Carbon Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcmt20

Estimating carbon stocks and biomass

accumulation in three different agroforestry
patterns in the semi-arid region of Pakistan

Ghulam Yasin, Shafeeq Ur Rahman, Muhammad Farrakh Nawaz, Ihsan

Qadir, Muhammad Zubair, Sadaf Gul, Muhammad Safdar Hussain,
Muhammad Zain & Muhammad Athar Khaliq

To cite this article: Ghulam Yasin, Shafeeq Ur Rahman, Muhammad Farrakh Nawaz, Ihsan Qadir,
Muhammad Zubair, Sadaf Gul, Muhammad Safdar Hussain, Muhammad Zain & Muhammad
Athar Khaliq (2021) Estimating carbon stocks and biomass accumulation in three different
agroforestry patterns in the semi-arid region of Pakistan, Carbon Management, 12:6, 593-602, DOI:
10.1080/17583004.2021.1987332

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2021.1987332

Published online: 11 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 479

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcmt20
CARBON MANAGEMENT
2021, VOL. 12, NO. 6, 593–602
https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2021.1987332

Estimating carbon stocks and biomass accumulation in three different

agroforestry patterns in the semi-arid region of Pakistan
Ghulam Yasina,b, Shafeeq Ur Rahmanc,d
, Muhammad Farrakh Nawaze, Ihsan Qadirb,
Muhammad Zubairb, Sadaf Gulf, Muhammad Safdar Hussaine, Muhammad Zainc and
Muhammad Athar Khaliqg
a
Department of Forestry, Range and Wildlife Management, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan; bDepartment of Forestry
and Range Management, Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan, Pakistan; cFarmland Irrigation Research Institute, Chinese
Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Xinxiang, China; dKey Laboratory of High-efficient and Safe Utilization of Agriculture Water
Resources of CAAS, Xinxiang, China; eDepartment of Forestry and Range Management, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad,
Pakistan; fDepartment of Botany, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan; gDepartment of Soil and Environmental Sciences, Ghazi
University Dera Ghazi Khan, Punjab, Pakistan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Due to higher atmospheric greenhouse gasses concentrations, global warming is undoubtedly Agroforestry; biomass;
the most critical environmental issue that needs an immediate solution. Agroforestry has carbon stock; global
attained worldwide recognition to cope with this global problem due to its greater potential to warming; soil carbon
sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide along with other ecosystem services, including food
security. However, quantitative information about the biomass and carbon sequestration in
poplar-maize agroforestry systems is not available in semi-arid climatic zones in Pakistan. The
current study was carried out to evaluate the vegetation biomass and carbon stocks under
three poplar-maize agroforestry planting patterns under semi-arid climatic conditions in a sub-
division Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, Pakistan. The data was collected in three agroforestry
patterns like; A (192 trees ha1), B (255 trees ha1), and C (296 trees ha1). Allometric equa-
tions were used to estimate the biomass and carbon stock in plant species. Results showed
that the poplar tree carbon stock among three planting patterns was significantly different,
with maximum carbon stock of 35.62 t ha1 in pattern C, and it was 8% and 33.5% greater
than the carbon stock of pattern B and pattern A, respectively. The maximum aboveground
biomass assimilated by maize crop was (11.95 t ha1) in pattern B, and it was 10.3% and 3.6%
greater than pattern A and pattern C, respectively. The grain yield was highest in pattern A as
compared to the other two patterns. Additionally, the maximum soil carbon stock in soil was
estimated (22.72 t ha-1) in pattern C, at 0-15 cm depth, while it was 13.42% and 6.61% greater
than pattern A and pattern B, respectively. In conclusion, the findings of this study suggested
that pattern C with maximum biomass production and carbon stocks is the optimum poplar
maize planting pattern in requisites of both financial and environmental benefits in the form of
carbon sequestration.

Introduction Agroforestry is an effective management strat-

egy for enhancing the ecosystem services gener-
Anthropogenic activities like excessive changes in
land use patterns, clearing of forests, and burning ated by agricultural lands. Agroforestry systems are
of fossil fuels are liable for the continuous emission considered a potential source in alleviating climate
of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), prompting change across the globe [6]as trees planted on
climate change across the globe [1]. CO2 is consid- farmlands greatly enhance the capability of those
ered a major greenhouse gas and the largest sin- systems to capture and store carbon [4,7]. It was
gle contributor (> 70%) to global warming due to estimated that agricultural lands have more than
its rapid increase in the air since industrialization 10% tree cover around the globe [7–9]. These agro-
[2]. The annual accumulation rate of CO2 in the forestry systems support 1.2 billion people from the
atmosphere is about 3.5 ppm, thus creating real tropics and developing countries around the world
threats to the global environment [3]. If this add- [10]. This land-use system is currently storing about
ition continues till the next century, the earth’s 45.3 Pg carbon, of which more than 75% is stored in
temperature will rise possibly 2  C, resulting in 20- woody vegetation [7,10]. Furthermore, it is reported
30% destruction of ecosystems worldwide [1,4,5]. that the agroforestry systems can stock about 6.3

CONTACT Shafeeq Ur Rahman [email protected] Farmland Irrigation Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural
Sciences, Xinxiang 453003, China.

Current address: Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Bahadur Sub-Campus Layyah, Pakistan
ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
594 G. YASIN ET AL.

Gt of atmospheric carbon by 2050 with a sequestra- maize cropping patterns with planting densities of
tion rate of greater than 600 Mt C yr1 [11], making 192 trees ha1 (Pattern A), 255 trees ha1 (Pattern
these systems a potential source of sequestering a B) & 296 trees ha1 (Pattern C), respectively, were
greater amount of carbon as equated to other exist- investigated (Figure 1). The maize (Zea mays L.) cul-
ing land-use options [8,12]. tivar ‘Syngenta  8611’ was mostly sown by farmers
Poplar (Populus deltoides,\W. Bartram ex commercially in the study area for the production
Marshall) is widely recognized as an important tree of grains at a seed rate of 25 kg ha1. Overall, the
species for enhancing the carbon capturing cap- rate of fertilizers applied by farmers (N: P: K) was
acity of agroforestry systems throughout the 250: 150: 100 kg ha1. A total of 25 villages were
globe. Poplars are fast-growing, have short rota- selected for tree inventory, crop, and soil sampling
tions, and can be grown in most geographic across the whole study area (Figure 2). Overall, 75
regions of the world [13–16]. In Punjab, Pakistan, plots (0.405 ha), 3 from each village, 1 for each spe-
poplar is extensively planted in agricultural lands cific poplar maize agroforestry pattern, were ran-
as a windbreak and meets demands for plywood domly selected by adopting the method described
and fuelwood at the national level [17]. by Ajit et al. [22] and Yasin et al. [7].
Agroforestry systems have received less atten-
tion in the ecosystem services literature than forest
Estimation of biomass and carbon
ecosystems [18]. Several researchers have docu-
mented the role of poplar-based agroforestry sys- Tree biomass and carbon
tem in climate change mitigation through CO2 Field visits were conducted from May-July 2017 for
sequestration around different worldwide regions tree inventory, and all the poplar trees of each
[19–21]; however, limited information regarding selected agroforestry pattern were measured. Tree
agroforestry contribution to carbon storage in biomass and carbon were determined by using a
Pakistan is available. Therefore, the present non-destructive approach. Tree height and diam-
research study was conducted to evaluate the eter (DBH, in cm) were measured by using Haga
impact of three different poplar maize agroforestry altimeter and digital caliper, respectively. The
planting patterns on carbon accumulation in height was initially measured in feet and then con-
woody as well as in crop biomass and soil in the verted into meters for each tree. Species-specific
semi-arid climatic region of Pakistan. allometric equations described by Li [23]were used
to estimate the tree biomass. Tree carbon was cal-
culated by considering 50% of the dry biomass as
Material and methods
carbon, described by Thomas [24].
Study site
This study was performed in Jaranwala, a subdiv-
Crop biomass and carbon
ision of district Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan. It is
situated at an elevation of 184 m in the southeast A two-meter square quadrat was used to measure
of district Faisalabad. The area comprises 683.42 the crop biomass at its full maturity in August
square miles and experiences four distinct seasons: 2017. Two quadrates were placed in each plot of
winter, spring, summer & monsoon. The soil is fer- three selected poplar maize agroforestry patterns
tile and suitable for the cultivation of various after 15 rows distance. Thus, a total of 150 quad-
crops, fruits, and vegetables. The site has semi-arid rats were placed in 75 plots across the whole study
climatic conditions and receives about 58.5% of its area. For measuring the total biomass, whole plant
total annual rainfall (512 mm) during the monsoon. material within the quadrate was harvested, exca-
The average temperature of the area is 24.8  C vated, dried, and then weighted. To calculate
throughout the year. (https://en.climate-data.org/ aboveground biomass, the maize crop was divided
location/jaranwala-3067/). into four components: leaf, stalk, cob, and grain.
For measuring crop belowground biomass, root
excavation was done downwards up to 45 cm until
Experimental establishment and
no extra roots were found. After computing the
sampling procedure
fresh weight of crop components in the field, sub-
Populus deltoides have been planted across the samples of each component were taken to the
whole study area as a shelterbelt forest tree. The laboratory to quantify carbon. The measured bio-
sampling plots of the study area have 7-10 years mass of samples was then scaled biomass per hec-
old poplar trees. Three commonly observed poplar tare across the study area.
 CARBON MANAGEMENT 595

Figure 1. Diagram representing the three different poplar planting patterns in the semi-arid region of Pakistan.

For carbon concentration estimation, each computed by adopting the method described by
component’s plant material was oven-dried at 70  C, De Vos et al. [25]. In the end, by multiplying the
ground, and deposited in airtight bags. Carbon con- values of bulk density, % organic carbon, and soil
centration in crop samples was measured by adopt- depth, air-dried soil carbon ha1 for each depth
ing the wet combustion method with potassium was quantified Cook et al. [26].
dichromate, as described by Xie et al. [13]. The car-
bon of each component of the maize crop was then
Statistical analysis
calculated by multiplying their mass to the calcu-
lated carbon concentration and then scaled carbon One-way analysis of variance procedure of Minitab
per hectare across the study area. 17 statistical software program was used to ana-
lyze the collected data. The comparison of means
was performed for significant effects by adopting
Soil carbon estimation the least significant difference (LSD) test at a 5%
In selected poplar maize agroforestry patterns, soil probability level.
samples were collected randomly for measuring soil
carbon across the whole study area. Samples were Results and discussion
taken with the help of a soil auger at three depths:
Poplar biomass and carbon stock
0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, and 30-45 cm. Overall, 225 samples
were taken, 25 for each depth and 75 for each pattern. The results showed that there was no significant
A 100 cm3 stainless steel cylinder was used to difference (p < 0.05) between the growth parame-
assess the bulk density separately for each depth. ters like height and DBH among three different
Then, the percentage of organic carbon was agroforestry patterns (Table 1). However, the
596 G. YASIN ET AL.

Figure 2. Study area map indicating sampling plots distribution.

Table 1. Growth parameters: Diameter and height of of various agroforestry systems are extremely
poplar trees in three different agroforestry planting pat- inconstant and are highly dependent on various
terns in the semi-arid region.
drivers like the type of species, species richness,
Planting Patterns DBH (cm) Height (m)
Pattern A 15.51 ± 2.28 10.35 ± 1.51 tree density, age, site features, and management
Pattern B 16.21 ± 1.83 11.02 ± 1.34 practices [12,29]. The density of carbon in biomass
Pattern C 15.71 ± 2.46 10.83 ± 1.37
is a clear indication of its biomass assimilation. In
the present study, tree biomass ranged from 55.60
above and belowground biomass of poplar trees
t ha1 to 74.22 t ha1, while carbon stock ranged
was observed different (p < 0.05) significantly
from 26.68 t ha1 to 35.62 t ha1 across all three
across all three planting patterns with maximum
planting patterns. Similar variations of biomass
total biomass in pattern C (74.22 t ha1), as
depicted in Table 2. Based on biomass accumula- and carbon accumulation were reported by various
tion and carbon proportion, the amount above researchers, viz. Yasin et al. (2018) in bund planting
and belowground carbon of poplar was found in agroforestry systems, Nawaz et al. [30] in the semi-
the order of pattern C > pattern B > pattern A. arid region of Pakistan, Rajput et al. [31] in
The maximum total carbon stock was estimated northwest Himalaya, India and Xie et al. [13] in the
in pattern C and significantly different from pat- temperate desert region of northwestern China.
terns B and A. For example, the total carbon stocks Similarly, Takimoto et al. [32] documented a higher
of poplar measured in Pattern C were 35.62 t ha1, rate of carbon stocks in traditional agroforestry
and it was 8% and 33.5% greater than the carbon systems than improved agroforestry systems on
stock of pattern B and pattern A, respectively barren lands. This might be due to the young age
(Figure 3). of improved agroforestry systems as compared to
Trees can fix atmospheric carbon due to their traditional ones. In the present study, the biomass
different physiological characteristics and are con- and sequestered carbon were measured in the 7-
sidered a significant source to alleviate the impacts 10 years old trees, which is comparatively greater
of changing climate on a sustained basis [27,28]. than the estimates described by Peichl et al. [33],
The biomass and carbon capturing the perspective and Fang et al. [16]. This might be due to the
 CARBON MANAGEMENT 597

Table 2. Above and belowground biomass of poplar trees in three different agroforestry planting patterns
in the semi-arid region.
Planting Patterns Aboveground biomass (t ha-1) Belowground biomass (t ha-1) Total biomass (t ha-1)
c b
Pattern A 45.76 ± 5.01 9.84 ± 2.17 55.60c ± 5.87
Pattern B 57.91b ± 5.08 10.78ab ± 1.81 68.69b ± 5.22
Pattern C 62.68a ± 4.25 11.54a ± 1.36 74.22a ± 4.32

Figure 3. Above and belowground carbon of poplar trees in three different agroforestry planting patterns in the semi-
arid region.

difference in the number of poplar stems per hec- not different (p < 0.05) statistically (Figure 4). The
tare. For instance, Peichl et al. [33] estimated the highest grain yield and belowground biomass of
average carbon stocks (15.1 t C ha1) for 13 years maize crops were achieved in pattern A, but no stat-
old poplar at a stem density of 111 trees ha1, istical difference was observed among various pat-
whereas Fang et al. [16] measured 7.8 t C ha1 for terns. The grain yield in pattern A was 2.52 t ha1
five years old poplar at a tree density of 250 trees which was 7.2% and 13.5% higher than pattern B
ha1, whereas the range of poplar stems in the pre- and C, respectively, whereas belowground biomass
sent study was 192 trees ha1 to 296 trees ha1 in pattern A was 2.38 t ha1, and it was 3.5% and
across three planting patterns. As mentioned above, 13.9% greater than that of pattern B and pattern C
we found the highest tree carbon stock in model C respectively. The concentration of carbon in different
((296 trees ha1) than that of other agroforestry pat- maize crop components viz. leaf, stalk, cob, grain,
terns (192 trees ha1 & 250 trees ha1). This can be and root were significantly different among all pat-
because of the relatively greater number of trees per terns (p < 0.05) (Table 3). For the crop stalk and cob,
hectare as compared to the other two planting pat- the maximum carbon concentration (2.34 t ha1 and
terns. However, Xie et al. [13] documented a com- 1.53 t h1) was achieved in pattern C and was
paratively higher carbon stock (36.46 t ha1) in 9.34%, 1.32% greater than pattern B, and 32.2%,
twenty (20) years old poplar-based agroforestry sys- 10.9% greater than pattern A, respectively. The car-
tem at a tree density of 269 trees ha1 in the tem- bon stock of root in pattern B was 45.9% and 20.3%
perate desert region of northwestern China. higher than pattern A and pattern C, respectively.
Furthermore, the highest total carbon stock (7.07 t
ha1) of the maize crop was attained in pattern B,
Maize biomass and carbon stock
and it was significantly different (p < 0.05) among
The maximum aboveground biomass assimilated by different patterns (Table 3). Since the amount of bio-
maize crop was (11.95 t ha1) in pattern B, and it mass that was assimilated by maize crop in the
was 10.3% and 3.6% greater than pattern A and pat- aboveground portion was removed from the study
tern C, respectively. However, these findings were area and the remaining root biomass was the only
598 G. YASIN ET AL.

Figure 4. Biomass and yield production of maize crop in three different agroforestry planting patterns in the semi-
arid region.

Table 3. Carbon concentration and stock of maize crop Table 4. Soil bulk density, organic carbon (%) and carbon
in three different agroforestry planting patterns in the stock in three different agroforestry planting patterns in
semi-arid region. the semi-arid region.
Crop Components Pattern A Pattern B Pattern C Soil Depth Pattern A Pattern B Pattern C
Carbon Concentrations (g kg-1) Bulk density (g cm-3)
Leaf 403.97b ± 7.92 400.93b ± 10.14 413.55a ± 7.15 0-15 cm 1.56b ± 0.03 1.58a ± 0.04 1.59a ± 0.03
Stalk 429.01a ± 5.77 432.04a ± 6.85 424.12b ± 8.76 15-30 cm 1.53b ± 0.04 1.55a ± 0.03 1.57a ± 0.04
Root 418.01a ± 4.88 401.0.3b ± 5.89 413.88c ± 6.23 30-45 cm 1.46b ± 0.03 1.47b ± 0.02 1.49a ± 0.04
Cob 423.20b ± 6.19 431.19a ± 5.56 429.52a ± 9.63 Organic carbon (%)
Grain 436.36b ±5.16 448.49a ±10.05 440.16b ±8.38 0-15 cm 0.85c ± 0.05 0.89b ± 0.03 0.95a ± 0.04
-1
Carbon Stock (t ha ) 15-30 cm 0.74c ± 0.04 0.80b ± 0.06 0.86a ± 0.04
Leaf 1.13b ± 0.22 1.33a ± 0.12 1.25a ± 0.13 30-45 cm 0.68c ± 0.04 0.71b ± 0.05 0.75a ± 0.06
Stalk 1.77c ± 0.27 2.14b ± 0.29 2.34a ± 0.24 Soil carbon stock (t ha-1)
Root 0.61c ± 0.16 0.89a ± 0.20 0.74b ± 0.17 0-15 cm 20.03c ± 1.58 21.31b ± 0.89 22.72a ± 1.07
Cob 1.38b ± 0.14 1.51a ± 0.12 1.53a± 0.11 15-30 cm 17.21c ± 1.29 18.99b ± 1.40 19.97a ± 1.03
Grain 1.06b ± 0.17 1.18a ± 0.15 0.98c ± 0.20 30-45 cm 15.10c ± 1.62 15.76b ± 1.45 16.83a ± 1.40
Total 5.97c ± 0.43 7.07a ± 0.41 6.78b ± 0.36 Total 52.34c ± 2.40 56.07b ± 2.11 59.53a ± 2.46
Means sharing the same lowercase letters are non-significant Means sharing the same lowercase letters are non-significant
at p < 0.05. at p < 0.05.

source of organic matter; therefore, we did not concentration, viz. 87-89% of the total carbon stock in
include the carbon stock of the aboveground portion the maize crop. Our results are in line with those
of maize while calculating the total carbon stock in received by Ajit et al. [22], Xie et al. [13], Yadav et al.
all three planting patterns. [34], and Chauhan et al. [35]. Oelbermann et al. [36]
Apart from trees, the crops also contribute sig- found that carbon concentration in the aboveground
nificantly to overall biomass and carbon stock in portion of maize, wheat, and soybean contributed
the agroforestry systems. Such as, Yadav et al. [29] 86%, 88%, and 89% of the total carbon stock, respect-
reported that crops are contributing 19-27% to the ively. Similarly, Fang et al. [16] documented 1.42 times
system total biomass. In this study, commercial more carbon stock in an agroforestry system with
seeds of maize crops were cultivated in three wheat-maize double cropping as compared to the
planting patterns, and the aboveground biomass wheat-soybeans double-cropping scheme.
contribution of maize was 10.83 t ha1 to 11.95 t
ha1. Similarly, Xie et al. [13] and Fang et al. [16]
Soil organic carbon and carbon stock
has also documented the same range of above-
ground biomass in poplar maize intercropping and The bulk density of soil (g cm3), organic carbon
maize-wheat double cropping system. Similar to (%), and soil carbon stock (t ha1) decreased when
biomass, our results indicate that the aboveground the level of soil depth increase. Data from Table 4
maize components stored more carbon indicates significant differences in soil bulk density,
 CARBON MANAGEMENT 599

carbon concentration, and soil carbon stock in the established to increase soil C sequestrations in the
same soil layer across all three poplar maize plant- soil through the process of photosynthesis. Plants
ing patterns. The bulk density of the soil did not assimilate carbon and return some of it to the
change significantly (p < 0.05) for pattern B and atmosphere through respiration. The carbon that
pattern C, at 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm soil depth. The remains as plant tissue is then consumed by ani-
maximum soil bulk density was measured in pat- mals or added to the soil as litter when plants die
tern C at all three depths viz. 1.59 g cm-3 at 0- and decompose [39]. The comparison and storage
15 cm, 1.57 g cm3 at 15-30 cm, and 1.49 g cm3 at of carbon present in soils of various agroforestry
30-45 cm as compared to pattern A and pattern B, systems and other land use land covers (LULC) can
respectively, which might be due to inadequate be arranged, ranked, in the given order: (1) forests
soil management in some agricultural systems. So, > (2) agroforests > (3) plantations > (4) crops
if the soil is compacted at a 15 cm depth, the bulk ([12]. Moreover, various studies across Africa and
density will decrease with depth until it is back to Asia also indicated that trees would not instantly
increase at some point. The soil organic carbon start retaining carbon into soils to baseline level
content was greater in the soil upper soil (0-15 cm) nor enhance it for shorter periods [13,40–42].
surface, and it gradually decreased across all three Several studies have documented that the agroe-
planting patterns as the soil depth increased. At 0- cosystems stored a greater amount of carbon than
15 cm soil depth, the maximum soil organic carbon monocropping systems across the world
[16,23,33,43,44]. This higher soil organic carbon in
(0.95%) was estimated in pattern C, and it was
agroecosystems connected to a greater quantity of
11.76%, 6.74% greater than pattern A and pattern
biomass carbon reverted to soil mostly in the form
B, respectively.
of litter, ultimately stabilizing the soil organic mat-
Similarly, the soil carbon stock was found in the
ter while lowering decomposition rates [45]. These
order of pattern C > pattern B > pattern A for all
differences are also connected to structural com-
three depths and was significantly (p < 0.05) differ-
ponents, cropping systems, and management
ent across all planting patterns. For example, the
techniques with esteem to space and time [29].
maximum soil carbon stock in soil was estimated
The current study revealed that the overall carbon
(22.72 t ha1) in pattern C, at 0-15 cm depth, while
stock in soil (0-45 cm) was found in the order: pat-
it was 13.42% and 6.61% greater than pattern A
tern C > pattern B > pattern A and was signifi-
and pattern B, respectively. Likewise, the highest
cantly different across all planting patterns. The
soil carbon stock (19.97 t ha1 and 16.83 t ha1)
soil carbon stock in patterns B and C was higher
was computed in pattern C, followed by pattern B significantly than that of pattern A, this may be
(18.99 t ha1 and 15.76 t ha1), whereas the low- related to a greater addition of litter through the
est soil carbon stock was measured in pattern A poplar tree species due to their greater tree stem
(17.21 t ha1 and 15.10 t ha1) at 15-30 cm and density ha1 in patterns B and C, respectively, and
30-45 cm depth, respectively. Overall, at 0-45 cm eventually resulting in greater carbon input to the
soil depth, the total carbon stock in soil was differ- soil as compared to pattern A [13,16,46].
ent (p < 0.05) significantly across all planting pat-
terns, with the maximum amount in pattern C
Ecosystem total carbon stock
(59.53 t ha1) and minimum in pattern A (52.34 t
ha1) as depicted in Table 4. Overall, ecosystem carbon stock (vegetation þ soil)
It has been studied that the soil is an important was estimated for each planting pattern and then
pool of carbon and has been proved as an impera- compared for all three soil depths. The total eco-
tive source to mitigate greenhouse gasses [37]. It system carbon stock results were significantly dif-
plays a crucial role while storing a sufficient ferent (p < 0.05) across the studied patterns and
amount of atmospheric carbon in the soil ecosys- are represented in Table 5. Overall, at all three soil
tem throughout the world [38]. Tree species depth ranges, the highest total carbon stocks were
enhanced the topsoil fraction of carbon, nitrogen, exhibited by pattern C: 59.08 t ha1, 79.05 t ha1,
and phosphorus contents compared to the pas- and 95.89 t ha1, while the notably lowest total
ture. Soil fractionation demonstrated that larger lit- carbon stocks were measured in pattern A: 47.32 t
ter induced by tree species subsequently ha1, 64.53 t ha1, and 79.63 t ha1 at 0-15, 0-30
enhanced free and bounded organic matter seg- and 0-45 cm respectively. In recent decades, agro-
ments and ultimately enhanced stabilized fraction forestry has been considered a major opportunity
of soil organic fractions. Hence, tree species were to combat current CO2 prompted climatic issues
600 G. YASIN ET AL.

Table 5. Total ecosystem carbon stock (biomass þ soil) of (296 trees ha1) in poplar maize agroecosystems
three different agroforestry planting patterns in the as the optimal system with maximum biomass and
semi-arid region.
total carbon stock. However, maize yield was not
Total Carbon Stock Pattern A Pattern B Pattern C
Biomass þ 0-15 cm soil 47.32c ± 3.01 55.16b ± 3.32 59.08a ± 2.62
significantly different across all three planting pat-
Biomass þ 0-30 cm soil 64.53c ± 3.68 74.15b ± 4.06 79.05a ± 3.13 terns. Therefore, this planting pattern should be
Biomass þ 0-45 cm soil 79.63c ± 4.02 89.92b ± 4.36 95.89a ± 3.37
adopted in other climatic regions of the country,
especially semi-arid, to enhance the financial and
and land-use change problems across the globe.
environmental benefits in the form of carbon cap-
For example, the amount of carbon stored (5.8 t C
ture. Moreover, similar studies should be con-
ha1  8.2 t C ha1) in the silvopasture system
ducted to find the optimum planting pattern for
was higher than the pasture system in the North
various tree species with different crops and intro-
American temperate region [47]. Similarly, Li [23]
duce various policy programs supporting and pro-
demonstrated that poplar based agroforestry sys-
moting agroforestry to enhance the country’s
tem stores carbon two times greater than the
forest cover.
monocrop system, which might be due to woody
trees. In this study, the range of measured total
ecosystem carbon stock was 79.63 t ha1 to 95.89 Acknowledgments
t ha1 in three agroforestry planting patterns. This We are thankful to Higher Education Commission, Pakistan
amount of stored carbon is more or less similar to (HEC) for providing all the facilities and funds to complete
the total ecosystem carbon stored in northwestern this work under NRPU project # 2459.
China [13], northwest Himalaya, and central
Himalaya regions of India [31,48] in a similar tree Disclosure statement
crop combination. Moreover, various agroforestry No potential conflict of interest was reported by
systems’ total ecosystem carbon stock was 31 t C the authors.
ha1 to 173.90 t C ha1 in different Indian states
[14,29,35,49]. These estimations are far above the
Data availability statement
ecosystem carbon stock of the present study.
However, the calculated carbon stock in the pre- All data set is associated with the paper. Moreover, an
sent study is slightly greater than the amount excel sheet for raw data will be provided on request after
acceptance of paper.
stored in silvopastoral systems (15-18 Mg C ha1)
of low humid tropics of northern Asia [50]. These
variations of carbon storage across different agroe- References
cosystems around the globe were attributed to 1. Nawaz MF, Shah SAA, Gul S, et al. Carbon sequestra-
the differences in climatic conditions, kind of sys- tion and production of eucalyptus camaldulensis
tem, their functional and structural features, spe- plantations on marginal sandy agricultural lands. Pak
cies type, stand composition, density, and soil J Agric Sci. 2017;54(02):335–342. doi:10.21162/
PAKJAS/17.4432.
type [6,12].
2. Gupta DK, Bhatt R, Keerthika A, et al. Carbon seques-
tration potential of hardwickia binata roxb. based
Conclusion agroforestry in hot semi-arid environment of India:
an assessment of tree density impact. Curr Sci. 2019;
Agroforestry is feasible to cope with climate 116(1):112–116. doi:10.18520/cs/v116/i1/112-116.
change, especially in developing countries like 3. Alemu B. The role of Forest and soil carbon seques-
Pakistan, with less than 2% forest cover. The pur- trations on climate change mitigation. Res J Agr
pose of our study was to better approximate car- Environ Manage. 2014;3:492–505.
4. Agevi H, Onwonga R, Kuyah S, et al. Carbon stocks
bon estimates in three different poplar maize
and stock changes in agroforestry practices: a review.
agroforestry planting patterns and to determine Trop Subtropical Agroecosyst. 2017;20(1).
the optimal planting pattern of poplar trees on 5. McMahon SM, Harrison SP, Armbruster WS, et al.
agricultural lands. This study’s total estimated car- Improving assessment and modelling of climate
bon stock ranged from 47.32 t ha1 to 95.89 t change impacts on global terrestrial biodiversity.
ha1 across all poplar maize planting patterns. A Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26(5):249–259. doi:10.1016/j.
tree.2011.02.012.
better agroforestry planting pattern for a particular
6. Possu WB, Brandle JR, Domke GM, et al. Estimating
region should be established by comparing greater carbon storage in windbreak trees on US agricultural
profits, yields, and carbon storage capacity. Our lands. Agroforest Syst. 2016;90(5):889–904. doi:10.
study found the higher poplar planting density 1007/s10457-016-9896-0.
 CARBON MANAGEMENT 601

7. Yasin G, Nawaz MF, Martin TA, et al. Evaluation of Yamunanagar and Saharanpur districts of northwest-
agroforestry carbon storage status and potential in ern India. Curr Sci. 2011;100(5):736–742.
irrigated plains of Pakistan. Forests. 2019;10(8):640. 21. Jha KK. Root carbon sequestration and its efficacy in
doi:10.3390/f10080640. forestry and agroforestry systems: a case of populus
8. Nawaz MF, Mazhar K, Gul S, et al. Comparing the euramericana I-214 cultivated in mediterranean con-
early stage carbon sequestration rates and effects on dition. Not Sci Biol. 2018;10(1):68–78. doi:10.15835/
soil physico-chemical properties after two years of nsb10110181.
planting agroforestry trees. J Basic Appl Sci. 2017;13: 22. Ajit HA, Dhyani S, Bhat G, et al. Quantification of car-
527–533. doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2017.13.86. bon stocks and sequestration potential through exist-
9. Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Coe R, et al. 2009. Trees on ing agroforestry systems in the hilly Kupwara district
farm: analysis of global extent and geographical pat- of kashmir valley in India. Current Science. 2017;
terns of agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper-World 113(4):782–785. doi:10.18520/cs/v113/i04/782-785.
Agroforestry Centre. 23. Li Q. 2008. The research on carbon storage of popu-
10. Zomer RJ, Neufeldt H, Xu J, et al. Global tree cover lous-crop intercropping system in the huanghuaihai
and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contri- plain [master dissertation]. Zhengzhou: Henan
bution of agroforestry to global and national carbon Agricultural University.
budgets. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29987–29912. doi:10.1038/ 24. Thomas SC, Martin AR. Carbon content of tree tis-
srep29987. sues: a synthesis. Forests. 2012;3(2):332–352. doi:10.
11. Deka M, Wani M, Afaq HM. Assessment of carbon 3390/f3020332.
sequestration of different tree species grown under 25. De Vos B, Lettens S, Muys B, et al. Walkley–black ana-
agroforestry system. J Adv Environ Sci. 2016;1: lysis of forest soil organic carbon: recovery, limita-
149–153. tions and uncertainty. Soil Use Manage. 2007;23(3):
12. Ramachandran Nair P, Mohan Kumar B, Nair VD. 221–229. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2007.00084.x.
Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J 26. Cook RL, Binkley D, Mendes JCT, et al. Soil carbon
Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2009;172(1):10–23. doi:10.1002/ stocks and forest biomass following conversion of
jpln.200800030. pasture to broadleaf and conifer plantations in south-
13. Xie T, Su P, An L, et al. Carbon stocks and biomass eastern Brazil. For Ecol Manage. 2014;324:37–45. doi:
production of three different agroforestry systems in 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.03.019.
the temperate desert region of northwestern China. 27. Iglesias DJ, Quinones A, Font A, et al. Carbon balance
Agroforest Syst. 2017;91(2):239–247. doi:10.1007/ of citrus plantations in Eastern Spain. Agriculture,
s10457-016-9923-1. Ecosystems & Environment. 2013;171:103–111. doi:10.
14. Arora G, Chaturvedi S, Kaushal R, et al. Growth, bio- 1016/j.agee.2013.03.015.
mass, carbon stocks, and sequestration in an age ser- 28. Liguori G, Gugliuzza G, Inglese P. Evaluating carbon
ies of populus deltoides plantations in tarai region of fluxes in orange orchards in relation to planting
Central himalaya. Turk J Agric For. 2014;38:550–560. density. J Agric Sci. 2009;147(6):637–645. doi:10.1017/
doi:10.3906/tar-1307-94. S002185960900882X.
15. Gera M. Poplar culture for speedy carbon sequestra- 29. Yadav R, Gupta B, Bhutia P, et al. Biomass and carbon
tion in India: a case study from terai region of uttar- budgeting of sustainable agroforestry systems as
akhand. Envis Forestry Bulletin. 2012;12:75–83. ecosystem service in Indian Himalayas. Int J
16. Fang S, Li H, Sun Q, et al. Biomass production and Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 2019;26(5):460–470. doi:
carbon stocks in poplar-crop intercropping systems: a 10.1080/13504509.2019.1600597.
case study in northwestern Jiangsu, China. Agroforest 30. Nawaz M, Yousaf M, Yasin G, et al. Agroforestry status
Syst. 2010;79(2):213–222. doi:10.1007/s10457-010- and its role to sequester atmospheric CO2 under
9307-x. semi-arid climatic conditions in Pakistan. Appl Ecol
17. Yasin G, Nawaz M, Siddiqui M, et al. Biomass, carbon Env Res. 2018;16(1):645–661. doi:10.15666/aeer/1601_
stocks and CO2 sequestration in three different aged 645661.
irrigated populus deltoides bartr. Ex marsh. Bund 31. Rajput BS, Bhardwaj D, Pala NA. Factors influencing
planting agroforestry systems. Appl Ecol Env Res. biomass and carbon storage potential of different
2018;16(5):6239–6252. doi:10.15666/aeer/1605_ land use systems along an elevational gradient in
62396252. temperate northwestern Himalaya. Agroforest Syst.
18. McNeely JA, Schroth G. Agroforestry and biodiversity 2017;91(3):479–486. doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9948-5.
conservation–traditional practices, present dynamics, 32. Takimoto A, Nair PR, Nair VD. Carbon stock and
and lessons for the future. Biodivers Conserv. 2006; sequestration potential of traditional and improved
15(2):549–554. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-2087-3. agroforestry systems in the West African Sahel. Agric
19. Fang S, Xue J, Tang L. Biomass production and car- Ecosyst Environ. 2008;125(1–4):159–166. doi:10.1016/
bon sequestration potential in poplar plantations j.agee.2007.12.010.
with different management patterns. J Environ 33. Peichl M, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, et al. Carbon
Manage. 2007;85(3):672–679. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman. sequestration potentials in temperate tree-based
2006.09.014. intercropping systems, Southern Ontario, Canada.
20. Rizvi R, Dhyani S, Yadav R, et al. Biomass production Agroforest Syst. 2006;66(3):243–257. doi:10.1007/
and carbon stock of poplar agroforestry systems in s10457-005-0361-8.
602 G. YASIN ET AL.

34. Yadav R, Gupta B, Bhutia P, et al. Socioeconomics Agroforestry Systems. 2001;52(1):1–11. doi:10.1023/
and sources of livelihood security in Central himalaya, A:1010717629129.
India: a case study. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 43. Tashi S, Singh B, Keitel C, et al. Soil carbon and nitro-
2017;24(6):545–553. doi:10.1080/13504509.2016. gen stocks in forests along an altitudinal gradient in
1239233. the Eastern Himalayas and a meta-analysis of global
35. Chauhan S, Sharma R, Singh B, et al. Biomass produc- data . Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22(6):2255–2268. doi:10.
tion, carbon sequestration and economics of on-farm 1111/gcb.13234.
poplar plantations in Punjab, India. JANS. 2015;7(1): 44. Choudhary B, Saxena K. An assessment of soil organic
452–458. doi:10.31018/jans.v7i1.631. carbon, total nitrogen and tree biomass in land uses
36. Oelbermann M, Voroney RP, Thevathasan NV, et al. of a village landscape of Central Himalaya, India.
Soil carbon dynamics and residue stabilization in a Global J Environ Res. 2015;9:27–42.
costa rican and Southern canadian alley cropping 45. Sollins P, Swanston C, Kleber M, et al. Organic C and
system. Agroforest Syst. 2006;68(1):27–36. doi:10. N stabilization in a Forest soil: evidence from sequen-
1007/s10457-005-5963-7. tial density fractionation. Soil Biol Biochem. 2006;
37. McKechnie J, Colombo S, Chen J, et al. Forest bioen-
38(11):3313–3324. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.04.014.
ergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in green-
46. Chauhan SK, Sharma S, Chauhan R, et al. Accounting
house gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environ
poplar and wheat productivity for carbon sequestra-
Sci Technol. 2011;45(2):789–795. doi:10.1021/
tion in agri-silvicultural system. Indian Forester. 2010;
es1024004.
136:1174–1182.
38. Lal R. Carbon sequestration. Philos Trans R Soc Lond
47. Udawatta RP, Jose S. Agroforestry strategies to
B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1492):815–830. doi:10.1098/rstb.
sequester carbon in temperate North America.
2007.2185.
Agroforest Syst. 2012;86(2):225–242. doi:10.1007/
39. Hoosbeek MR, Remme RP, Rusch GM. Trees enhance
soil carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling in a sil- s10457-012-9561-1.
vopastoral system in South-Western Nicaragua. 48. Verma A, Kaushal R, Alam N, et al. Predictive models
Agrofor Syst. 2018;92:263–273. for biomass and carbon stocks estimation in grewia
40. Kell DB. Large-scale sequestration of atmospheric car- optiva on degraded lands in western Himalaya.
bon via plant roots in natural and agricultural ecosys- Agroforest Syst. 2014;88(5):895–905. doi:10.1007/
tems: why and how. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol s10457-014-9734-1.
Sci. 2012;367(1595):1589–1597. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011. 49. Sharma R, Xu J, Sharma G. Traditional agroforestry in
0244. the Eastern himalayan region: Land management sys-
41. Walker SM, Desanker PV. The impact of land use on tem supporting ecosystem services. Trop Ecol. 2007;
soil carbon in miombo woodlands of Malawi. For 48:189.
Ecol Manage . 2004;203(1–3):345–360. doi:10.1016/j. 50. Winjum JK, Dixon RK, Schroeder PE. Estimating the
foreco.2004.08.004. global potential of Forest and agroforest management
42. Kaya B, Nair P. Soil fertility and crop yields under practices to sequester carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut.
improved-fallow systems in Southern Mali. 1992;64(1–2):213–227. doi:10.1007/BF00477103.