Trees, Forests and People 6 (2021) 100147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trees, Forests and People

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/trees-forests-and-people

Tree biomass and carbon stock assessment of subtropical and temperate

forests in the Central Himalaya, India☆
Vinod C. Joshi a, c, Vikram S. Negi a, *, Deepa Bisht a, R.C. Sundriyal b, Dhani Arya c
a
G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment (GBP-NIHE), Kosi-Katarmal, Almora, Uttarakhand, 263601, India
b
Departments of Forestry and Natural Resources, HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar (Garhwal), Uttarakhand, 266174, India
c
Departments of Botany, S.S.J, University, Almora, Uttarakhand, 263643, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Forests are the world’s largest carbon sink and play a vital role in climate change mitigation through carbon
Carbon stock sequestration; thus the assessment of carbon stock in the forests is important for policy prescription and man­
Carbon sequestration agement planning. In view of this, present study is an attempt to assess the biomass and carbon stock of tree
Shorea robusta
species in selected subtropical and temperate forest stands along the vertical elevation gradient (300 m to 2250
Quercus leucotrichophora
Pinus roxburghii
m) in the Central Himalaya. Volumetric equations (allometric method) were used for various tree species along
Climate change mitigation with field sampling/ assessment (quadrat method) for biomass and carbon sequestration potentials. The total tree
biomass and carbon stock of dominant forest stands varied from 227.23 to 577.16 Mg ha− 1 (megagram per
hectare), and 107.93 to 274.15 Mg C ha− 1 respectively; it was found maximum for Sal (Shorea robusta) domi­
nated forest and minimum for mixed Oak forest (Quercus floribunda, Q. lanuginosa, Q. leucotrichophora etc.). The
carbon sequestration was recorded maximum (4.83 Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1) for Chir-pine stand (Pinus roxburghii) fol­
lowed by Sal (4.63 Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1), mixed Oak (4.47 Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1), and minimum (3.99 Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1) for
temperate Banj-oak forest (Quercus leucotrichophora). The contribution of above and below ground biomass
among different forest stands was recorded 82% and 18% respectively. The dominant species contributed
maximum biomass and carbon stock (70–82%) in pure Sal, Chir-pine and Banj-oak stand, while the contribution
of dominant and co-dominant species in the mixed forest varied depending on forest composition. The results
reveal higher carbon stock for subtropical forest as compared to temperate forest; however, it is interesting that
there is no significant difference in carbon sequestration among the different forest stands. The study recom­
mended for the assessing biomass and carbon stock of different forests for long-term management of forests and
climate change mitigation.

1. Introduction
Forests provide vital ecosystems services and goods to the survival of
human beings across the globe. They act as the key carbon pool (C) and
store more carbon per unit area compared to other terrestrial ecosystems
(Kuuluvainen and Gauthier, 2018; Zhao et al., 2014; Pugh et al., 2019;
Liu et al., 2020). Forest cover is around 30% of the Earth’s total surface
area, and contains 19% of the Earth’s overall biomass and carbon pool
(Kindermann et al., 2008; FAO and UNEP 2020); forests having greater
carbon in biomass and soil than in any natural ecosystem and atmo­
sphere (Pan et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2014; Popkin, 2019; Favero et al.,
2020; Yam et al., 2021). Forest ecosystems play an important role in
global biogeochemical cycles and climate change mitigation (Lal and
Lodhyal, 2015; Brienen et al., 2015; Atsbha et al., 2019). Tropical and
temperate forests are global centers of biodiversity, which play an
important role in the regulation of the global and regional C cycles
(Poorter et al., 2015; Sullivan et al., 2017). Among various forests,
tropical forests fixes higher biomass, and serve as a major potential sink
of carbon due to high species diversity and high net primary production
(Malhi et al., 1999; Pan et al., 2011; Jhariya, 2017; Dar et al., 2017;
Kothandarama et al., 2020). Approximately 767 million hectares (25%)
area covered by temperate forest globally of the total land surface, and

This article is part of a special issue entitled: “Ecology of forested ecosystems in mountainous regions: patterns, processes and management implications”
☆

published at the journal Trees, Forests and People.

* Corresponding authors: (V.S. Negi).
E-mail address: vikramsnegii@gmail.com (V.S. Negi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100147
Received 18 August 2021; Received in revised form 21 September 2021; Accepted 27 September 2021
Available online 2 October 2021
2666-7193/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
V.C. Joshi et al. Trees, Forests and People 6 (2021) 100147

they storage about 14% of total carbon (Pan et al., 2011). Table 1
Currently, climate change is a global concern, and forests plays vital Descriptions and Characteristic of the studies forest stands.
role in climate change regulation and mitigation through reducing CO2 Parameter Sal stand Chir-pine Banj-oak stand Mixed-oak
concentrations in the atmosphere (Streck and Scholz, 2006; Bracki, (S-I) stand (S-II) (S-III) stand (S-IV)
2019; Ali et al., 2020; Burman et al., 2021). Thus, estimation of carbon Forest Chorgaliya Baldiyakhan Kailakhan Kilbury
stocks of different forest ecosystems would help in appropriate location
decision-making on C management. This kind of information also con­ Altitude (m) 300–330 1450–1600 1750–1950 2050–2250
tributes towards atmospheric carbon reduction targets as part of inter­ Latitude 29◦ 081′ 29◦ 20.929′ 29◦ 22.404′ 29◦ 25.43′
Longitude 79◦ 39.41′ 79◦ 26.766′ 79◦ 28.583′ 79◦ 26.162′
national obligations (UNFCCC 2014; Sahu et al., 2016; Mayer et al., Dominant Shorea Pinus Quercus Quercus
2020). The amount of total biomass stored in a forest indicates the canopy robusta roxburghii leucotrichophora lanuginosa
quantity of carbon (C) that can be sequestered to meet the emission species
targets (Brown et al., 1999; Raha et al., 2020). Soil 19.09±2.24 20.75±3.14 25.35±3.65 26.33±4.93
moisture
Forests of the Himalayan region are biodiversity hotspot, and
(%)
contribute significantly to important ecosystem services and goods such WHC (%) 46.28±0.72 51.96±1.25 58.68±4.29 63.52±0.76
as soil formation, regulation of hydrological cycle, carbon sequestration, pH 6.65±0.05 6.58±0.05 6.04±06 5.91±0.092
etc., (Semwal et al., 2007; Negi et al., 2012, 2018, 2019).. This is the SOC% 1.25±0.03 2.42±0.23 4.25±0.49 3.43±0.34
reason that the estimation of carbon stocks of different forest types is N% 0.14±0.011 0.21±0.008 0.38±0.02 0.41±0.003
Soil texture Loamy sand Sandy clay Sandy loam Sandy loam
suggested in many studies (Alves et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2011; Atsbha (%)
et al., 2019). Carbon sequestration is among the most important
ecosystem services provided by forest ecosystems that play an important S= Site, WHC= Water Holding Capacity, N= Nitrogen, SOC=Soil organic
carbon.
role in global climate mitigation. For example, in a recent study Tol­
angay and Moktan (2020) reported that the Indian Himalayan region
(IHR) sequesters about 65 million tonnes of carbon each year. This has quadrats in each identified forest stand during 2017–2019. A total of
leaded to conclude that ‘the Himalayan forests have the potential to fifty (10 × 10 m) quadrates were laid randomly for the investigation of
mitigate climate change and global warming’. vegetation in each forest stands. For obtaining quadrate data Standard
Forest productivity is a function of the factors of the site quality, phytosociological methods were used (Mueller -Dombois and Ellenberg,
including the growth behavior of the inhabitant species (Rai et al., 1974). The Circumference at breast height (CBH) of each individual tree
2021). It is well known that forest stands growth play key role in forest species were measured at 1.37 m from ground surface. The collected
structure, biomass, and soil nutrient content (Shanin et al., 2014; field data were analyzed for different phytosociological (density, fre­
Goebes et al., 2019). The estimation of C-storage capacity in forest quency, basal area, and species richness) parameters. The phytosocio­
ecosystems based on biomass productivity calculation has been widely logical data were analyses using Microsoft excel 2010. All the statistical
adopted (Brown et al., 1997, 1999). Quantitative studies on carbon analysis between different parameter was conducted following
storage, carbon fixation and net primary productivity are well discussed IBM-SPSS, 20.
at national level (Ravindranath et al., 1997; Jina et al., 2008; Sharma
et al., 2010; 2011; Srinivas and Sundarapandian, 2019; Bordoloi et al., 2.2.2. Biomass and productivity
2019; Verma and Garkoti, 2019; Raha et al., 2020) as well as across the Biomass and productivity were measured by using non-harvesting
globe (Saatchi et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011; Sullivan et al., 2017; Poorter sampling method during 2017–2019. One-hectare area (4 plots of 50
et al., 2015; Matthew et al., 2018; Molina-Valero et al., 2021; Dabi et al., × 50 m) was sampled for the assessment of biomass and productivity in
2021). However, there are still a great deal of uncertainties about each site. All the individuals of tree (<30 cm) found in sampled quadrats
biomass, carbon stock and carbon sequestration of a particular forest were recorded, and measured for their circumference at breast height
ecosystem in Himalayan region. Present study is an attempt to assess (CBH) 1.37 m above the ground. All the trees were marked with yellow
forest composition, and variation in the biomass and carbon pools of the paint for long-term monitoring. Carbon sock is taken as approximately
major forest types in the central Himalaya. half fraction (0.475) of biomass, and likewise carbon sequestration is
half of the productivity (Magnussen and Reed, 2004). Trees measured in
2. Material and method permanent plots in the first year, (2017) were re-measured in the second
year and third year (2018 and 2019). Biomass of different components
2.1. Study area (bole, branch, twig, foliage, stump root, and fine roots) for the first year
(Y1), second year (Y2), third year (Y3) were calculated using regression
The study was performed in four dominant forest stands of Nanital, equation (Supplementary table S1) of allometric method (Rawat and
(Uttarakhand), Central Himalaya along vertical elevation gradient Singh, 1988; Rana et al., 1989; Basuki et al., 2009; Navar, 2009; Lal and
(300–2250 m). Central Himalaya contributes 8.68% of the total Indian Lodhiyal, 2016; ; Dabi et al., 2021).
Himalaya area (59,436 km2). Among the forest stands selected for pre­ Y = a + b*lnX
sent study, two stands namely Chorgaliya (site-I) dominated by Shorea
robusta Gaertn.(Sal) and Baldiyakhan (site-II) by Pinus roxburghii Roxb. Where, ln = natural log, Y= dry weight of component (kg), X= CBH
(Pine) fall under subtropical region. Other two stands namely Kailakhan (cm), a = the y intercept and b = slope of regression.
(site-III) dominated by Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus, (Banj-oak) Net productivity was estimated by the difference in biomass of two
and Kilbury (site-IV) by Quercus lanuginosa Lam. under temperate re­ year.
gion. Geologically all the sites (stands) fall in the lesser Himalayan re­ ΔY = Y2 − Y1;
gion (Valdiya, 1980). All selected forest stands were managed by the
Forest department. Detailed geographical and ecological attributes of Where ΔY is the net primary productivity, Y1= Biomass in year one
the study sites presented in table 1. and Y2 is the biomass in year two
Biomass and carbon stock was calculated in Megagram per hectare
2.2. Method (Mg ha− 1). Carbon stock and sequestration was assumed to be half of the
total estimated biomass of each tree species (Magnussen and Reed
2.2.1. Vegetation analysis 2004).
The vegetation analysis was carried out by placing simple random

2
V.C. Joshi et al. Trees, Forests and People 6 (2021) 100147

C − stock = Biomass * 0.475; C − sequestration = NPP * 0.475
3. Result
3.1. Species richness and stands characteristics
The compositional features of selected forest stand are presented in
table 2. A total of 30 species were recorded at tree stratum. Maximum
species richness was recorded in mixed oak stand (13), followed by Banj-
oak (12), Chir-pine (11) and minimum (8) in Sal forest stand. Tree
density was recorded between 652 ind. ha− 1 (banj-oak) to 884 ind. ha− 1
(mixed oak stand). The density of dominant species (S. robusta, P. rox­
burghii, Q. leucotrichophora, Q. lanuginosa) was varied from 324 to 540
ind ha− 1. The contribution of dominant species in the total stand density
was estimated 51.32%, 80.35%, 63.19% and 36% at Sal, Chir-pine, Banj-
oak and mixed oak forest stand respectively. The contribution of Total
Basal Area (TBA) in the TBA of the forest stand was estimated 85.66%,
89.98%, 81.52% and 41.57% respectively. TBA was estimated
maximum for Banj oak stand (51.38 m2 ha− 1), followed by Sal stand
(47.52 m2 ha− 1), Chir-pine stand (43.64 m2 ha− 1) and minimum (33.41
m2 ha− 1) for mixed Oak stand. The species diversity was also recorded
maximum (2.31) in mixed oak stand and minimum (1.10) in chir-pine
stand. The species richness is fairly higher in temperate forest stands
(Site-III and IV) as compared to subtropical forest stands (Site I and II). A
significant positive correlation was observed between total basal area (F
= 4.45, p<0.01) and tree density (F = 3.82, p<0.05) among the forest
stands.
3.2. Tree biomass and productivity
The results reveals maximum total biomass for Sal forest stand
(577.16 Mg ha− 1), followed by Chir-pine (285.27 Mg ha− 1), Banj-oak
(230.12 Mg ha− 1) and minimum (227.23 Mg ha− 1) for mixed-oak
stand (table 3). The dominant species in Sal, Chir-pine, and Banj-oak
forest stands contribute more than 80% of total biomass (96%,
95.33% and 82% respectively). In the mixed oak forest, the contribution
of dominant (Q. lanuginosa) and co-dominant species (Q. floribunda)
species was not much varied. Among the different tree components (i.e.,
bole, branch, leaf, twig and root), bole has contributed maximum
(39.8–60%) in total stands biomass and carbon, however, the contri­
butions of other part varied among forest stands (Fig. 1). The mean total
tree biomass was found higher (67.42–88.39%) in aboveground parts
compared to below ground (12.61–28.58%) for all the four forest types.
Mean above ground biomass (AGB) and below ground biomass (BGB)
among forest stand was 82% and 18% respectively. AGB (86.41%) was
recorded higher in Sal, Chir-pine and Banj-oak forest stands as compared
to mixed oak stand (67.42%). The average net primary productivity
(NPP) was varied from 9.42 to 10.17 Mg ha− 1 yr− 1 among all forest
stands. Maximum NPP was recorded in Chir-pine stand (10.17 Mg ha− 1
yr− 1), followed by Sal (9.75 Mg ha− 1 yr− 1), mixed oak (9.42 Mg ha− 1
yr− 1) and lowest (8.40 Mg ha-1 yr-1) at Banj-oak stand.
3.3. Variation in carbon stock
C-stock and carbon accumulation among all the forest stands pre­
sented in table 4. It was found maximum (274.15 Mg C ha-1) in sub­
tropical Sal stand followed by Chir-pine (135.50 Mg C ha-1), Banj-oak
(109.31 Mg C ha-1) and mixed oak (107.93 Mg C ha-1) forest stand
(Table 4). The dominant species S. robusta in the Sal stand (Chorgaliya)
accumulated 263.49 Mg C ha− 1 and remaining10.76 Mg C ha− 1 by other
associated species, while carbon stock of P. roxburghii was recorded
129.29 Mg C ha− 1 in the Chir-pine stand of Baldiyakhan, and rest (6.22
Mg C ha− 1) by associated species. In the banj oak stand
Q. lecuctrichophora accumulated 89.53 Mg C ha− 1and other associated

Table 2
Phytosociological attribute (Density and Total TBA) of studied forest stands.
Species Family Sal stand Chir-pine stand Banj-oak stand Mixed oak stand
Density TBA Density TBA Density TBA Density TBA

Shorea robusta Gaertn. Dipterocarpaceae 388.00 40.71 – – – – – –

Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) Müll. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 278.00 4.42 – – – – – –
Terminalia alata Roth Combretaceae 20.00 0.43 – – – – – –
Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Combretaceae 38.00 1.24 – – – – – –
Tectona grandisL.f Lamiaceae 4.00 0.08 – – – – – –
Cassia fistula L Fabaceae 8.00 0.22 – – – – – –
Ehretia laevis Roxb Boraginaceae 14.00 0.35 – – – – – –
Pterocarpus marsupium Roxb Fabaceae 6.00 0.07 – – – – – –
Pinus roxburghii Roxb Pinaceae – – 540.00 39.27 32.00 0.64
Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus Fagaceae – – 78.00 2.86 412.00 41.89 10.00 0.13
Pyrus pashia L Rosaceae – – 4.00 0.04 – – – –
Myrica esculenta Buch. -Ham. Ex D.Don Myricaceae – – 26.00 0.82 10.00 0.18
Aesculus indica (Wall. Ex Cambess.) Hook. Sapindaceae – – 2.00 0.11 16.00 1.28 6.00 0.34
Symplocosramosissima Wallich ex G. Don Symplocaceae – – 4.00 0.03 – – – –
Toona ciliate M. Roem Meliaceae – – 4.00 0.21 – – – –
Acacia sp Fabaceae – – 4.00 0.05 – – – –
Bauhinia variegata (L.) Benth. Fabaceae – – 4.00 0.09 – – – –
Acer oblongum Wall. Ex DC. Sapindaceae – – 2.00 0.10 40.00 3.51 –
Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude Ericaceae – – 4.00 0.07 16.00 0.28 44.00 1.09
Cedrus deodara (Roxb.) G.Don Pinaceae – – – – 74.00 2.23 90.00 3.11
Cupressus torulosa D.Don ex Lamb Cupressaceae – – – – 20.00 0.89 4.00 0.04
Rhododendron arboreum Sm. Ericaceae – – – – 10.00 0.22 74.00 2.30
Machilus duthei Lauraceae – – – – 2.00 0.06 14.00 1.10
Debregeasia hypoleuca Gaudich Urticaceae – – – – 14.00 0.15 – –
Viburnum cotanifolium L Adoxaceae – – – – 6.00 0.05 18.00 0.23
Quercus lanuginosa Lam. Fagaceae – – – – – – 324.00 13.89
Quercus Fagaceae – – – – – – 260.00 10.20
floribundaLindl. Ex A.Camus
Litsea umbrosa Nees. Lauraceae – – – – – – 22.00 0.43
Ilex dipyrenaWallich Aquifoliaceae – – – – – – 8.00 0.39
Carpinus viminea Lindil Betulaceae – – – – – – 10.00 0.17
Total 756.00 47.52 672.00 43.64 652.00 51.38 884.00 33.41
1
Density in Individual ha− TBA= Total Basal area in m2 ha− 1.

3
V.C. Joshi et al. Trees, Forests and People 6 (2021) 100147

Table 3
Variation in Biomass and Net Primary Productivity (NPP) in the selected forest stands.
Forest stand Species Biomass (Megagram per hectare) NPP (Mg ha¡1yr¡1) Mean ±SD
Year I Year II Year III Mean

Subtropical sal stand S. robusta 545.32 555.29 563.51 554.71 9.09±1.36

(Chorgaliya) M. philippensis 15.52 15.97 16.39 15.96 0.44±0.02
Other species 6.3 6.45 6.74 6.5 0.22±0.10
Total 567.14 577.71 586.64 577.16 9.75±1.27
Subtropical Chir-pine stand P. roxburghii 262.8 271.76 281.99 272.18 9.60±0.98
(Baldiyakhan) Q. leucotrichophora 8.51 9.33 9.51 9.12 0.50±0.19
M. esculenta 2.26 2.34 2.41 2.34 0.08±0.00
Other species 1.64 1.64 1.65 1.64 0.01±0.01
Total 275.21 285.07 295.54 285.27 10.17±0.43
Temperate Banj-oak stand Q. leucotrichophora 181.54 189.7 194.2 188.48 6.33±21.87
Kailakhan R. arboreum 1.3 1.32 1.35 1.32 0.03±0.007
Other species 38.29 40.28 42.51 40.36 2.11±0.18
Total 221.13 231.31 237.92 230.12 8.40±2.77
Q. lanuginosa 92.5 98.07 101.95 97.51 4.73±1.31
Temperate Mixed oak stand Q. floribunda 97.3 101.32 103.57 100.73 3.14±1.30
Kilbury R. arboreum 2.82 2.98 2.9 2.93 0.09±0.12
L. ovalifolia 10.38 10.76 12.07 11.07 0.85±0.27
Other species 14.25 15.18 15.62 15.02 0.69±0.38
Total 217.26 228.32 236.1 227.23 9.42±2.50

NPP= Net Primary Productivity, SD= Standard deviation.

Fig. 1. Percentage contribution of biomass and carbon pool in different tree components in selected forest stands of central Himalaya.

Table 4
Carbon stock and sequestration in the selected forest stands.
Forest stand Species C-stock (Megagram per hectare) C-Seq(MgC ha¡1yr¡1)Mean ±SD
Year I Year II Year III Mean

Subtropical S. robusta 259.03 263.76 267.67 263.49 4.32±0.65

sal stand M. philippensis 7.37 7.59 7.79 7.58 0.21±0.01
(Chorgaliya) other species 2.99 3.06 3.20 3.09 0.10±0.04
Total 269.39 274.41 278.65 274.15 4.63±0.60
Subtropical Chir-pine stand P. roxburghii 124.83 129.09 133.95 129.29 4.56±0.47
(Baldiyakhan) Q. leucotrichophora 4.04 4.43 4.52 4.33 0.24±0.24
M. esculenta 1.07 1.11 1.14 1.11 0.04±0.01
other species 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00±0.00
Total 130.72 135.41 140.38 135.50 4.83±0.67
Temperate Banj-oakstand Q. leucotrichophora 86.23 90.11 92.25 89.53 3.01±1.35
(Kailakhan) R. arboreum 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.63 0.01±0.00
Other species 18.19 19.13 20.19 19.17 1.00±0.09
Total 105.04 109.87 113.01 109.31 3.99±0.22
Temperate Mixed Q. lanuginosa 43.94 46.58 48.43 46.32 2.25 ± 0.62
oak stand Q. floribunda 46.22 48.13 49.20 47.85 1.49±0.65
(Kilbury) R. arboreum 1.34 1.42 1.38 1.39 0.04±0.04
L. ovalifolia 4.93 5.11 5.73 5.26 0.40±0.33
Other species 6.77 7.21 7.42 7.13 0.33±0.18
Total 103.20 108.45 112.15 107.93 4.47±1.20

4
V.C. Joshi et al. Trees, Forests and People 6 (2021) 100147

species accumulated 19.80 Mg C ha− 1. In the mixed oak stand, total
carbon stock recorded maximum (47.85 Mg C ha− 1) for Q. lanuginosa,
followed by Q. floribunda (46.32 Mg C ha− 1), and other associate species
(13.78 Mg C ha− 1). Bole contributed maximum to total carbon stock.
The above ground carbon stock was found higher in Sal, Chir-pine and
Banj-oak forest stands as compared to mixed oak stand. A comparation
of tree density biomass and carbon sequestration based on previous
studies is provided in Table 5.
3.4. Carbon sequestration of forest stands
The carbon sequestration of studied subtropical and temperate forest
stands is not much varied. It was recorded between 3.99 to 4.83 Mg C
ha− 1 yr− 1; maximum for Chir-pine stand (4.83 Mg C yr− 1), followed by
Sal (4.63 Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1), mixed oak (4.47 Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1) and Banj-
oak stand (3.99 Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1). The contribution of dominant species i.
e., S. robusta (93.22%), P. roxburghii (94.53%), Q. lecutrichophora
(77.20%) and Q. lanuginosa (50.20%) in total stands C-sequestration was
estimated maximum for P. roxburghii (94.53%). The results reveals that
sub-tropical forest sequestrated higher carbon (average=4.58 Mg C ha− 1
yr− 1) as compared to temperate forest stands (4.23 Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1).
4. Discussion
Biomass and carbon stock are the significant quantitative attributes
of forest ecosystems, which are varied with the vegetation type, species
composition, girth class of individual trees, temperature, rainfall pattern
and altitude (Peichl and Arain, 2006; Gairola et al., 2011; Yam and
Tripathi, 2015; Pugh et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020). Our study indicates
that vegetation type, species composition and girth class of individual
trees species affects total biomass and carbon storage in a particular
forest ecosystem. Recently, in a study Motlagh et al. (2020) reported that

Table 5
Comparisons of tree density, Biomass, C-stock and sequestration rate of present and previous studies in the different Himalayan forests.
Forest stands Location/ Altitude Tree density (ind Biomass (Mg C-stock (MgC C-Sequestration (MgC Reference
District (m) ha¡1) ha¡1) ha¡1) ha¡1 yr¡1)

Sal forest Central Nainital 330 410–650 521.9–551.6 247.9–262.01 – Singh (2019)
Himalaya
Sal forest Central Nainital 300–330 433–652 555–582 216.16–275.45 6.87–8.0 Rana et al. (1989)
Himalaya
Tropical Moist Deciduous Dehradun 330 232 1280.79 577.77 – Kaushal and
forest Baishya, (2021
Bhabar-Dun Sal Forest Dehradun 710 557 566.17 258.22 – Kaushal and
Baishya (2021)
Moist Salforest Pauri Garhwal 350–460 445 259.01 119.05 – Sharma et al. (2010)
Dry Siwalik Sal Forest Pauri Garhwal 800–1100 387 180.81 83.17 – Sharma et al. (2010)
Moist Bhabhar Sal Forest Pauri Garhwal 450–600 462.5 346.48 159.38 – Sharma et al.(2010)
Sal forest Central Nainital 300–339 756 577.16 274.15 4.63 Present study
Himalaya
Pine forest, Central Almora 1300–1750 923 113–283 53.67–134.45 3.58–8.84 Chaturvedi and
Himalaya Singh (1987)
Pine forest, Central Nainital 1600 300–300 175.5–245.6 83.36–116.6 – Singh (2019)
Himalaya
Pine forest Kumaun Almora 1780–2120 1254 117.17±10.81 55.66±5.13 3.96±0.65 Gusain et al. (2015)
Himalaya
Sub-tropical Pine Forest Rudraprayag 1663 153 596.18 272.52 Kaushal and
Baishya (2021)
Himalayan P. roxburghii Pauri Garhwal 1500–1800 685 298.34 137.10 Sharma et al. (2010)
forest.
Pine forest Kumaun Nainital 1750–1850 1026–1675 103.23 51.61 4.38 Pant et al.(2013)
Himalaya
Chir-pine forest Garhwal Chamoli 1400–1600 650 169.2–442.7 77.8–203.7 – Sharma et al. (2010)
Himalaya
Pine forest central Nainital 1600 – 154–301 73–143 – Lal and Lodhyal
Himalaya (2016)
Pine forest Central Nainital 1750–1850 – 97.87–158.97 46.48–74.66 0.20–3.96 Pant and Tiwari,
Himalaya (2020)
Pine forest Central Nainital 1750–1950 650 285.27 135.50 4.83 Present study
Himalaya
Oak forest Central Nainital 1800 580 388 184.3 5.6 Rawat and Singh
Himalaya (1988)
Mixed -oak Central Nainital 2100 660 425 202 6.82 Rawat and Singh
Himalaya (1988)
Himalayan Moist Dehradun 2140 360 634.20 290.92 – Kaushal and
Temperate oak forest Baishya(2021)
Oak forest Garhwal Chamoli 171.8–228.3 77.3–102.8 – Sharma, (2010)
Himalaya
Oak forest Kumaun Almora 1780–2120 2798 187.22 89.87 2.64 Gusain et al.(2015)
Himalaya
Banj-oak forest Central Nainital 1800 317–319 149.01 – Singh (2019)
Himalaya
Oak forest Central Almora 1790–1930 390–1500 145–503 68.29–247.61 – Verma and Garkoti
Himalaya (2019)
Mixed oak forest Kumaun Nainital 1500–2100 910–1100 481.05- 568.99 228.5- 270.3 7.99- 9.96 Lal and Lodhyal
Himalaya (2016)
Oak forest Central Nainital 1750–1950 652 230.12 230.12 3.99 Present study
Himalaya
Mixed-Oak forest Central Nainital 2000–2250 884 227.23 107.94 4.47 Present study
Himalaya

5
V.C. Joshi et al.
species richness enhances the biomass and carbon stocks of a particular
forest. Tree species richness in the present study was recorded higher as
compared to the values reported by Singh and Singh (1992) for sub­
tropical forest stands of Central Himalaya, while it is similar with the
value reported for temperate forest stands by Gairola et al. (2011). The
value of tree density (652–884 ind. ha− 1) is comparable with the values
(473–840 tree ha− 1) reported in the previous studies from the central
Himalayan (Ralhan et al., 1982; Saxena and Singh, 1984; Rawat and
Singh, 1988; Ralhan et al., 1982; Kumar and Ram, 2005). However, the
tree density of subtropical Sal forest is higher as compared to the value
reported for different forest stands in previous studies (Sharma et al.,
2010 and Kaushal and Baishya, 2021). Further, the density of Chir-pine
forest is lower as compared to the value reported by Pant and Tiwari
(2013), and Gusain et al. (2015). Tree density in oak and mixed oak
forest is comparable with the values reported by Verma and Garkoti
(2019), however lower as comparison to Lal and Lodhyal (2016).
The value of biomass obtained is in the range of 227.23 Mg ha− 1 to
577.16 Mg ha− 1; these values are comparables with the values reported
for subtropical and temperate forest of Himalayan region in the previous
studies (Rana et al., 1989; Chaturvedi and Singh, 1987; Rawat and
Singh, 1988; Lal and Lodhyal, 2016; Singh, 2019). Higher tree density
and low anthropogenic pressure in the Sal forests is the main reason for
higher biomass in the present study. It is well reported that the biotic
disturbance in the forest strongly influenced biomass and carbon storage
in a particular forest (Mir et al., 2021). The result reveals that tree
biomass is depends on girth class of individuals in a particular forest
stand; trees with a higher girth class comprise the most of part in the
forest biomass (Lung and Espira., 2015; Sheil et al., 2017). Biomass was
recorded higher in Chir-pine stand as compared to previous studies
(Rana et al., 1989; Pant et al., 2013) is attributed to higher density of
tree individuals with higher basal area; it is well reported that large tree
contributed in biomass and carbon accumulation. However, a recent
study from Garhwal Himalaya (Kaushal and Baishya, 2021) reported
higher biomass (596.18 Mg ha− 1) as compared to present study (285.27
Mg ha− 1) due to higher species richness in the forest stands of Garhwal
Himalaya. Previous studies from the Himalayan region (Behera et al.,
2017; Kaushal and Ratul Baishya, 2021) and across globe (Con et al.
2013; Ruiz-Benito et al., 2014; Ouyang et al., 2016; Mensah et al. 2016)
also reported that the stand structure and species diversity regulate
biomass and carbon stock in different forest types. In case of oak and
mixed oak forests, tree biomass was recorded lower (227.23 and 230.12
Mg ha− 1) as compared to the value (317–634.20. Mg ha− 1) reported in
previous studies (Rawat and Singh, 1988; Rana et al., 1989; Negi et al.,
1983; Verma and Garkoti, 2019) due to distribution of lager individuals
in lower girth classes.
The variations in biomass is attributed to difference in biophysical
features, growing conditions, vegetation composition and level of
disturbance in a particular forests stands as also indicated in the previ­
ous studies (Lung and Espira, 2015; Joshi et al., 2021). Further, it is
observed that the oak forests in the Himalayan region and also in present
study are facing fairly high disturbances due to dependency of local
inhabitants on these forests for fuelwood, forage and leaf-litter etc.; the
harvesting of these resources resulted less biomass and carbon in these
forests stand. The value of carbon stock evaluated for pine forest is
comparable with the value reported in previous studies from the central
Himalaya (Chaturvedi and Singh, 1987; Rana et al., 1989; Sharma et al.,
2010; Singh 2019). Carbon stock in Oak forest was found similar to the
value (77.3–102.8 Mg ha− 1) reported by Sharma et al. (2011), and even
higher compared to previous studies in the Himalayan forest stands
(Sheikh and Kumar, 2010; Gusain et al., 2015). Lower value of carbon
stock in oak forest is attributed to anthropogenic pressure for resource
harvesting; this impacts stands structure and thus carbon storage.
Our study clearly demonstrated that subtropical forest consists of
significantly higher biomass and carbon stock as compared to temperate
forest stands. Further, our study found that biomass and carbon stock
declined with the increasing altitude; these findings are supported by the
6
Trees, Forests and People 6 (2021) 100147
previous studies (Leuschner et al., 2007; Moser et al., 2008; Zhu et al.,
2010). However, our findings didn’t support the findings of few previous
studies (Alves et al., 2010; Gairola et al., 2011) which reported that
forest biomass and carbon stocks increase with increasing altitude in the
Himalayan region. The proportion of above and below ground biomass
was observed 82% and 18% correspondingly; this is consistent to the
value reported for Indian forest i.e., 79% and 21% (Chhabra et al.,
2002). Dominant species contributed most of the part of total stand
biomass and carbon stock (70–82%) in pure Sal, Chir-pine and Banj-oak
stand. Further, it is also true that the contribution of dominant and
co-dominant species in the mixed forest varied depending on forest
composition; this is also supported by previous studies (Uykun, 2018;
Mensah et al., 2020; Kaushal and Baishya, 2021; Rai et al., 2021).
However, in the mixed oak stand both dominant (Q. lanuginosa) and
co-dominant (Q. floribunda) species contributed in equal proportion (44
and 43%) in the total carbon stock of the stand. It is well known that
carbon sequestration is closely associated to ecosystem sustainability,
and used as mitigation tool against climate change (Brienen et al., 2015;
Domke et al., 2020; Asbeck et al., 2021; Das et al., 2021). Present study
indicates that forest biomass, carbon stock, and sequestration is in­
creases with the age of forest stand (Clark et al., 2004; Wei et al., 2013;
Molina-Valero et al., 2021), and very with vegetation type (Wei et al.,
2013; Zhang et al., 2013).
It is interesting that pine forest sequestrates maximum carbon, and
Banj-oak stored minimum; this can be attributed to slow growing nature
of oak species compared to pine. It is well reported that the maximum
carbon allocation in the conifer woods (Chir-pine) followed by dicot
deciduous and evergreen species (Negi et al., 2003). The value of carbon
sequestration in our study is comparable to the value reported in pre­
vious studies (Pant and Tewari, 2013; Gusain et al., 2015) from different
forest stands in the Central Himalaya. It was observed that tree biomass
and carbon stock has significantly varied among tropical forest stand,
however it was not significantly varied among temperate forest stand.
Also, the carbon sequestration is not significantly varied among all forest
stands. A positive correlation was observed between biomass and carbon
stock, carbon stock and carbon sequestration.
5. Conclusion
Results in present study indicates variation in biomass and carbon
pool in subtropical and temperate forest stands due to variation in
vegetation composition, forest management practice, age of forest stand,
distribution of individuals in girth class and altitude. The biomass and
carbon stock was estimated higher for subtropical forest as compared to
temperate forest stands. However, there is no significant variation for
carbon sequestration among the forest stands. It is also found that
dominant species contributed most of the part of total stand biomass and
carbon stock. Further, our study found that biomass and carbon stock
declined with the increasing altitude in the mountain region. This study
also concluded that the Chir-pine forest has greater potential for carbon
sequestration as compared Banj-oak and mixed forests. Based on find­
ings of the study, assessing the biomass and carbon stocks is recom­
mended to prioritize tree species-specific land use practices, and to
ensure climate change mitigation.
Declarations
Funding
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC),
Govt. of India.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The authors do not have conflicts of interest
V.C. Joshi et al.
Availability of data and material (data transparency)
Not applied
Ethics approval (include appropriate approvals or waivers)
Not applied
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vinod C. Joshi: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Data curation. Vikram S. Negi: Methodology,
Writing – review & editing. Deepa Bisht: Investigation, Data curation.
R.C. Sundriyal: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Conceptu­
alization. Dhani Arya: Writing – review & editing.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to Director, G.B. Pant National Institute of
Himalayan Environment (NIHE) for providing necessary facilities.
Funding support by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change (MoEF & CC), Government of India (F. No. 14/222/2014-ERS/
RE) is greatly acknowledged. The authors are grateful to anonymous
reviewers for critical comments and suggestions, which help to improve
the manuscript.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100147.
References
Ali, A., Ashraf, M.I., Gulzar, S., Akmal, M., 2020. Estimation of forest carbon stocks in
temperate and subtropical mountain systems of Pakistan: implications for REDD+
and climate change mitigation. Monit. Assess. 192 (3), 1–13.
Alves, L.F., Vieira, S.A., Scaranello, M.A., Camargo, P.B., Santos, F.A., Joly, C.A.,
Martinelli, L.A., 2010. Forest structure and live aboveground biomass variation
along an elevational gradient of tropical Atlantic moist forest (Brazil). For. Ecol.
Manag. 260 (5), 679–691.
Asbeck, T., Sabatini, F., Augustynczik, A.L., Basile, M., Helbach, J., Jonker, M.,
Bauhus, J., 2021. Biodiversity response to forest management intensity, carbon
stocks and net primary production in temperate montane forests. Sci. Rep 11 (1),
1–11.
Atsbha, T., Desta, A.B., Zewdu, T., 2019. Carbon sequestration potential of natural
vegetation under grazing influence in Southern Tigray, Ethiopia: implication for
climate change mitigation. Heliyon 5 (8), e02329.
Basuki, T.M., Van Laake, P.E., Skidmore, A.K., Hussin, Y.A., 2009. Allometric equations
for estimating the above-ground biomass in tropical lowland Dipterocarp forests.
For. Ecol. Manage. 257 (8), 1684–1694.
Behera, S.K., Sahu, N., Mishra, A.K., Bargali, S.S., Behera, M.D., Tuli, R., 2017a.
Aboveground biomass and carbon stock assessment in Indian tropical deciduous
forest and relationship with stand structural attributes. Ecol Eng 99, 513–524.
Bordoloi, R., Das, B., Yam, G., Deka, S., Tripathi, O.P., 2019. Carbon stock assessment in
different land use sectors of Ziro valley, Arunachal Pradesh using geospatial
approach. J. Geomat. 13 (2), 262–270.
Bracki, D., 2019, March. Forests and climate change. In: Proceedings of Background
Study Prepared for the Fourteenth Session of the United Nations Forum on Forests.
... & Brienen, R.J., Phillips, O.L., Feldpausch, T.R., Gloor, E., Baker, T.R., Lloyd, J.,
Zagt, R.J., 2015. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519 (7543),
344–348.
Brown, S.L., Schroeder, P., Kern, J.S., 1999. Spatial distribution of biomass in forests of
the eastern USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 123 (1), 81–90.
Brown, S., Schroeder, P., Birdsey, R., 1997. Aboveground biomass distribution of US
eastern hardwood forests and the use of large trees as an indicator of forest
development. For. Ecol. Manag. 96 (1–2), 37–47.
Burman, P.K.D., Launiainen, S., Mukherjee, S., Chakraborty, S., Gogoi, N., Murkute, C.,
Kumar, K., 2021. Ecosystem-atmosphere carbon and water exchanges of subtropical
evergreen and deciduous forests in India. For. Ecol. Manag 495, 119371.
Chaturvedi, O.P., Singh, J.S., 1987. The structure and function of pine forest in Central
Himalaya. I. Dry matter dynamics. Ann. Bot. 60 (3), 237–252.
Chhabra, A., Palria, S., Dadhwal, V.K., 2002. Growing stock-based forest biomass in
Indian forests. Biomass Bioenergy 22, 187–194.
Clark, K.L., Gholz, H.L., Castro, M.S, 2004. Carbon dynamics along a chronosequence of
slash pine plantations in north Florida. Ecol. Appl. 14 (4), 1154–1171.
7
Trees, Forests and People 6 (2021) 100147
Dabi, H., Bordoloi, R., Das, B., Paul, A., Tripathi, O.P., Mishra, B.P., 2021. Biomass,
carbon stock and soil physicochemical properties in plantation of East Siang district.
Arunachal Pradesh, India. Environmental Challenges 4, 100191.
Dar, J.A., Rather, M.Y., Subashree, K., Sundarapandian, S., Khan, M.L., 2017.
Distribution patterns of tree, understorey, and detritus biomass in coniferous and
broad-leaved forests of Western Himalaya. India. J. Sust. For. 36, 787–805.
Das, B., Bordoloi, R., Deka, S., Paul, A., Pandey, P.K., Singha, L.B., Mishra, M., 2021.
Above ground biomass carbon assessment using field, satellite data and model based
integrated approach to predict the carbon sequestration potential of major land use
sector of Arunachal Himalaya. India. Carbon Manag. 12 (2), 201–214.
Domke, G.M., Oswalt, S.N., Walters, B.F., Morin, R.S., 2020. Tree planting has the
potential to increase carbon sequestration capacity of forests in the United States.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 117 (40), 24649–24651.
FAO and UNEP, 2020. The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and
people. Rome.
Favero, A., Daigneault, A., Sohngen, B., 2020. Forests: carbon sequestration, biomass
energy, or both? Sci. advan. 6 (13), eaay6792.
Gairola, S., Sharma, C.M., Ghildiyal, S.K., Suyal, S., 2011. Live tree biomass and carbon
variation along an altitudinal gradient in moist temperate valley slopes of the
Garhwal Himalaya (India). Curr. Sci. 1862–1870.
Goebes, P., Schmidt, K., Seitz, S., Both, S., Bruelheide, H., Erfmeier, A., Scholten, T.,
Kuhn, P., 2019. The strength of soil-plant interactions under forest is related to a.
Critical Soil Depth. Sci. rep. 9 (1), 1–12.
Gosain, B.G., Negi, G.C.S., Dhyani, P.P., Bargali, S.S., Saxena, R., 2015. Ecosystem
services of forests: carbon Stock in vegetation and soil components in a watershed of
Kumaun Himalaya. India. Int. J. Ecol. Envir. Sci. 41 (3–4), 177–188.
Jhariya, M.K., 2017. Vegetation ecology and carbon sequestration potential of shrubs in
tropics of Chhattisgarh. India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189, 518.
Jina, B.S., Sah, P., Bhatt, M.D., Rawat, Y.S., 2008. Estimating carbon sequestration rates
and total carbon stockpile in degraded and non-degraded sites of Oak and Pine forest
of Kumaun Central Himalaya. Ecoprint 15, 75–81.
Joshi, V.C., Sundriyal, R.C., Arya, D., 2021. Forest floor diversity, distribution and
biomass pattern of oak and Chir-pine forest in the Indian Western Himalaya. Ind. J.
Ecol. 48 (1), 232–237.
Kaushal, S., Baishya, R., 2021. Stand structure and species diversity regulate biomass
carbon stock under major Central Himalayan forest types of India. Ecol. Proc. 10 (1),
1–18.
Kindermann, G., Obersteiner, M., Sohngen, B., Sathaye, J., Andrasko, K.,
Rametsteiner, E., Beach, R., 2008. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon
emissions through avoided deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 105 (30),
10302–10307.
Kothandaraman, S., Dar, J.A., Sundarapandian, S., Dayanandan, S., Khan, M.L., 2020.
Ecosystem-level carbon storage and its links to diversity, structural and
environmental drivers in tropical forests of Western Ghats. India. Sci. rep. 10 (1),
1–15.
Kumar, A., Ram, J., 2005. Anthropogenic disturbances and plant biodiversity in forests of
Uttaranchal. Central Himalaya. Biodiver. Conserv. 14, 309–331.
Kuuluvainen, T., Gauthier, S., 2018. Young and old forest in the boreal: critical stages of
ecosystem dynamics and management under global change. For. Ecosyst. 5 (1),
1–15.
Lal, B., Lodhiyal, L.S., 2015. Vegetation structure, biomass and carbon content in Pinus
roxburghii Sarg. Dominant forests of Kumaun Himalaya. Int. J. Sci. & Tech. 10,
117–124.
Lal, B., Lodhiyal, L.S., 2016. Stand Structure, Productivity and Carbon Sequestration
Potential of Oak Dominated Forests in Kumaun Himalaya. Curr. Wor. Envir. 11 (2),
466.
Leuschner, C., Moser, G., Bertsch, C., Roderstein, M., Hertel, D., 2007. Large altitudinal
increase in tree root/shoot ratio in tropical mountain forests of Ecuador. Basic. Appl.
Ecol. 8 (3), 219–230.
Li, X., Yi, M.J., Son, Y., Park, P.S., Lee, K.H., Son, Y.M., Jeong, M.J., 2011. Biomass and
carbon storage in an age-sequence of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) plantation forests
in central Korea. J. Plant Bio. 54 (1), 33–42.
Liu, Z., Ciais, P., Deng, Z., et al., 2020. Near-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions
reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Commun. 11, 5172.
Lung, M., Espira, A., 2015. The influence of stand variables and human use on biomass
and carbon stocks of a transitional African forest: implications for forest carbon
projects. For. Ecol. Manag. 351, 36–46.
Magnussen, S., Reed, D., 2004. Modelling for Estimation and Monitoring FAO-IUFRO.
Rome.
Malhi, Y.A., Baldocchi, D.D., Jarvis, P.G., 1999. The carbon balance of tropical,
temperate and boreal forests. Plant. Cell. Environ. 22, 715–740.
& Matthew, N.K., Shuib, A., Muhammad, I.S.M.A.I.L., Eusop, M.E.M., Ramachandran, S.,
Afandi, S., Samdin, Z., 2018. Carbon stock and sequestration valuation in a mixed
dipterocarp forest of Malaysia. Sains Malays 47 (3), 447–455.
Mayer, M., Prescott, C.E., Abaker, W.E., Augusto, L., Cécillon, L., Ferreira, G.W., 2020.
Tamm Review: influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon
stocks: a knowledge synthesis. For. Ecol. Manag. 466, 118–127.
Mensah, S., Noulekoun, F., Ago, E.E., 2020. Aboveground tree carbon stocks in West
African semi-arid ecosystems: dominance patterns, size class allocation and
structural drivers. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 24, e01331.
Mensah, S., Veldtman, R., Assogbadjo, A.E., Glèlè Kakaï, R., Seifert, T., 2016. Tree
species diversity promotes aboveground carbon storage through functional diversity
and functional dominance. Ecol Evol 6 (20), 7546–7557.
Mir, A.H., Chaudhury, G., Barbhuyan, H.S.A., Sarma, K., Upadhaya, K., 2021. Impact of
disturbance on community structure, biomass and carbon stock in montane
evergreen forests of Meghalaya, northeast India. Carbon Manag 12 (2), 215–233.
V.C. Joshi et al.
Molina-Valero, J.A., Camarero, J.J., Alvarez-Gonzalez, J.G., Cerioni, M., Hevia, A.,
Sanchez-Salguero, R., Perez-Cruzado, C., 2021. Mature forests hold maximum live
biomass stocks. For. Ecol. Manag. 480, 118635.
Moser, G., Roderstein, M., Soethe, N., Hertel, D., Leuschner, C., 2008. Altitudinal changes
in stand structure and biomass allocation of tropical mountain forests in relation to
microclimate and soil chemistry. Gradients in a Tropical Mountain Ecosystem of
Ecuador, Ecol. Studies. 198, 229–242.
Motlagh, M.G., Kafaky, S.B., Mataji, A., Akhavan, R., Amraei, B., 2020. An introduction
to the distribution of carbon stocks in temperate broadleaf forests of northern Iran.
J. For. Sci. 66 (2), 70–79.
Mueller -Dombois, E., Ellenberg, H., 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology.
John Wiley & Sons, New York & London.
Navar, J., 2009. Allometric equations for tree species and carbon stocks for forests of
north-western Mexico. For. Ecol. Manage. 257 (2), 427–434.
Negi, G.C.S., Rawal, R.S., Dhyani, P.P., Palni, L.M.S., 2012. Twenty Priority Issues for
Forestry Research with Particular Reference to Indian Himalayan Region in the rio+
20 era. Glimpses of forestry research in the Indian Himalayan Region, 1.
Negi, J.D.S., Manhas, R.K., Chauhan, P.S., 2003. Carbon allocation in different
components of some tree species of India: a new approach for carbon estimation.
Curr Sci 85 (11), 1528–1531.
Negi, K.S., Rawat, Y.S., Singh, J.S., 1983. Estimation of biomass and nutrient storage in a
Himalayan moist temperate forest. Can. J. For. Res. 13 (6), 1185–1196.
Negi, V.S., Joshi, B.C., Pathak, R., Rawal, R.S., Sekar, K.C., 2018. Assessment of fuelwood
diversity and consumption patterns in cold desert part of Indian Himalaya,
implication for conservation and quality of life. J Clean Prod 196, 23–30.
Negi, V.S., Pathak, R., Rawal, R.S., Bhatt, I.D., Sharma, S., 2019. Long-term ecological
monitoring on forest ecosystems in Indian Himalayan Region, Criteria and indicator
approach. Ecol Indic 102, 374–381.
Ouyang, S., Xiang, W., Wang, X., Zeng, Y., Lei, P., Deng, X., Peng, C., 2016. Significant
effects of biodiversity on forest biomass during the succession of subtropical forest in
south China. For. Ecol. Manage. 372, 291–302.
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P., Kurz, W.A., Large, A., 2011.
Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Wildl. Res. 8.
Pant, H., Tewari, A., 2013. Carbon sequestration potential of Chir Pine (Pinus roxburghii.
Sarg) forest on two contrasting aspects in Kumaun Central Himalaya between 1650
and 1860 m elevation. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 1 (6), 110–112.
Pant, H., Tewari, A., 2020. Green Sequestration Potential of Chir Pine Forests Located in
Kumaun Himalaya. Forest Products Journal 70 (1), 64–71.
Peichl, M., Arain, M.A., 2006. Above-and belowground ecosystem biomass and carbon
pools in an age-sequence of temperate pine plantation forests. Agr. For. Meteor. 140
(1–4), 51–63.
Poorter, L., Van Der Sande, M.T., Thompson, J., Arets, E.J.M.M., Alarcón, A., Álvarez-
Sánchez, J., Stropp, 2015. Diversity enhances carbon storage in tropical forests.
Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 1314–1328.
Popkin, G., 2019. How much can forest fight climate change? Nature 565 (7737),
280–283.
Pugh, T.A., Lindeskog, M., Smith, B., Poulter, B., Arneth, A., Haverd, V., Calle, L., 2019.
Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116
(10), 4382–4387.
Raha, D., Dar, J.A., Pandey, P.K., Lone, P.A., Verma, S., Khare, P.K., Khan, M.L., 2020.
Variation in tree biomass and carbon stocks in three tropical dry deciduous forest
types of Madhya Pradesh. India. Carbon Manag. 11 (2), 109–120.
Rai, P., Shukla, G., Manohar, K., Bhat, J.A., Kumar, A., Kumar, M., Chakravarty, S., 2021.
Carbon storage of single tree and mixed tree dominant species stands in a reserve
forest—Case study of the Eastern Sub-Himalayan Region of India. Land. 10 (4), 435.
Ralhan, P.K., Saxena, A.K., Singh, J.S., 1982. Analysis of forest vegetation at and around
Naini Tal in Kumaun Himalaya. Proc. Ind. Nat. Sci. Acad.-Part B: Biological Sciences
48 (1), 121–137.
Rana, B.S., Singh, S.P., Singh, R.P., 1989. Biomass and net primary productivity in
Central Himalayan forests along an altitudinal gradient. For. Ecol. Manag. 27 (3–4),
199–218.
Ravindranath, N.H., Somashekhar, B.S., Gadgil, M., 1997. ‘Carbon flows in Indian
forests. Climatic Change 35, 297–320.
Rawat, Y.S., Singh, J.S., 1988. Structure and function of oak forests in central Himalaya.
I. Dry matter dynamics. Ann. Bot. 62 (4), 397–411.
Ruiz-Benito, P., Gómez-Aparicio, L., Paquette, A., Messier, C., Kattge, J., Zavala, M.A.,
2014. Diversity increases carbon storage and tree productivity in S panish forests.
Global Ecology and Biogeography 23 (3), 311–322.
Trees, Forests and People 6 (2021) 100147
Saatchi, S.S., Harris, N.L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E.T., Salas, W., Morel, A.,
2011. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three
continents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA. 108 (24), 9899–9904.
Sahu, S.C., Kumar, M., Ravindranath, N.H., 2016. Carbon stocks in natural and planted
mangrove forests of Mahanadi Mangrove Wetland. East Coast of India. Curr. Sci.
2253–2260.
Saxena, A.K., Singh, J., 1984. Tree population structure of certain Himalayan forest
associations and implications concerning their future composition. Vegetatio 58 (2),
61–69.
Semwal, R., Tewari, A., Negi, G.C., Thadani, R., Phartiyal, P., 2007. Valuation of
Ecosystem Services and Forest governance: a Scoping Study from Uttarakhand. LEAD
India, New Delhi.
Shanin, V., Komarov, A., Makipaa, R., 2014. Tree species composition affects
productivity and carbon dynamics of different site types in boreal forests. Eur. J.
Forest. Res. 133, 273–286.
Sharma, C.M., Baduni, N.P., Gairola, S., Ghildiyal, S.K., Suyal, S., 2010. Tree diversity
and carbon stocks of some major forest types of Garhwal Himalaya. India. For. Ecol.
Manag. 260 (12), 2170–2179.
Sharma, C.M., Gairola, S., Baduni, N.P., Ghildiyal, S.K., Suyal, S., 2011. Variation in
carbon stocks on different slope aspects in seven major forest types of temperate
region of Garhwal Himalaya. India. J. Biosci. 36 (4), 701–708.
Sheikh, M.A., Kumar, M., 2010. Nutrient status and economic analysis of soils in oak and
pine forests in Garhwal Himalaya. Quercus 1 (1), 1600–1800.
Sheil, D., Eastaugh, C.S., Vlam, M., Zuidema, P.A., Groenendijk, P., van der Sleen, P.,
Vanclay, J., 2017. Does biomass growth increase in the largest trees? Flaws, fallacies
and alternative analyses. Function Ecol. 31 (3), 568–581.
Singh, J.S., Singh, S.P., 1992. Forest of Himalaya, Structure, Functioning and impact of
Man. Gyanodaya Prakashan Nainital, India.
Singh, P., 2019. Climate change response on tree phenology of major tree species in the
central Himalaya. Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Kumoun University, Nainital,
Uttarakhand (India). Kumaun University Nainital.
Srinivas, K., Sundarapandian, S., 2019. Biomass and carbon stocks of trees in tropical dry
forest of East Godavari region, Andhra Pradesh, India. Geol. Ecol. Lands 3 (2),
114–122.
Streck, C., Scholz, S.M., 2006. The role of forests in global climate change: whence we
come and where we go. Inter Affar 82 (5), 861–879.
Sullivan, M.J., Talbot, J., Lewis, S.L., Phillips, O.L., Qie, L., Begne, S.K., Zemagho, L.,
2017. Diversity and carbon storage across the tropical forest biome. Sci. Rep. 7 (1),
1–12.
Tolangay, D., Moktan, S., 2020. Trend of studies on carbon sequestration dynamics in the
Himalaya hotspot region: A review. Journal of Applied and Natural Science 12 (4),
647–660.
UNFCCC, 2014. UNFCCC detailed annual report. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014.
Uykun, C., 2018. Doctoral dissertation. Michigan Technological University.
Valdiya, K.S., 1980. Geology of Kumaun Lesser Himalaya. Wadia Institute of Himalayan
Geology, Dehradun, India.
Van Con, T., Thang, N.T., Khiem, C.C., Quy, T.H., Lam, V.T., Van Do, T., Sato, T., 2013.
Relationship between aboveground biomass and measures of structure and species
diversity in tropical forests of Vietnam. For. Ecol. Manage. 310, 213–218.
Verma, A.K., Garkoti, S.C., 2019. Population structure, soil characteristics and carbon
stock of the regenerating banj oak forests in Almora, Central Himalaya. For. Sci.
Tech. 15 (3), 117–127.
Wei, Y., Li, M., Chen, H., Lewis, B.J., Yu, D., Zhou, L., Dai, L., 2013. Variation in carbon
storage and its distribution by stand age and forest type in boreal and temperate
forests in northeastern China. PLoS ONE 8 (8), e72201.
Yam, G., Tripathi, O.P., 2015. Floristic diversity, community characteristics and above
biomass of woody species in subtropical forests of Ziro valley, Arunachal Pradesh.
Ind. For. 141 (12), 1269–1277.
Yam, G., Tripathi, O.P., Das, D.N., 2021. Modelling of total soil carbon using readily
available soil variables in temperate forest of Eastern Himalaya, Northeast India.
Geol., Ecol. Land. 5 (3), 209–216.
Zhang, Y., Gu, F., Liu, S., Liu, Y., Li, C., 2013. Variations of carbon stock with forest types
in subalpine region of southwestern China. For. Ecol. Manag. 300, 88–95.
Zhao, J., Kang, F., Wang, L., Yu, X., Zhao, W., Song, X., Han, H., 2014. Patterns of
biomass and carbon distribution across a chrono sequence of Chinese pine (Pinus
tabulaeformis) forests. PLoS ONE 9 (4), e94966.
Zhu, J.Y., Pan, X., Zalesny, R.S., 2010. Pretreatment of woody biomass for biofuel
production: energy efficiency, technologies, and recalcitrance. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol 87 (3), 847–857.