• google scholor
  • Views: 2505

  • PDF Downloads: 408

Stand Structure, Productivity and Carbon Sequestration Potential of Oak Dominated Forests in Kumaun Himalaya

Bijendra Lal1 and L.S. Lodhiyal1 *

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CWE.11.2.15

Present study deals with stand structure, biomass, productivity and carbon sequestration in oak dominated forests mixed with other broad leaved tree species. The sites of studied forests were located in Nainital region between 29058 N lat. and 79028’ E long at 1500-2150 m elevation. Tree density of forests ranged from 980-1100 ind.ha-1. Of this, oak trees shared 69-97%. The basal area of trees was 31.81 to 63.93 m2 ha-1. R. arboreum and Q. floribunda shared maximum basal area 16.45 and 16.32 m2 ha-1, respectively in forest site-1 and 2 while Quercus leucotrichophora shared maximum (35.69 m2 ha-1) in site-3. The biomass and primary productivity of tree species ranged from 481-569 t ha-1 and 16.9-20.9 t ha-1yr-1, respectively. Of this, biomass and primary productivity of oak tree species accounted for 81 to 95 and 78 to 98%, respectively. Carbon stock and carbon sequestration ranged from 228 to 270 t ha-1 and 8.0 to 9.9 t ha-1yr-1, respectively. The share of oak tree species ranged from 81 to 94.7 and 79 to 97%, respectively. The diversity of tree species ranged from 0.03 to 0.16 in forest sites-1, 2 and 3. The diversity of oak species was 0.08-0.16 in all the forest sites. Thus it is concluded that among the oak tree species, Quercus floribunda and Quercus leucotrichophora were highly dominated in the studied forests. The climax form of oak dominated trees in the studied forest sites depicted slightly lower richness and diversity of tree species compared to the forests in the region and elsewhere. As far as dry matter and carbon of forests is concerned, these estimates are close to the earlier reports of forests in the region. Therefore, studied forests have the potential to increase the diversity, productivity and carbon sequestration of forest tree species by providing the adequate scientific conservation and management inputs.


Vegetation Analysis; Biomass; Productivity; Carbon; Sequestration; Kumaun Himalaya

Copy the following to cite this article:

Lal B, Lodhiyal L. S. Stand Structure, Productivity and Carbon Sequestration Potential of Oak Dominated Forests in Kumaun Himalaya. Curr World Environ 2016;11(2) DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CWE.11.2.15

Copy the following to cite this URL:

Lal B, Lodhiyal L. S. Stand Structure, Productivity and Carbon Sequestration Potential of Oak Dominated Forests in Kumaun Himalaya . Curr World Environ 2016;11(2). Available from: http://www.cwejournal.org/?p=14317


Download article (pdf)
Citation Manager
Publish History


Article Publishing History

Received: 2016-06-04
Accepted: 2016-07-08

Introduction

Stand structure significantly determines the aspects of dry matter productivity and carbon potential of forest in each site. However, the productivity of forests not only depends on stand structure and composition of forest but also impacted by several other factors such as climate, soil condition, availability of moisture, and conservation and management practices. In this regard, forest vegetation of any climatic and edaphic condition varies with the variation in environment of the habitat. As far as the Himalayan forest vegetation is concerned, it ranges from tropical dry deciduous forests in foothills to temperate forest in the high altitude. In the region, Oak and Pine are the dominated forest tree species, which provide fuel, fodder, and other basic needs to the villagers. Forest is one of the main sources of livelihood of people living in the region. Thus the Himalayan moist temperate forest is one the major forest type that characterized by extensive cover of trees belonging to conifers and broad leaved oak and other species in the forests which extends from 1500 to 3000 m elevation in Central Himalaya. Among the broad-leaved tree species, the three major oaks such as Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus, Quercus floribunda Lindl. Quercus semecarpifolia Smith. and are found between 1600m and 2500m altitudes.1,2 According to Champion and Seth, oaks represent the climax vegetation which falls under sub-type 12/C1a.3 In forest, a large number of there are many other plant species but they vary from one forest to another forest and also changes significantly with in altitude and climate of the area. Thus species diversity is considered as a spatial form of textural diversity and treated both in structure and dynamics of the plant community.4 The comparative analysis of species is based on species abundance models with associated diversity indices that provide valuable information of diversity in a forest community.5 Status of biomass in the forests depicts the important ecological information especially in relation to dry matter storage and nutrients but every forest type has its own characteristics in the ecosystem. Biomass is a not only important from the standpoint of fundamental ecology but also relevant to planning for ecologically sustained development of the region.6 Thus the estimation of biomass is prerequisite for determining the state and flux for understanding the dynamics of ecosystem.7, 8 Most of the terrestrial carbon is stored in the tree trunk, branches, foliage and roots in the formed of the biomass in forest. Terrestrial vegetation and soil represent important sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon.9 In nature, forest ecosystem act as a reservoir of carbon. They store huge quantities of carbon and regulate the carbon cycle by exchange of CO2 from the atmosphere. Thus forest is one of the important carbon sinks of the terrestrial ecosystems. Plant uptakes the carbon dioxide by the process of photosynthesis and stores the carbon in the plant tissues. The forest play important role in the global carbon cycle by sequestering a substantial amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration is a mechanism for the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by storing it in the biosphere. More photosynthesis means the more CO2 is being converted into biomass, reducing carbon in the atmosphere and sequestering it in the plant tissues both in the aboveground and below ground.10 The objectives of the study were to assess the tree density, diversity, biomass, productivity and carbon potential of forests in Nainital of Kumaun Himalaya.

Materials and Methods

Description of Study Site

The present studied forest sites were located in Tippintop the surrounding area of Nainital in between 29058 N lat. and 79028’ E long and 1500 and 2150m elevation. Tree analysis was carried out at three forest sites i.e. site-1, 2 and 3. The assessment of tree species was done by using quadrat of 10 x10m size. Total 30 quadrats were randomly placed in each forest to analyse the tree vegetation. In each quadrat, tree species were measured at 1.37m (diameter at breast height) with the help of meter tape from ground level. Tree density, abundance, basal area and IVI of trees were estimated in each forest.11 Species diversity of vegetation in each studied forest was calculated by using Shannon-Weiner information index.12 For the estimation of tree biomass, we used the allometric equation developed by Rawat and Singh for oak mixed forest.8 The total biomass determine by summing up the respective component values of each tree species occurred in each site. The regression equation was used in the form y=a+b Inx, where y=dry weight of component (kg), x=GBH (cm), a=intercept, b= slope or regression coefficient and ln=log natural. The estimation of primary productivity, tree species was marked at breast height (1.37m) in each sample plot (the area 1 ha size) in each forest to assess diameter and height increment. The already of marked trees were re-measured for annual increment of diameter and height in each forest. The productivity of different tree components i.e. bole, branch, twig and leaf in aboveground part and stump root, lateral roots and fine roots in belowground part was assessed by using the regression equations. The net biomass accretion value (DB) for each component was estimated following the value of biomasses B1 and B2. Carbon stock and carbon sequestration values were estimated as suggested by Magnussen and Reed based on biomass, productivity and factor to get the carbon values of respective component.13 The total carbon was estimated by summing up of carbon value of each tree component.

Results

Tree Composition

Total 8 tree species were present in forest site-1. The density of trees was 1010 ind.ha-1. Of this, Q. floribunda (320 ind. ha-1) followed by Q. semecarpifolia (250 ind.ha-1), in forest site -1, total basal area was 63.93 m2 ha-1. Of this, maximum basal area accounted for R. arboreum (16.45) followed by Q. floribunda (16.32 m2 ha-1). Thus, the Q. floribunda is the most importance tree species in this forest community. The tree species diversity ranged from 0.112 to 0.525 in the studied forests (Table 1).

Total 4 tree species were present in forest site-2. The density of trees was 1100 ind.ha-1. Of this, Q. floribunda (680 ind.ha-1) followed by Q. semecarpifolia (320 ind.ha-1) in forest site-2, total basal area was 31.81 m2ha-1. Of this, maximum basal area accounted for Q. floribunda (12.24 m2 ha-1) followed by Q. semecarpifolia (12.24 m2 ha-1). Thus the Q. floribunda is the most importance tree species in this forest community. The tree species diversity ranged from 0.177 to 0.518 in the studied forests (Table 1).

Total 4 tree species were present in forest site-3. The density of trees was 980 ind.ha-1. Of this, Q. leucotrichophora (430 ind.ha-1) followed by Q. floribunda (270 ind.ha-1) in forest site-3, total basal area was 59.97 m2 ha-1. Of this, maximum basal area accounted for Q. leucotrichophora (35.69 m2 ha-1) followed by Q. floribunda (11.34 m2 ha-1). Thus the Q. leucotrichophora is the most importance tree species in this forest community. The tree species diversity ranged from 0.247 to 0.0521  in the studied forests (Table 1).

Table 1: Tree species analysis in Oak dominated forests in the surrounding area of Nainital in Kumaun Himalaya.

Name of tree species

Site-1

Site-2

Site-3

D

BA

H '

D

BA

H '

D

BA

H '

Q. leucotrichophora

130

5.46

0.381

70

5.88

0.253

430

35.69

0.521

Q. floribunda

320

16.32

0.525

680

12.24

0.429

270

11.34

0.512

Q. semecarpifolia

250

14.0

0.499

320

10.24

0.518

220

8.8

0.484

R. arboreum.

70

16.45

0.267

-

-

-

-

-

-

C. deodara

120

9.12

0.365

-

-

-

-

-

-

M. duthiei

20

0.26

0.112

30

3.45

0.177

-

-

-

L. umbrosa

30

0.78

0.151

-

-

-

-

-

-

M. esculenta

70

1.54

0.267

-

-

-

60

4.14

0.247

A. oblongum

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

1010

63.93

2.57

1100

31.81

1.38

980

59.97

1.76

Note: D= Density, TBA=Total Basal Area, IVI=Important Value Index, H '=Species diversity

Biomass

The total forest biomass was 525.1 t ha-1 in forest site-1. Of this, Q. floribunda accounted for 44.2% followed by Q. semecarpifolia (25.6%) (Table 2). Of the total biomass, bole, branches, twigs, leaves, and roots account for 41.8, 23.2, 10.3, 10.3 and 14.3%, respectively (Table 2). Among the tree species, different components such as bole, branches, twigs, leaves and accounted for 34.9-65.7, 12.6-29.4, 4.6-11.9 and 3.1-17.1, respectively. The biomass of roots in different tree species shared 9.2-28.5, respectively (Table 2). The total forest biomass was 481.0 t ha-1 in forest site-2. of this, Q. floribunda contributed 54.2% followed by Q. semecarpifolia (28.2%) (Table 2). Of the total biomass, bole, branches, twigs, leaves, and roots account for 38.8, 24.0, 11.0, 11.5 and 14.7%, respectively (Table 2). Among the tree species, different components such as bole, branches, twigs and leaves accounted for 32.9-50.9, 20.9-30.3, 8.8-11.7 and 2.5-16.9, respectively. The biomass of roots in different tree species shared 7.5-17.6, respectively (Table 2).Total forest tree biomass was 569.0 t ha-1 in the forest site-3. Of this, Q. leucotrichophora contributed (46.9%) followed by Q. floribunda (30.6%) (Table 2). Of the total biomass, bole, branches, twigs, leaves, and roots accounted for 43.3, 26.4, 10.5, 8.0 and 11.9 % respectively (Table 2). Among the tree species, different components such as bole, branches, twigs and leaves accounted for 34.8-49.0, 21.0-29.7, 9.8-113 and 2.9-17.0, respectively. The biomass of roots in different tree species shared 8.5-15.8, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2:  Component -wise tree biomass (t ha-1) in Oak dominated forests in the surrounding area of Nainital in Kumaun Himalaya.

Name  of  Species

Bole

Branches

Twigs

Leaves

Roots*

Total

Forest site-1

Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus

30.32

(48.0)

18.59

(29.4)

6.58

(10.4)

1.94

(3.1)

5.79

(9.2)

63.22

(12.1)

Quercus  floribunda Lindl.

80.79

(34.9)

48.74

(21.1)

26.1

(11.3)

39.46

(17.1)

36.2

(15.7)

231.29

(44.2)

Quercus  semecarpifolia Smith.

58.82

(44.0)

36

(26.9)

14

(10.5)

8.18

(6.1)

16.79

(12.5)

133.79

(25.6)

Rhododendron arboreum Smith.

4.21

(35.3)

2.78

(23.3)

1.06

(8.9)

0.47

(3.9)

3.4

(28.5)

11.92

(2.3)

Cedrus deodara Loud.

29.5

(65.7)

5.67

(12.6)

2.06

(4.6)

1.43

(3.2)

6.25

(13.9)

44.91

(8.6)

Machilus duthiei King.

2.36

(40.1)

1.53

(26.0)

0.7

(11.9)

0.41

(7.0)

0.88

(15.0)

5.88

(1.1)

Litsea umbrosa Nees.

4.13

(40.2)

2.63

(25.6)

1.15

(11.2)

0.67

(6.5)

1.69

(16.5)

10.29

(2.0)

Myrica esculenta  Buch- Ham. ex D. Don

8.9

(40.0)

5.68

(25.5)

2.52

(11.3)

1.46

(6.6)

3.71

(16.7)

22.27

(4.3)

Total

219.03

(41.8)

121.62

(23.2)

54.17

(10.3)

54.02

(10.3)

74.71

(14.3)

525.05

(100)

Forest site-2

Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus

29.90

(50.9)

17.76

(30.3)

5.15

(8.8)

1.49

(2.5)

4.40

(7.5)

58.69

(12.2)

Quercus floribunda Lindl.

85.68

(32.9)

54.55

(20.9)

30.53

(11.7)

44.07

(16.9)

45.90

(17.6)

260.74

(54.2)

Quercus semecarpifolia Smith.

59.03

(43.4)

36.32

(26.7)

14.52

(10.7)

8.47

(6.2)

17.60

(12.9)

135.94

(28.3)

Machilus duthiei King.

11.84

(46.1)

7.02

(27.3)

2.48

(9.6)

1.45

(5.7)

2.89

(11.3)

25.68

(5.3)

Total

186.45

(38.8)

115.66

(24.0)

52.68

(11.0)

55.48

(11.5)

70.79

(14.7)

481.05

(100)

Forest site-3

Quercus  leucotrichophora A. Camus

130.77

(49.0)

79.34

(29.7)

26.18

(9.8)

7.65

(2.9)

22.75

(8.5)

266.69

(46.9)

Quercus floribunda Lindl.

60.57

(34.8)

36.62

(21.0)

19.67

(11.3)

29.66

(17.0)

27.53

(15.8)

174.05

(30.6)

Quercus semecarpifolia Smith.

39.99

(43.0)

24.80

(26.7)

10.07

(10.8)

5.87

(6.3)

12.23

(13.2)

92.96

(16.3)

Acer oblongum Wall.

15.14

(42.9)

9.29

(26.3)

3.61

(10.2)

2.11

(6.0)

5.14

(14.6)

35.29

(6.2)

Total

246.48

(43.3)

150.04

(26.4)

59.53

(10.5)

45.30

(8.0)

67.65

(11.9)

568.99

(100)

Note: * Roots component includes stump root (3.8 %), lateral roots (1.4-6.7 %) and fine roots (0.1-1.2%) in forest site-1 , stump root (3.2-14.8 %), lateral roots (1.3-4.0 %) and fine roots (0.1-0.3%) in forest site-2,  stump root (4.6-23.4 %), lateral roots (0.5-12.1 %) and fine roots (0.04-1.1 %) forest site-3.

Primary productivity

Total primary productivity was 16.9 t ha-1yr-1 in forest site-1.  Of this, Q. floribunda accounted for 7.7 t ha-1yr-1 followed by Q. semecarpifolia (3.4 t ha-1yr-1) (Table 3).  Among the tree species, different components of trees, the primary productivity was in order: bole (45.7%)> branches (24.1%)> roots (including stump roots, lateral roots and fine roots) (11.4 %)>foliage (10.1 %)> twigs (9.2 %), respectively (Table 3). Total productivity was 20.9 t ha-1yr-1 in forest site-2. Of this, Q. floribunda accounted for 14.8 t ha-1yr-1 followed by Q. semecarpifolia (4.2 t ha-1yr-1) (Table 3). Among the different components of tree productivity was in order: bole (39.7%)> branches (32.2%)> foliage (13.6%)> roots (13.1%)>   twigs (10.4%), respectively (Table 3). Total productivity was 19.1 t ha-1yr-1 in forest site-3. Of this, Q. floribunda accounted for 7.2 t ha-1yr-1 followed by Q. leucotrichophora (7.3 t ha-1yr-1) (Table 3). Among the different components of tree productivity was in order: bole (46%)> branches (26.5%)> roots (10.0%) >twigs (9.0%) >foliage (8.6%), respectively (Table 3).

Table 3: Component-wise tree productivity (t ha-1 yr-1) of Oak dominated forests site.

Name of species

Bole

Branches

Twigs

Leaves

Roots*

Total

Forest site-1

Q. leucotrichophora

1.16 (52.0)

0.69 (30.9)

0.18 (8.2)

0.05 (2.3)

0.15 (6.7)

2.24 (100)

Q. floribunda

2.93 (38.1)

1.64 (21.3)

0.80 (10.5)

1.33 (17.3)

0.98 (12.8)

7.69 (100)

Q. semecarpifolia

1.62 (47.9)

0.95 (28.2)

0.30 (8.9)

0.17 (5.1)

0.33 (9.9)

3.38 (100)

R. arboreum

0.08 (36.0)

0.05 (20.9)

0.01 (5.2)

0.002 (1.0)

0.08 (36.9)

0.22 (100)

C. deodar

0.85 (87.2)

0.10 (9.8)

0.02 (2.2)

0.01 (1.3)

0.09 (8.6)

1.07 (100)

M. duthiei

0.12 (45.6)

0.07 (27.2)

0.03 (9.8)

0.02 (5.8)

0.03 (11.5)

0.27 (100)

L. umbrosa

0.35 (45.7)

0.21 (27.1)

0.07 (9.5)

0.04 (5.6)

0.09 (12.2)

0.78 (100)

M. esculenta

0.57 (45.2)

0.34 (27.1)

0.12 (9.4)

0.07 (5.6)

0.16 (12.8)

1.27 (100)

Total

7.69 (45.7)

4.05 (24.1)

1.54 (9.2)

1.70 (10.1)

1.93 (11.4)

16.91 (100)

Forest site-2

Q. leucotrichophora

0.71 (53.7)

0.41 (30.7)

0.10 (7.2)

0.03 (2.1)

0.08 (6.3)

1.33 (100)

Q. floribunda

5.37 (36.1)

3.15 (21.2)

1.66 (11.1)

2.55 (17.1)

2.16 (14.5)

14.88 (100)

Q. semecarpifolia

1.98 (47.1)

1.16 (27.6)

0.39 (9.2)

0.23 (5.6)

0.44 (10.6)

4.20 (100)

M. duthiei

0.22 (50.3)

0.13 (29.5)

0.03 (7.3)

0.02 (4.5)

0.04 (8.4)

0.43 (100)

Total

8.28 (39.7)

4.84 (23.2)

2.17 (10.4)

2.83 (13.6)

2.72 (13.1)

20.85 (100)

Forest site-3

Q. leucotrichophora

3.74 (53.3)

2.18 (31.0)

0.52 (7.4)

0.15 (2.1)

0.43 (6.2)

7.03 (100)

Q. floribunda

2.68 (37.4)

1.53 (21.4)

0.77 (10.7)

1.23 (17.2)

0.96 (13.3)

7.16 (100)

Q. semecarpifolia

1.73 (47.9)

0.99 (27.5)

0.33 (9.0)

0.19 (5.3)

0.37 (10.2)

3.61 (100)

A. oblongum

0.62 (48.3)

0.35 (27.5)

0.11 (8.3)

0.06 (5.0)

0.14 (10.9)

1.28 (100)

Total

8.77 (46.0)

5.06 (26.5)

1.72 (9.0)

1.63 (8.6)

1.90 (9.9)

19.07 (100)

Note: * Roots component includes stump root (3-11.4%), lateral roots (1.2-9.3%) and fine roots (0.1-0.9%) in forest site-1, stump root (3.0-12.5%), lateral roots (1.0-2.9%) and fine roots (0.1-0.4%) in forest site-2,  stump root (2.7-11.5%), lateral roots (1.1-3.2%) and fine roots (0.1-0.2%) forest site-3.

Carbon Stock

Total carbon stock of tree species was 249.1 t ha-1 in forest site-1. Of this, Q. floribunda contributed 44% followed by Q. semecarpifolia (25.5%) (Table  4). Of the total carbon stock, bole, branches, twigs, leaves, and roots account for 41.8, 23.2, 10.3, 10.3 and 14.3%, respectively (Table 4). Among the tree species, different components such as bole, branches, twigs, leaves accounted for 35.3-65.0, 12.7-29.0, 4.7-11.9 and 3.1-17.7%, respectively. The carbon stock of roots in different tree species shared 9.2-28.6, respectively (Table 4). Total tree carbon stock was 228 t ha-1 in forest site-2. Of this, Q. floribunda contributed 54.2% followed by Q. semecarpifolia (28.3%). The component- wise carbon stock of different tree species is given in (Table 4). Of the total carbon stock, bole, branches, twigs, leaves and roots accounted for 38.8, 24.0, 11.0, 11.5 and 14.7%, respectively (Table 4). Among the tree species, different components such as bole, branches, twigs and leaves accounted for 32.9-50.9, 20.9-30.2, 8.8-11.7 and 2.5-16.6, respectively. The carbon stock of roots in different tree species shared 7.5-17.6, respectively (Table 4). Total carbon stock of tree species was 270 t ha-1  in forest site-3. Of this, Q. leucotrichophora contributed 46.9% followed by Q. floribunda (30.6%) is given in (Table 4). Of the total carbon stock, bole, branches, twigs, leaves and roots accounted for 43.3, 26.4, 10.5, 8.0 and 11.9%, respectively (Table 4). Among the tree species, different components such as bole, branches, twigs and leaves accounted for 34.8-49.0, 21.0-29.7, 9.8-113 and 2.9-17.0, respectively. The carbon stock of roots in different tree species shared 8.5-15.8, respectively (Table 4).

Table 4: Component-wise carbon stock (t ha-1) in Oak dominated forests site.

Name of Species

Bole

Branches

Twigs

Leaves

Roots*

Total

Forest site-1

Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus

14.40

(48.0)

8.83

(29.4)

3.12

(10.4)

0.92

(3.1)

2.75

(9.2)

30.02

(12.0)

Quercus floribunda Lindl.

38.38

(34.9)

23.15

(21.1)

12.40

(11.3)

18.74

(17.1)

17.20

(15.7)

109.87

(43.8)

Quercus semecarpifolia Smith.

27.94

(44.0)

17.10

(26.9)

6.65

(10.5)

3.89

(6.1)

7.98

(12.5)

63.56

(25.3)

Rhododendron arboreum Smith.

2.00

(35.3)

1.32

(23.3)

0.51

(8.9)

0.22

(3.9)

1.62

(28.6)

5.67

(2.3)

Cedrus deodara Loud.

14.34

(65.0)

2.80

(12.7)

1.05

(4.7)

0.73

(3.3)

3.13

(14.2)

22.05

(8.8)

Machilus duthiei King.

1.12

(40.2)

0.73

(26.1)

0.33

(11.9)

0.19

(6.9)

0.42

(15.1)

2.79

(1.1)

Litsea umbrosa Nees.

1.96

(40.1)

1.25

(25.5)

0.55

(11.2)

0.32

(6.5)

0.81

(16.6)

4.89

(1.9)

Myrica esculenta  

Buch- Ham. ex D. Don

4.23

(39.9)

2.70

(25.5)

1.20

(11.3)

0.69

(6.6)

1.77

(16.7)

10.59

(4.9)

Total

104.37

(41.8)

57.88

(23.2)

25.81

(10.3)

25.70

(10.3)

35.68

(14.3)

251.01

(100)

 

Forest site-2

Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus

14.20

(50.9)

8.43

(30.2)

2.45

(8.8)

0.71

(2.5)

2.09

(7.5)

27.88

(12.2)

Quercus floribunda Lindl.

40.70

(32.9)

25.91

(20.9)

14.50

(11.7)

20.93

(16.9)

21.81

(17.6)

123.85

(54.2)

Quercus semecarpifolia Smith.

28.04

(43.4)

17.25

(26.7)

6.90

(10.7)

4.02

(6.2)

8.36

(12.9)

64.57

(28.3)

Machilus duthiei King.

5.62

(46.1)

3.34

(27.3)

1.18

(9.6)

0.69

(5.7)

1.37

(11.3)

12.20

(5.3)

Total

88.56

(38.8)

54.93

(24.0)

25.03

(11.0)

26.35

(11.5)

33.63

(14.7)

228.50

(100)

Forest site-3

Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus

62.11

(49.0)

37.69

(29.7)

12.44

(9.8)

3.63

(2.9)

10.81

(8.5)

126.68

(46.9)

Quercus floribunda Lindl.

28.77

(34.8)

17.39

(21.0)

9.34

(11.3)

14.09

(17.0)

13.09

(15.8)

82.68

(30.6)

Quercus semecarpifolia Smith.

19.00

(43.0)

11.78

(26.7)

4.78

(10.8)

2.79

(6.3)

5.80

(13.1)

44.15

(16.3)

Acer oblongum Wall.

7.19

(42.9)

4.41

(26.3)

1.71

(10.2)

1.00

(6.0)

2.45

(14.5)

16.76

(6.2)

Total

117.07

(43.3)

71.27

(26.4)

28.27

(10.5)

21.51

(8.0)

32.15

(11.9)

270.27

(100)

Note: * Roots component includes stump root (3.8-20.6 %), lateral roots (1.3-6.7 %) and fine roots (0.1-1.2%) in forest site-1, stump root (3.2-14.8 %), lateral  roots (1.3-3.9 %) and  fine  roots (0.1-0.3 %) in forest site-2,  stump  root (3.6-13.4  %), lateral roots (1.5-4.5 %) and fine roots (0.1-0.4 %) forest site-3.

Carbon Sequestration

Total carbon sequestration potential of tree species was 7.99 t ha-1yr-1 in forest site-1. Of this, Q. floribunda accounted for 3.65 t ha-1yr-1 followed by Q. semecarpifolia 1.61 t ha-1yr-1. Among the different components of tree carbon sequestration was in order: bole (45.2%)> branches (24.1%)> roots (11.5%)> foliage (10.1%)> twigs (9.1%) (Table 5). Total carbon sequestration potential of tree species was 9.96 t ha-1yr-1 in forest site-2. Of this, Q. floribunda  accounted for 7.07 t ha-1yr-1 followed by Q. semecarpifolia 2.0 t ha-1yr-1. Among the different components of tree carbon sequestration was in order: bole (39.8%)> branches (23.3%)> foliage (13.5%)> roots (13.0%)> twigs (10.1%) (Table 5). Total carbon sequestration potential of tree species was 9.06 t ha-1yr-1 in forest site-3. Of this, Q. floribunda accounted for 3.40 t ha-1yr-1 followed by Q. leucotrichophora 3.34 t ha-1yr-1. Among the different components of tree carbon sequestration was in order: bole (46.0 %)> branches (26.5%)> stump roots (9.9%)>twigs (9.0%) > foliage (8.6%) (Table 5).

Table 5: Component -wise tree carbon sequestration (tha-1yr-1) of Oak dominated forests.

Name of Species

Bole

Branches

Twigs

Leaves

Roots*

Total

Forest site-1

Q. leucotrichophora

0.55 (52.0)

0.33 (30.9)

0.09 (8.2)

0.02 (2.3)

0.07 (6.7)

1.06 (100)

Q. floribunda

1.39 (38.1)

0.78 (21.3)

0.38 (10.5)

0.63 (17.3)

0.47 (12.8)

3.65 (100)

Q. semecarpifolia

0.77 (47.9)

0.45 (28.1)

0.14 (8.8)

0.08 (5.1)

0.16 (10.1)

1.61 (100)

R. arboreum

0.04 (36.0)

0.02 (20.9)

0.01 (5.2)

0.001 (1.0)

0.04 (36.9)

0.11 (100)

C. deodara

0.36 (77.4)

0.05 (9.7)

0.01 (2.2)

0.01 (1.3)

0.04 (9.4)

0.46 (100)

M. duthiei

0.06 (45.6)

0.04 (27.2)

0.01 (9.8)

0.01 (5.8)

0.01 (11.5)

0.13 (100)

L. umbrosa

0.17 (45.7)

0.10 (27.0)

0.03 (9.5)

0.02 (5.6)

0.05 (12.3)

0.37 (100)

M. esculenta

0.27 (45.2)

0.16 (27.1)

0.06 (9.4)

0.03 (5.6)

0.08 (12.8)

0.60 (100)

Total

3.61 (45.2)

1.92 (24.1)

0.73 (9.1)

0.81 (10.1)

0.92 (11.5)

7.99 (100)

Forest site-2

Q. leucotrichophora

0.34 (53.8)

0.20 (31.0)

0.04 (7.1)

0.01 (2.1)

0.04 (6.1)

0.63 (100)

Q. floribunda

2.55 (36.1)

1.50 (21.2)

0.79 (11.1)

1.21 (17.1)

1.03 (14.5)

7.07 (100)

Q. semecarpifolia

0.94 (47.1)

0.55 (27.6)

0.18 (9.2)

0.11 (5.6)

0.21 (10.6)

2.00 (100)

M. duthiei

0.13 (49.8)

0.08 (29.1)

0.02 (7.7)

0.01 (4.7)

0.02 (8.7)

0.26 (100)

Total

3.96 (39.8)

2.32 (23.3)

1.04 (10.4)

1.35 (13.5)

1.30 (13.0)

9.96 (100)

Forest site-3

Q. leucotrichophora

1.78 (53.3)

1.03 (31.0)

0.25 (7.4)

0.07 (2.1)

0.21 (6.2)

3.34 (100)

Q. floribunda

1.27 (37.4)

0.73 (21.4)

0.36 (10.7)

0.58 (17.2)

0.45 (13.3)

3.40 (100)

Q. semecarpifolia

0.82 (47.9)

0.47 (27.5)

0.15 (9.0)

0.09 (5.3)

0.17 (10.2)

1.71 (100)

A. oblongum

0.29 (48.3)

0.17 (27.5)

0.05 (8.3)

0.03 (5.0)

0.07 (10.9)

0.61 (100)

Total

4.16 (46.0)

2.40 (26.5)

0.82 (9.0)

0.78 (8.6)

0.90 (9.9)

9.06 (100)

Note:* Roots component includes stump root (3-26.7%), lateral roots (1.2-9.3%) and fine roots (0.1-0.9%) in forest site-1, stump root (2.7-12.5%), lateral roots (1.0-3.2%) and fine roots (0.1-0.2%) in forest site-2, stump root (2.7-11.5%), lateral roots (1.1-3.2%) and  fine roots (0.1-0.2%) forest site-3.

Discussion

Forest is one of the major natural resources of Himalaya. They play vital role in the development of the region. This study was carried out to assess the biomass, productivity and carbon sequestration potential of oak dominated broad-leaved forests of Nainital in Kumaun Himalaya. The Kumaun region accounted for 40.3 % forest cover, which fulfils the basic needs of fuel, fodder and small timber of the villagers obtained either from community forests (van panchayats) and or government managed forests. In the recent days, variation of climate has impacted the biodiversity, growth and productivity of forests, therefore, the assessment of forests for productivity and carbon potential is very essential for current and future conservation and sustainable  forest development point of view. The tree density 980-1100 ind ha-1 Of this, present values fall within range 420-1640 ind.ha-1 reported for temperate forests of western Himalaya14 and 920-1345 ind.ha-1 for natural forests of Kumaun Himalaya15 and 550-1250 ind.ha-1 in oak dominated forests in Kumaun Himalaya,16 960-1170 ind.ha-1 in Van Panchayat forest in Kumaun Himalaya17 and 1040-1260 ind.ha-1 for pine forests in Kumaun Himalaya18 but on higher side than 570-760 ind.ha-1 reported for oak forest.8  However, basal area (31.81-63.93 m2 ha-1) of oak dominated forests was lower side than 58.7-93.0 m2 ha-1 reported for natural forests in Kumaun Himalaya.14 Present estimates of basal area (31.81-63.93 m2 ha-1) are higher than 33.9-36.8 m2 ha-1 reported for oak forests6 and 36.3-56.4 m2 ha-1 for pine forests in Kumaun Himalaya.18 Tree species diversity ranged between 1.38-2.57 in Oak dominated forests, which falls within the range 1.31 to 2.69 of oak dominated forests in Kumaun Himalaya16 and higher than 1.01 to 1.65 of oak mixed forests.17

 Fig.1 Bar diagram is showing biomass and carbon stock of oak dominated forests in each forest site.


Figure 1: Bar diagram is showing biomass
and carbon stock of 
oak dominated forests
in each forest site.

Click here to View figure


Present biomass estimates (481-569 t ha-1) are higher (fig.1) than 285-458 t ha-1reported for oak forests,8 236-400 t ha-1 for Oak dominated forests of high altitude19 but lower than 651-718 t ha-1 of natural forests in Kumaun Himalaya15 and 154-301 t ha-1 in pine forests in Kumaun Himalaya18 and  590 t ha-1 of Kharsu oak forests in higher altitude19 and 426-782 t ha-1 in oak forest site in Kumaun Himalaya.20 The carbon stock was 229-270 t ha-1 (Fig.1), which falls within the range 229.341 t ha-1 of natural forests of Kumaun in central Himalaya15 and 243-290 t ha-1 of oak and pine forests in non-degraded forest sites in Kumaun Himalaya.21 But present values are on higher side than 59.41 t ha-1 oak and pine mixed forest of Lohaghat in Kumaun Himalaya22 and 16.73-18.54 t ha-1 of oak and pine forests in degraded forests.21

Fig. 2 Bar diagram is showing primary productivity, and carbon sequestration potential of oak dominated forests in each forest site. 


Figure 2: Bar diagram is showing primary productivity, and carbon sequestration potential of oak dominated forests in each forest site.
Click here to View figure


The primary productivity values (17.0 to 21.0 t ha-1 yr-1) are higher (Fig.2) than 13.2-16.6 t ha-1yr-1  of oak forests8 and 7.58-18.70 t ha-1yr-1 of Chir-pine forests in central Himalaya7 and lower side than 24.6 t ha-1 yr-1 of  Kharsu oak forest in higher altitude19 (Fig.2). The carbon sequestration was 8.0-10.0 t ha-1 yr-1 in the studied forests. However, the estimates of carbon sequestration are higher than 5.48-6.23 t ha-1 yr-1 non- degraded oak forests and 1.47-1.84 t ha-1 yr-1 in degraded oak forests21 (Fig.2). Detail comparative accounts of different oak forests on the aspects of biomass, productivity, and carbon stock and carbon sequestration is given in Table 6.

Table 6: Comparative study of different parameter of Oak dominated forests in India.

Forest types

Density

(ind.ha-1)

TBA

(m2 ha-1)

H'

Biomass

(t ha-1)

Productivity

 (t ha-1 yr-1)

CS

(t ha-1)

CSP

(t ha-1 yr-1)

References

Oak forest

570-760

33.9-36.8

-

285.3-458.5

13.2-16.6

-

-

Rawat and Singh, 19888

Oak forest

920-1345

58.7-93

-

651-718

-

309-341

-

Lodhiyal et al., 201415

Oak forest

1330

36.77

-

101.45

-

59.4

-

Lodhiyal and Lodhiyal, 201222

Mixed oak forest

-

-

-

426-782

15.9-25.1

-

-

Rana et al., 198920

Kharsu ok forest

-

-

-

590

24.6

-

-

Adhikari et al.,199519

Oak non- degraded forest

-

-

-

-

-

242.6-290.6

5.5-6.2

Jeena et al., 2008 21

Oak degraded forest

-

-

-

-

-

16.7-18.5

1.5-1.8

Jeena et al., 200821

Oak dominated forest 

550-1250

33.9-62.6

1.31-2.69

-

-

-

-

Singh et al., 2014 16

Oak mixed forest

960-1170

-

1.01-1.65

-

-

-

-

Pandey  and Lodhiyal, 201517

Tilonj oak forest dominated forests

300-1190

-

0.421-1.769

-

-

-

-

Lodhiyal et al., 201523

Oak dominated forests

980-1010

31.81-63.93

0.29-0.77

481-569

16.9-20.9

228.5-270.3

7.99-9.96

Present study


Present findings of oak dominated forests are on higher side than earlier results of forests studied in the region, therefore, it is concluded that the studied forests were not affected much from nearby humans pressure and variation in climate. This is because of mainly two reasons: (i) these forests were judiciously cared and managed by foresters by using better conservation practices as well as implementation of strict rules and regulations and also (ii) adequate support and timely co-operation of community people residing in nearby areas.

References
 

  1. Bargali, K., Joshi, B., Bargali, S.S. and Singh, S.P., Diversity within Oaks. International Oaks, 25: 57-70 (2014)
  2. Bargali, K., Joshi, B., Bargali, S.S. and Singh, S.P., Oaks and the Biodiversity They Sustain. International Oaks, 26: 65-76 (2015)
  3. Champion, H.G., and Seth, S.K., A revised survey of the forest types of India. Publication division, Govt. of  India, New Delhi : 404  (1968)
  4. Maarel, E van der., Species diversity in plant communities in relation to structure and dynamics. In: Diversity and Pattern in Plant Communities. H.J. During HJ et al. (Eds.), Diversity and Pattern in Plant Communities, Netherlands: The Hague  1-14. (1988)
  5. Magurran, A E., Ecological Diversity and Management. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1988)
  6. Singh, J.S., and Singh, S.P., Forest of Himalaya: Structure and functioning and impact of man. Gynodya Prakashan, Nainital, India (1992)
  7. Chaturvedi, O. P., and Singh, J.S., The structure and function of pine forest in Central Himalaya. I. Dry matter dynamics. Annals of Botany, 60: 237-252 (1987)
    CrossRef
  8. Rawat, Y.S., and Singh, J.S., Structure and function of Oak forests in Central Himalaya. I. Dry matter dynamics. Annals of Botany 62: 397-411 (1988)
    CrossRef
  9. Watson, R.T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B; Ravindranathan, N. H. and Vernado (eds.) Land use, land use change and forestry. Special report of the international panal on climate change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K. (2000)
  10. IPCC, Good practices guidance on land –use change and forestry. Publishing by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC, (30): 31-68 (2003)
  11. Misra, R., Ecology work book oxford and IBH publishing, Calcutta (1968)
  12. Shannon, C., and Wiener, W., The Mathematical Theory of Communication.University of Illinois  Press Urbana,   (1963)
  13. Magnussen, S., and Reed, D., Modelling for estimation and monitoring. FAO-IUFRO (2004)
  14. Saxena, A.K., and Singh, J.S., A Phytosociological analysis of woody species in forest communities of a part of Kumaun Himalaya. Vegetatio 50: 3-22 (1982)
    CrossRef
  15. Lodhiyal, L.S., Lodhiyal, N., and Bhakuni, N., Standing tree biomass and carbon content in natural forests of Kumaun in central Himalaya. Journal of plant development Science 6 (2): 167-174 (2014)
  16. Singh, N., Tamta, K., Tewari, A., and Ram, J., Studies on Vegetational analysis and regeneration status of Pinus roxburghii and Quercus leucotrichophora forest of Nainital forest division. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research : C Biological Science, 14 (3) : 40-47 (2014)
  17. Pandey, J., and Lodhiyal, L.S., Vegetation structure and regeneration of Van Panchayat forests in Kumaun Himalaya. International Journal of Environment 4 (3) :69-80 (2015)
    CrossRef
  18. Lal, B., and Lodhiyal, L.S., Vegetation structure, biomass and carbon content in Pinus roxburghii Dominant forests of Kumaun Himalaya. Environment & We An International Journal of Science & Technology 10: 117-124 (2015)
  19. Adhikari, B.S., Rawat, Y.S., and Singh, S.P., Structure and Function of Altitude Forests of Central Himalaya I. Dry Matter Dynamics. Annals of Botany 75: 237-248 (1995)
    CrossRef
  20. Rana, B.S., Singh, S.P., and Singh R.P., Biomass and net primary productivity in central Himalayan forest along the altitudinal gradient. Forest and management 27 : 199-218 (1989)
  21. Jeena, B.S., Sah, P., Bhatt, M.D., and Rawat, Y.S., Estimation carbon sequestration rate and total carbon stock in degraded and non degraded sites of Oak and Pine forest of Kumaun central Himalaya. Ecological society (ECOS), Nepal Ecoprint 15: 75-81 (2008)
  22. Lodhiyal, N., and Lodhiyal, L.S., Tree layer composition and carbon content of Oak and Pine in Lohaghat forest of Kumaun Himalaya. Journal of plant development Science 4 (1): 55-62 (2012)
  23. Lodhiyal, N., Dhek, S., Lodhiyal, L.S., Bhakuni, N., Kapkoti, B., Species diversity and egeneration of Tilonj Oak ( Quercus floribunda Lindl.) dominated forests  of Nainital in Kumaun Himalaya, 7 (1): 21-27 (2015)