“ASSESSMENT

OF BIOMASS AND CARBON

SEQUESTRATION OF TREES IN DIFFERENT PARKS IN
MANCHERIAL DISTRICT, TELANGANA”

THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Award of the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In
Forestry (Silviculture and Agroforestry)
By

BATHULA TAJ KUMAR

2022
DEPARTMENT OF SILVICULTURE AND AGROFORESTRY

COLLEGE OF FORESTRY

SAM HIGGINBOTTOM UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, TECHNOLOGY &

SCIENCES
 NAINI, PRAYAGRAJ (U.P.)

ID. 20MSFSA010
THE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE
This thesis entitled “Assessment of biomass and Carbon sequestration of trees in
different parks in Mancherial district, Telangana” has been prepared and submitted by
Bathula Taj Kumar. ID. No. 20MSFSA010 in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
the award of the degree of Master of Science in Forestry (Silviculture and Agroforestry),
College of Forestry, Sam Higgin bottom University of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences,
Prayagraj.

Name Designation & Department Evaluation Signature

1. (Prof) Dr. A.J Raj Satisfactory /

Dean Not satisfactory …………...
College of Forestry
(Advisor)
2. Dr. Sameer Daniel Satisfactory /
Assistant Professor Not satisfactory ……………
Dept. of Silviculture and Agroforestry
(Co-Advisor)
3. Dr. Hemanth Kumar Satisfactory /
Assistant Professor Not satisfactory …………...
Dept. of FPU
(Member)
4. Dr. Anushree Shukla Satisfactory /
Assistant Professor Not satisfactory ……………
Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics
(Member)

The thesis has been examined by the evaluation committee and found acceptable.
……………………….
Place: Prayagraj Prof. A.K.A. Lawrence
Date: (Chairman)

Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation Engineering

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL WORK

This is to certify that the study conducted by Mr. Bathula Taj Kumar. ID. No.
20MSFSA010 during 2020-2022 as reported in the present thesis was under my guidance and
supervision. The results reported by him are genuine and the script of the thesis has been
written by the candidate. Thesis entitled “Assessment of Biomass and Carbon
Sequestration of Trees in Different Parks in Mancherial District, Telangana” is
therefore, being forwarded for acceptance in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
award of degree of Master of Science in Forestry (Silviculture and Agroforestry), Dept.
of Silviculture and Agroforestry College of Forestry, Sam Higginbottom University of
Agriculture, Technology & Sciences Prayagraj-211007. (U.P) INDIA.

Place: Prayagraj (Prof) Dr. A.J Raj

Date: - Dean
College of Forestry
(Advisor)
 SELF ATTESTATION

This is to certify that my self Bathula Taj Kumar. ID. No. 20MSFSA010 have personally
worked on the thesis entitled, “Assessment of Biomass and Carbon Sequestration of Trees
in Different Parks in Mancherial District, Telangana” The data presented in this thesis
were obtained during the work done and data were collected from the field. Any other data or
information in this thesis, which have been collected or borrowed from outside agency, has
been duly acknowledged.

Place: Prayagraj Bathula Taj Kumar.

Date: ID. No. 20MSFSA010

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“MOM FIRST AND FOREMOST THAN GOD”

This thesis arose in part of years of research that has been done since I came to ‘Sam
Higgin bottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences’ Naini, Prayagraj,
Uttar Pradesh, India. By that time, I have worked with a great number of people whose
contribution in assorted ways to the research and making of the thesis deserved special
mention. It is pleasure to convey my gratitude to them all in my humble acknowledgement.
I consider it a great privilege to (Prof) Dr. A.J Raj. Dean, College of Forestry
Sometimes words are not enough to express one’s emotions and expressions. At this point of
time, I am unable to express my gratitude and reverberated reverence to my advisor. I am
immensely self-satisfied to mention that he accorded all his intellectuality and expertise
towards his field which enabled me to design a painstaking plan and move forward to
materialize that.
I felt myself blessed towards my abilities made the achievement of this goal a
challenging, enjoyable recording and stimulating experience. With profound sense of
gratitude I place on regard my sincere thanks to the chairman Prof.A.K.A.Lawrence

I consider it a great privilege to Dr Sameer Daniel. Assistant Professor, College of

Forestry (Co-Advisor) College of Forestry, SHUATS as, Dr. Hemanth Kumar. Assistant
Professor. Dept. of FPU (Member) College of forestry, SHUATS and Dr. (Mrs.) Anu Shree
shukla, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics (Member),
SHUATS; I take this opportunity to express my gratitude for their generous helpful valuable
suggestions and keep interest throughout the course of study.

A special Thank you for Rohit Gowtham Paruchuri Ph. D. Forestry (Silviculture
and Agroforestry) for their immense guidance, encouragement, timely suggestion and
necessary facilities they provided during the completion of my gudeline.
My deepest gratitude goes to my family for their unflagging love and support
throughout my life. Parents are the most precious gifts of God to mankind. They are only who
care, love, cooperate, protect and encourage their children. Yet I would like to avail this
opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude and thanks to my parents whose blessing
and endless encouragement for their silent prayers, selfless sacrifices and loving emotions
guided me to achieve success at every step of my life. The unbound affection of my brother
who has always cared for my happiness cannot be acknowledged by mere words.
Towards the end of my endeavour, it’s the right moment to extend my profound
etiquette to all those who have directly or indirectly helped me to accomplish this job because
research work cannot be a single person’s job; it needs assistance from all quarters of
scientific community to keep oneself updated. It is difficult to mention all who were helpful
to me and therefore, I start with expressing my indebtedness for everyone, who generously
helped without faltering.
To all of you whom I have named please accept my deepest thanks and to whom I
have not named please know that even though you are unnamed in this work you are not
unknown to me and you are appreciated more thanks.
Place: Prayagraj
Date: Bathula Taj Kumar
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER DESCRIPTION PAGE

No.

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

III. MATERIALS AND MATHODS

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

VI. BIBLOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

LIST OF PLATES
 Chapter-I
INTRODUCTION
About 60% of the global climate change is driven by the increasing level of CO2
concentration in the atmosphere (Grace, 2004). In maintaining the regional and global carbon
cycle, forest plays an important role (Brown et al., 1999). However, the global forest area
changed from 31.6% of global land area in 1990 to 30.6% in 2015 (FAO, 2016). Amongst
various ecosystems such as soil, grassland, forest and ocean, the forest ecosystem is
considered as an important carbon sink (Vashum et al., 2012). Out of 2,050 gigatons (Gt) of
carbon stored in the earth’s terrestrial ecosystem, the forests contain an estimated 638 Gt
carbon in the ecosystem as a whole and 238 Gt carbon as biomass alone (Nabuurs et al.,
2007).

In the forest ecosystem, the carbon is stored in five different pools viz. above ground
biomass, below ground biomass, dead wood, litter and soil organic matter (Malhi et al.,
2002). The above ground biomass includes all living biomass above the soil (stem, stump,
branches, bark, seeds and foliage). Below ground biomass includes all live roots (Penman et
al., 2003). The forest stores 86% of the above ground carbon and 73% soil carbon of the earth
(Sedjo, 1993). Approximately 50% of the total woody biomass stored in the trees is present in
the form of carbon (Birdsey, 1992; Brown and Lugo, 1982).

Telangana has the potential to sequester between 116.70 to 156.12 million tons (MT)
of additional above-ground carbon through the improvement of tree cover. The Forest blocks
in and around cities are developed into Urban Forest Parks (UFP) under the flagship
programme of Telanganaku HarithaHaram. These Urban Forest Parks will not only
provide the whole some healthy living environment but also contribute to the growth of

smart, clean, green, sustainable and healthy cities in the state. These parks are a big hit
among the local citizens and there is a lot of appreciation from the public. These parks are
mainly being used by morning walkers, day visitors, school children and student community.
These parks are providing lung spaces for the city dwellers and a great recreational facility
during the week ends. These parks will not only provide the required oxygen to the city
dwellers but will also play a vital role in the preservation and conservation of local bio-

diversity and thus help in maintaining the local ecological balance . Gandhari vanam, an
urban lung space in the outskirts of Thimmapur village, Mandamarri mandal and located on
Mancherial-Bellampalli road. This is a perfect place to spend time with families.The Urban
park developed as a hub of Bio diversity with 500 varieties of plant species.

Hence, quantification of biomass is important as an indicator of carbon stored in the

forest ecosystem. Further, biomass estimation helps assessing forest structure and comparing
functional and structural attributes of forest ecosystem across wide range of environmental
conditions (Brown et al., 1999).There have been huge deforestation and land use change in
tropics in recent decades, contributing significantly to the increased concentration of CO2 in
the earth's atmosphere and other greenhouse gases (Vishwanathan et al., 2016). The planet
Earth would not sustain life as we know it without 'greenhouse gassing;' yet, the real quantity
of heat trapped in the atmos physical climate and ocean current in the world is delicately
balanced. The rapid increases in quantities of atmospheric CO2 that we have seen in the past
century together with rises in other 'greenhouse gases' pose a concern to people (Hiriah et al.,
2011). Co2 represents 64% of the rise in atmospheric heat since it is emitted to the
atmosphere at enormous amounts (Maslin, 2004) as a result of combustion of predominantly
fossil fuel which, following the industrial revolution has increased geometrically in
consumption.

Together with the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and WMO, the
IPCC was created in 1988 in order to provide guidelines that can assist limit emissions of
greenhouse gasses into the environment. The UNFCCC introduced certain Protocols legally
constraining Industrialized Countries by a five.2% cut from their level of 1990 at the third
Conference of the Parties (COP) held in December 1997 in Kyoto (Schulze et al., 2002).
Therefore, the Kyoto Protocol was agreed by 163 nations that contribute 61.6% of their total
CO2 emissions. In order to fulfill the emissions reduction target, the KP identified flexibility
measures such as Joint Implementation (JI), the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and
Emissions Trading (ET). CDM involves carbon sequestration, replanting and limiting
deforestation, as a means of lowering emissions. Greenhouse gasses can be removed from the
atmosphere by sequestration (Sreejesh, 2016).

In 2014 the Government of India launched an ambitious National Agroforestry Policy

to promote farm tree growth in order to acknowledge the many advantages of agroforestry. In
order to boost production, income and livelihoods for small-holder farmers, the policy aims at
convergence amongst different agroforestry programme, programs and organizations. India is
the world's first nation to adopt a complete agroforestry policy in February 2014 during the
World Agroforestry Congress in Delhi, when it introduced a national agroforestry policy
(NAP).

Carbon sequestration is the transfer of atmospheric CO2 to ponds with a longer mean
period of residence in a way that will not be emitted again in the near future (Lal, 2004). It
was calculated at roughly 1,65 Gt carbon each year from diverse types of land use and land
change, of which 80% comes from developing countries, in particular those with a broad
tropical forest region. These emissions are accounted for by forestry, deforestation and forest
degradation. The Kyoto Protocol has therefore been integrated into Land Use, Land Use
Change and Forestry (LULUCF).

The term agroforestry refers to land-use systems consisting of a combination of life

and year and often animals. Sustainability is an important issue in agroforestry research
(Lundgren and Raintree, 1983). Planting multipurpose tree species into categories of non-
forest land offers a dual goal, i.e. biodiversity promotion and carbon capture. At crop failure,
trees function as an extra revenue source. Agroforestry systems are able to sequester C while
maintaining crop output, and represent an environmentally-friendly choice (Schoeneberger
2009; Kumar and Nair 2011). Potential secondary benefits include food security and secure
land tenure in developing countries, increasing farm income, restoring and maintaining
aboveground and belowground biodiversity, creating corridors between protected forests,
maintaining watershed hydrology and soil conservation (Pandey 2002). The challenge in
agroforestry system is how to retain the positive effects of tree species while limiting the
negative effects of competition with crops (Lott et al., 2000).

Urban green space can be treated as part of green infrastructure, defined in the EU
policy as “a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other
environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services”
(European Commission, 2013). Protection and enhancement of ecosystem services, such as
water purification, noise reduction, habitat provision and recreational benefits, is regarded as
particularly important in urban areas, where most people now live ((Lindén et al., 2020).
Improving urban green infrastructure can at the same time diminish the ecological footprints
of cities and improve the quality of life for the city dwellers. Accordingly, information based
on mapping and assessment of urban ecosystems and their services is essential for planning
and decision making in cities
 Carbon sequestration is a phenomenon for the storage of CO2 or other forms of
carbon to mitigate global warming and its one of the important clause of Kyoto Protocol,
through biological, chemical or physical processes; CO2 is captured from the atmosphere.
The Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1997)
has provided a vehicle for considering the effects of carbon sinks and sources, as well as
addressing issues related to fossil fuels emissions. Carbon sequestration is a way to mitigate
the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere released by the burning of fossil
fuels and other anthropogenic activities. Potential actions to mitigate fossil fuel emissions
include increased energy conservation and efficiency, employment of renewable energy
systems and use of alternative fuels (NAS, 1991). Other greenhouse gas mitigation options
include sequestration of CO2 in biological 'sinks' such as plant biomass. Alternatively,
biomass from terrestrial systems can be used as an energy source and offset fossil fuel CO2
emissions.
Along with the forest carbon stocks the Parks services provides a significant amount of
ecosystem services, such as watershed protection, erosion control, fire management, and
carbon sequestration. However, the economic value of these services has never been studied.
This paper provides a first-ever analysis of the contribution provided by Park Services in an
important vegetative carbon sequestration.
Effective delivery of ecosystem services is closely related to the preservation of intact
environments. Park Services also contributes economic value in a variety of fields, such as
intellectual property, scientific research, education, botanical and wildlife species
conservation and historical preservation.
JUSTIFICATION:
Global climate change, commonly referred to as global warming, is a serious environmental
issue affecting human lives and planet Earth today and it has captured the world’s attention
during the recent past. Trees growing on farmlands provide numerous ecosystem services.
Agroforestry trees help to protect the diversity of tree species and they have also the potential
to store carbon dioxide in the biomass that would otherwise emit to the atmosphere. It is well
known that agroforestry models have more capacity to sequester carbon when compared to
monocropping. Agroforestry systems (AFSs) are believed to have a higher potential to
sequester carbon (C) because of their perceived ability for greater capture and utilization of
growth resources (light, nutrients, and water) than in single-species crop or pasture systems.
Telangana state in the south estern coast of India in the tropical humid zone has a
predominantly agricultural economy, a very high density of population and therefore high
pressure on cultivable land. Usually undertake different parks to cope with the less land
available and to ensure a regular. Many international and national policies have been
formulated to promote AF practices among in Mancherial Dist, Telangana.
Therefore, understanding carbon sequestration potential of different parksare crucial
to evaluate its role in climate change adaptation and mitigation. The present M.Sc. thesis
research work will be conducted for the “Assessment of Biomass and Carbon Sequestration
of trees in Different Parks in Mancherial Dist, Telangana”. In the present study 7 different
parks of Mancherial Dist, Telangana are considered. From each of the 7 park most
extensively cultivated models are selected for the carbon investigation.

Objectives:
General Objective:
 This study will be conducted to determine the biomass, carbon storage and carbon
sequestration of trees in different Parks in Mancherial Dist, Telangana
Specific Objectives:
 To estimate aboveground and belowground biomass accumulation of trees in different
Parks in Mancherial Dist, Telangana
 To assess the aboveground and belowground carbon sequestration in the of trees in
different Parks in Mancherial Dist, Telangana
 To estimate the total carbon sequestration, total CO 2 accumulation and CO2
accumulation rate of trees in different Parks in Mancherial Dist, Telangana.
 Chapter-II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Rama Chandra Prasad & Mamtha Lakshmi, (2015)The current study evaluates the
growing stock, biomass and carbon content of Andhra Pradesh state’s forest (India) along
with its current status of forest degradation and loss. For this purpose, the study used the
growing stock data collected by state forest department in 2010 for the calculation of biomass
and carbon storage using the standard conversion and expansion factors given by IPCC. The
analysis shows low biomass and carbon values for the state’s forest in comparison to the
mean values recorded in different studies made for Andhra Pradesh. It is also observed to be
lower when compared with the average carbon and biomass for Indian forests. Overall, the
analysis showed degradation and loss of forest in the state, coupled with reduction in biomass
and carbon sink.

Sharma et al., (2020)The above- and below-ground biomasses were estimated using the non-
destructive sampling method. Individual trees on the campus were measured for their height
and diameter at breast height (DBH), and estimates of carbon storage were performed using
allometric equations. There is a total of 45 different tree species on the campus with the total
CSP equivalent to approximately 139.86 tons. The results also reveal that Ficusbenjamina
was the predominant species on the campuswith CSP equivalent to 30.53 tons, followed by
Alstoniascholaris with carbon storage of 16.38 tons. The study reports that the ratio of native
to exotic species is 22:23 or almost 1:1. The present work highlights the role of urban forests
or urban green spaces, not only as ornamental and aesthetic plantations but also in mitigating
the impacts of climate change at a local level. Higher education institutes have an important
role in expanding their green cover so as to act as local carbon sinks.

Roxburgh et al., (2006)results are accepted as characteristic, then it is possible to estimate

the CSP of the surrounding region. Temperate forests in south-east Australia cover a total
area of about 70 940 km2, with 32% classified as unlogged in 1992. Based on our
calculations, a 95% confidence interval for above-ground living biomass CCC in these forests
was 341–386 tC ha−1, with CCS in logged forests of approximately 200 tC ha−1 and hence a
CSP in logged forests of 141–186 tC ha−1. Thus, the CSP of temperate forests in south-east
Australia (which comprise approximately 76% of these forest types Australia-wide) is in the
order of 680–895 MtC.
Lutz et al.,(2017)used in similar studies in other locations, the total uncertainty of carbon
estimates was still greater than _10%, mostly due to potential uncertainties in landscape-scale
vegetation type mismatches and trees larger than the ranges of existing allometric equations.
If carbon inventories are to be meaningfully used in policy, there is an urgent need for more
accurate landscape classification methods, improvement in allometric equations for tree
species, and better understanding of the uncertainties inherent in existing carbon accounting
methods.

Lindén et al., (2020) We conducted two tree surveys and collected soil samples (0–90 cm) in
constructed parks managed by the city of Helsinki. The estimated overall carbon density was
approximately 130 t per park hectare, when the carbon stock of trees was 22 to 28 t ha−1 and
that of soil 104 t ha−1 at the very least. The soil to tree carbon storage ratio varied from 7.1 to
7.5 for vegetated, pervious grounds and from 3.7 to 5.0 for entire park areas. The effects of
park management and vegetation type could not be entirely separated in our data, but time
was shown to have a distinct, positive effect on tree and soil carbon stocks. The results
indicate that park soils can hold remarkable carbon stocks in a cold climate. It also seems that
park soil carbon holding capacity largely exceeds that of forested soils in Finland.
Preservation and augmentation of carbon stocks in urban parks implies avoidance of drastic
tree and soil renovation measures.

Dhyani et al., (2009) studied agroforestry and its agricultural relationship and suggested that
agroforestry is an ideal option in order to enhance wasteland productivity, increase tree cover
outside of forests and reduce human forest pressures under various agro-environmental
regions, and is then a viable option for climate change prevention and mitigation.

Lal (2004) estimated that in the first 30cm the soil has secreted the organic C pool to be 21
trillion tons and in the first 1/2 meters 63 billion tons. The same study calculated organic C in
the first m of the soil to be 196 billion tons. The overall soil C sequedration potential of India
was predicted to range from 39 to 49 Tg C year to year −1.

Bhagya ., (2017). It was detected in the cocoon + jamun (140,06 t/ha), followed by cocoon +
mango systems (138, 91 t/ ha), cocoon + garcinia (131,72 t/ha), while the cocoon monocrop
was only 98,2 C t/ha.
Ahmed et al., (2017) have assessed the performance of the cocoa-based agroforestry system
in Bangladesh of medicinal plants and spices. For the turmeric plant, in the guava and
coconut-based agroforestry systems the largest weight of primal finger and secondary fingers
was recorded, with a fresh rhizome and a greatest output (38,78 t ha-1).

Kumar (2011) stated that in 839 homegardens of the southwest coast of India, the stocks of
mixed tree species in C were within 16.3-35.2 Mg ha−1 (mean 24.3) in a number of coconut
and fruit trees, both of which changing density. In a mixed position, the carbon storage of
cocoa palms will presumably be much higher than that of cocoa, particularly where the mixed
species are trees.

Selvaraj, et al., (2016) have performed an assessment of carbon sequestration in selected

trees in Chennai, and reported high levels in teak (17,83 to 365,87 t ha-1), followed by
cocoon (9,14 to 285) in biomass standing carbon and equivalent CO2.

Liyanage& Dassanayake (1993). They reported only SOCs (8.6 g kg/1), coconut + cocoa
(14.2 g kg/1), cocoa + coffee (13.6 g/l), coconut + pepper (12.7 g/l), cocoa + clove (12 g/l)
and cinnamon (12 g/l), and coconut + cinnamon in the following systems (14.6 g kg-1).
Mixed cropping obviously displays more SOC than monocropping.

Goswami et al., (2013) Climate change is one of the major issues that require immediate
attention. Sequestering carbon (C) through agroforestry is one of the ways to contribute to
global climate change mitigation. In the present study, agroforestry land use systems existing
on arable and non-arable lands in the Kwalkhad Watershed of middle Himalayan region of
Himachal Pradesh, India, were evaluated for C sequestration and C credits. In total, eight land
use systems existed in the watershed. Agri silvi horticulture (ASH) system (14.78 Mg ha− 1)
and agri horti silviculture (AHS) system (14.45 Mg ha− 1) sequestered a high amount of C
than silvipasture (SP), pure agriculture or grassland and abandoned land, though not
significantly more than agri silviculture (AS) or agri horticulture. Total C pool in abandoned
soils (0–40 cm) was highest followed by SP and ASH system. C stocks in soil (0–40 cm)
exceeded C stocks in plants by a factor of 15.81 for AHS system. SP, ASH and AS systems,
with their higher C mitigation potential of 1.71, 1.52 and 1.43, respectively, were more
suitable land use systems for C mitigation in the region. The ASH system produced the most
(21.49) C credits on a per-hectare basis.
Bipal et al., (2018) Carbon is sequestered by the plant photosynthesis and stored as biomass
in different parts of the tree. Carbon sequestration rate has been measured for young species
(6 years age) of Shorea robusta at Chadra forest in Paschim Medinipur district, Albizzia
lebbek in Indian Botanic Garden in Howrah district, Tectona grandis at Chilapata forest in
Coochbehar district and Artocarpus integrifolia at Banobitan within Kolkata of West Bengal
in India by Automated Vaisala Made Instrument GMP343 and aboveground biomass carbon
has been analyzed by CHN analyzer. The specific objective of this article is to measure
carbon sequestration rate and aboveground biomass carbon potential of four young species of
Shorea robusta, Albizzia lebbek, Tectona grandis and Artocarpus integrifolia. The carbon
sequestration rate (mean) from the ambient air during winter season as obtained by Shorea
robusta, Albizzia lebbek, Tectona grandis and Artocarpus integrifolia were 11.13, 14.86 and
2.57 g/h in overcast skies and 4.22 g/h respectively. The annual carbon sequestration rate
from ambient air were estimated at 8.97 t C ha-1 by Shorea robusta, 11.97 t C ha-1 by
Albizzia lebbek, 2.07 t C ha-1 by Tectona grandis and 3.33 t C ha-1 by Artocarpus
integrifolia. The percentage of carbon content (except root) in the aboveground biomass of
Shorea robusta, Albizzia lebbek, Tectona grandis and Artocarpus integrifolia were 47.45,
47.12, 45.45 and 43.33, respectively. The total aboveground biomass carbon stock per hectare
as estimated for Shorea robusta, Albizzia lebbek, Tectona grandis and Artocarpus integrifolia
were 5.22, 6.26, 7.97 and 7.28 t C ha-1 , respectively in these forest stands.

Sarangle et al., (2018) This study was designed to quantify individual carbon sequestration
potential of tree based intercropping systems (E. tereticornis, P. deltoides and T. grandis) and
also quantify biomass and carbon stock in a conventional sole cropped wheat system in north
western district of Punjab state of India. The main aim of this work is to quantify above
ground and below ground carbon pools within a tree based intercropping and in conventional
agricultural systems. The results of this study revealed that maximum total biomass (1311.82
t ha-1), total carbon stock (654.91 t ha-1) and total carbon sequestration potential (130.98 t C
ha-1yr-1) was observed in pure E. tereticornis plantation followed by mixed (P. deltoides and
T. grandis) plantations (210.29 tha1 , 109.11 t ha-1 and 21.83 t C ha-1yr-1) and poplar based
land use systems (181.01 t ha-1, 97.29 tha-1 and 18.59 t C ha-1 yr-1). Whereas, total biomass
(12.80 t ha-1) and carbon stocks (6.78 t ha-1) lowest recorded under pure agriculturally based
land use system. The results from this study will help to estimate levels of atmospheric CO2
that could be sequestered by tree based land use systems for this climatic region of Punjab.
Therefore, an attempt has been made to collect the data on biomass, carbon stock and carbon
sequestration potential in selected land use systems. The present findings may be used as
baseline information for developing prediction models for probable effects of different land
use, future intervention and sustainable management of land use systems in this region.

Suryawanshi et al., (2014) the investigation aboveground biomass and belowground biomass
carbon sequestration potential of selected tree species of North Maharashtra University
campus in Jalgaon city was measured. Total standing biomass of selected tree species was in
8000 m2 hectares. The total of 462 numbers of 10 trees species present in selected area of
North Maharashtra University Jalgaon. Total biomass and carbon sequestrated in the tree
species have been estimated using non-destructive method. The aboveground and
belowground organic carbon (tones/tree) and total organic carbon of each species were
calculated. The calculated total organic carbon has been compared with allometric model.
Moringa olifera species was found to be dominant sequestrated 15.775 tons of carbon and
having 14 trees followed by Azadirachta indica 12.272tones. The species Eucalyptus
citriodora has lowest carbon sequestration potential i.e., 1.814tones.

Chaturvedi et al., (2016) Productivity of any vegetation system mainly depends on biomass
production and carbon storage potential in their different components, which are affected by
nature and age of plant, and other climatic, edaphic, topographic and biotic factors. In
different vegetation systems, the bole/ stem biomass contributed 28 to 86% of total
aboveground biomass. The percentage contributions of bole, branch and leaf were 65-76, 14-
19, 3-12 for fast growing tree species. In case of another tree-based systems stem contributed
about 76 to 80%, branch 11 to 29% and leaves 3 to 14% of aboveground biomass. A tree
allocates on an average 81.89% to above ground biomass (stem, branch, leaves and litter) and
18.11% to below ground biomass (roots). The available estimates of carbon stored in tree-
based systems ranged from 0.29 to 15.21 Mg C ha1year-1 in above ground and 30-300 Mg C
ha-1 up to 1 m depth in the soil. Soil carbon storage potential in agroforestry systems differed
from system to system and highest storage potential was observed in home gardens where it
stored 119.3 t SOC per hectare

Kuim et al., (2012) Carbon exists as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and constitutes about
0.04% of the atmosphere. In the recent past, it has gained a lot of attention as a greenhouse
gas, as it has potential to influence the climate pattern of the world. Anthropogenic activities
like industrialization, deforestation, forest degradation and burning of fossil fuel, has caused
an increase in the level of carbon in the atmosphere and disrupted the global carbon cycle.
However, nature has its own mechanism of sequestering and storing the carbon in its
“reservoirs” or “sinks’’. Forest plays an important role in the global carbon cycle as carbon
sinks of the terrestrial ecosystem. The carbon sequestered or stored on the forest trees are
mostly referred to as the biomass of the tree or forest. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change identified ive carbon pools of the terrestrial ecosystem involving biomass,
namely the aboveground biomass, below-ground biomass, litter, woody debris and soil
organic matter. Among all the carbon pools, the above-ground biomass constitutes the major
portion of the carbon pool. Estimating the amount of forest biomass is very crucial for
monitoring and estimating the amount of carbon that is lost or emitted during deforestation,
and it will also give us an idea of the forest’s potential to sequester and store carbon in the
forest ecosystem. Estimations of forest carbon stocks are based upon the estimation of forest
biomass. Forest’s carbon stocks are generally not measured directly; however, many authors
assume the carbon concentration of tree parts to be 50% or 45% of the dry biomass. This
paper, aims to review and summaries the various methods and studies that were carried out to
estimate the above-ground biomass of the forest.
 Chapter-III
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present investigation entitled ASSESSMENT OF BIOMASS AND CARBON

SEQUESTRATION OF TREES IN DIFFERENT PARKS IN MANCHERIAL
DISTRICT, TELANGANA. Was conducted to study different parks in Mancherial District
Site:
Mancherial is a town and headquarters of the Mancherial district of the Indian state of
Telangana in between latitudes 180 40’ 10’’ and 190 8’ 42’’ N and longitudes 790 10’ 15’’
and 790 57’ 53’’ E

Climate:
The temperature varies from 9ºC to 48ºC. The average annual rainfall of the district is
1100mm received mainly from the south-west monsoon. The soils in Mancherial District
ranges from Black cotton, Chalka sandy loam, Red loams to Saline and Alkaline soils.

FIGURE : This Map shows Different Districts in Telanangana state

Sl no. PARKS LOCATION

1. Singareni Tagore Stadium Park Ramakrishnapur

2. Singareni Park Mandamarri

3. GandariVanam Park Bokkalagutta

4. Quarry Park Gadhpur

5. Nandavanam Park Nuspur

6. Chaitanya Park Nuspur

7. Pragathi Stadium Park Singapur

The Mancherial Dist, known as the cultural capital of Telangana. Indian Council of Forestry
Research and Education Hydrabad dominates the parks and garden system. Most important
crops cultivated are cotton, paddy and tapioca.
Data collection:
A nondestructive method through the quadrat sampling technique was utilized in this
study conducted in 2020-21. A total of 4 plots (10 m x10 m) were established for this
research in each park with 20–30 m distance between plots to facilitate the inventory. Within
sample plots, a 100% inventory of trees with at least 5 cm diameter was undertaken, where
trunk diameters and total height of each tree were measured in addition to species
identification. Trunk diameters of species were measured at 30 cm above the highest prop
root, whereas the rest were measured at diameter at breast height (DBH). Samples of branch
bark and stem (6–8 cm diameter, 10–20 cm long) of each of the major species in the area
were taken to the laboratory for carbon content analysis.
Table 3.1: Parameters and General Methods used in Agroforestry Carbon Stock
Measurement (Raj, 2014)

S.No. Parameter Methods

1 Large living trees with a stem DBH >30 Non-destructive measurement of stem
cm and small trees with a stem DBH of diameter (and height) and apply allometric
5 - 30 cm biomass equation

2 Belowground living biomass (roots) Use a constant value for relation of above to
belowground biomass ratio
3.3. Estimation of Above-Ground and Below-Ground Biomass (AGB and BGB)
Above-ground and below-ground biomasses were estimated on the basis of field
measurements of diameter at breast height (DBH) of the tree using allometric equations the
below given equation is applicable to dry climates with annual rainfall < 1500mm; hence, it
can be used for where the average annual rainfall ranges between 700 and 800 mm.
(𝐀𝐆𝐁)e𝐬𝐭 = 0.0673 (𝐫𝐃² 𝐇)0.976

where D is the DBH (cm).

BGB = AGB × (15/100)
3.4. Estimation of Total Biomass (TB)
Total biomass of individual trees will be the sum of their above- and below-ground
biomasses, respectively, given by the following equation:
Total Biomass = AGB + BGB
3.5. Estimation of Carbon Content
Generally, for any plant species, 50% of its biomass is its carbon content.
Carbon Content = 0.5 × Total Biomass
CO2 equivalent is then calculated using the below given equation:
CO2 (eq.) = (Carbon content × 44)/12
Aboveground Tree Biomass Carbon:
Tree biomass density of the tree species will be calculated using the following formula.

−1 Aboveground Tree Biomass(Mg)

Aboveground Tree Biomass Density ( Mg C ha ) =
Sample Area ∈ Hectare

Generally, the carbon concentration of the different parts of a tree is assumed to be 50% of
the biomass (Brown, 1997) or 45% of the biomass (Whittaker and Linkens, 1973; Lasco
and Pulhin, 2000). IPCC (1996) also set the default value for carbon content at 50% of the
biomass in trees. In the present study, the value of 50% will be used as carbon concentration.
Carbon sequestration or carbon density of aboveground tree biomass will be calculated using
the following formula.

−1
Carbon Sequestration/ Carbon Density in Aboveground Tree Biomass ( Mg C ha )= Aboveground Tree Bio

(Where, Carbon Conc. (%) = g C/ 100 g biomass for which default value of 50% will be used
to determine carbon stored in aboveground tree biomass)
Total Carbon Sequestration and Total CO2 Accumulation:
Total carbon sequestration (total carbon content) of agroforestry will be calculated using the
following formula.
−1
Total Carbon Sequestration in Parks ( Mg C ha ) =
Carbon Sequestration in Aboveground Tree Biomass +
Carbon Sequestration in Belowground Tree Roots +

Total Carbon dioxide (CO2) Accumulation of different Parks will be calculated using the
following formula.

−1
Total Carbon Dioxide Accumulation in Park ( Mg C ha ) =
Total Carbon Sequestration in park × 3.6666666

To convert C  CO₂, multiply by ratio of molecular weights (44g CO2/mol) to (12g C/mol)

CHAPTER-IV
 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The present investigation entitled “Assessment of Biomass and Carbon
Sequestration of Trees in Different Parks in Mancherial District, Telangana.” was
carried out during the year 2021-2022. The work was conducted in different Parks in
Mancherial districts viz., Singareni Tagore stadium park, Singareni Park, Gandhari vanam
park, Quarry Park, Nandavanam Park, Chaitanya Park, Pragathi Park in the state of
Telangana Data on various parameters studied were subjected to statistical analysis in order
to obtain the valid conclusion of results, which has been presented in succeeding pages. The
results obtained on the basis of experiment have been described in this chapter under
following sub-headings.

4.1. Estimation of Above ground Biomass:

4.1.1: Above ground Biomass:

The biometric equation's estimation of aboveground biomass used tree diameter

(DBH) and height as variables. Aboveground biomass was gathered from various parks in
Telangana's Mancherial District. Significant variances were noted amongst parks, with the
greatest value reported in Singareni Tagore park (8,439.522 kg/tree), followed by Quarry
Park (5,735.37 kg/tree), and the lowest in Gandhari vanam park (892.16 kg/tree).
Aboveground biomass differed significantly between plots in the same park. The estimated
aboveground biomass of trees in several parks in the Mancherial district demonstrates that the
larger the DBH of the tree, the greater its aboveground biomass.

4.1.2: Aboveground tree biomass density (Mg ha-1):

The current study's findings show that there are considerable disparities in aboveground
biomass density among various Parks. The greatest above ground biomass density is found in
Singareni Tagore Park (843.95 Mg/ha), followed by Quarry Park (573.53 Mg/ha), and the
lowest in Gandhari vanam Park (89.21 Mg/ha).

 Maggiotto et al. (2014) also reported similar estimate for 15-year-old plantation as
124.12 Mg ha-1

4.1.3 Below Ground Biomass (Kg/ha):

The belowground biomass of trees in various parks ranged from 240.88 kg/tree to
2278.67 kg/tree. While Singareni Tagore Park has the greatest below-ground biomass at
2278.67 Kg/tree. Quarry Park came in second with 1548.55 kg/tree while Gandhari Vanam
Park came in last with 240.88 kg/tree. The projected belowground biomass of the plantation
in different parks in the Mancherial area reveals that the bigger the DBH of the tree, the
higher the aboveground biomass and, as a result, the higher the allocation of belowground
biomass.

4.1.4: Below ground root Biomass density (Mg ha-1):

The results of this study demonstrate that there are non-significant differences in
below-ground root biomass density among different Parks. Singareni Tagore Park has the
highest below-ground biomass density (227.86 Mg/ha), followed by Quarry Park (154.85
Mg/ha), and Gandhari vanam Park (24.08 Mg/ha).

 belowground biomass observed in this study was higher than the 25.45 Mg ha -1 measured
for 19-year-old rubber plantation in China by Liu et al. (2017).

4.1.5. Total tree Biomass (Kg/tree):

As a result, the higher the aboveground biomass and belowground root biomass, the
higher the allocation of total tree biomass. In various parks, total tree biomass ranges from
1133.05 to 10718.20 kg/ha. When compared to the other parks, Singareni Tagore Stadium
Park had the highest total tree biomass (10718.20 Kg/ha) followed by Quarry Park (7283.92
Kg/ha) and lowest was observed in Gandhari vanam park (1133.05 Kg/ha)

4.1.6 Total tree Biomass Density (Mg ha-1):

The results of this study demonstrate that there are non-significant differences in total
tree biomass density among different Parks. Singareni Tagore Park has the highest total tree
biomass density (1071.82 Mg ha-1), followed by Quarry Park (728.39 Mg ha-1), and Gandhari
vanam Park (113.30 Mg ha-1).
 Aboveground Tree Belowground Total Tree
Aboveground Belowground Total Tree
Biomass Density Root Biomass Biomass
Parks Tree Biomass Root Biomass Biomass
(Mg C ha-1) Density (Mg C Density (Mg
(kg/tree) (kg/tree) (kg/tree)
ha-1) ha-1)
(Singareni Tagore Stadium
8,439.522 843.955 2,278.673 227.865 10,718.200 1,071.820
Park)
(Singareni Park) 2,023.302 202.330 546.290 54.630 2,569.593 256.960

(Gandhari Vanam Park) 892.168 89.218 240.885 24.088 1,133.052 113.308

(Quarry Park) 5,735.370 573.538 1,548.550 154.853 7,283.920 728.390

(Nandavanam Park) 2,088.210 208.820 563.818 56.380 2,652.028 265.200

(Chaitanya Park) 1,222.435 122.248 330.058 33.008 1,552.492 155.250

(Pragathi Park) 2,168.650 216.865 585.535 58.553 2,754.185 275.418

573.76 1549.15 154.91 7286.75 728.67

CD (5%) 5737.6
SE(m) 1,931.101 193.110 521.397 52.140 2,452.499 245.250

SE(d) 2,730.990 273.099 737.367 73.737 3,468.357 346.835

Table 4.1: Biomass Estimation of Trees in Seven Parks of Mancherial Dist., Telangana.
 Biomass in Different parks
12,000.00

10,000.00

8,000.00

6,000.00

4,000.00

2,000.00

0.00
) ) ) k) ) ) )
rk rk rk ar rk rk rk
Pa i Pa Pa P Pa Pa i Pa
um en m rry am ny
a
at
h
di ar a na ua an ta g
St
a
in
g V ( Q v ai ra
(S ri da Ch (P
re ha an (
go d (N
a an
niT (G
e
g ar
in
(S

Aboveground Tree Biomass (kg/tree) Belowground Root Biomass (kg/tree)

Total Tree Biomass (kg/tree)

Figure 4.1: Biomass Estimation of Trees in Seven Parks of Mancherial Dist., Telangana.

Biomass Density in seven Parks

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
) ) ) k) ) ) )
rk rk rk ar rk rk rk
Pa i Pa Pa P Pa Pa i Pa
um en m rry am ny
a
at
h
di ar a na ua an ta g
St
a
in
g V ( Q v ai ra
(S ri da Ch (P
re ha an (
go d (N
a an
niT (G
e
g ar
in
(S

Aboveground Tree Biomass Density (Mg C ha-1) Belowground Root Biomass Density (Mg C ha-1)
Total Tree Biomass Density (Mg C ha-1)

Figure 4.2: Biomass Density of Trees in Seven Parks of Mancherial Dist., Telangana.
Aboveground Tree Carbon (kg/tree):
Non-Significant variances were noted amongst parks, Among the parks
studied, Singareni Stadium Park had the highest aboveground tree carbon (4219.76 kg
C/tree), followed by Quarry Park (2867.68 kg C/tree). And lowest was observed in Gandhari
vanam park (446.08 Kg C/tree)

Carbon Density of Aboveground Tree (Mg C ha-1):

The current study's findings show that there are considerable disparities in
aboveground Carbon density among various Parks. The greatest above ground Carbon
density is found in Singareni Tagore Park (421.97 Mg C ha-1), followed by Quarry Park
(286.76 Mg C ha-1 ), and the lowest in Gandhari vanam Park (44.60 Mg C ha-1).
Belowground Root Carbon (kg/tree):
The belowground Root Carbon of trees in various parks ranged from 120.44 kg/tree to
1,139.338 kg/tree. While Singareni Tagore Park has the greatest below-ground root carbon at
1,139.33 Kg/tree. Quarry Park came in second with 774.27 kg/tree while Gandhari Vanam
Park came in last with 120.44 kg/tree.

Carbon Sequestration or Carbon Density of Belowground Root (Mg C ha-1):

The results of this study demonstrate that there are non-significant differences in
below-ground root biomass density among different Parks. Singareni Tagore Park has the
highest below-ground biomass density (113.93 Mg C ha-1), followed by Quarry Park (77.42
Mg C ha-1), and lowest was Gandhari vanam Park (12.04 Mg C ha-1).
Total Tree Carbon (kg/tree):
Non-Significant variances were noted amongst parks, As a result, the higher the
allocation of total tree carbon, the higher the aboveground tree carbon and belowground root
carbon. Total tree carbon in various parks ranges from 661.08 to 5364.39 kg/tree. Singareni
Tagore Stadium Park had the highest total tree carbon (5364.393 Kg/ha)
Total Carbon Sequestration or Carbon Density of Tree (Mg C ha-1)
The results of this study demonstrate that there are non-significant differences in Total
Carbon density/ Sequestration among different Parks. Singareni Tagore Park has the highest
below-ground biomass density (535.90 Mg C ha-1), followed by Quarry Park (364.19 Mg C
ha-1), and lowest was Gandhari vanam Park (56.65 Mg C ha-1).
 Carbon Density of Belowground Carbon Total Tree Total Carbon
Aboveground Tree Root Carbon Sequestration Carbon Sequestration or
Aboveground (Mg C ha-1) (kg/tree) or Carbon (kg/tree) Carbon Density
Parks Tree Carbon Density of of Tree (Mg C
(kg/tree) Belowground ha-1)
Root (Mg C ha-
1
)
(Singareni Tagore Stadium
4,219.765 421.975 1,139.338 113.935 5,359.098 535.910
Park)
(Singareni Park) 1,011.655 101.165 273.148 27.318 1,284.797 128.480

(Gandhari Vanam Park) 446.088 44.610 120.443 12.045 566.528 56.653

(Quarry Park) 2,867.687 286.768 774.273 77.428 3,641.960 364.195

(Nandavanam Park) 1,044.105 104.413 281.908 28.190 1,326.013 132.600

(Chaitanya Park) 611.223 61.123 165.028 16.505 776.245 77.625

(Pragathi Park) 1,084.328 108.435 292.768 29.280 1,377.095 137.708

CD (5%) 2868.798 286.87 774.58 77.45 3643.37 364.33

SE(m) 965.551 96.555 260.699 26.070 1,226.250 122.625

SE(d) 1,365.495 136.549 368.684 36.869 1,734.179 173.418

Table 4.2: Carbon Estimation of Trees in Seven Parks of Mancherial Dist., Telangana.
 Carbon Estimation
6,000.00

5,000.00

4,000.00

3,000.00

2,000.00

1,000.00

0.00
rk
) k) rk
) k) rk
)
rk
) k)
Pa Par Pa Par Pa Pa Par
i i
m en m rry am ny
a th
iu ar na ua an ti a g a
tad ng Va (Q v ra
S Si ri a ha (P
e ( ha nd (C
or d a
g
an (N
Ta
ni (G
re
ga
in
(S

Aboveground Tree Carbon (kg/tree) Belowground Root Carbon (kg/tree) Total Tree Carbon (kg/tree)
Figure 4.3: Carbon Estimation of Trees in Seven Parks of Mancherial Dist., Telangana.

Carbon Density
600

500

400

300

200

100

0
rk
) k) rk
) k) rk
)
rk
) k)
Pa Par Pa Par Pa Pa Par
i hi
um en m rry m ny
a
at
di ar a na ua a na ta g
St
a
in
g V ( Q v ai ra
(S ar
i da Ch (P
re an (
go ndh (N
a a
iT (G
ren
g a
in
(S

Carbon Density of Aboveground Tree (Mg C ha-1)

Carbon Sequestration or Carbon Density of Belowground Root (Mg C ha-1)
Total Carbon Sequestration or Carbon Density of Tree (Mg C ha-1)

Figure 4.4: Carbon Density of Trees in Seven Parks of Mancherial Dist., Telangana.
4.14: Total Carbon Sequestration (Mg C ha-1) and Total CO2 Accumulation (Mg C ha-1)
in Parks in Mancherial dist. Telangana.
Because of its high carbon density, Singareni Tagore park has the highest carbon
sequestration when all components are combined (536.43 Mg C ha-1). Quarry Park (409.23
Mg C ha-1) comes next, followed by Singareni Park (134.75 Mg C ha-1). In addition, the
result shows that Singareni Tagore Park has the highest Total CO2 Accumulation of
Agroforestry Plantation (1966.58 Mg C/ha), followed by Quarry Park (1626.27 Mg C/ha).

 Average carbon storage by agroforestry systems has been estimated as 9, 21, 50 and 63
Mg C ha-1 in the semi-arid, sub-humid, humid and temperate regions respectively
(Montagnini and Nair, 2004).

Table 4.14: Total Carbon Sequestration (Mg C ha-1) and Total CO2 Accumulation (Mg
C ha-1) in Parks in Mancherial dist. Telangana

Total Carbon Total CO2 Accumulation of

Sequestration or Carbon
Agroforestry Plantation (Mg C
Density of Tree (Mg C ha-
Parks 1)
ha-1)

 
(Singareni Tagore
535.910 1,966.790
Stadium Park)
(Singareni Park)
128.480 471.523
(Gandhari Vanam Park)
56.653 207.915
(Quarry Park)
364.195 1,336.600
(Nandavanam Park)
132.600 486.650
(Chaitanya Park)
77.625 284.880
(Pragathi Park)
137.708 505.393

CD (5%) 364.33 1336.73

SE(m) 129.989 450.034

SE(d) 183.832 636.444

Figure 4.7: Total Carbon Sequestration (Mg C ha -1)) in Parks in Mancherial dist.
Telangana.

Total Carbon Sequestration or Carbon Density of Tree (Mg

C ha-1)
137.708
77.625

132.6 535.91

364.195

128.48
56.653

(Singareni Tagore Stadium Park) (Singareni Park) (Gandhari Vanam Park)

(Quarry Park) (Nandavanam Park) (Chaitanya Park)
(Pragathi Park)

Figure 4.7.1: Total CO2 Accumulation (Mg C ha-1) in Parks in Mancherial dist.
Telangana.

Total CO2 Accumulation of Agroforestry Plantation (Mg C

ha-1)

(Singareni Tagore Stadium Park) (Singareni Park) (Gandhari Vanam Park)

(Quarry Park) (Nandavanam Park) (Chaitanya Park)
(Pragathi Park)

CHAPTER – V
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The present experiment entitled “ASSESSMENT OF BIOMASS AND CARBON

SEQUESTRATION OF TREES IN DIFFERENT PARKS IN MANCHERIAL
DISTRICT, TELANGANA” was carried out during the year 2020-2021 in different parks
in Mancherial district in the state of Kerala. Aboveground biomass was estimated using non-
destructive analysis by species- specific allometric equations while belowground biomass
was calculated using a constant value for relation of above to belowground biomass ratio.
Total carbon sequestration was evaluated by adding carbon density of each component
present in each park. The findings of the present study with respect of the objectives
mentioned and the salient features summarized herein.

5.1. To estimate aboveground and belowground biomass accumulation of trees in

different Parks in Mancherial Dist., Telangana -

 The aboveground biomass in various parks in the Mancherial district ranges from
1041.08 to 8447.86kg/ha. In comparison to the other parks, Singareni Tagore Stadium
Park had the highest aboveground biomass (8,439.52 Kg/ha) and aboveground tree
biomass density (843.95 Mg ha-1)
 The belowground root biomass ranges from 240.88 to 2278.63 kg/ha in various
parks. Singareni Tagore Stadium Park had the highest below ground root biomass
(2278.63.92 Kg/ha) and below ground root biomass density (227.86 Mg ha-1) when
compared to the other parks.
 In various parks, total tree biomass ranges from 1133.05 to 10718.20 kg/ha. When
compared to the other parks, Singareni Tagore Stadium Park had the highest total tree
biomass (10718 Kg/ha) and total tree biomass density (1071.82 Mg ha-1)

5.2. To assess the aboveground and belowground carbon sequestration in the of trees in
different Parks in Mancherial Dist, Telangana
 Among the parks studied, Singareni Stadium Park had the highest aboveground tree
carbon (4219.76 kg C/tree), followed by Quarry Park (2867.68 kg C/tree). And
lowest was observed in Gandhari vanam park (446.08 Kg C/tree). Among the parks
studied, Singareni Stadium Park had the highest aboveground tree carbon (4219.76 kg
 C/tree), followed by Quarry Park (2867.68 kg C/tree). And lowest was observed in
Gandhari vanam park (446.08 Kg C/tree)
 While Singareni Tagore Park has the greatest below-ground root carbon at 1,139.33
Kg/tree. Quarry Park came in second with 774.27 kg/tree while Gandhari Vanam
Park came in last with 120.44 kg/tree. Singareni Tagore Park has the highest below-
ground biomass density (113.93 Mg C ha-1), followed by Quarry Park (77.42 Mg C
ha-1), and lowest was Gandhari vanam Park (12.04 Mg C ha-1).
 Total tree carbon in various parks ranges from 661.08 to 5364.39 kg/tree. Singareni
Tagore Stadium Park had the highest total tree carbon (5364.393 Kg/ha) Total
Carbon density/ Sequestration among different Parks, Singareni Tagore Park has the
highest total carbon density (535.90 Mg C ha-1), followed by Quarry Park (364.19
Mg C ha-1), and lowest was Gandhari vanam Park (56.65 Mg C ha-1).
5.3. To estimate the total carbon sequestration, total CO 2 accumulation and CO2
accumulation rate of trees in different Parks in Mancherial Dist, Telangana.
 Total Carbon density/ Sequestration among different Parks, Singareni Tagore Park
has the highest total carbon density (535.90 Mg C ha-1), followed by Quarry Park
(364.19 Mg C ha-1), and lowest was Gandhari vanam Park (56.65 Mg C ha-1).
 The result shows that Singareni Tagore Park has the highest Total CO 2 Accumulation
of Agroforestry Plantation (1966.58 Mg C/ha), followed by Quarry Park (1626.27
Mg C/ha).
 CONCLUSION
The recent investigation found that highest Total tree biomass Total Carbon
Sequestration/density and total CO2 Accumulation in Singareni Tagore Park were 10728.78
Kg/tree, 535.91 Mg C ha-1 and 1966.79 Mg C ha-1, respectively. The current study found
that location, climate, and agro-management techniques all had a significant impact on
biomass content and carbon storage capacity in various parks. Furthermore, species, planting
density, and plantation age all play an important influence in nutrient accumulation and
carbon density.
 REFERENCES

Ahmed, F., Rahim, M. A., Alam, M. S., Hamid, M. A., &Haque, K. M. B. (2007)
Performance of medicinal plants and species in coconut-based agroforestry system.
Journal of Agroforestry and Environment, 1(1), 51-53.

Albrecht, A., &Kandji, S. T. (2003). Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry

systems. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 99(1-3), 15-27.

Atakhun, D., Chayawat, C., Sathornkich, J., Phattaralerphong, J., Chantuma, P.,
Thaler, P.&Kasemsap, P. (2019).Carbon sequestration potential of rubber-tree plantation
in Thailand. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 526, No.
1, p. 012036).

Atangana, A., Khasa, D., Chang, S., &Degrande, A. (2014).Carbon sequestration in

agroforestry systems.In Tropical Agroforestry Springer, Dordrecht. (pp. 217-225).

Bhagya, H. P., &Maheswarappa, H. P. (2017).Carbon sequestration potential in coconut-

based cropping systems. Indian J. Hort. 74(1): 1-5

Birdsey, R.A. (1992). Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-
59.

Brown, S. (1997). Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. In:
Forestry Paper 134.

Brown, S. (1993). Tropical forests and the global carbon cycle: The need for sustainable
land-use patterns. Agri., Ecos. Envir. 46(1-4): 31-44

Davis, P. L., Panneerselvam, S., Kannan, B., Subramanian, K. S., Shoba, N.,
&Maheswarappa, H. P. (2017). Study on the Characteristics of Coconut Plantation in the
Western Zone of Tamil Nadu-as a Source of Carbon Sink to Mitigate Climate Change. Int.
J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci, 6(12), 3477-3483.

Dhyani, S. K., Ram Newaj& Sharma, A. P. (2009) Agroforestry: its relation with
agronomy, challenges and opportunities. Indian J. Agron54 (3), 249 – 266.

Environmental, N., & Act, M. (2008).Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report and
Environmental Management. 101.
Grace, J. (2004). Understanding and managing the global carbon cycle. J. Ecol. 92(2): 189-
202.

Jayakumar, C., Ushakumari, S., Nair, S.K., Sridhar, R., Raju S., Kumar, A.D., Paliath,
V.N., Davis, N.K., Sreejaya, S., Deepak, R., Tomy, A. and Divya, K.S. (2018).Carbon
neutalMeenangadi- Assessment and Recommendations.Thanal, Thrivananthapuram.

Jayaraman,K., Muraleedharan,PK and Gnanaharan R (1992). Evaluation of social

forestry plantations raised under the world scheme in Kerala. Research report: 85. Kerala
Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala, India, 25p

Jayasekara, C., &Jayasekara, K. S. (1995).Photosynthetic characteristics of tropical tree

species with special reference to palms. Energy conversion and management, 36(6-9),
919-922.

Jose, S.(2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An

overview. AgroforestrySystems 76, 1 – 10.

Kalita, R. M., Das, A. K., &Nath, A. J. (2015). Allometric equations for estimating above-
and belowground biomass in Tea (Camellia sinensis (L.)O. Kuntze) agroforestry system of
Barak Valley, Assam, northeast India. Biomass and Bioenergy, 83, 42-49.

Kaul, M., Mohren, G. M. J., &Dadhwal, V. K. (2010).Carbon storage and sequestration

potential of selected tree species in India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change, 15(5), 489-510.

Kumar, B. M. (2011). Species richness and aboveground carbon stocks in the homegardens
of central Kerala, India. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 140(3-4), 430-440.

Kumar, B. M., & Nair, P. R. (Eds.). (2011). Carbon sequestration potential of

agroforestry systems: opportunities and challenges (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business
Media.

Kuyah, S., Dietz, J., Muthuri, C., van Noordwijk, M., &Neufeldt, H. (2013).Allometry
and partitioning of above-and below-ground biomass in farmed eucalyptus species
dominant in Western Kenyan agricultural landscapes. biomass and bioenergy, 55, 276-
284.

Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma, 123(1-2),
1-22.
 Lasco, R.D., MacDicken, K.G., Pulhin, F.B., Guillermo, I.Q., Sales, R.F. and Cruz,
R.V.O. (2006).Carbon stock assessment of a selectively logged Dipterocarp forest and
wood processing mill in the Philippines.Journal of Tropical Science, 18(4):166-172.

Lindén, L., Riikonen, A., Setälä, H., & Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2020). Quantifying carbon
stocks in urban parks under cold climate conditions. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening,
49(February), 126633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126633

Liu, W.J., Liu, W.Y., Li, P.J. & Gao, L. (2007) Using stable isotopes to determine
sources of fog drip in a tropical seasonal rain forest of Xishuangbanna, SW China,
Agriculture and Forest Meteorology,143, 80-91.

Liyanage, M. D. S. and Dassanayake, KB (1993). Experiences in coconut-based farming

systems in Sri Lanka. Advances in Coconut Research and Development, 357-368.

Lott, J. E., Howard, S. B., Ong, C. K., & Black, C. R. (2000). Long-term productivity of
a Grevillea robusta-based overstorey agroforestry system in semi-arid Kenya: I. Tree
growth. Forest ecology and management, 139(1-3), 175-186.

Lundgren, B., & Raintree, J. B. (1983). Agroforestry (No. 84-053458. CIMMYT.).

Agricultural Research for Development: Potentials and Challenges in Asia. Jakarta
(Indonesia). 24-29 Oct 1982.

MacDicken, K.G. (1997)A Guide to monitoring carbon storage in forestry and agroforestry
projects.Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Viginia, USA. 87.

Malhi, Y., P. Meir, and S. Brown. (2002). Forests carbon and global Climate. Philosophi.
Transact. Philos. Transact. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 360(1797): 1567-1591.

Nair, M.K (1990).Intercropping in coconut gardens. Central Plantation Crop Research

Institute (CPCRI), Kasargod: Technical Bulletin. Indian Council of Agriculture Research
(ICAR).

Nair, P. R., Nair, V. D., Kumar, B. M., & Haile, S. G. (2009). Soil carbon sequestration in
tropical agroforestry systems: a feasibility appraisal. Environmental Science & Policy,
12(8), 1099-1111.

Penman, J., M. Gytarsky, T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, D. Kruger, R. Pipatti, L. Buendia, K.

Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe and F. Wagner. (2003). Good practice guidance for land
 use, land-use change and forestry IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme
and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Kanagawa, Japan.

Phukan, M., Savapondit, D., Hazra, A., Das, S., &Pramanik, P. (2018). Algorithmic
derivation of CO2 assimilation based on some physiological parameters of tea bushes in
North-East India. Ecological Indicators, 91, 77-83.

Raj, A.J. (2014).Agroforestry for carbon sequestration, climate change mitigation and
adaptation. In: Agroforestry: Theory and Practices (eds.) Raj AJ and Lal SB, Scientific
Publishers, India:702-736.

Rama Chandra Prasad, P., & Mamtha Lakshmi, P. (2015). Estimation of biomass
density and carbon storage in the forests of Andhra Pradesh, India, with emphasis on their
deforestation and degradation conditions. European Journal of Ecology, 1(1), 52–63.
https://doi.org/10.1515/eje-2015-0007

Roxburgh, S. H., Wood, S. W., Mackey, B. G., Woldendorp, G., & Gibbons, P. (2006).
Assessing the carbon sequestration potential of managed forests: A case study from
temperate Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(6), 1149–1159.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01221.x

Saha, S. K., Nair, P. R., Nair, V. D., & Kumar, B. M. (2010). Carbon storage in relation
to soil size-fractions under tropical tree-based land-use systems. Plant and soil, 328(1-2),
433-446.

Sang, P. M., Lamb, D., Bonner, M., & Schmidt, S. (2013). Carbon sequestration and soil
fertility of tropical tree plantations and secondary forest established on degraded land.
Plant and Soil, 362(1-2), 187-200.

Satheesan, K.V. and Ramdasan, A. (1988). Growth and productivity of turmeric grown as
pure stand and as an intercrop in coconut garden.Proc. National Symposium Ginger and
turmeric, CPCRI, Kasargod, KERALA (INDIA).

Schoeneberger, M. M. (2009). Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon on

agricultural lands. Agroforestry systems, 75(1), 27-37.

Sharma, R., Pradhan, L., Kumari, M., & Bhattacharya, P. (2020). Assessment of
Carbon Sequestration Potential of Tree Species in Amity University Campus Noida.
Environmental Sciences Proceedings, 3(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/iecf2020-08075.
 Sharma, V. S., &Gunasekare, K. (2018).Assessing and reducing the environmental impact
of tea cultivation ThushariLakminiWijeratne, Tea Research Institute, Sri Lanka. In Global
tea science (pp. 493-504).Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing.

Sreejesh, K.K. (2016). Carbon sequestration potential of Teak plantations of Kerala, Ph.D.
thesis, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala, India.

Vashum, K.T. and S. Jayakumar. (2012). Methods to estimate above-ground biomass and
carbon stock in natural forests - A Review. J. Ecos. Ecograp. 2(4):1-7.

Viswanathan, S.P., Paul, J., Rameshan, M. and Vathsalan, A.R. (2016). Home garden
and carbon stock estimation-a case study from Thodupuza municipality of Idukki district
in Kerala. In: 28th Kerala Science Congress, Calicut, Kerala.

Zaro, G. C., Caramori, P. H., Junior, G. M. Y., Sanquetta, C. R., AndrocioliFilho, A.,
Nunes, A. L., ... &Voroney, P. (2019). Carbon sequestration in an agroforestry system of
coffee with rubber trees compared to open-grown coffee in southern Brazil. Agroforestry
Systems, pp-1-11.

Ziegler, A.D., Fox, J.M. & Xu, J.C. (2009). The rubber juggernaut. Science, 324, 1024-
1025.

Goswami, S. Verma, K.S., Kaushal, R. (2014) Biomass and carbon sequestration in

different agroforestry systems of a Western Himalayan watershed. Biological Agriculture &
Horticulture, Vol. 30, pp, 88–96,

Bipal Kr J, Soumyajit.B, Mrinmoy,M, Pankaj K .R. and Asis .M. (2018) Carbon
sequestration rate and aboveground biomass carbon potential of four young species.
African Journal of Ecology and Ecosystems Vol. 5 (6), pp. 001-010,

Sarangle .S, Rajasekaran .A, Benbi .D.K, Chauhan .S.K. (2018) Biomass and carbon stock,
carbon sequestration potential under selected land use systems in Punjab. International
Journal of Forestry Research and Engineering. 9(2):75–80

Suryawanshi M N, A R Patel, T S Kale and P R Patil, 2014. Carbon sequestration potential

of tree species in the environment of North Maharashtra University campus, Jalgaon (MS)
India. Biosci. Disc., 5(2):175-179.
Chaturvedi O.P., Handa A.K., Kaushal, R., Uthappa A. R., Sarvade. S and Panwar P.
(2016) Biomass production and carbon sequestration through agroforestry. Range Mgmt.
& Agroforestry 37 (2): 116-127,

Vashum KT, Jayakumar S (2012) Methods to Estimate Above-Ground Biomass and Carbon
Stock in Natural Forests - A Review. J Ecosyst Ecogr 2:116.
 APPENDIX

Above Ground Biomass:

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 52,870,793.941
Treatment 6 187,191,279.669 31,198,546.612 2.092 0.10520
Error 18 268,498,959.273 14,916,608.849

Total 27 508,561,032.884

Above ground Biomass Density:

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 528,709.812
Treatment 6 1,871,918.115 311,986.353 2.092 0.10520
Error 18 2,684,989.727 149,166.096
Total 27 5,085,617.655

Belowground Root Biomass (kg/tree):

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 3,854,260.562
Treatment 6 13,646,268.218 2,274,378.036 2.092 0.10520
Error 18 19,573,576.731 1,087,420.929

Total 27 37,074,105.511

Belowground Root Biomass Density (Mg C ha-1)

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 38,541.052

Treatment 6 136,458.847 22,743.141 2.091 0.10521

Error 18 195,735.691 10,874.205

 Total 27 370,735.590

Total Tree Biomass (kg/tree):

Sum of
Source of Variation DF Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance
Squares
Replication 3 85,275,140.527
301,920,919.61
Treatment 6 50,320,153.270 2.092 0.10520
9
433,062,022.04
Error 18 24,059,001.225
5
820,258,082.19
Total 27
0

Total tree biomass density (Mg C ha-1):

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 852,748.275

Treatment 6 3,019,202.600 503,200.433 2.092 0.10520

Error 18 4,330,615.060 240,589.726

Total 27 8,202,565.936

Aboveground Tree Carbon (kg/tree)

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 13,217,654.002

Treatment 6 46,797,807.295 7,799,634.549 2.092 0.10520

Error 18 67,124,721.475 3,729,151.193

Total 27 127,140,182.772

Carbon Density of Aboveground Tree (Mg C ha-1):

 Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 132,177.796

Treatment 6 467,970.782 77,995.130 2.092 0.10521

Error 18 671,240.643 37,291.147

Total 27 1,271,389.222

Belowground Root Carbon (kg/tree):

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 963,568.512
Treatment 6 3,411,569.154 568,594.859 2.092 0.10520
Error 18 4,893,393.467 271,855.193

Total 27 9,268,531.133

Carbon Density of Belowground Root (Mg C ha-1)

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 9,636.028
Treatment 6 34,115.141 5,685.857 2.091 0.10521
Error 18 48,935.085 2,718.616

Total 27 92,686.255

Total Tree Carbon (kg/tree):

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance

Replication 3 21,318,828.736

Treatment 6 75,480,238.632 12,580,039.772 2.092 0.10520

Error 18 108,265,559.763 6,014,753.320

Total 27 205,064,627.130

Total Carbon Sequestration or Carbon Density of Trees (Mg C ha-1):

Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Signficance

Replication 3 213,189.067

Treatment 6 754,802.905 125,800.484 2.092 0.10520

Error 18 1,082,653.951 60,147.442

Total 27 2,050,645.923

Total CO2 Accumulation of Agroforestry Plantation (Mg C ha-1):

D
Source of Variation Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-Calculated Significance
F
Replication 3 2,871,407.904
Treatment 6 10,166,371.447 1,694,395.241 2.092 0.10520
Error 18 14,582,173.045 810,120.725

Total 27 27,619,952.395