Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems

, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 179–191 | Cite as

Soil and vegetation carbon pools in a mountainous watershed of Nepal

Research Article


Assessment of carbon stocks in vegetation and soil is a basic step in evaluating the carbon sequestration potential of an ecosystem. We collected soil (core and composite) samples from 0–10, 10–20, 20–40, and 40–70 cm depths, or down to the bed rock, in the soil profile of four types of forest (managed dense Shorea (DS), degraded forest (DF), pine mixed (PS), and Schima–Castanopsis (SC) forest) and two types of cultivated land (irrigated low land (Khet) and rain-fed upland (Bari)) in the Pokhare Khola watershed of Nepal. In addition to other essential properties, soil bulk density and carbon concentration were assessed. Fine roots were also collected from each sampling site. The biomass of standing trees and shrubs was estimated by using allometric relationships after measuring their diameter and height, while the biomass of grasses was estimated by a direct measurement of grass from a defined area. The carbon stocks in all forest vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground grass) and in the soil profiles under different land uses were estimated. The vegetation carbon pool was largest in DS forest (219 ± 34 Mg ha−1) and least in SC forest (36 ± 5 Mg ha−1), while its order among forest types was DS > DF > PS > SC. The soil organic carbon (SOC) pool was largest in Bari land (15.7 ± 1.5 kg C m−2) and least in PS forest (6.2 ± 0.5 kg C m−2) but the overall order among land uses was Bari > DF > Khet > SC > DS > PS. The total SOC stock in the whole watershed was 59 815 Mg, of which 36, 32, and 32% were in the 0–20, 20–40, and >40 cm soil depths, respectively. In the surface layer (0–10 cm), SOC stock was highest in Bari (36%) followed by DS (31%), and least was in PS forest (3%). This distribution pattern can primarily be assigned to SOC concentration and area covered by these land uses.


Ecosystem carbon pools Mountain watershed Nepal Soil organic carbon Vegetation carbon 



Financial support for this research was provided through a Norwegian Research Council (NFR)-funded project (no. 141343/730) at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Some complementary field facilities were generated by the EU and NUFU-supported Himalayan Degradation Project (P58/03) operating in the same watershed. The laboratory and logistic facility was provided by Kathmandu University, Nepal. Professor Bishal K. Sitaula and Dr Roshan M. Bajracharya provided guidance in carrying out the field work, which is highly appreciated. We are thankful to Professor Mohan K. Balla for his kind cooperation in the field work and for providing additional forest data. Ram P. Sharma helped in vegetation identification and its mathematical aspect.


  1. Amundson R (2001) The carbon budget in soils. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 29:535–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awasthi KD, Singh BR, Sitaula BK (2005) Profile carbon and nutrient levels and management effect on soil quality indicators in the mardi watershed of Nepal. Acta Agric Scand B Soil Plant Sci 55(3):192–204Google Scholar
  3. Bajracharya RM, Lal R, Kimble JM (1998) Soil organic carbon distribution in aggregates and primary particle fractions as influenced by erosion phases and landscape position. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF, Stewart BA (eds) Soil processes and the carbon cycle. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 353–367Google Scholar
  4. Batjes NH (1996) Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur J of Soil Sci 47(2):151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake GR, Harte KH (1986) Bulk density. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods-Agronomy Monograph (2nd edn.). American Society of Agronomy-Soil Science Society of America, pp 363–375Google Scholar
  6. Bloomfield J, Vogt K, Wargo PM (1996) Tree root turnover and senescence. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Kafkafi U (eds) Plant roots- the hidden half. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 363–380Google Scholar
  7. Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitorgen-total. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties - Agronomy Monograph No. 9 (2nd edn.). ASA-SSSA, Madison, WI 53711, USA, pp 595–624Google Scholar
  8. Carson B (1992) The land, the farmer and the future, a soil fertility management strategy for Nepal. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, NepalGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaturvedi AN, Khanna LS (1982) Forest mensuration. International Book Distributors, Dehra Dun, India, 408 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Chhabra A, Palria S, Dadhwal VK (2003) Soil organic carbon pool in Indian forests. For Ecol Manage 173(1–3):187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gee GW, Bauder JW (1986) Particle size analysis. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods-Agronomy Monogram No. 9 (2nd edn.). American Society of Agronomy- Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 383–411Google Scholar
  12. Gill RA, Jackson RB (2000) Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytol 147(1):13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glaser B, Turrion MB, Solomon D, Ni A, Zech W (2000) Soil organic matter quantity and quality in mountain soils of the alay range, kyrgyzia, affected by land use change. Biol Fertil Soils 31(5):407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hairiah K, Sulistyani H, Suprayogo D, Widianto P, Pumomosidhi P, Widodo RH, Van Noordwijk M (2006) Litter layer residence time in forest and coffee agroforestry systems in Sumberjaya, West Lampung. For Ecol Manage 224(1–2):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamburg SP (2000) Simple rules for measuring changes in ecosystem carbon in forestry-offset projects. Miti Adapt Strat Global Change 5(1):25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haase R, Hasse P (1995) Aboveground biomass estimates for invasive trees and shrubs in the pantanal of Mato-Grosso, Brazil. For Ecol Manage 73(1–3):29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2000) Land use, land-use change and forestry. Ipcc special report on land use, land-use change and forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  18. Lal R (2001) Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degrad Develop 12(6):519–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123(1–2):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, 179 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. McLean EO (1982) Soil Ph and lime requirement. In: Page AL, Miller RM, Keeney DR (eds), Methods of soil analysis part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd edn. American Soc. of Agron. Monograph No. 9, ASA-SSSA, Inc., Madison, WI, USA, pp 199–224Google Scholar
  22. Negi JDS, Manhas RK, Chauhan PS (2003) Carbon allocation in different components of some tree species of India: a new approach for carbon estimation. Curr Sci India 85(11):1528–1531Google Scholar
  23. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Page AL, Miller RM, Keeney DR (eds), Methods of soil analysis part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd edn. American Soc. of Agron. Monograph No. 9, ASA-SSSA, Inc., Madison, WI, USA, pp 539–580Google Scholar
  24. Olsen SR, Sommer LE (1982) Phosphorus. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties - Agronomy Monograph No. 9 (2nd edn.). ASA-SSSA, Madison, WI 53711, USA, pp 403–430Google Scholar
  25. Phillips OL, Malhi Y, Higuchi N, Laurance WF, Nunez PV, Vasquez RM, Laurance SG, Ferreira LV, Stern M, Brown S, Grace J (1998) Changes in the carbon balance of tropical forests: evidence from long-term plots. Science 282(5388):439–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prescott CE (2002) The influence of the forest canopy on nutrient cycling. Tree Physiol 22:1193–1200Google Scholar
  27. Rasse DP, Mulder J, Moni C, Chenu C (2006) Carbon turnover kinetics with depth in a French loamy soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70(6):2097–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. SAS I (2004) Sas/Procedure Guide, Release Sas 9.1.3 Service Pack 1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Sharma ER, Pukkala J (1990) Volume tables for forest trees of Nepal, 48. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Forest Survey and Statistics Division, Kathmandu, Nepal, 84 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Sharma RP (2003) Relationships between tree dimensions and biomass, sapwood area, leaf area and leaf area index in Alnus Nepalensis D. Don in Nepal, Agricultural University of Norway (NLH), AasGoogle Scholar
  31. Sherchan DP, Bajracharya RM, Tiwari KR (2003) Soil survey report of pokhare khola sub-watershed. Himalayan Degradation Project, NepalGoogle Scholar
  32. Shrestha BM, Singh BR, Sitaula BK, Lal R, Bajracharya RM (2007) Soil aggregate- and particle-associated organic carbon under different land uses in Nepal. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(4):1194–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shrestha BM, Sitaula BK, Singh BR, Bajracharya RM (2004) Soil organic carbon stocks in soil aggregates under different land use systems in Nepal. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 70(2):201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shrestha K (1998) Dictionary of Nepalese plant names. Mandala Book Point, Kathmandu, XVIII, 266 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Shrestha RK, Lal R (2006) Ecosystem carbon budgeting and soil carbon sequestration in reclaimed mine soil. Environ Int 32(6):781–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith P (2004) Carbon sequestration in croplands: the potential in Europe and the global context. Eur J Agron 20(3):229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sombroek WG, Nachtergaele FO, Hebel A (1993) Amounts, dynamics and sequestering of carbon in tropical and subtropical soils. Ambio 22(7):417–426Google Scholar
  38. Thomas GW (1982) Exchangeable cations. In: Page AL (ed), Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties - Agronomy Monograph No. 9 (2nd edn.). ASA-SSSA, Madison, WI 53711, USA, pp 159–165Google Scholar
  39. Trujilo W, Amezquita E, Fisher MJ, Lal R (1997) Soil organic carbon dynamics and land use in the Colombian savannas I. Aggregate size distribution. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF, Stewart BA (eds) Soil processes and the carbon cycle. CRC Press, FL, Boca Raton, USA, pp 267–280Google Scholar
  40. Van Noordwijk M, Cerri C, Woomer PL, Nugroho K, Bernoux M (1997) Soil carbon dynamics in the humid tropical forest zone. Geoderma 79(1–4):187–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wairiu M, Lal R (2003) Soil organic carbon in relation to cultivation and topsoil removal on sloping lands of Kolombangara, Solomon Islands. Soil Till Res 70(1):19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winjum JK, Dixon RK, Schroeder PE (1992) Estimating the global potential of forest and agroforest management-practices to sequester carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut 64(1–2):213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences (IPM)Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)ÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations