Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T15:39:00.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MODUS OPERANDI IN ASSESSING BIOMASS AND CARBON IN RUBBER PLANTATIONS UNDER VARYING CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2013

E. S. MUNASINGHE ,
V. H. L. RODRIGO  and
U. A. D. P. GUNAWARDENA
E. S. MUNASINGHE
Affiliation:
Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka, Dartonfield, Agalawatta, Sri Lanka
V. H. L. RODRIGO*
Affiliation:
Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka, Dartonfield, Agalawatta, Sri Lanka
U. A. D. P. GUNAWARDENA
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Gangodawila, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: laksh@sltnet.lk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In addition to latex and timber, the rubber tree is useful in the alleviation of rural poverty and also in the mitigation of climate change through fixing atmospheric CO2 as biomass. For developing any rubber-based carbon projects, protocols for quantifying biomass and carbon fixed are required. In this context, the present study was aimed at building up allometric models using simple growth indicators (i.e. tree diameter and total height) to assess the timber, biomass and carbon in rubber trees and also to quantify their ontogenetic variation under average growth conditions in two major climatic regimes (i.e. wet and intermediate) of Sri Lanka. All models developed were in the accuracy level of over 88%. The mean absolute percentage error in the validation of allometric models was only 12.9% for timber and less than 5% for biomass and carbon. Under average growth conditions, 1 ha of rubber could produce 208 m3 timber, 191 MT biomass and fix 78 MT carbon during its 30-year lifespan in the wet zone and ca. 16% lesser values in the intermediate zone. The applicability of the findings in carbon trading is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 40 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ambily, K. K., Meenakumari, T., Jessy, M. D., Ulaganathan, A. and Nair, N. U. (2012). Carbon sequestration potential of RRII 400 series clones of Hevea brasiliensis. Rubber Science 25 (2):233–240.Google Scholar
Anon (2009a). Yield profiles of outstanding clones. Advisory Circular, Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Anon (2009b). Approved afforestation and reforestation baseline and monitoring methodology, AR-AM0004/Version 04, Sectoral Scope:14, EB 50, CDM Executive Board, UNFCCC. Available from: http://www.cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/ARmethodologies/approved. Accessed 22 February 2011.Google Scholar
Anon (2010). Rubber Statistical Bulletin 64. Wembly, UK: International Rubber Study Group.Google Scholar
Anon (2012). Final decisions adopted by COP 18 and CMP 8. Doha Climate Change Conference November 2012. UNFCCC. Available from: http://www.unfccc.int/meetings/doha_nov2012/meetings/6815/php/view/decisions.php. Accessed 22 February 2013.Google Scholar
Ayanaba, A. and Jenkinson, D. S. (1990). Decomposition of carbon-14 labeled ryegrass and maize under tropical conditions. Soil Science Society of America Journal 54:112–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, C. M., Wang, R. and Jiang, J. (2007). Variation in soil fertility and carbon sequestration by planting Hevea brasiliensis in Hainan Island, China. Journal of Environmental Sciences 19 (3):348–352.Google Scholar
Dassanayake, A. R. and Senerath, A. (1999). Soil survey and classification. In Soils of the Wet Zone of Sri Lanka: Morphology, Characterization and Classification, 23–36 (Eds Mapa, R. B., Somasiri, S. and Nagarajah, S.). Sri Lanka: Soil Science Society of Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Dey, S. K., Chaudhuri, D., Vinod, K. K., Pothen, J. and Sethuraj, M. R. (1996). Estimation of biomass in Hevea clones by regression method: 2 relation of girth and biomass for mature trees of clone RRIM 600. Indian Journal of Natural Rubber Research 9 (1):40–43.Google Scholar
Payne, R. W. (2008). GenStat: The guide to GenStat release 11. Part 2: Statistics. UK: Lawes Agricultural Trust.Google Scholar
Philip, M. S. (1994). Measuring Trees and Forests. UK: CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, C. S. (1950). Soil and Plant Analysis. Australia: University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
Punyawardena, B. V. R. (2005). Climate of the intermediate zone of Sri Lanka. In Soils of the Intermediate Zone of Sri Lanka: Morphology, Characterization and Classification, 6–18. (Eds Mapa, R. B., Dassanayake, A. R. and Nayakekorale, H. B.). Sri Lanka: Soil Science Society of Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Rodrigo, V. H. L., Iqbal, S. M. M. and Munasinghe, E. S. (2009). Rural livelihood and rubber cultivation in Eastern province of Sri Lanka. Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka 89:58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigo, V. H. L., Munasinghe, E. S. and Gunawardena, U. A. D. P. (2005). Development of a simple protocol for in situ assessments of timber, biomass and carbon in the rubber crop. Proceedings of the International Natural Rubber Conference, India, 246–255.Google Scholar
Rodrigo, V. H. L., Nugawela, A., Sivanathan, A., Witharama, W. R. G. and Jayasinghe, W. K. (2000). Rubber cum sugarcane intercropping: a suitable cropping system for the farmers in the intermediate zone of Sri Lanka. Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka 83:62–74.Google Scholar
Rodrigo, V. H. L., Stirling, C. M., Teklehaimanot, Z. and Nugawela, A. (2001). Intercropping with banana to improve fractional interception and radiation-use efficiency of immature rubber plantations. Field Crops Research 69 (3):237–249.Google Scholar
Rojo-Martinez, G. E., Jasso-Mata, J., Vargas-Hernandez, J., Palma-Lopez, D. and Velazquez-Martınez, A. (2005). Aerial biomass in commercial rubber plantations (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.) in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. Agrociencia 39:449–456.Google Scholar
Saengruksawong, C., Khamyong, S., Anongrak, N. and Pinthong, J. (2012). Growths and carbon stocks of para rubber plantations on Phonpisai Soil Series in Northeastern Thailand. Rubber Thai Journal 1:1–18.Google Scholar
Shorrocks, V. M., Templeton, J. K. and Iyer, G. C. (1965). Mineral nutrition, growth and nutrition cycle of Hevea brasiliensis. III. The relationship between girth and shoot dry weight. Journal of Rubber Research Institute Malaysia 19:85–92.Google Scholar
Sivakumaran, S., Kheong, Y. F., Hassan, J. and Rahman, A. (2000). Carbon sequestration in rubber: implication and economic models to fund continued cultivation. In Proceedings of the Indonesian Rubber Conference and IRRDB Symposium, Bogor, Indonesia, 12–14 September 2000, 79–102.Google Scholar
Specht, A. and West, P. W. (2003). Estimation of biomass and sequestered carbon on farm forest plantations in northern New South Wales, Australia. Biomass and Bioenergy 25:363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wauters, J. B., Coudert, S., Grallien, E., Jonard, M. and Ponette, Q. (2008). Carbon stock in rubber tree plantations in Western Ghana and Mato Grosso (Brazil). Forest Ecology and Management 255:2347–2361.Google Scholar