Advertisement

Modelling of Carbon Sequestration in Rubber(Hevea brasiliensis) Plantations

  • Engku Azlin Rahayu Engku Ariff
  • Mohd Nazip SuratmanEmail author
  • Shamsiah Abdullah
Chapter
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 34)

Abstract

The issues of global warming and climate change have been widely debated over the past few decades by researchers, managers and leaders. It was estimated that the annual global air temperature may increase by approximately 2.5 °C by the end of the century (NAST 2000). In 1992, the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) produced an international environmental treaty at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The objective of the treaty was to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of GHGs that contributes the highest emission (Dulal and Akhbar 2013). Malaysia remains committed to climate change agenda and recently introduced a new national policy on climate change and green technology. The country has recently passed a renewable energy act and reaffirms its commitment to a pledge during Rio Earth Summit and signed the UNFCCC and currently listed into non-Annex 1 countries.

Keywords

Stomatal Conductance Carbon Sequestration Carbon Stock Leaf Area Index Above Ground Biomass 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Antonio N, Tome M, Tome J, Soares P, Fontes L (2007) Effects of tree, stand, and site variables on the allometry of Eucalyptus globulus tree biomass. Can J For Res 37:895–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arau’jo TM, Higuchi N, Andrade JC (1999) Comparison of formulae for biomass content determination in a tropical rain forest site in the state of Para´, Brazil. Forest of Ecology Management 117:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskerville GL (1972) Use of Logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can J For Res 2(1):49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basuki TM, Van Lake PE, Skidmore AK, Hussin YA (2009) Allometric equations for estimating the abobe-ground biomass in the tropical lowland Dipterocarp forests. For Ecol Manag 257:1684–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond BJ, Ryan MG (2000) Comment on ‘Hydraulic limitation of tree height: a critique’ by Becker, Meinzer and Wullschleger. Funct Ecol 14:137–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown IF, Martinelli LA, Thomas WW, Moreira MZ, Cid Ferreira CA, Victoria RA (1995) Uncertainty in the biomass of Amazonian forests: an example from Rondoˆnia, Brazil. For Ecol Manag 75:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burrows WH, Compton JF, Hoffmann MB, Back PV, Tait LJ (1999) Allometric relationships and community biomass estimates for some dominant eucalypts and associated species in Central Queensland woodlands. Aust J Bot 48(6):707–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bylund H, Nordell KO (2001) Biomass proportion, production and leaf nitrogen distribution in a polycormic mountain birch stand (Betula pubencens ssp. czerepanovii) in northern Sweden. In: Wielgolaski FE (ed) Nordic mountain birch ecosystems, man and the biosphere series 27. Pp. 115–126Google Scholar
  9. Chaundhuri D, Vinod KK, Potty SN, Sethuraj MR, Pothen J, Reddy YAN (1995) Estimation of biomass in Hevea clones by regression method: relation between girth and biomass. Indian J Nat Rubber Res 8(2):113–116Google Scholar
  10. Chave J, Rie’ra B, Dubois MA (2001) Estimation of biomass in a neotropical forest of French Guyana: spatial and temporal variability. J Trop Ecol 17:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen JM, Black TA (1991) Measuring leaf-area index of plant canopies with branch architecture. Agric For Meteorol 57:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahlberg U, Berge TW, Peterson H, Vencatasawmy CP (2004) Modelling biomass and leaf area index in a sub-arctic Scandinavian mountain area. Scand J For Res 19:60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delitti WBC, Meguro M, Pausas J (2006) Biomass and mineralmass estimates in a cerrado ecosystem. Rev Bras Bot 29(4):531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Department of Agriculture (1966) Schematic reconnaissance soil map. Min. of Agric, Kuala Lumpur, 1 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Department of Agriculture (2014) Industrial tree crop statistics. Retrieved on 10 Oct 2014 from: http://agrolink.moa.my/doa
  16. Department of Forestry (2014) Forest and Nonforest statistic. Retrieved on 10 Oct 2014 from: http://forestry.gov.my
  17. Dey SK, Chaudhuri D, Vinod KK, Pothen J, Sethuraj MR (1996) Estimation of biomass in Hevea clones by regression method: 2 relation of girth and biomass for mature trees of clone RRIM 600. Indian J Nat Rubber Res 9(1):40–43Google Scholar
  18. Dulal HB, Akbar S (2013) Greenhouse gas emission reduction options for cities: finding the “Coincidence of Agendas” between local priorities and climate change mitigation objectives. Habitat Int 38:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frank E (2004) Modelling plant responses to elevated CO2: how important is leaf area index? Ann Bot 93:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guo Q (2007) The diversity-biomass-productivity relationships in grassland management and restoration. Basic Appl Ecol 8:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heiskanen J (2005) Estimating aboveground tree biomass and leaf area index in a mountain birch forest using ASTER satellite data. Int J Remote Sens 27(6):1135–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henry H, Besnard A, Asante WA, Eshun J, Adu-Bredu S, Valentini R, Bernoux M, Saint-Andre L (2010) Wood density, phytomass variations within and among trees, and allometric equations in s tropical rainforest of Africa. For Ecol Manag J 260:1375–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodges T, Kanemasu ET (1977) Modelling daily dry matter production of winter wheat. Agron J 69:674–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hubbard RM, Bond BJ, Ryan MG (1999) Evidence that hydraulic conductance limits photosynthesis in old Pinus ponderosa trees. Tree Physiol 19:165–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds) IPCC, Geneva, pp 104Google Scholar
  26. Jesus’ RA, Jose´ RA, Angel F (2005) Allometric relationships of different tree species and stand above ground biomass in the Gomera laurel forest (Canary Islands). Flora 200:264–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kale M, Singh S, Roy PS, Deosthali V, Ghole VS (2004) Biomass equation of dominant species of dry deciduous forest in Shivpuri district, Madhya Pradesh. Curr Sci 87:683–687Google Scholar
  28. Kaonga ML, Bayliss-Smith TP (2010) Allometric models for estimation of aboveground carbon stocks in improved fallows in eastern Zambia. Agrofor Syst 78(3):217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ketterings QM, Richard C, Meine van N, Ambagau Y, Palm CA (2001) Reducing uncertainty in the use of allometric biomass equations for predicting above ground tree biomass in mixed secondary forests. For Ecol Manag 146:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khun K, Mizoue N, Yoshida S, Murakami T (2008) Stem volume equation and tree growth for rubber trees in Cambodia. J For Plann 13:335–341Google Scholar
  31. Kosei S, Norie W, Masao T, Takenori H, Koichiro G (2014) Carbon sequestration, tree biomass growth and rubber yield of PB260 clone of rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) in North Sumatra. J Rubber Res 17(2):115–127Google Scholar
  32. Köstner B, Alsheimer M, Tenhunen JD (1996) In: Pfadenhauer J, Kappen L, Mahn E-G, Otte A, Plachter H (eds) Tree canopy transpiration at different sites of a spruce forest ecosystem, vol 26. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, pp 61–68Google Scholar
  33. Lewandrowski J, Pape D, Man D, Steele R (2014) A farm-level up assessment of the GHG mitigation potential of U.S. agriculture. Paper presented at ACES Conference 2013Google Scholar
  34. Mencuccini M, Magnani F (2000) Comment on ‘Hydraulic limitation of tree height: a critique’ by Becker, Meinzer and Wullschleger. Funct Ecol 14:135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Montagua KD, Du¨ttmera KC, Bartona V, Cowie MAL (2005) Developing general allometric relationships for regional estimates of carbon sequestration-an example using Eucalyptus pilularis from seven contrasting sites. For Ecol Manag 204:113–127Google Scholar
  36. MRB (2002) Malaysian rubber boards rubber statistic. Retrieved on 20 Nov 2014 from: http://www.lgm.gov.my
  37. Mulugeta Z, Mats O, Theo V (2009) Above-ground biomass production and allometric relations of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. coppice plantations along a chronosequence in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Biomass Bioenergy 33:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team) (2000) US global change research program (USGCRP), climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. Overview report. New York, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson BW, Mesquita R, Pereira JLG, de Souza SGA, Batista GT, Couto LB (1999) Allometric regressions for improved estimate of secondary forest biomass in the central Amazon. For Ecol Manag 117:149–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Dubuque, 1408 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Onrizal CK, Mashhor M, Rudi H (2009) Allometric biomass and carbon stock equation of planted Eucalyptus grandis in Toba Plateau, North Sumatra. In: Onrizal (ed) Proceedings of planted forest carbon. pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  42. Oyebade BA, Ebitimi O (2011) Height-diameter predictive equations for Rubber (Hevea Brasilliensis-A. Juss- Muell) plantation, Choba, Port Harcourt, Nigeria. J Agric Soc Res (JASR) 11:173–183Google Scholar
  43. Quirine MK, Richard C, Meine VN, Yakub A, Cheryl AP (2001) Reducing uncertainty in the use of allometric biomass equations for predicting above-ground tree biomass in mixed secondary forest. For Ecol Manag 146:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rojo-Martinez GE, Jasso-Mata J, Vargas-Hernández J, Palma-López D, Velázquez-Martínez A (2005) Aerial biomass in commercial rubber plantations (Hevea brasiliensis Müll. Arg.) in the state of Oaxaca, México. Agrociencia 39:449–456Google Scholar
  45. Ryan MG, Yoder BJ (1997) Hydraulic limits to tree height and tree growth. What keeps trees from growing beyond a certain height? Bioscience 47:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ryan M, Bond BJ, Law BE, Hubbard RM, Woodruff D, Cienciala E, Kuèera J (2000) Transpiration and whole-tree conductance in ponderosa pine trees of different heights. Oecologia 124:553–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Saglan B, Kucuki O, Bilgili E, Durmaz D, Basal I (2008) Estimating fuel biomass of some shrub species (Maquis) in Turkey. Turkish J Agric 32:349–356, SAS Institute Inc (2012) SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 9.4, Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. SAS Institute Inc (2012) SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9.4, Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Scalan JC (1991) Woody Observatory and Herbaceous Understorey Biomass in Acacia harpophyla (Briglow) Woodlands. Aust J Ecol 16:521–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schäfer KVR, Oren R, Tenhunen JD (2000) The effect of tree height on crown level stomatal conductance. Plant Cell Environ 23:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shorrocks VM, Templeton K, Iyer GC (1965) Mineral nutrition, growth and nutrient cycle of Hevea brasiliensis. 3. The relationship between girth and shoot dry weight. J Rubber Res Inst Malaya 19:85–92Google Scholar
  52. Singels A, Donaldson RA (2000) The effect of row spacing on an irrigated plant crop of sugarcane variety NCo 376. Proc S Afr Sug Technol 74:151–154Google Scholar
  53. Specht A, West PW (2003) Estimation of biomass and sequestered carbon on farm forest plantation in Northern New South Wales, Australia. Biomass Bioenergy 25:363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Starr M, Hartman M, Kinnunen T (1998) Biomass functions for mountain birch in the Vuoskojarvi Integrated Monitoring area. Boreal Environ Res 3:297–303Google Scholar
  55. Suharja, Sutarno (2009) Biomass, chlorophyll and nitrogen content of leaves of two chili pepper varieties (Capsicum annum) in different fertilization treatments. Nusantara Biosc 1:9–16Google Scholar
  56. Suratman MN (2008) Carbon sequestration potential of mangroves in Southeast Asia. In: Bravo F, Jandl R, LeMay V, von Gadow K (eds) Managing forest ecosystems: the challenge of climate change. Springer, Dordrecht/London, pp. 297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Suratman MN (2014) Remote sensing technology: recent advancements for mangrove ecosystems. In: Faridah-Hanum I, Latiff A, Hakeem RH (eds) Mangrove ecosystems of Asia, status, challenges and management strategies. Springer, New York, pp. 295–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Waring RH, Running SW (1998) Forest ecosystems: analysis at multiple scales, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego 370 ppGoogle Scholar
  59. Wauters JB, Coudert S, Grallien E, Jonard M, Ponette Q (2008) Carbon stock in rubber tree plantations in Western Ghana and Mato Grasso (Brazil). For Ecol Manag 255:2347–2361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Whittinghill LJ, Rowe DB, Schutzki R, Cregg BM (2014) Quantifying carbon sequestration of various green roof and ornamental landscape systems. Landsc Urban Plan 123:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yoosuk S (2005) Carbon sinks in rubber plantations of Klaeng district, Rayong, Thailand, [M.Sc. thesis]. Faculty of Graduate Studies, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 60–112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Engku Azlin Rahayu Engku Ariff
    • 1
  • Mohd Nazip Suratman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shamsiah Abdullah
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Applied SciencesUniversiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)Shah AlamMalaysia

Personalised recommendations