Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The carbon sequestration potential of tree crop plantations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carbon (C) conservation and sequestration in many developing countries needs to be accompanied by socio-economic improvements. Tree crop plantations can be a potential path for coupling climate change mitigation and economic development by providing C sequestration and supplying wood and non-wood products to meet domestic and international market requirements at the same time. Financial compensation for such plantations could potentially be covered by the Clean Development Mechanism under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) Kyoto Protocol, but its suitability has also been suggested for integration into REDD + (reducing emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and enhancement of forest C stocks) currently being negotiated under the United Nations FCCC. We assess the aboveground C sequestration potential of four major plantation crops – cocoa (Theobroma cacao), oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), and orange (Citrus sinesis) – cultivated in the tropics. Measurements were conducted in Ghana and allometric equations were applied to estimate biomass. The largest C potential was found in the rubber plantations (214 tC/ha). Cocoa (65 tC/ha) and orange (76 tC/ha) plantations have a much lower C content, and oil palm (45 tC/ha) has the lowest C potential, assuming that the yield is not used as biofuel. There is considerable C sequestration potential in plantations if they are established on land with modest C content such as degraded forest or agricultural land, and not on land with old-growth forest. We also show that simple C assessment methods can give reliable results, which makes it easier for developing countries to partake in REDD + or other payment schemes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alves LF, Vieira SA, Scaranello MA, Camargo PB, Santos FA, Joly CA, Martinelli LA (2010) Forest structure and live aboveground biomass variation along an elevational gradient of tropical Atlantic moist forest (Brazil). For Ecol Manage 260:679–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayers JM, Huq S (2009) The value of linking mitigation and adaptation: a case study of Bangladesh. Environ Manage 43:753–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer J, Bonnemann A, Chavez W et al (1990) Modeling agroforestry systems of cacao (Theobroma-Cacao) with Laurel (Cordia-Alliodora) Or Poro (Erythrina-Poeppigiana) in Costa-Rica.5. Productivity indexes, organic material models and sustainability over 10 years. Agroforestry Syst 12:229–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown S (1997) Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. (FAO Forestry Paper - 134). FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

  • Canadell JG, Le Quere C, Raupach MR et al (2007) Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO(2) growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18866–18870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase LDC, Henson IE (2010) A detailed greenhouse gas budget for palm oil production. Int J Agr Sustain 8:199–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng C, Wang R, Jiang J (2007) Variation of soil fertility and carbon sequestration by planting Hevea brasiliensis in Hainan Island, China. J Environ Sci (China) 19:348–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley RHV, Gray BS, Kee NS (1971) Productivity of Oil Palm (Elaeis-Guineensis-Jacq) in Malaysia. Exp Agr 7:129–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotter M, Martin K, Sauerborn J (2009) How do “Renewable Products” impact biodiversity and ecosystem services—the example of natural rubber in China. J Agr Rural Dev Trop 110:9–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen F, Beukema H, Burgess ND et al (2009) Biofuel plantations on forested lands: double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conserv Biol 23:348–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duguma B, Gockowski J, Bakala J (2001) Smallholder Cacao (Theobroma cacao Linn.) cultivation in agroforestry systems of West and Central Africa: challenges and opportunities. Agroforestry Systems 51:177–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D et al (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MJ, Morel A et al (2008) How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol 23:538–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foong-Kheong Y, Sundram K, Basiron Y (2010) Mitigating climate change through oil palm cultivation. Int J Global Warm 2:118–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox J, Fujita Y, Ngidang D et al (2009) Policies, political-economy, and Swidden in Southeast Asia. Hum Ecol 37:305–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germer J, Sauerborn J (2008) Estimation of the impact of oil palm plantation establishment on greenhouse gas balance. Environ Dev Sustain 10:697–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs HK, Brown S, Niles JO et al (2007) Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ Res Lett 2:045023

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs HK, Johnston M, Foley JA et al (2008) Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environ Res Lett 3:034001

    Google Scholar 

  • Gockowski J, Sonwa D (2011) Cocoa intensification scenarios and their predicted impact on CO(2) emissions, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods in the Guinea Rain Forest of West Africa. Environ Manage 48:307–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halsnæs K, Verhagen J (2007) Development based climate change adaptation and mitigation conceptual issues and lessons learned in studies in developing countries. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 12:665–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton RA, van der Werf GR, DeFries RS, Hansen MC, House JI, Le Quere C, Pongratz J, Ramankutty N (2012) Chapter G2 Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. BGD 9:835–878

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2003) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Penman J et al. (eds) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. IPCC-IGES, Japan

  • IPCC (2006) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Eggleston H, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) The national greenhouse gas inventories programme. IPCC-IGES, Japan

  • IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

  • Isaac M, Timmer V, Quashie-Sam S (2007) Shade tree effects in an 8-year-old cocoa agroforestry system: biomass and nutrient diagnosis of Theobroma cacao by vector analysis. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 78:155–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalid H, Zin ZZ, Anderson JM (1999) Quantification of oil palm biomass and nutrient value in a mature plantation. I: Above-ground biomass. J Oil Palm Res 11:23–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein RJT, Schipper EL, Dessai S (2005) Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environ Sci Pol 8:579–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein RJT, Huq S, Denton F, Downing TE, Richels RG, Robenson JB, Toth FL (2007) Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

  • Koh LP, Wilcove DS (2008) Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity. Conserv Lett 1:60–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kongsager R, Napier J, Mertz O (in press) The breakeven price of REDD-credits: a case study from Kade, Ghana. Environmental Management

  • Kotto-Same J, Woomer PL, Appolinaire M et al (1997) Carbon dynamics in slash-and-burn agriculture and land use alternatives of the humid forest zone in Cameroon. Agric Ecosyst Environ 65:245–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li HM, Ma YX, Aide TM et al (2008) Past, present and future land-use in Xishuangbanna, China and the implications for carbon dynamics. For Ecol Manage 255:16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liguori G, Gugliuzza G, Inglese P (2009) Evaluating carbon fluxes in orange orchards in relation to planting density. J Agric Sci 147:637–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lugo AE, Brown S (1993) Management of tropical soils as sinks or sources of atmospheric carbon. Plant Soil 149:27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertz O, Halsnæs K, Olesen JE et al (2009) Adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Environ Manage 43:43–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertz O, Mbow C, Nielsen JØ et al (2010) Climate factors play a limited role for past adaptation strategies in West Africa. Ecol Soc 15:25

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngidang D (2002) Contradictions in land development schemes: the case of joint ventures in Sarawak, Malaysia. Asia Pac Viewp 43:157–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nye PH (1961) Organic matter and nutrient cycles under moist tropical forest. Plant and Soff XIII

  • Osbahr H, Twyman C, Adger WN, Thomas DSG (2008) Effective livelihood adaptation to climate change disturbance: scale dimensions of practice in Mozambique. Geoforum 39:1951–1964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson T, Walker S, Brown S (2005) Sourcebook for land use, land-use change and forestry projects. Winrock International

  • Rahaman WA, Sivakumaran S (1998) Studies of carbon sequestration in rubber. UNCTAD/IRSG RUBBER FORUM, Bali

  • Sandker M, Nyame SK, Foerster J et al (2010) REDD payments as incentive for reducing forest loss. Conserv Lett 3:114–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroth G, D'Angelo SA, Teixeira WG et al (2002) Conversion of secondary forest into agroforestry and monoculture plantations in Amazonia: consequences for biomass, litter and soil carbon stocks after 7 years. For Ecol Manage 163:131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheil D, Casson A, Meijaard E, van Noordwijk M, Gaskell J, Sunderland-Groves J, Wertz K, Kanninen M (2009) The impacts and opportunities of oil palm in Southeast Asia: what do we know and what do we need to know? Occasional Paper No. 51. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

  • Song Q, Zhang Y (2010) Biomass, carbon sequestration and its potential of rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Shengtaixue Zazhi 29:1887–1891

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto-Pinto L, Anzueto M, Mendoza J et al (2010) Carbon sequestration through agroforestry in indigenous communities of Chiapas, Mexico. Agroforestry Systems 78:39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol RSJ (2005) Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods. Environ Sci Pol 8:572–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (2010) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) of developing country Parties. Submission of Appendix II of the Copenhagen Accord - Ghana

  • Verchot L, van Noordwijk M, Kandji S et al (2007) Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 12:901–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wauters J, Coudert S, Grallien E et al (2008) Carbon stock in rubber tree plantations in Western Ghana and Mato Grosso (Brazil). For Ecol Manage 255:2347–2361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicke B, Dornburg V, Junginger M et al (2008) Different palm oil production systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass Bioenerg 32:1322–1337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang J, Huang J, Tang J et al (2005) Carbon sequestration in rubber tree plantations established on former arable lands in Xishuangbanna, SW china. Chin J Plant Ecology 29:296–303

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Dr G. Nkansah (Head of Centre ARC-Kade) and Dr K.G. Ofosu-Budu (Deputy Head of Centre ARC-Kade) for their collaboration and support in the field at ARC-Kade. We are also grateful to Adu Solomon for assisting us in the plantations, Dr S. Adjei-Nsiah for local weather data, and Josep M. Kokroh for farming data. At the University of Copenhagen, thanks are due to Henrik Breuning-Madsen for providing contacts in Ghana, biometrician Henrik Meilby for guidance in the carbon calculations, and Bjarne Fog for technical GPS- and GIS-support. The project was partly funded by grants kindly provided by the Løffler and Steensby’s Foundation, the Oticon Foundation, and the University of Copenhagen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UNEP Risoe Centre on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, Technical University of Denmark, Risoe Campus, Frederiksborgvej 399, Bldg. 142, P.O. Box 49, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark

    Rico Kongsager

  2. Department of Geography & Geology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, Copenhagen, 1350, Denmark

    Jonas Napier & Ole Mertz

Authors
  1. Rico Kongsager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonas Napier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ole Mertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rico Kongsager.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kongsager, R., Napier, J. & Mertz, O. The carbon sequestration potential of tree crop plantations. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 18, 1197–1213 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9417-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9417-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation