The carbon sequestration potential of tree crop plantations

Original Article

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.

Keywords

Aboveground biomass Allometric equations Carbon estimations Carbon sequestration Ghana Kade Land-use change Tree crop plantation 

References

  1. 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 260:679–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayers JM, Huq S (2009) The value of linking mitigation and adaptation: a case study of Bangladesh. Environ Manage 43:753–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 12:229–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 104:18866–18870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase LDC, Henson IE (2010) A detailed greenhouse gas budget for palm oil production. Int J Agr Sustain 8:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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) 19:348–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corley RHV, Gray BS, Kee NS (1971) Productivity of Oil Palm (Elaeis-Guineensis-Jacq) in Malaysia. Exp Agr 7:129–136Google Scholar
  9. 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 110:9–22Google Scholar
  10. Danielsen F, Beukema H, Burgess ND et al (2009) Biofuel plantations on forested lands: double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conserv Biol 23:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 51:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D et al (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MJ, Morel A et al (2008) How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol 23:538–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foong-Kheong Y, Sundram K, Basiron Y (2010) Mitigating climate change through oil palm cultivation. Int J Global Warm 2:118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox J, Fujita Y, Ngidang D et al (2009) Policies, political-economy, and Swidden in Southeast Asia. Hum Ecol 37:305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Germer J, Sauerborn J (2008) Estimation of the impact of oil palm plantation establishment on greenhouse gas balance. Environ Dev Sustain 10:697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbs HK, Brown S, Niles JO et al (2007) Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ Res Lett 2:045023Google Scholar
  18. 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 3:034001Google Scholar
  19. 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 48:307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 12:665–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 9:835–878Google Scholar
  22. 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, JapanGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, JapanGoogle Scholar
  24. 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, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 78:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 11:23–32Google Scholar
  27. Klein RJT, Schipper EL, Dessai S (2005) Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environ Sci Pol 8:579–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Koh LP, Wilcove DS (2008) Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity. Conserv Lett 1:60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kongsager R, Napier J, Mertz O (in press) The breakeven price of REDD-credits: a case study from Kade, Ghana. Environmental ManagementGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 65:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 255:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liguori G, Gugliuzza G, Inglese P (2009) Evaluating carbon fluxes in orange orchards in relation to planting density. J Agric Sci 147:637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lugo AE, Brown S (1993) Management of tropical soils as sinks or sources of atmospheric carbon. Plant Soil 149:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mertz O, Halsnæs K, Olesen JE et al (2009) Adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Environ Manage 43:43–752Google Scholar
  36. Mertz O, Mbow C, Nielsen JØ et al (2010) Climate factors play a limited role for past adaptation strategies in West Africa. Ecol Soc 15:25Google Scholar
  37. Ngidang D (2002) Contradictions in land development schemes: the case of joint ventures in Sarawak, Malaysia. Asia Pac Viewp 43:157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nye PH (1961) Organic matter and nutrient cycles under moist tropical forest. Plant and Soff XIIIGoogle Scholar
  39. Osbahr H, Twyman C, Adger WN, Thomas DSG (2008) Effective livelihood adaptation to climate change disturbance: scale dimensions of practice in Mozambique. Geoforum 39:1951–1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pearson T, Walker S, Brown S (2005) Sourcebook for land use, land-use change and forestry projects. Winrock InternationalGoogle Scholar
  41. Rahaman WA, Sivakumaran S (1998) Studies of carbon sequestration in rubber. UNCTAD/IRSG RUBBER FORUM, BaliGoogle Scholar
  42. Sandker M, Nyame SK, Foerster J et al (2010) REDD payments as incentive for reducing forest loss. Conserv Lett 3:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 163:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  45. Song Q, Zhang Y (2010) Biomass, carbon sequestration and its potential of rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Shengtaixue Zazhi 29:1887–1891Google Scholar
  46. Soto-Pinto L, Anzueto M, Mendoza J et al (2010) Carbon sequestration through agroforestry in indigenous communities of Chiapas, Mexico. Agroforestry Systems 78:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tol RSJ (2005) Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods. Environ Sci Pol 8:572–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UNFCCC (2010) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) of developing country Parties. Submission of Appendix II of the Copenhagen Accord - GhanaGoogle Scholar
  49. Verchot L, van Noordwijk M, Kandji S et al (2007) Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 12:901–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 255:2347–2361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wicke B, Dornburg V, Junginger M et al (2008) Different palm oil production systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass Bioenerg 32:1322–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 29:296–303Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNEP Risoe Centre on Energy, Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentTechnical University of DenmarkRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Geography & GeologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations