
1992;64(1–2):213–227. doi:10.1007/BF00477103.