Measurement of Diurnal Carbon Sequestration Rate and Aboveground Biomass Carbon Potential of Two Young Species and Soil Respiration in Two Natural Forests in India

  • Bipal K. JanaEmail author
  • Soumyajit Biswas
  • Mrinmoy Majumder
  • Pankaj Roy
  • Asis Mazumdar


Diurnal carbon sequestration rate (CSR) has been measured for young ­species (6 years age) of Shorea robusta at Chadra forest in Paschim Medinipur district and Tectona grandis at Chilapata forest in Coochbehar district of West Bengal in India by Automated Vaisala Made Instrument GMP343 and aboveground biomass carbon has been analyzed by CHN analyzer. Soil respiration has also been measured by GMP343. The specific objectives of this article are to measure diurnal carbon ­sequestration rate and aboveground biomass carbon potential of two young species, and soil respiration in two natural forests. Measurements of soil respiration as conducted in two forests were 0.0050 g/m2/h in Chadra forest and 0.0575 g/m2/h in Chilapata forest. The diurnal carbon sequestration rates (mean) as CO2 from the ambient air as obtained by S. robusta and T. grandis were 11.13 and 2.57 g/h in overcast skies. The annual carbon sequestration rates from ambient air were estimated to 8.97 t C/ha by S. robusta and 2.07 t C/ha by T. grandis. The percentages of carbon content (except root) in the aboveground biomass of S. robusta and T. grandis were 47.45 and 45.45, respectively. The total aboveground biomass carbon stocks per hectare as estimated for S. robusta and T. grandis were 5.22 and 7.97 t C/ha, respectively, in these forest stands.


Aboveground biomass carbon stock carbon sequestration rate Shorea robusta soil respiration Tectona grandis 



Authors wish to thank the Department of Environment, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata for financial support of this project and wish to thank Chairman and Member Secretary of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, Salt Lake, Kolkata for their guidance and technical support. Authors also wish to thank the Chilapata Forest Division and Chadra Forest Division in West Bengal for their valuable Reports/data used for this article. Authors also wish to thank to the Journal of Ecology and Natural Environment for the research article ‘Jana BK, S Biswas, M Majumder, P Roy and A Mazumdar (2009) Carbon sequestration rate and above­ground biomass carbon potential of four young species’.


  1. Alexandrov GA, Yamagata Y, Oikawa T (1999) Towards a model for projecting net ecosystem production of the world forests. Eco Model 123:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexeyev V, Birdsey R, Stakanov V, Korotkov I (1995) Carbon in vegetation in Russian forests: methods to estimate storage and geographical distribution. Water Air Soil Pollut 82:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady NC, Weil RR (1996) The nature and properties of soil, 11th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Burley J, Evans J, Youngquist JA (2004) Encycl Forest Sci 1:144–149Google Scholar
  5. Centritto M, Lee HSJ, Jarvis PG (1999a) Interactive effects of elevated [CO2] and drought on cherry (Prunus avium) seedlings, Growth, whole-plant water use efficiency and water loss, whole-plant water use efficiency and water loss. New Phytol 141:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Centritto M, Magnani F, Lee HSJ, Jarvis PG (1999b) Interactive effects of elevated [CO2] and drought on cherry (Prunus avium) seedlings, Photosynthetic capacity and water relations. New Phytol 141:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chhabra A, Parila S, Dadhwal VK (2002) Growing stock based forest biomass estimate of India. Biomass Bioenergy 22:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dadhwal VK, Nayak SR (1993) A preliminary estimate of biogeochemical cycle of carbon for India. Sci Cult 59(1/2):9–13Google Scholar
  9. Deraedt W, Ceulemans R (1998) Clonal variability in biomass production and conversion efficiency of poplar during the establishment year of a short rotation coppice plantation. J Biomass Bioenergy 15(4–5):391–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickinson RE, Berry JA, Bonan GB, Collatz GJ, Field CB, Fung IY, Goulden M, Hoffman WA, Jackson RB, Myneni R, Sellers PJ, Shaikh M (2002) Nitrogen control on climate model evapotranspiration. J Climate 15:278–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. District Statistical Handbook (2004) Bureau of Applied Economics & Statistics, Government of West BengalGoogle Scholar
  12. District Statistical Handbook (2005) Bureau of Applied Economics & Statistics, Government of West BengalGoogle Scholar
  13. Fang JY, Chen AP, Peng CH, Zhao SQ, Ci IJ (2001) Changes in forest biomass carbon storage in China between 1949 and 1998. Science 292:2320–2322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FSI (2005) State of Forest Report, 2005. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Dehradun, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham RL, Wright LL, Turhollow AF (1992) The potential for short rotation woody crops to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions. Climate Change 22:223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamburg SP, Harris N, Jaeger J, Karl TR, McFarland M, Mitchell JFB, Oppenheimer M, Santer S, Schneider S, Trenberth KE, Weigley TML (1997) Common questions about climate change. United Nation Environment Programme, World Meteorology OrganisationGoogle Scholar
  17. Haripriya GS (2003) Carbon budget of the Indian forest ecosystem. Climate Change 56:291–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Idso SB, Kimball BA (2001) CO2 enrichment of sour orange trees: 13 years and counting. Environ Exp Bot 46:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Porporato A (2006) Ecohydrology of water- controlled ecosystems: soil moisture and plant dynamics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Isaev A, Korovin G, Zamolodehikov D, Utkin A, Pryaznikov A (1995) Carbon stock and deposition in phytomass of the Russian forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 82:247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jana BK, Biswas S, Majumder M, Roy P, Mazumdar A (2009) Carbon sequestration rate and aboveground biomass carbon potential of four young species. J Ecol Nat Environ 1(2):15–24Google Scholar
  22. Kauppi PE, Mielikainen K, Kuusela K (1992) Biomass and carbon budget of European forests, 1971 to 1990. Science 256:70–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keutgen N, Chen K (2001) Responses of citrus leaf photosynthesis, chlorophyl fluorescence, macronutrient and carbohydrate contents to elevated CO2. J Plant Physiol 158:1307–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kinerson RS, Ralston CW, Wells CG (1977) Carbon cycling in a loblolly pine plantation. Oecologia 29:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krankina ON, Harmon ME, Winjum JK (1996) Carbon storage and sequestration in the Russian forest sector. Ambio 25:284–288Google Scholar
  26. Lal M, Singh R (2000) Carbon sequestration potential of Indian forests. Environ Monitor Assess 60:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Losi CJ, Siccama TG, Condit R, Morales JE (2003) Analysis of alternative methods for estimating carbon stock in young tropical plantations. Forest Ecol Manage 184:355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mallick SK, Pati BR, Behera N (2007) A phenological study of some dominant tree species in a tropical dry deciduous forest of Paschim Medinipur District, West Bengal. Ind Forest 133(12):1675–1682Google Scholar
  29. Manhas RK, Negi JDS, Kumar R, Chauhan PS (2006) Temporal assessment of growing stock, biomass and carbon stock of Indian Forests. Climate Change 74:191–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marland G, Marland S (1992) Should we store carbon in trees? Water Air Soil Pollut 64:181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 85(11):101–104Google Scholar
  32. Niu X, Duiker SW (2006) Carbon sequestration potential by afforestation of marginal agricultural land in the Midwestern US. Forest Ecol Manage 223:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut 116:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pan Q, Wang Z, Quebedeaux B (1998) Responses of the apple plant to CO2 enrichment: changes in photosynthesis, sorbitol, other soluble sugars, and starch. Aust J Plant Physiol 25:293–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences, USA. Retrieved from
  36. Porporato A, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (2002) Ecohydrology – a challenging multidisciplinary research perspective. Hydrol Sci J 47(5):811–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Porporato A, D’ Odorico P, Laio F, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (2003) Hydrologic controls on soil carbon and nitrogen cycles. I. Modelling scheme. Adv Water Res 26(1):45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rajput SS, Shukla NK, Gupta VK, Jain JD (1996) Timber mechanics: strength classification and grading of timber, ICFRE-Publication-38, New Forest, DehradunGoogle Scholar
  39. Ravindranath NH, Somashekhar BS, Gadgil M (1997) Carbon flows in Indian forests. Climate Change 35:297–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Porporato A, Laio F, Ridolfi L (2001) Plants in water controlled ecosystems: active roll in hydrological processes and responses in water stress. I. scope and general outline. Adv Water Resour 24(7):697–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schaffer B, Whiley AW, Searle C, Nissen RJ (1997) Leaf gas exchange, dry matter partitioning, and mineral element concentrations in mango as influenced by elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and root restriction. J Am Soc Hort Sci 122:849–855Google Scholar
  42. Siqueira M, Lai CT, Katul G (2000) Estimating scalar sources, sinks and fluxes in a forest canopy using Lagrangian, Eulerian and hybrid inverse models. J Geophys Res 105(D24)29:475–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner DP, Koerper GJ, Harmon ME, Lee JJ (1995) A carbon budget for forests of the conterminous United States. Ecol Appl 5:421–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Updegraff K, Baughman MJ, Taff SJ (2004) Environmental benefits of cropland conversion to hybrid poplar: economic and policy considerations. Biomass Bioenergy 27:411–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Veld KV, Plantinga A (2005) Carbon sequestration or abatement? The effect of rising carbon prices on the optimal portfolio of greenhouse-gas mitigation strategies. J Environ Econ Manage 50(1):59–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. WB (The World Bank) (1998) A practical guidance document for the assessment of project level greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas assessment handbook, vol 64. World Bank, 168 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. West PW (2003) Tree and forest measurement. Springer, New York, p 62Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bipal K. Jana
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Soumyajit Biswas
    • 1
  • Mrinmoy Majumder
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pankaj Roy
    • 1
  • Asis Mazumdar
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Water Resources EngineeringJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Consulting Engineering ServicesWest BengalIndia
  3. 3.Regional Center, National Afforestation and Eco-development BoardJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations