Impact of removal of rubber plantations for urbanization on CO2 mitigating capacity by the loss of carbon sink in Kerala state, India

Authors

  • K.K. Ambily Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam-686 009, Kerala, India
  • A. Ulaganathan Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam-686 009, Kerala, India
  • G. C. Sathisha ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru-560 089, Karnataka, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25081/jpc.2022.v50.i3.8232

Abstract

Mitigating climate change and global warming through carbon sequestration by tree ecosystems is of prime importance since they are cost-effective, environmentally friendly and ecologically sustainable. Urbanization is a part of development, and rubber plantations are usually removed for this purpose, especially in Kerala, the southern state of India. Besides latex, the economic produce, and the associated income, the rubber tree is a fairly good sink for carbon in its biomass, with an average carbon content of 42 per cent and substantial carbon stock in the soil. In the present study, an account of total carbon loss by the removal of rubber plantation for urbanization and developmental activities are given. The present popular clone (RRII 105) existing in major share (85%) of the total rubber cultivation in India accounts for carbon sink loss 57 t ha-1, 57.5 t ha-1, 43.2 t ha-1 for 23 years and 148 t ha-1, 75 t ha-1 and 62.1 t ha-1 for 30 years from biomass, litterfall and sheet rubber respectively. The recent clones RRII 414, RRII 429 and RRII 417 have higher growth rates and higher biomass (44-50 per cent) carbon sink loss compared to the existing popular clone RRII 105. The carbon sink loss in the form of stored carbon in soil is 56.5, with a soil carbon content between 1.2 to 2 per cent. Due to the growth variation in diverse environments with extreme climatic conditions, the clones recorded differences in carbon stock and carbon sink loss. The central region of Kerala showed a higher loss, and a lower loss was in the drought-affected northern region than the southern region. The total carbon sink losses for 23 and 30 years were 214.2 and 341.5 t ha-1, respectively. This study points out that the serious carbon sink loss due to the removal of rubber plantations results in disturbing the self-sustained, carbon-friendly and economically sound perennial rubber ecosystem. Vegetation having higher C-sequestration potential and trees with higher lignin content is essential to increase carbon capture for mitigating the impact of the removal of plantations. From the present study, it is clear that the removal of rubber plantations is affecting the carbon sink loss, thereby the CO2 mitigating capacity, and is a serious matter of concern.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

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.

Ambily, K.K. and Ulaganathan, A. 2015. Biomass production carbon storage capacity and nutrient export in natural rubber. Rubber Board Bulletin 33(4): 4-10.

Anjali, K., Khuman, Y. S. C. and Sokhi, J. 2020. A review of the interrelations of terrestrial carbon sequestration and urban forests. AIMS Environmental Science 7(6): 464-485.

Annamalainathan, K., Satheesh, P.R. and Jacob, J. 2011. Ecosystem flux measurements in rubber plantations. Natural Rubber Research 24(1): 28-37.

Gokulapalan, B. and Joseph, A.K. 2021. Assessment of temporal change in terrestrial carbon sequestration capacity with land use/ land cover change along the metro corridor in Kochi, India. Advances in Earth and Environmental Sciences 2(1): www.uniscience pub.com.

Jacob, J. 2003a. Carbon sequestration capacity of natural rubber plantations. IRRDB Symposium on Challenges for Natural Rubber in Globalization. 15-17 September 2003, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Jacob, J. 2003b. Eco-friendly credentials of natural rubber. In: Global Competitiveness of Indian Rubber Plantation Industry: Rubber Planters’ Conference, India 2002. (Ed.) Kuruvilla Jacob, C. Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, India, pp. 245-251.

Jacob, J. 2005a. Forestry and plantations: Opportunities under Kyoto protocol. Economic and Political Weekly 60(20): 2043-2045.

Jacob, J. 2005b. The science, politics and economics of global climate change: Implications for the carbon sink projects. Current Science 89(3): 464-474.

Jacob, J. 2005c. The science, politics and economics of global climate change: Implications for the plantation and forestry systems. Prithvi 2005: Global Eco Meet, 23-24 February 2005, Swadeshi Science Movement, Trivandrum, India.

Jessy, M. D. 2004. Phosphorus nutrioperiodism in Rubber. Ph.D. thesis, Kerala Agricultural University.

Karthikakuttyamma, M. 1997. Effect of continuous cultivation of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) on soil properties Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kerala, Trivandrum, India, 176 p.

Karthikakuttyamma, M., Satisha, G.C., Suresh, P.R. and Aiyer, R.S. 2004. Biomass production and nutrient budgeting of Hevea brasiliensis in South India. Natural Rubber Research 17(2): 108-114.

Kaul, M., Mohren, G.M.J. and Dadhwal, V.K. 2010. Carbon storage and sequestration potential of selected tree species in India. Mitigation, Adaptation Strategic Global Change 15: 489-510.

NBSS and LUP. 1999. Resource soil survey and Mapping of Rubber growing soils of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land use planning, Nagpur, 295p.

Philip, A., Philip, V., George, E.S., Punnoose, K.I. and Mathew, M. 2003. Leaf litter decomposition and nutrient release in a fifteen-year-old rubber plantation. Indian Journal of Natural Rubber Research 16(1&2):81-84.

Rajagopal, N. and Sebastian, T. 2011. Reduction in carbon dioxide emission in block rubber production by biomass gasification. Natural Rubber Research 24(1):140-144.

Ramachandra, T.V. and Setturu, B. 2020. The carbon footprint of Karnataka: Accounting of sources and sinks. In: Carbon Footprint Case Studies Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes. (Ed.) Muthu, S.S. Springer Publications, Singapore. pp. 53-92.

Russell, A.E. and Kumar, B.M. 2019. Modelling experiments for evaluating the effects of trees, increasing temperatures and soil texture on carbon stocks in agroforestry systems in Kerala, India. Forests 10(803): doi: 10.3390/ f10090803.

Sallustio, L., Quatrini, V., Gene Letti, D., Corona, P. and Marchetti, M. 2015. Assessing land take by urban development and its impact on carbon storage: Findings from two case studies in Italy. Environment Impact Assessment Review 54: 80-90.

Strohbach, M. W. and Haase, D. 2012. Above-ground carbon storage by urban trees in Leipzig, Germany: Analysis of patterns in a European city. Landscape and Urban Planning 104(1): 95-104.

Strohbach, M. W., Arnold, E. and Haase, D. 2012. The carbon footprint of urban green space-A life cycle approaches. Landscape and Urban Planning 104(2): 220-229.

Vijayakumar, K. R., Chandrashekar, TR and Varghese Philip. 2000. Agroclimate. In: Natural Rubber: Agromanagement and Crop Processing. (Eds.) George, P.J. and Jacob, C.K. Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, pp. 97-116.

Published

30-12-2022

How to Cite

Ambily, K., Ulaganathan, A. ., & Sathisha, G. C. (2022). Impact of removal of rubber plantations for urbanization on CO2 mitigating capacity by the loss of carbon sink in Kerala state, India. Journal of Plantation Crops, 50(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.25081/jpc.2022.v50.i3.8232

Issue

Section

Research Articles