ISSN: 2455-2631© January 2017 IJSDR | Volume 2, Issue 1

Potential of carbon sequestration and storage by trees
in and around B.A.M. University campus of
Aurangabad city in Maharashtra, India.
1

Vishnu R. Potadar, 2Satish S Patil
1

Research student, 2Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.
Abstract- Urban development continues to change the shape of landscapes and impact over carbon storage capacity of thetrees. To date, the influence of urban patterns on tree carbon density remains to be systematically evaluated. The study
was carried out in and around Dr. B. A. M. university area of Aurangabad city to know the CO 2 sequestration fromselected ten tree species. Assessment of carbon sequestration of urban trees was carried out through biomass estimationand quantification. Trees are identified to species level, and their diameter at breast height and height were recorded
using ground measurements in terms of DBH, height and wood density of the tree. It is found that highest CO2 2535.64
kg/tree captured by Peltophorum pterocarpum followed by Limonia acidissima which is captured 690.85 kg of CO2 per tree.
Total above ground biomass 2373.9, total below ground biomass 617.22, total biomass 2991.16, total carbon 1495.58
kg/tree. Total tree count of 2901 out of which Limonia acidissima found 2207 tree count which is maximum. It is foundthat total CO2 sequestered by the selected area is 2252.16 tonnes. Carbon sequestration is a way to mitigate theaccumulation of the GHG’s (Green House Gases) in the atmosphere released by the incomplete burning of fossil fuels andother anthropogenic activities.
Index terms - biomass, tree, CO2 sequestration.
I.

INTRODUCTION

More than half of the global population now lives in urban regions, and this figure will continue to increase at a rate of 4% a
decade by 2050 [1]. Trees from the urban regions currently store carbon, which can be released back to the atmosphere after thedeath of tree, and capture carbon as they grow. Trees from Urban area also influence temperatures of air and building energy use,and consequently alter carbon release from numerous urban sources [2]. Thus, urban trees potentially influence climate at the
local level, carbon cycles, energy use and the climate change [3, 4,5,6,7]. Growing concern about the climate change andconcerned problems led to the research quantifying the overall effects of trees from the urban area on atmospheric carbon dioxide(CO2 ) [8, 9, 10, 11].. Most of these studies have found that urban trees can be major carbon sinks, although there is general lackof information on urban tree biomass allometry. Similarly, too little is known about the release of CO2 into the surrounding fromcombustion of fuels used to power equipment and vehicles during the planting and tree care activities. Once dead, trees release
most of the CO2 they accumulated through decomposition. Anthropogenic causes of global warming at the global level havebecome a topic of concern in front of the Scientists and stakeholders because of the life threatening changes which could result
from the increase in global heat and the temperature [15]. The rate of release depends on how the wood is utilized. To protect thedeveloping world from the adverse effects of climate change and the global warming, the well planned sustainable managementof the urban trees with the objectives of carbon sequestration is the need of the time.
II.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Location
The study area comprises of 2126 hectares of area mainly from B.A.M. University campus and Jaisingpura, Pahadsingpura etc.
The district is from 19 to 20 degrees north longitude and 74 to 76 degrees at east latitude. Aurangabad is a historic city situated on
the bank of river Kham which is a tributary of the Godavari river. The city is situated at the latitude of 19 o53’50” N and longitudeof 75o22’46” E. It is located 512 meters above Sea Level. Aurangabad District is located mainly in the Godavari river basin andpartly in the Tapi river basin. The city is surrounded by hills of the Vindhya ranges and the river Kham passes through it. In thisstudy, the amounts of biomass and CO₂ in standing woody biomass of selective ten tree species were calculated.
Measurement of diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height:
To estimate the biomass of different trees, non-destructive method was used. The biomass of the tree was estimated on the basisof diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height. DBH can be determined by measuring tree Girth at Breast Height (GBH),
approximately 1.3 meter above the ground. The GBH of trees having the diameter greater than 10 cm were measured directly by
the measuring tape [12]. The tree height measured by the Theodolite instrument.

IJSDR1701006

International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR) www.ijsdr.org

28

ISSN: 2455-2631© January 2017 IJSDR | Volume 2, Issue 1

Above ground biomass (AGB) of trees:
The above ground biomass of the tree includes whole shoot, branches, flowers, leaves and fruits. It is calculated using thefollowing formula. [13].
AGB kg = volume of tree (m3) x wood density Kg/m3
V = π r2 H
Where H = Height of the tree in meter, V= volume of the cylindrical shaped tree in m3, r = radius of the tree in meter, Radius of
the tree is calculated from the GBH of tree. The wood densities for trees were obtained from the website
www.worldagroforestycentre.org. Height is measured with the help of the instrument Theodolite. The standard average density of
0.6 gm / cm is applied wherever the density value is not available for tree species [14].
Estimation of the Below Ground Biomass (BGB)
The Below Ground Biomass (BGB) includes all biomass of live roots excluding fine roots having < 2 mm diameter. The below
ground biomass has been calculated by multiplying AGB by 0.26 factors as the root: shoot ratio. BGB is calculated by following
formula [12, 14, 15].
BGB (Kg/tree) = AGB (Kg/tree) or (ton/tree) x 0.26
Table 1: Wood densities of tree species
Sr. No.

Wood density in g/cm3

Local name

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Tree Species(Scientific Name)
Ficus racemosa
Peltophorum pterocarpum
Ficus religiosa
Leucaena latisiliqua
Limonia acidissima
Michelia champaca
Millingtonia hortensis
Moringa oleifera

Umbar
Rusty shield
PimpalSubabulKavathChafa
BapwanShevaga

0.37580.60250.443
0.64110.771
0.535
0.60030.262

9
10Nerium oleander
Nyctanthes arbor tristis

Red kanher
Parijatak

0.6
0.88

Estimation of the total biomass:
Total Biomass (TB) = Above ground biomass + Below ground biomass (kg/tree)
Total Biomass is the sum of the above and below ground biomass.
Estimation of the Carbon
Generally, for any species of plant 50% of its biomass is considered as carbon [16]. i.e., Carbon Storage = Biomass x 50% orBiomass/2 (kg/tree)
Determination of the weight of carbon dioxide (CO 2) sequestered in the tree
CO2 is composed of one molecule of carbon and 2 molecules of the oxygen. The atomic weight of carbon is 12.001115, theatomic weight of oxygen is 15.9994, the weight of CO2 is C+2*O=43.999915. The ratio of the CO2 to C is
43.999915/12.001115=3.6663. Therefore, to determine the weight of the carbon dioxide sequestered in tree, multiply the weightof carbon in the tree by 3.6663.
III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Environmental experts highlighted the role of urban forests as a place of social integration as they provide recreation and r elief tothe urban population from their hectic life. Carbon capture and sequestration is a theoretical approach to control and mitigate thecontribution of emissions of fossil fuels to global warming, based on capturing carbon dioxide from large point sources such as
the fossil fuel power plants. The tree can survive in the urban environment polluted with traffic-related contaminants [17]. It may
be one of the crucial green region in the urban and industrial sectors. Carbon capture rates vary by species, soil, climate,topography and most important is management practice [14, 18].

IJSDR1701006

International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR) www.ijsdr.org

29

ISSN: 2455-2631© January 2017 IJSDR | Volume 2, Issue 1

Table 2: Total carbon and CO2 sequestered by trees.
S
r.
N
o.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0

Scientific
name

Local
name

DBH
(Met
ers)

Height(Meter
s)

Volu
me
(m3)

0.250

7.913

0.425

AGB
(kg/tree)

BGB(kg/tree)

TB(kg/tree)C(kg/tree)

CO2(kg/tree)

0.388

145.6537.87

183.5291.764336.4312.8501.822

1097.79285.421383.2
1

691.6092535.6
4

0.314

8.242

0.636

281.8673.28

355.15177.57651.05

0.183

7.498

0.197

126.0932.78

158.8879.44

291.25

0.239

8.681

0.388

299.1077.76

376.86188.43690.85

0.218

4.657

0.173

92.78524.12

116.9058.455214.31

0.217

6.328

0.233

139.8936.37

176.2688.133323.12

0.203

6.011

0.194

50.84313.21

64.06232.031117.43

0.132

4.298

0.059

35.4849.226

44.71022.35581.960

0.156

6.195

0.119

104.42027.149131.56965.785

Average

0.233

7.26730.4209237.394

61.72

299.11
6

Total

2.337

72.6734.209

2373.94617.22
52991.16

Ficus
racemosa

Umbar

Peltophorum
pterocarpum
Ficus
religiosaRustyshieldPimpalLeucaena
latisiliqua

SubabulLimonia
acidissima

KavathMichelia
champaca

Chafa

Millingtonia
hortensis

BapwanMoringaoleifera

Shevaga

NeriumoleanderRedkanherNyctanthes
arbor tristis

Parijatak

Tree
cou
nt

Total
CO2

12

4.037

205

519.80184

119.7925

7.28122207

1524.78

1.714419563.00830.3523221.803

241.186409.6474149.558548.325290.
1225.21671495.585483.252901

2252.1
6(Tonnes)

These findings can be used to assess the actual and potential role of the urban forests in reducing atmospheric CO2. In addition,
they provide insights for the stakeholders, decision-makers and the public to better understand the role of urban forests, and makebetter management plans for the urban forests. Despite extensive evidence of the important role played by the trees in city
environments, urban planners and architects have often undervalued the important role played by the trees as firstly, urbanization
affects climate; cities tend to become warmer and create what is known as an urban heat island.

3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.000.00

2535.65

336.43690.86651.05291.25214.31323.12117.44 81.96 241.19

Total CO2 sequestration (tonnes)
Graph Showing Carbon dioxide captured by trees ( in Tonnes)
Biomass assessment is very important for many purposes. It is aimed at resource utilization and for environmental management.
In the light of environmental management, biomass evaluation is an important indicator in carbon sequestration. Most of the

IJSDR1701006

International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR) www.ijsdr.org

30

ISSN: 2455-2631© January 2017 IJSDR | Volume 2, Issue 1

experts revealed that the above ground biomass is more strongly correlated with DBH [19]. Also, it is accepted by many
researchers in this field that simple models with only diameters as input is one of the good estimator of above ground biomass[20]. Scientific proofs suggest that enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide could have some better effects like improvement in tree
productivity [14, 21].
The study was conducted in the Aurangabad city Marathwada region to estimate the above ground biomass, below groundbiomass, total biomass, carbon, carbon dioxide from selective ten tree species. Peltophorum pterocarpum has sequestered
2535.646 kg/tree of CO2 which is highest compared to other tree species from the study area. It is due to high DBH and maximum
height of the tree. At the same time AGB 1097.79, BGB 285.42, total biomass 1383.21, carbon 691.60 which is highest in the
Peltophorum pterocarpum which has 205 tree count and total CO2 sequestered is 519.07 tonnes of CO2. Nerium oleander
sequestered lowest CO2 81.96 kg/tree compared to other trees which is may be due to lowest DBH i.e. 0.132 meters, total CO2
sequestered found 1.803 kg/tree. Total AGB 35.48, BGB 9.22, TB 44.71, Carbon 22.35 found from the study area. Total tree
count of the study area is 2910. Maximum 2207 trees found of Limonia acidissima and only 3 trees found of Moringa oleiferafrom the study area. Total AGB 2373.9, total BGB 617.22, Total biomass 2991.11, Total carbon 1495.58 and total CO2
sequesterd is 2252.16 tonnes. Trees having the diameter more than 77 cm sequester approximately 90 times more carbon ascompared to the small healthy trees species which have the diameter less than 8 cm [22]. Large trees also store nearly 1000 times
maximum carbon than smaller trees [14, 22].
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
To estimate the closeness and relationships various parameters a regression analysis was performed with the help of SPSS 16.0
software.
Table 3: - Regression of DBH, Height and Volume of tree species
Model Summary
Std. Error of the
Model

R

R Square.956a

1

Adjusted R Square.914

Estimate.889.17291a. Predictors: (Constant), Height, DBH

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

B

Coefficients

Std. Error

Beta(Constant)-1.036

.181

DBH

3.807

1.451

Height

.078

.050

t

Sig.
-5.730

.001

.616

2.624

.034

.367

1.564

.162

a. Dependent Variable: Volume

Where,
t = Statistics R= Multiple correlation coefficient; R2 and adjusted R2 = Coefficient determination of variablesB= Regression
coefficient
Above table shows that strong correlation coefficient between DBH with volume and the height whereas adjusted R2 shows 88%
variability between the Volume with DBH and Height.
The relationship between DBH and height with volume is approximately linear in all major tree species. In other words maximum
DBH have the highest carbon stock. The regression models developed for the prediction of the carbon and carbon dioxide fromtrees to avoid requirement of the destructive sampling frequency. In this range the maximum tree species have linear relationships
in terms of the DBH and carbon availability. Above statistical table shows that volume is significant with DBH. As increase in
DBH its metabolic and the growth necessities would also increase.

IJSDR1701006

International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR) www.ijsdr.org

31

ISSN: 2455-2631

IV© January 2017 IJSDR | Volume 2, Issue 1

CONCLUSIONS

Trees from urban area play a crucial role in reduction of the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. In the present research work
calculation of carbon and carbon dioxide sequestration potential rate of tree species was done by nondestructive method.
Theodolite instrument was used for height measurement. Wood densities were obtained from the World Agroforestry Centre forthe measurement of carbon sequesterd by trees. Carbon stock was determined for Ficus racemosa, Peltophorum pterocarpum,
Ficus religiosa, Leucaena latisiliqua, Limonia acidissima, Michelia champaca, Millingtonia hortensis, Moringa oleifera, Nerium
oleander, Nyctanthes arbortristis in and around university campus of Aurangabad city. Results shows that Peltophorum
pterocarpum has the better carbon sequestration potential rate which sequesterd 2535.64 kg/tree of CO2 whereas Nerium
oleander has the least sequestration rate which sequesterd 81.96 kg/tree of CO2 as compared to other species. More fieldmeasurements are needed in urban regions to help improve carbon accounting and other functions of urban forest ecosystems.
Total tree count of ten species from the selected study area found 2901 and total carbon dioxide sequesterd by the trees 2252.16
tonnes. To protect our beautiful planet from issues like climate change and global warming approach of sustainable management
should be adopted at the international level with the prime focus on the carbon sequestration.
REFERENCES[1] United Nations (2015). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. NewYork, NY: United Nations Departmentof Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
[2] Nowak, D.J. (1993). Atmospheric carbon reduction by urban trees. Journal of Environmental Management 37 (3), 207217.
[3] Abdollahi, K.K., Ning, Z.H., Appeaning, A. (2000). Global Climate Change and the Urban Forest. GCRCC and Franklin
Press, Baton Rouge, pp. 31-44.
[4] Wilby, R.L., Perry, G.L.W. (2006). Climate change, biodiversity and the urban environment: a critical review based on
London UK. Progress in Physical Geography 30 (1), 73-98.
[5] Gill, S.E., Handley, J.F., Ennos, A.R., Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green
infrastructure. Built Environment 33 (1), 115-133.
[6] Nowak, D.J. (2010). Urban biodiversity and climate change. In: Muller, N., Werner, P., Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), Urban
Biodiversity and Design. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 101-117.
[7] Lal, R., Augustine, B. (2012). Carbon Sequestration in Urban Ecosystems. Springer, New York, p. 385.
[8] McPherson EG (1998). Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Sacramento’s urban forest. J Arboric 24(4):215–223[9] Jo HK (2002). Impacts of urban greenspace on offsetting carbon emissions for middle Korea. J Environ Manage64(2):115–126[10] Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002). Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut 116(3):381–
389[11] Escobedo F, Varela S, Zhao M, Wagner JE, Zipperer W (2010). Analyzing the efficacy of subtropical urban forests inoffsetting carbon emissions from cities. Environ Sci Policy 13(5):362–372[12] Hangarge L. M., D. K. Kulkarni, V. B. Gaikwad, D. M.Mahajan and NishaChaudhari (2012). Carbon Sequestration
potential of tree species in SomjaichiRai (Sacred grove) at Nandghur village, in Bhor region of Pune District,
Maharashtra State, India. Annals of Biological Research, (7): 3426-3429.
[13] Bandana Gupta and Sanjay Sharma (2014). Estimation of Biomass and Carbon Sequestration of Trees in InformallyProtected Areas of Rajouri, J&K, India International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ISSN 2319–1414 Vol.
3(6), 56-61, June (2014) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci.
[14] Potadar Vishnu R, and Satish S Patil. (2016). Carbon Storage and Sequestration by Trees in and Around University
Campus of Aurangabad City, Maharashtra. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering andTechnology Vol. 5, Issue 4, April 2016 ISSN (Online) : 2319-8753[15] MacDicken, K.G. (1997). A Guide to Monitoring Carbon Storage in Forestry and Agro forestry Projects, Winrock
International Institute for Agriculture Development, USA, pp. 13-14.
[16] Pearson TRH Brown S and Ravindranath N.H. (2005). Integrating carbon benefits estimates into GEFProjects:1-56.
[17] Raju, K.R.T., Reddy, T.V., Gonda, C.H., In: Schmutterer, H., (Ed.), (1995). TheNeem Tree,” VCH, Weinheim, p. 86,[18] EPA(2010).
Environmental
co-benefitsofsequestration
practices.
Internet
file
http;//www.
epa.gov/sequestration/fag.html.
[19] Clark, D.A., Brown, S., Kicklighter, D.W., Chambers, J.Q., Thomlinson, J.R., Ni, J., and Holland, E.A., (2001). Net
primary production in tropical forests: an evaluation and synthesis of existing field data, Ecological Applications, 11, pp
371-384.
[20] Djomoa, A.N., Ibrahimab, A., Saborowskic, J., and Gravenhorsta, J. (2010). Allometric equations for biomass
estimations in Cameroon and pan moist tropical equations including biomass data from Africa, Forest Ecology andManagement, 260, pp 1873-1885.
[21] Keutgen, N., Chen, K. (2001). Responses of citrus leaf photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence, macronutrient andcarbohydrate contents to elevated CO2. J. Plant Physiol. 158, 1307–1316

IJSDR1701006

International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR) www.ijsdr.org

32

ISSN: 2455-2631© January 2017 IJSDR | Volume 2, Issue 1[22] Nowak, D.J. (1994). Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chicago’s urban forest. In: McPherson, E.G., Nowak,
D.J., Rowntree, R.A. (Eds.), Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186, Radnor, PA, pp. 83–94.

IJSDR1701006

International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR) www.ijsdr.org

33