Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Survival, growth, aboveground biomass, and carbon sequestration of mono and mixed native tree species plantations on the Coromandel Coast of India

Survival, growth, aboveground biomass, and carbon sequestration of mono and mixed native tree... GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 2020, VOL. 4, NO. 2, 111–120 INWASCON https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2019.1600910 RESEARCH ARTICLE Survival, growth, aboveground biomass, and carbon sequestration of mono and mixed native tree species plantations on the Coromandel Coast of India a,b a a Munisamy Anbarashan , Anbarashan Padmavathy , Ramadoss Alexandar and Narayanasamy Dhatchanamoorhty a b Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India; National Herbarium of Medicinal Plants and Repository of Raw Drug, School of Conservation of Natural Resources, Foundation for Revitalisation of Health Traditions (FRLHT), Trans Disciplinary University (TDU), Bangalore, India ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 3 May 2018 In India, reforestation programs with native indigenous tree species are a recent activity. Accepted 21 March 2019 Information on experiences comparing mono- and mixed-species plantations is limited. This study aims to estimate growth, aboveground biomass, and carbon sequestration between the KEYWORDS mixed-species plantation and mono-species plantation. The growth, survival, height, above- Aboveground biomass; ground biomass, and carbon sequestration of 82 native mixed species plantations were carbon stock; native tree compared with Casuarina equisetifolia an exotic species planted in this region after over a species; plantations; survival decade (2006–2016). In the mixed species plantation, 7 species showed 100% survival rate and 19 species were not survived after over a decade intervals. While in the mono plantation, C. equisetifolia showed 92% of the survival rate. The growth rate of mixed species when compared to mono plantation, it showed highly significant differences (P < 0:05) values. Simple linear regression between annual girth increment and height produced very strong positive relations (R 0.759). The aboveground biomass estimated for the mixed native plantation was 8.007 tonnes and the mono plantation Casuarina had 5.585 tonnes. The total carbon stock estimated for the tree plantation in the two plots (both mixed native and mono) was 7.492 tonnes. A positive correlation was observed between the carbon stock and density of the top 10 species which contributed predominantly to the total carbon stock (rs = 0.773, p < 0.05). Plantation of C. equisetifolia seems to be well adapted and had more carbon stocking potential. On the other hand, mixed plantation with indigenous species would contribute more to sustainable management and they provide great shelters for many faunal communities and provide a greater range of ecological goods and ecosystem services than the mono plantations. 1. Introduction better nutrient retention than the mono plantations (Forrester, Theiveyanathan, Collopy, & Marcar, 2010; In the tropical countries, there is increasing interest Healy, Gotelli, & Potvin Partitioning, 2008; Hung, in establishing mixed native species plantations for a Herbohn, Lamb, & Nhan, 2011; Lawson & Michler, wide range of economic, silvicultural, and sustainabil- 2014; le Maire et al., 2013; Nichols, Bristow, & ity objectives (Nguyen, Vanclay, Herbohn, & Firn, Vanclay, 2006; Puettmann & Tappeiner, 2014; 2016; Anbarashan, Padmavathy, & Alexandar, 2017). Richards, Forrester, Bauhus, & Scherer-Lorenzen, Mixed plantation systems provide native species a 2010). Vietnam, China, and the Philippines encou- broader range of options for their restoration in rage landholders to plant mixtures by their national degraded areas, protection, and biodiversity conser- reforestation programs (Lamb, Erskine, & Parrotta, vation (Montagnini, Gonzalez, Rheingans, & Porras, 2005); in several countries, for smallholder and com- 1995; Guariguata, Rheingans, & Montagnini, 1995; munity forestry (mostly of native species) (Herbohn Parrotta & Knowles, 1999). In the past two decades, et al., 2014) there is often little comprehensive infor- new restoration approaches in the tropics have mation. Ecological disturbance and climate change emphasized the establishment of highly functional impacts can be balanced and can provide localities plantation forests with native species in mixed stands. with more resilient forests, when mixtures of different Recent studies suggest positive mixture effects on species with differing traits are established (Rodrigues many ecosystem functions such as lower tree mortal- et al., 2011; Anbarashan et al., 2017). Lamb and ity, enhanced biomass productivity coupled with Lawrence 1993 stated that the complete utilization higher resource-use efficiency (including nutrients, of soil and water resources along different soil strata water, and light) by trees, higher decomposition could be attained by roots of different species during rates, reduced damage from pest or diseases, and plantation. Plantation of different species tends to CONTACT Munisamy Anbarashan anbupu@gmail.com Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 112 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. observe more solar energy and the light requirements forest stand structure (Semwal, Nautiyal, Maikhuri, are broadly distributed in the vertical plane Rao, & Saxena, 2013). Performance of a tree species (Guariguata et al., 1995). was indicated by their vigor and size, as it partially A major challenge of the forestry sector is to re-estab- reflects the competitive ability of a tree (Nakashizuka, lish/recreate closed forest cover in deforested and 2001). Growth-mortality trade-off can also be pre- degraded areas to mitigate effects associated with defor- dicted by their relationship in plants functional traits estation such as biodiversity loss, soil degradation, ero- (Baker et al., 2004; Nguyen et al., 2016). sion, flooding, and salinization (Kunert & Cardenas, However, the success of the establishment of mixed 2015). The establishment of managed tree plantations forest plantations depends on plantation design and an on suitable tropical lands currently classified as degraded appropriate definition of the species to be used, taking could satisfy the current and projected growing demand into consideration ecological and silvicultural aspects for industrial roundwood, while limiting the harvesting (Wormald, 1992). There exists very limited information pressure on the remaining natural forests (Bauhus, van on the growth of tree species native to the tropics, and der Meer, & Kanninen, 2010; Kunert & Cardenas, 2015). information on experiences comparing mono- and The overall global carbon sequestration could be sub- mixed-species plantations is limited. However, in the stantially enhanced by reforestation in the tropical coun- present study, we tested that the mixed forest tree tries (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). So far, most of the species can grow/survive in the coastal sand dunes. reforestation responsible for a gain in forested area in the The main objective of the present study is to determine tropics has been conducted in form of industrial mono- the growth, aboveground biomass, and carbon seques- cultures involving a limited number of species. Most of tration between the mixed-species plantation and these species originate from few genera (i.e., Pinus, mono-species plantation after over a decade (2006– Eucalyptus, Tectona, Gmelina, Acacia, and Casuarinas) 2016). The hypotheses tested were: there is variation and are exotic to most of the areas where they are in growth, carbon stock, and survival among species; cultivated (ITTO, 2009). Such traditional mono-specific the growth, survival, and carbon stocking potential of plantations have supplied a range of goods and services native species are higher in mixtures that in mono- by providing a forest-like habitat connecting fragmented species plantations. forests, filtration of waste water and temporally seques- tering high amounts of carbon (Bauhus et al., 2010). But there is rising concern about their environmental sus- 2. Materials and methods tainability as they make only minor contributions to the 2.1. Study description and process of seedling restoration of ecological functions and biodiversity com- production in the nursery pared to mixed-species plantations containing indigen- ous tree species (Lamb et al., 2005). The study plots were established in 2006 in Fundamental goal of ecological research in tropical Koonimedu Coastal village on the Coromandel forests is about understanding the patterns of highly Coast of southern India. The mean annual maximum dynamic plant growth. Forest growth function is and minimum temperature are 33 and 24.5°C. The important for determining the size and multitude of mean annual rainfall is 1282 mm per year with a six- ecological cum management applications (Vivek, month dry period (2006–2016). In general, coastal Parthasarathy, & Monica, 2016). For providing prac- sandy soils prevail in the region with poor nutrient. tical and meaningful classification of tropical forest Prior to planting within the restoration program, species, foresters in modeling growth and yield fac- seedlings were propagated from seeds of tree species tors are needed, whereas the ecologists explain the life native to the area. The presence and availability of history of tropical forest and their diversity (Vivek et local seed sources was considered to ensure the pro- al., 2016). In prediction of forest dynamics, under- vision of genetic material for the production of seed- standing of tree mortality is inevitable and its center lings to be used in the forest restoration program. to any long-term dynamics of woody plants as their Seed collection was carried out in the Tropical Dry biomass is regulated by the difference between gains Evergreen forests, on the Coromandel Coast, in areas through individual growth and losses through mor- containing both primary and secondary forest during tality (Scherer-Lorenzen et al., 2005). The growth and the dry season between March and June. Seeds were mortality of saplings of trees are dependent on cleaned and dried at the Pitchandikulam Forest, impacts of various factors, such as species specific, where seeds were stored in sacks. Periodic germina- tree vigor and size, and environmental conditions on tion tests were carried out to test seed viability. Seeds the interactions and processes in stands (Radosevich, of some species received treatments to improve ger- Hibbs, & Ghersa, 2006; Scherer-Lorenzen et al., mination rates, including scarification, wetting, and 2005). Differences in mortality rates among species drying in hot, as well as cold water. Seeds were are the major determinants of ecological succession planted in shaded seedbeds with the seedlings trans- (Schneider, Ashton, Montagnini, & Milan, 2014) and planted to 6 by 12 cm polyethylene bags with GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 113 perforations at the bottom to insure drainage. The et al. 2005) for few species for which WSD value was trees remained in the nursery for six to one year not available, using diameter as the only variable. The depending on the species and its growth rate before carbon stock was estimated to be 50% of the total out planting with a minimum seedling height of biomass (AGB + BGB). Above ground biomass and 30 cm. carbon stock were calculated for only 47 native tree species (woody species) and casuarina in the mono plantation. 2.2. Preparation of sites and planting The averages of total height, dbh, basal area, and survival and mortality were calculated for each 1-ha Once the site was prepared for planting, planting holes plot in each species. The differences in diameter dis- were dug, with dimensions of 45 cm deep by 20 cm in tribution of trees between the two inventories (2006– diameter. The planting holes were spaced at 3 m inter- 2016) were tested using Kolmogorov–Smirnov two vals along the access paths. The distances of the applied sample test (Zarr 2006), and we used paired t-tests to planting points were 4 m between the axes of the rows check for the significant differences in tree variables in and 3 m between holes. The distance of 1.5 m gave an two different plantations using SPSS software. average planting density of 1200 trees per hectare in enrichment areas. After planting, manual clearance of grass and other herbaceous vegetation was carried out 3. Results twice a year with machetes during the first three years 3.1. Survival of species after planting as part of maintenance to ensure that young trees are not outcompeted by weed species. Measurements in the mixed species plantation, at Weeding was the main maintenance activity after field 10 years of age, showed that Albizia amara, planting of trees, and a pruning of secondary apical Lepisanthes tetraphylla, Diospyros ferrea, Eugenia shoots was conducted in the first year. bracteata, Mimusops elengi, Sapindus emarginata, and Terminalia bellerica exhibited the highest rate of survival (100%), followed by Wrightia tinctoria, 2.3. Data analysis Mitragyna parviflora, Streblus asper, Pleiospermium alatum, Gmelina asiatica, Ixora pavetta, and A total of 2055 individuals of 82 native trees and 1500 Coccoloba uvifera showed that 99% of the survival Casuarina equisetifolia were planted in 2 ha in 2006. rate (Table 2). In a total of 19 species were not Table 1 includes the list of species, families, and ecolo- survived during an over decade. No species exhibited gical importance. Species choice was based on growth significant differences (P < 0.05) of survival between rate, timber, and ecological importance. In each 1 ha the pure and mono plantation plots. Species such as plot, diameter at breast height (dbh) and total height Bauhinia purpurea, Benkara malabarica, Calophyllum were measured for each tree after over a decade (2016). −1 inophyllum, Limonia acidissima, Polyalthia suberosa, Differences in (i) height growth rate (cm yr ) and (ii) −1 −1 Pterospermum xylocarpum, Strychnos potatorum, average biomass carbon gain per year (kg C yr stem ) Terminalia catappa, and Thespesia populnea not sur- for the most characteristic species within the plots were vive even single saplings in the 2-ha plots. calculated. For calculation of height growth rate, the Barringtonia acutangula, Cassia fistula, Chloroxylon differences in height were divided by the time between swietenia, Pamburus missionis, and Pterocarpus mar- measurements in years. Average biomass carbon gain supium demonstrated survival rates less than 20%. per year was calculated similarly, following conversion Comparing mono- and mixed-species plantations, in of DAP measurements using allometric equations general, species in the mono plantation demonstrated (given below). better survival rates. Notably, in the single species Total carbon for each species was calculated using plot, Casuarina equisetifolia exhibited high survival a dry tropical forest allometric equation for above and growth rates in the single species plantation. and below ground biomass (Chave et al., 2005). The equation forms for estimation of carbon were as follows: 3.2. Species height and growth rate AGB est ¼ ρ  exp ð1:499 þ 2:148 lnðÞ D In the mixed species plantation, measurements taken at þ0:207ðÞ lnðÞ D 2  0:0281ðÞ lnðÞ D 3Þ 10 years of interval resulted in Ficus benghalensis and Where D is the diameter and ρ is the wood specific Bauhinia racemosa demonstrating the best growth in density of tree species. terms of height, followed by Alibizia amara and The wood specific density of each tree species was Azadirachta indica, with no statistically significant differ- taken from available literature (Mani & Parthasarathy ences (P < 0.05) between mono- and mixed native species 2007) and also from global wood density database. plantations. In the mono plantation, C. equisetifolia We used the generalized allometric equation (Pearson showed a moderate growth of height (average 9.5) and 114 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. Table 1. List of species with families and their ecological importance. Sl. No. Species Family Ecological values Mixed species 1 Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa Rutaceae Medicinal, Economic 2 Aglaia elaeagnoidea (Juss.) Benth. Meilaceae Ecological 3 Alangium salvifolium (L.f.) Wangerin Alangiaceae Medicinal 4 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin Mimosaceae Medicinal, Commercial 5 Atalantia monophylla (L.) Correa Rutaceae Medicinal, Ecological 6 Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Meliaceae Medicinal, Cultural 7 Barringtonia acutangula (L.) Gaertner Barringtoniaceae Ecological 8 Bauhinia purpurea Lam. Leguminosae Medicinal 9 Bauhinia racemosa Lam. Leguminosae Timber, Ecological 10 Benkara malabarica (Lam.) Tirven. Rubiaceae Ecological 11 Calophyllum inophyllum L. Calophyllaceae Medicinal 12 Calotropis gigantea L. Apocynaceae Medicinal, Cultural 13 Carmona retusa (Vahl) Masm Boraginaceae Ecological 14 Canthium dicoccum(Gaertn.) Merr. Rubiaceae Medicinal 15 Cassia auriculata L. Fabaceae Medicinal 16 Cassia fistula L. Fabaceae Ecological 17 Cassine glauca Rottb. Kuntze. Celastraceae Ecological 18 Chloroxylon swietenia DC. Rutaceae Timber 19 Coccoloba uvifera L. Polygonaceae Fruit, Ecological 20 Commiphora berryi (Arn.) Engl. Ecological 21 Dalbergia latifolia Roxb. Fabaceae Timber 22 Delonix elata Gamble. Fabaceae Medicinal, aesthetic 23 Diospyros ebenum J. Koenig ex Retz. Ebenaceae Timber 24 Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh. Ebenaceae Ecological 25 Diospyros montana Roxb. Ebenaceae Ecological 26 Dolichandrone falcata Seem. Bignoniaceae Ecological 27 Drypetes sepiaria (Wight and Arn.) Pax and Hoffm. Euphorbiacae Ecological 28 Ehretia pubescens Benth. Boraginaceae Ecological 29 Erythrina indica L. Fabaceae Medicinal 30 Eugenia bracteata (Willd.) Roxb. ex DC. Myrtaceae Ecological 31 Ficus benghalensis L. Moraceae Cultural, Medicinal 32 Ficus hispida Lf. Moraceae Medicinal 33 Ficus religiosa L. Moraceae Cultural, Medicinal 34 Garcinia spicata (Wight and Arn.) J.D. Hook. Clusiaceae Ecological 35 Glycosmis mauritiana (Lam.) Tanaka Rutaceae Fruit, Ecological 36 Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth ex Walp. Fabaceae Medicinal 37 Gmelina asiatica L. Verbenaceae Medicinal, Aesthetic 38 Helicteres isora L. Malvaceae Medicinal, Aesthetic 39 Holoptelea integrifolia Planch. Ulmaceae Timber 40 Ixora pavetta T. Anderson Rubiaceae Cultural, Aesthetic 41 Lawsonia inermis L. Lythraceae Cultural, Medicinal 42 Lepisanthes tetraphylla (Vahl.) Radlk. Anacardiaceae Cultural 43 Limonia acidissima L. Rutaceae Cultural, Medicinal 44 Madhuca longofolia (L.) Macbr. Sapotaceae Oil, Cultural 45 Maerua oblongifolia Forssk. Capparaceae Ecological 46 Mallotus rhamnifolius Muell.-Arg. Euphorbiaceae Cultural, Aesthetic 47 Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard Sapotaceae Fruit, Ecological 48 Melia azedarach L. Meliaceae Medicinal 49 Memecylon umbellatum Burm.f. Melastomataceae Ecological, Aesthetic 50 Mimusops elengi L. Sapotaceae Medicinal, Cultural 51 Mitragyna parviflora (Roxb.)Korth. Rubiaceae Timber 52 Murraya paniculata (L) Jack Rutaceae Aesthetic 53 Ochna obtusata DC. Ochnaceae Ecological, Aesthetic 54 Ormocarpum sennoides (Willd.)DC. Leguminosae Medicinal 55 Pamburus missionis (Wight) Swingle Rutaceae Ecological 56 Pandanus oddaratissimus L.f. Pandanaceae Ecological 57 Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir. Euphorbiaceae Ecological, Medicinal 58 Pleiospermium alatum (Wall. ex Wight. & Arn.) Swingle Rutaceae Ecological, Medicinal 59 Polyalthia suberosa (Dunal) Thw. Annonaceae Ecological, Aesthetic 60 Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre Fabaceae Oil, Cultural 61 Pterocarpus marsupium Roxb. Combretaceae Timber, Medicinal 62 Pterospermum canescens Roxb. Sterculiaceae Ecological 63 Pterospermum xylocarpum (Gaertn.) Sant. & Wagh. Sterculiaceae Ecological 64 Salacia chinensis L. Celastraceae Medicinal 65 Salvadora persica L. Salvadoraceae Medicinal, Economic 66 Sapindus emarginatus Vahl Sapindacea Medicinal, Economic 67 Streblus asper Lour. Moraceae Ecological 68 Strychnos nux-vomica L. Loganiaceae Medicinal 69 Strychnos potatorum Lf. Loganiaceae Ecological, Medicinal 70 Suregada angustifolia (Baill. ex. Muell-Arg.) Airy Shaw Meliaceae Ecological 71 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Myrtaceae Medicinal, Fruit 72 Tarenna asiatica (L.) Kuntze. Rubiaceae Medicinal, Cultural 73 Terminalia arjuna (DC.) Wight & Arn. Combretaceae Medicinal, Timber 74 Terminalia bellirica (Gaertner) Roxb. Combretaceae Medicinal, Timber 75 Terminalia catappa L. Combretaceae Ecological, Fruit 76 Thespesia populnea (L.)Sol. Malvaceae Timber, Cultural (Continued) GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 115 Table 1. (Continued). Sl. No. Species Family Ecological values 77 Tricalysia sphaerocarpa (Dalz.) Gamble Rubiaceae Timber, Cultural 78 Vitex leucoxylon Lf. Lamiaceae Timber, Ecological 79 Vitex negundo L. Lamiaceae Medicinal, Cultural 80 Walsura trifolia (A.Juss.) Harms Rubiaceae Ecological 81 Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R.Br. Apocynaceae Medicinal, 82 Ziziphus mauritina Lam. Rhamnaceae Ecological Mono plantation 1 Casuarina equisetifolia L. Casuarinaceae Fuel wood girth. Simple linear regression between annual girth 3.5 Contribution of different tree species to total increment and height produced very strong positive carbon stock relation (R 0.759; Figure 1). Total carbon was significantly different between spe- Thegrowthindiameterof Ficus benghalensis was the cies (F = 6.6, p < .0001). Bauhinia racemosa had greatest in the mixed native species plantation plots, significantly greater total biomass gain per year than followed by Albizia amara, Vitex leucoxylon,and all other species in the mixed species plantations Azadirachta indica with no statistically significant differ- (p < 0.05). Among the 47 tree species in the mixed ences (P < 0.05) between diameter increment in the species plantation, the contribution of Bauhinia race- mixedplots.Whencomparedtomonoplantation, it mosa to the total carbon stock was high (1427.75 kg) showed highly significant differences (P < 0.05) values. followed by Albizia amara (712.52 kg), Lepisanthes In the mono plantation, Casuarina equisetifolia showed a tetraphylla (207 kg), Wrightia tinctoria (204.51 kg), greater diameter increment in the last 10 years when and Azadirachta indica (181.32 kg) (Table 3). A posi- compared to the mixed species plantation. Tricalysia tive correlation was observed between the carbon sphaerocarpa, Tarenna asiatica, Strychnos nux-vomica, stock and density of the top 10 species which con- Salvadora persica, Murraya paniculata, Glycosmis maur- tributed predominantly to the total carbon stock itiana, Cassia fistula,and Aegle marmelos showed the (rs = 0.773, p < 0.05). slowest growth rates, with no significant differences in the mixed plantation. Single species plantations of Casuarina equisetifolia were the most productive, show- 4. Discussions ing significant differences (P <0.05) in basalarea, com- pared to all species and the mixture of native species The results of the present study provide valuable plantations. information to support the establishment of planta- tions with native mixed species and pure design. Introducing new species, however, is not without 3.3. Total aboveground biomass and risks. Many reforestation projects fail due to inap- contribution per species propriate species choice, a consequence of inadequate knowledge about the potential of species and their The total aboveground biomass estimated for the two growth and survival rates under different site and different plantations (mono and mixed) was 14.98 environmental conditions (Corlett, 1999; Rodrigues, tonnes. The aboveground biomass estimated for the de Castro, Cancho, & Balakrishnan, 2009; Wuethrich, mixed native plantation was 8.007 tonnes and the 2007). The use of a greater variety of native indigen- mono plantation Casuarina had 5.585 tonnes of above- ous species in reforestation may improve the resili- ground biomass. Among the 47 native mixed species, ence of ecosystems, decrease sensitivity to pest and Bauhinia racemosa shared a maximum of 2.855 tonnes diseases, and increase functional diversity (Benayas, (35.7%) to total biomass followed by Albizia amara Newton, Diaz, & Bullock, 2009; Hooper et al., 2005; (17.8%), Lepisanthes tetraphylla (5.2%), and Wrightia Rodrigues et al., 2009). Creation of forests in the tinctoria (5.1%; Table 3; Figure 2). A positive correlation tropics takes place across a wide variety of non-cli- was observed between height and biomass of all 47 matic and climatic conditions. Different reforestation species (rs = 0.773, p < 0.05; Figure 3). experiments have elucidated the strong effects that environmental conditions may have on species 3.4. Total carbon stock growth and survival (Butterfield, 1996; Calvo- Alvarado, Arias, & Richter, 2007; Park et al., 2010). The total carbon stock estimated for the tree planta- Local climate conditions also have a larger impact on tion in the two plots (both mixed native and mono) plantations success. The development in height and was 7.492 tonnes. The carbon stock estimated for the girth of the crown is mainly determined during mixed native plantation was 4.003 tonnes and the growth in the monsoon (rainy season), while, mini- mono plantation Casuarina had 2.792 tonnes of mal growth occurring during dry seasons. Initial total carbon (Table 3). 116 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. Table 2. List of species with survival and growth rate after 10 year period of intervals. Sl.no. Species Planted in 2006 Survival in 2016 Mean annual Girth Increment (cm) Mono plantation 1 Casuarina equisetifolia L. 1500 1380 14.564 ± 0.478 Mixed species 1 Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa 10 8 2.337 ± 0.678 2 Aglaia elaeagnoidea (Juss.) Benth. 4 4 2.774 ± 0.478 3 Alangium salvifolium (L.f.) Wangerin 26 22 2.945 ± 1.317 4 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin 40 40 14.978 ± 9.127 5 Atalantia monophylla (L.) Correa 50 31 2.464 ± 0.863 6 Azadirachta indica A. Juss. 20 18 12.65 ± 4.608 7 Barringtonia acutangula (L.) Gaertner 10 1 14.4 8 Bauhinia purpurea Lam. 25 0 0 9 Bauhinia racemosa Lam. 150 145 12.458 ± 5.055 10 Benkara malabarica (Lam.) Tirven. 20 0 0 11 Calophyllum inophyllum L. 15 0 0 12 Calotropis gigantea L. 10 4 2.525 ± 0.853 13 Carmona retusa (Vahl) Masm 35 29 2.658 ± 0.797 14 Canthium dicoccum(Gaertn.) Merr. 10 10 3.95 ± 2.204 15 Cassia auriculata L. 20 13 7.36 ± 3.509 16 Cassia fistula L. 10 2 1.9 ± 0.707 17 Cassine glauca Rottb. Kuntze. 30 28 6.275 ± 3.750 18 Chloroxylon swietenia DC. 10 2 4.4 ± 1.414 19 Coccoloba uvifera L. 30 29 5.786 ± 4.142 20 Commiphora berryi (Arn.) Engl. 100 81 7.907 ± 3.142 21 Dalbergia latifolia Roxb. 5 4 5.4 ± 1.914 22 Delonix elata Gamble. 15 12 5.608 ± 3.538 23 Diospyros ebenum J. Koenig ex Retz. 70 69 4.066 ± 2.681 24 Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh. 70 70 4.271 ± 2.534 25 Diospyros montana Roxb. 20 18 2.927 ± 1.143 26 Dolichandrone falcata Seem. 50 45 6.122 ± 4.170 27 Drypetes sepiaria (Wight and Arn.) Pax and Hoffm. 28 26 3.419 ± 1.808 28 Ehretia pubescens Benth. 10 0 0 29 Erythrina indica L. 10 0 0 30 Eugenia bracteata (Willd.) Roxb. ex DC. 20 20 2.425 ± 2.009 31 Ficus benghalensis L. 5 3 24.066 ± 9.928 32 Ficus hispida Lf. 10 0 0 33 Ficus religiosa L. 1 1 14.9 34 Garcinia spicata (Wight and Arn.) J.D. Hook. 15 13 3.746 ± 1.983 35 Glycosmis mauritiana (Lam.) Tanaka 20 16 1.931 ± 0.618 36 Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth ex Walp. 5 0 0 37 Gmelina asiatica L. 25 24 6.796 ± 3.175 38 Helicteres isora L. 30 28 3.978 ± 2.404 39 Holoptelea integrifolia Planch. 90 82 7.332 ± 4.175 40 Ixora pavetta T. Anderson 20 19 3.924 ± 1.219 41 Lawsonia inermis L. 5 4 3.9 ± 1.732 42 Lepisanthes tetraphylla (Vahl.) Radlk. 101 101 7.172 ± 4.037 43 Limonia acidissima L. 5 0 0 44 Madhuca longofolia (L.) Macbr. 5 3 5.066 ± 4.618 45 Maerua oblongifolia Forssk. 5 0 0 46 Mallotus rhamnifolius Muell.-Arg. 5 0 0 47 Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard 85 83 6.719 ± 3.075 48 Melia azedarach L. 5 3 6.566 ± 5.107 49 Memecylon umbellatum Burm.f. 5 2 2.15 ± 0.535 50 Mimusops elengi L. 35 35 5.82 ± 3.083 51 Mitragyna parviflora (Roxb.)Korth. 15 15 4.233 ± 2.135 52 Murraya paniculata (L) Jack 10 7 2.471 ± 0.449 53 Ochna obtusata DC. 10 7 7.525 ± 3.224 54 Ormocarpum sennoides (Willd.)DC. 10 1 3.4 55 Pamburus missionis (Wight) Swingle 5 0 0 56 Pandanus oddaratissimus L.f. 10 9 3.177 ± 0.440 57 Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir. 20 0 0 58 Pleiospermium alatum (Wall. ex Wight. & Arn.) Swingle 100 88 8.396 ± 5.134 59 Polyalthia suberosa (Dunal) Thw. 5 0 0 60 Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre 5 0 0 61 Pterocarpus marsupium Roxb. 5 1 8.5 62 Pterospermum canescens Roxb. 50 42 7.269 ± 4.281 63 Pterospermum xylocarpum (Gaertn.) Sant. & Wagh. 10 0 0 64 Salacia chinensis L. 5 5 4.7 ± 3.383 65 Salvadora persica L. 20 16 2.622 ± 1.617 66 Sapindus emarginatus Vahl 40 40 6.5 ± 4.071 67 Streblus asper Lour. 30 29 3.796 ± 2.114 68 Strychnos nux-vomica L. 35 31 2.722 ± 1.235 69 Strychnos potatorum Lf. 10 0 0 70 Suregada angustifolia (Baill. ex. Muell-Arg.) Airy Shaw 10 8 5.837 ± 3.580 71 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels 10 8 9.462 ± 4.617 72 Tarenna asiatica (L.) Kuntze. 5 2 2.9 ± 1.414 73 Terminalia arjuna (DC.) Wight & Arn. 10 9 10.955 ± 4.126 74 Terminalia bellirica (Gaertner) Roxb. 10 10 5.95 ± 4.126 (Continued) GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 117 Table 2. (Continued). Sl.no. Species Planted in 2006 Survival in 2016 Mean annual Girth Increment (cm) 75 Terminalia catappa L. 30 0 0 76 Thespesia populnea (L.)Sol. 25 0 0 77 Tricalysia sphaerocarpa (Dalz.) Gamble 5 3 2.4 ± 0.866 78 Vitex leucoxylon Lf. 15 14 13.864 ± 5.607 79 Vitex negundo L. 10 8 9.025 ± 2.100 80 Walsura trifolia (A.Juss.) Harms 50 48 4.29 ± 4.16 81 Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R.Br. 70 69 9.146 ± 3.860 82 Ziziphus mauritina Lam. 10 0 0 Total 2055 1616 growth of the tree species vary according the species and the local seasonal weather conditions, including the amount of rainfall generated in a given year. In general, mortality rate are determined by the amount of rainfall in a given year. Tree species in their first three years of growth are especially vulnerable to the drying out the soil. On the other hand, the finding that 23% of the species may have high initial mortal- ity and unsatisfactory early growth is critical informa- tion for avoiding early failure of reforestation projects. Several species showed poor performance and seemed to be unsuitable for large-scale planting Figure 1. Simple linear regression between annual girth in open plantation sites. Ashton, Gunatilleke, increment and average height of mixed species plantation Singhakumara, and Gunatilleke (2001) reported that (2 ha). some of these species might do better when planted after site amelioration by earlier planted or extant nurse trees. siamea, Azadirachta indica, Gmelina arborea (Brown, Overall, species in mixed plantings had higher values Lugo, & Chapman, 1986;Lugo&Brown, 1992; of carbon sequestration than the mono plantation. Schroeder, 1992; Silver, Ostertag, & Lugo, 2000;Subak, According to our results, it seems that fast-growing 2000). species (i.e., B. racemosa, A. Amara, L. tetraphylla) accu- The present study revealed that the variation of GBH mulate biomass and carbon very fast in the first stage of increment was also found on trees from similar species. their lifespan, before they are about 10 years old. On the This might be due to the response of each species to the other hand, tree plantations that include slower-growing growth process, which is different among species, as species (i.e., Aglaia elaeagnoidea, Memecylon umbella- well as among trees of similar species. Many research tum) may accumulate more biomass and carbon within showed that the internal and external factors had the system in the long term, compared to stands or affected tree growth and development (Breugel et al., mixtures of fast-growing species only. This shift in the 2011). The internal factors comprised genetic factor, accumulation of biomass and carbon may be related to plant growth process, internal growth property, and differences in the wood specific gravity and growth pat- physiological process. On the other hand, the soil para- terns among fast and slow growing species (Elias & meters, micro climatic factors, and response plant to Potvin, 2003; Redondo-Brenes & Montagnni, 2006; the environment could be the external factors. Miya, Thomas, 1996). Wood specific gravity varies widely Yoshida, Noguchi, and Nakamura (2009) reported that between tropical forest tree species, and it is closely variation in diameter growth of different saplings of related to differences in diameter growth rates and life different species in an uneven-aged mixed stand was history strategies (Baker et al., 2004;Redondo-Brenes& influenced by individual growth conditions, but it was Montagnni, 2006;Whitmore, 1998). The values of above- negatively related to the wood density (Keeling, Baker, ground biomass and carbon sequestration in mono Martinez, Monteagudo, & Phillips, 2008). Overall, the plantings from this study are lower than values found findings indicated that raising plantations on degraded in other regions of tropical humid climate, such as in 8.5- lands or open land, particularly where seedbanks of year-old mono plantings of Casuarina equisetifolia, native forest species are lacking, initiates the process Eucalyptus robusta,and Leucaena leucocephala in of forest succession with nurse effect for woody native Puerto Rico (Parrotta & Knowles, 1999). Values of this species regeneration. The plantations C. equisetifolia in study are also higher than those reported for pure plan- this area would have been thinned out on a rotational tation of Pinus caribaea, Leucaena spp., Casuarina spp., basis to facilitate native species establishment. The Pinus patula, Cupressus lusitanica, Acacia nitolica, Senna 118 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. Table 3. The Aboveground biomass (AGB) and Carbon stock of mixed and mono plantations. −1 Sl. No. Species Total AGB (kg) Mean with error (kg) AGB yr (kg) Carbon stock (kg) 1 Aglaia elaeagnoidea (Juss.) Benth. 1.137 0.284 ± 0.28 0.114 0.569 2 Alangium salvifolium (L.f.) Wangerin 8.734 0.380 ± 0.35 0.873 4.367 3 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin 1425.042 38.515 ± 55.40 142.504 712.521 4 Atalantia monophylla (L.) Correa 5.641 0.182 ± 0.18 0.564 2.821 5 Azadirachta indica A. Juss. 362.653 20.147 ± 43.35 36.265 181.326 6 Barringtonia acutangula (L.) Gaertner 5.62 5.620 ± 0.28 0.562 2.81 7 Bauhinia racemosa Lam. 2855.513 19.693 ± 34.48 285.551 1427.756 8 Canthium dicoccum(Gaertn.) Merr. 6.255 0.626 ± 0.59 0.626 3.128 9 Cassia fistula L. 0.125 0.062 ± 0.04 0.012 0.062 10 Cassine glauca Rottb. Kuntze. 60.899 2.175 ± 3.30 6.09 30.449 11 Chloroxylon swietenia DC. 1.663 0.832 ± 0.23 0.166 0.832 12 Dolichandrone falcata Seem. 142.95 3.177 ± 6.07 14.295 71.475 13 Dalbergia latifolia Roxb. 10.974 2.744 ± 2.89 1.097 5.487 14 Delonix elata Gamble. 13.541 1.128 ± 0.28 1.354 6.771 15 Diospyros ebenum J. Koenig ex Retz. 54.478 0.790 ± 1.45 5.448 27.239 16 Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh. 51.181 0.731 ± 0.93 5.118 25.59 17 Diospyros montana Roxb. 4.654 0.259 ± 0.38 0.465 2.327 18 Drypetes sepiaria (Wight and Arn.) Pax and Hoffm. 12.36 0.475 ± 0.57 1.236 6.18 19 Eugenia bracteata (Willd.) Roxb. ex DC. 5.309 0.265 ± 0.79 0.531 2.654 20 Ficus benghalensis L. 166.456 55.485 ± 21.51 16.646 83.228 21 Ficus religiosa L. 47.328 47.328 ± 0.28 4.733 23.664 22 Garcinia spicata (Wight and Arn.) J.D. Hook. 5.673 0.436 ± 0.45 0.567 2.836 23 Glycosmis mauritiana (Lam.) Tanaka 0.976 0.065 ± 0.07 0.098 0.488 24 Gmelina asiatica L. 207.439 9.429 ± 12.27 20.744 103.719 25 Helicteres isora L. 6.734 0.536 ± 0.28 0.673 3.367 26 Ixora pavetta T. Anderson 11.673 0.475 1.167 5.836 27 Lepisanthes tetraphylla (Vahl.) Radlk. 415.137 4.110 ± 6.36 41.514 207.569 28 Madhuca longofolia (L.) Macbr. 2.339 0.780 ± 1.21 0.234 1.17 29 Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard 202.453 2.439 ± 3.14 20.245 101.227 30 Memecylon umbellatum Burm.f. 0.149 0.075 ± 0.02 0.015 0.075 31 Mitragyna parviflora (Roxb.)Korth. 7.307 0.487 ± 0.46 0.731 3.654 32 Murraya paniculata (L) Jack 3.072 0.439 ± 0.32 0.307 1.536 33 Ochna obtusata DC. 2.202 0.68 0.22 1.101 34 Pleiospermium alatum (Wall. ex Wight. & Arn.) Swingle 3.215 0.357 ± 0.28 0.322 1.608 35 Pterospermum canescens Roxb. 193.633 4.610 ± 6.14 19.363 96.816 36 Salacia chinensis L. 2.373 0.680 ± 0.28 0.237 1.186 37 Sapindus emarginatus Vahl 84.585 2.169 ± 1.54 8.458 42.292 38 Streblus asper Lour. 165.439 5.710 ± 0.28 16.544 82.719 39 Strychnos nux-vomica L. 11.207 0.362 ± 0.39 1.121 5.604 40 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels 39.199 4.900 ± 5.56 3.92 19.599 41 Tarenna asiatica (L.) Kuntze. 1.373 0.686 ± 0.85 0.137 0.686 42 Terminalia arjuna (DC.) Wight & Arn. 120.651 13.406 ± 16.70 12.065 60.325 43 Terminalia bellirica (Gaertner) Roxb. 15.468 1.547 ± 1.61 1.547 7.734 44 Tricalysia sphaerocarpa (Dalz.) Gamble 0.638 0.213 ± 0.08 0.064 0.319 45 Vitex leucoxylon Lf. 16.468 1.647 ± 0.28 1.647 8.234 46 Walsura trifolia (A.Juss.) Harms 52.935 1.103 ± 1.02 5.293 26.467 47 Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R.Br. 409.032 5.928 ± 9.14 40.903 204.516 Total 8007.726 264.166 800.773 4003.863 Mono plantation 1 Casuarina equisetifolia L. 5585.652 558.565 2792.826 Grand total 13.593. 378 1359. 33 6796. 68 numbers of vascular plant species in the native species y = 129.35x + 386.47 mixed plantation plot were much higher than C. equi- R² = 0.3025 setifolia (mono plantation), indicating that reforestation of open areas with native species might indeed speed up the recolonization of some other native flora through their influence on understorey microclimate and soil fertility improvement, and provision of habitats for seed-dispersing animals. 0 5 10 15 20 Height (ft) 5. Conclusions Figure 2. Total AGB and most contributed species in both mixed and mono plantations. In conclusion, the present study shows that both mono and mixed native species can perform well in the planta- majority of species planted here were shade-tolerant tion sites. Although the plantations are still young and it mature forest species whose survival appeared to be may be too soon to determine the behavior of the species consistent in the mixed species plot. The species that studied, it is evident that best growth for these species performed poorly were mature forest species that may was demonstrated in mixed native species systems. A Total AGB (kg) GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 119 7000 Ashton,P.M.S.,Gunatilleke,C.V.S.,Singhakumara,B.M.P., &Gunatilleke,I.A.U.N.(2001). Restoration pathways for rain forest in southwest Sri Lanka: A review of concepts and models. Forest Ecology Management, 154, 409–430. Baker, T. R., Phillips, O. L., Malhi, Y., Almeida, S., Arroyo, L., & Di Fiore, A. (2004). Variation in wood density determines spatial patterns in Amazonian forest bio- mass. Global Change Biology, 10(5), 545–562. Bauhus, J., van der Meer, P., & Kanninen, M. (2010). Bau rac Alb ama Lep tet Wri tin Aza ind Cas equ Ecosystem goods and services from Plantation forests. (mono) London, UK: Earthscan. Species Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A., & Bullock, J. M. (2009). Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem ser- Figure 3. Simple linear regression between height increment vices by ecological restoration: A meta-analysis. Science, and total aboveground biomass in mixed species plantation 325, 1121–1124. (height class were distrusted like 1–3, 3–6, 6–9, 9–12, 12–15, Breugel, M. V., Hall, J. S., Craven, D. J., Gregoire, T. G., and 15–18). Park, A., Dent, D. H., . . . Ashton, M. S. (2011). Early growth and survival of 49 tropical tree species across require special efforts in restoration programs, such as sites differing in soil fertility and rainfall in Panama. provision of tree guards to prevent browsing, selection of Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 1580–1589. appropriate microsites (e.g., shaded areas), and the use of Brown, S., Lugo, A. E., & Chapman, J. (1986). Biomass of older or hardened saplings that can better tolerate tropical plantations and its implications for the global carbon budget. Canadian Journal Forest Research, 16(2), 390–394. droughtorbrowsing. Thehighermortality ofshade- Butterfield, R. (1996). Early species selection for tropical intolerant species appears to be the results due to high reforestation: A consideration of stability. Forest Ecology intensity of light in coastal dune ecosystem. This result in and Management, 81, 161–168. not surprising because most of the species that were Calvo-Alvarado, J. C., Arias, D., & Richter, D. D. (2007). planted are late-successional trees found in mature forest Early growth performance of native and introduced fast growing tree species in wet to sub-humid climates of the and included few pioneer species. Management practices Southern region of Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and such as pruning and thinning could favor the develop- Management, 242, 227–235. ment of these species in mixed plantations and provide Canadell, J. G., & Raupach, M. R. (2008). Managing forests for revenues at earlier ages, when an appropriate group of climate change mitigation. Science, 320, 1456–1457. species is used. Plantation of C. equisetifolia seems to be Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M. A., Chambers, well adapted and had more carbon stocking potential. J. Q., Eamus, D., Fölster, H., Fromard, F., Higuchi, N., Kira, T., Lescure, J. -P., Nelson, B. W., Ogawa, H., Puig, On the other hand, mixed plantation with indigenous H., Riéra, B., & Yamakura, T. (2005). Tree allometry and species would contribute more to sustainable manage- improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in ment and they provide great shelters for many faunal tropical forests. Oecologia, 145,87–99. doi:10.1007/ communities and provide a greater range of ecological s00442-005-0100-x goods and ecosystem services than the mono plantations. Corlett, R. T. (1999). Environmental forestry in Hong Kong: 1871–1997. Forest Ecology Management, 116,93–105. Elias, M., & Potvin, C. (2003). Assessing inter- and intra- Acknowledgments specific variation in trunk carbon concentration for 32 neotropical tree species. Canadian Journal of Forest The receipt of financial assistance from Pitchandikulam Research, 33, 1039–1045. Forest, Auroville (PFs), India is gratefully acknowledged. Forrester, D. I., Theiveyanathan, S., Collopy, J. J., & Marcar, N. E. (2010). Enhanced water use efficiency in a mixed Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii plantation. Forest Disclosure statement Ecology and Management, 259(9), 1761–1770. Guariguata, M. R., Rheingans, R., & Montagnini, F. (1995). No potential conflict of interest was reported by the Early woody invasion under tree plantations in Costa authors. Rica: Implications for forest restoration. Restoration Ecology, 3, 252–260. Healy, C., Gotelli, N. J., & Potvin Partitioning, C. (2008). Funding the effects of biodiversity and environmental heteroge- neity for productivity and mortality in a tropical tree The receipt of financial assistance from pitchandikulam plantation. Journal of Ecology, 96, 903‒913. forest, auroville (pfs), india is gratefully acknowledged. Herbohn, J. L., Vanclay, J., Ngyuen, H., Le, H. D., Baynes, J. R., Harrison, S., . . . Lamarre, E. (2014). Inventory pro- cedures for smallholder and community woodlots in the References Philippines: Methods, initial findings and insights. Small Scale Forestry, 13,79–100. Anbarashan,M.,Padmavathy,A.,&Alexandar,R.(2017). Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, Short communication: Survival and growth of mono and P., Lavorel, S., . . . Wardle, D. A. (2005). Effects of biodi- mixed species plantations on the coromandel coast of india. versity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current Asian Journal of Forestry, 1, 70-76. doi:10.13057/asianjfor/ knowledge. Ecological Monograph, 75,3–35. r010203 Total AGB (kg) 120 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. Hung, T. D., Herbohn, J. L., Lamb, D., & Nhan, H. D. Technical report. Winrock International, Little Rock, (2011). Growth and production varies between pair-wise Arkansas, USA mixtures and monoculture plantations in North Viet Puettmann, K. J., & Tappeiner, J. C. (2014). Multi-scale Nam. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(3), 440–448. assessments highlight silvicultural opportunities to ITTO. (2009). Encouraging industrial forest plantations in the increase species diversity and spatial variability in for- tropics. Yokokama, Japan: International tropical timber ests. Forestry, 87(1), 1–10. organization. Radosevich, S. R., Hibbs, D. E., & Ghersa, C. M. (2006). Keeling, H. C., Baker, T. R., Martinez, R. V., Monteagudo, Effects of species mixtures on growth and stand devel- A., & Phillips, O. L. (2008). Contrasting patterns of opment of Douglas-fir and red alder. Canadian Journal diameter and biomass increment across tree functional of Forest Research, 36(3), 768–782. groups in Amazonian forests. Oecologia, 158, 521–534. Redondo-Brenes, A., & Montagnni, F. (2006). Growth, Kunert, N., & Cardenas, A. M. (2015). Are mixed tropical productivity, aboveground biomass, and carbon seques- tree plantations more resistant to drought than mono- tration of pure and mixed native tree plantations in the cultures? Forests, 6, 2029–2046. Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Lamb, D., & Lawrence, P. (1993). Mixed species plantations Management, 232, 168–178. using high value rainforest trees in Australia. In H. Lieth & Richards, A. E., Forrester, D. I., Bauhus, J., & Scherer- M. Lohmann (Eds.), Restoration of tropical forest ecosystems Lorenzen, M. (2010). The influence of mixed tree plan- (pp. 101–108). Holanda: Kluwer Academic Publishers. tations on the nutrition of individual species: A review. Lamb, D., Erskine, P. D., & Parrotta, J. A. (2005). Tree Physiology, 30, 1192‒1208. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Rodrigues,J.,deCastro,M.,Cancho, V.G.,&Balakrishnan,N. Science, 310(5754), 1628. (2009). COM–Poissoncureratesurvivalmodels andan Lawson, S. S., & Michler, C. H. (2014). Afforestation, application to a cutaneous melanoma data. Journal of restoration and regeneration ― Not all trees are created Statistical Planning and Inference, 139(10), 3605–3611. equal. Journal of Forest Research, 25(1), 3–20. Rodrigues, R. R., Gandolfi,S.,Nave,A.G.,Aronson,J.,Barreto, le Maire, G., Nouvellon, Y., Christina, M., Ponzoni, F. J., T. E., & Vidal, C. Y. (2011). Large-scale ecological restoration Goncëalves, J. L. M., & Bouillet, J. P. (2013). Tree and of high-diversity tropical forests in SE Brazil. Forest Ecology stand light use efficiencies over a full rotation of single- and Management, 261(10), 1605–1613. and mixed-species Eucalyptus grandis and Acacia man- Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Potvin, C., Koricheva, J., Schmid, B., gium plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 288, Hector, A., & Bornik, Z. (2005). The design of experimental 31–42. tree plantations for functional biodiversity research. In M. Lugo,A.E.,&Brown,S.(1992). Tropical forests as sinks of Scherer-Lorenzen, C. Koèrner, & E.-D. Schulze (Eds.), Forest atmospheric carbon. Forest Ecology and Management, 54, diversity and function. Ecol studies (Vol.176,pp. 347–376). 239–255. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Mani, S., & Parthasarathy, N. (2007). Above-ground bio- Schneider, T., Ashton, M., Montagnini, F., & Milan, P. mass estimation in ten tropical dry evergreen forest sites (2014). Growth performance of sixty tree species in of Peninsular India. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31, 284–290. smallholder reforestation trials on Leyte, Philippines. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.08.006 New Forests, 45(1), 83–96. Miya, H., Yoshida, T., Noguchi, M., & Nakamura, F. Schroeder, P. (1992). Carbon storage potential of short (2009). Individual growing conditions that affect dia- rotation tropical tree plantations. Forest Ecology and meter increment of tree saplings after selection harvest- Management, 50,31–41. ing in a mixed forest in Northern Japan. Journal of Semwal, R. L., Nautiyal, S., Maikhuri, R. K., Rao, K. S., & Forest Research, 14, 302–310. Saxena, K. G. (2013). Growth and carbon stocks of Montagnini, F., Gonzalez, E., Rheingans, R., & Porras, C. multipurpose tree species plantations in degraded lands (1995). Mixed and pure forest plantations in the humid in Central Himalaya, India. Forest Ecology and neotropics: A comparison of early growth, pest damage Management, 310, 450–459. and establishment costs. Commonwealth Forest Review, 74 Silver, W. L., Ostertag, R., & Lugo, A. E. (2000). The (4), 306–314. potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation Nakashizuka, T. (2001). Species coexistence in temperate, of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands. mixed deciduous forests. Trends In Ecology Evolution, 16 Restoration Ecology, 8(4), 394–407. (4), 205–210. Subak, S. (2000). Forest protection and reforestation in Costa Nguyen, H., Vanclay, J., Herbohn, J., & Firn, N. (2016). Rica: Evaluation of a clean development mechanism proto- Drivers of tree growth, mortality and harvest preferences type. Environment and Management, 26(3), 283–297. in species-rich plantations for smallholders and commu- Thomas, S. C. (1996). Asymptotic height as a predictor of nities in the tropics. PloS one, 11(10), e0164957. growth and allometric characteristics in Malaysian rain- Nichols, J. D., Bristow, M., & Vanclay, J. K. (2006). Mixed- forest tress. American Journal of Botany, 83(5), 556–566. species plantations: Prospects and challenges. Forest Vivek, P., Parthasarathy, N., & Monica, P. (2016). Short-term Ecology and Management, 233(23), 383–390. girth increment in tree species of Tropical Dry Evergreen Park, A., van Breugel, M., Ashton, P. M. S., Mariscal, E., forest on the Coromandel Coast of India. Journal of Global Deago, J., Ibarra, D., . . . Hall, J. S. (2010). Local and Ecology and Environment, 4(3), 147–152. regional environmental variation influences the growth Whitmore, T. C. (1998). An Introduction to Tropical Rain of tropical trees in selection trials in the Republic of Forests (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Panama. Forest Ecology and Management, 260,12–21. Wormald, T. J. (1992). Mixed and pure forest plantations in Parrotta,J. A., &Knowles,O. H.(1999). Restoration of the tropics and subtropics (Vol. 103, pp. 166). FAO tropical moist forests on bauxite-mined lands in the Wuethrich, B. (2007). Biodiversity: Reconstructing Brazil’s Brazilian Amazon. Restoration Ecology, 7(2), 103–116. Atlantic rainforest. Science, 315, 1070–1072. Pearson, T., & Walker, S., & Brown. S. (2005). Sourcebook Zarr,J.H. (2006). Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice for land use, land-use change and forestry projects. Hall. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Geology Ecology and Landscapes Taylor & Francis

Survival, growth, aboveground biomass, and carbon sequestration of mono and mixed native tree species plantations on the Coromandel Coast of India

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/survival-growth-aboveground-biomass-and-carbon-sequestration-of-mono-jkrS6AwYBr

References (55)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
ISSN
2474-9508
DOI
10.1080/24749508.2019.1600910
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 2020, VOL. 4, NO. 2, 111–120 INWASCON https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2019.1600910 RESEARCH ARTICLE Survival, growth, aboveground biomass, and carbon sequestration of mono and mixed native tree species plantations on the Coromandel Coast of India a,b a a Munisamy Anbarashan , Anbarashan Padmavathy , Ramadoss Alexandar and Narayanasamy Dhatchanamoorhty a b Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India; National Herbarium of Medicinal Plants and Repository of Raw Drug, School of Conservation of Natural Resources, Foundation for Revitalisation of Health Traditions (FRLHT), Trans Disciplinary University (TDU), Bangalore, India ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 3 May 2018 In India, reforestation programs with native indigenous tree species are a recent activity. Accepted 21 March 2019 Information on experiences comparing mono- and mixed-species plantations is limited. This study aims to estimate growth, aboveground biomass, and carbon sequestration between the KEYWORDS mixed-species plantation and mono-species plantation. The growth, survival, height, above- Aboveground biomass; ground biomass, and carbon sequestration of 82 native mixed species plantations were carbon stock; native tree compared with Casuarina equisetifolia an exotic species planted in this region after over a species; plantations; survival decade (2006–2016). In the mixed species plantation, 7 species showed 100% survival rate and 19 species were not survived after over a decade intervals. While in the mono plantation, C. equisetifolia showed 92% of the survival rate. The growth rate of mixed species when compared to mono plantation, it showed highly significant differences (P < 0:05) values. Simple linear regression between annual girth increment and height produced very strong positive relations (R 0.759). The aboveground biomass estimated for the mixed native plantation was 8.007 tonnes and the mono plantation Casuarina had 5.585 tonnes. The total carbon stock estimated for the tree plantation in the two plots (both mixed native and mono) was 7.492 tonnes. A positive correlation was observed between the carbon stock and density of the top 10 species which contributed predominantly to the total carbon stock (rs = 0.773, p < 0.05). Plantation of C. equisetifolia seems to be well adapted and had more carbon stocking potential. On the other hand, mixed plantation with indigenous species would contribute more to sustainable management and they provide great shelters for many faunal communities and provide a greater range of ecological goods and ecosystem services than the mono plantations. 1. Introduction better nutrient retention than the mono plantations (Forrester, Theiveyanathan, Collopy, & Marcar, 2010; In the tropical countries, there is increasing interest Healy, Gotelli, & Potvin Partitioning, 2008; Hung, in establishing mixed native species plantations for a Herbohn, Lamb, & Nhan, 2011; Lawson & Michler, wide range of economic, silvicultural, and sustainabil- 2014; le Maire et al., 2013; Nichols, Bristow, & ity objectives (Nguyen, Vanclay, Herbohn, & Firn, Vanclay, 2006; Puettmann & Tappeiner, 2014; 2016; Anbarashan, Padmavathy, & Alexandar, 2017). Richards, Forrester, Bauhus, & Scherer-Lorenzen, Mixed plantation systems provide native species a 2010). Vietnam, China, and the Philippines encou- broader range of options for their restoration in rage landholders to plant mixtures by their national degraded areas, protection, and biodiversity conser- reforestation programs (Lamb, Erskine, & Parrotta, vation (Montagnini, Gonzalez, Rheingans, & Porras, 2005); in several countries, for smallholder and com- 1995; Guariguata, Rheingans, & Montagnini, 1995; munity forestry (mostly of native species) (Herbohn Parrotta & Knowles, 1999). In the past two decades, et al., 2014) there is often little comprehensive infor- new restoration approaches in the tropics have mation. Ecological disturbance and climate change emphasized the establishment of highly functional impacts can be balanced and can provide localities plantation forests with native species in mixed stands. with more resilient forests, when mixtures of different Recent studies suggest positive mixture effects on species with differing traits are established (Rodrigues many ecosystem functions such as lower tree mortal- et al., 2011; Anbarashan et al., 2017). Lamb and ity, enhanced biomass productivity coupled with Lawrence 1993 stated that the complete utilization higher resource-use efficiency (including nutrients, of soil and water resources along different soil strata water, and light) by trees, higher decomposition could be attained by roots of different species during rates, reduced damage from pest or diseases, and plantation. Plantation of different species tends to CONTACT Munisamy Anbarashan anbupu@gmail.com Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 112 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. observe more solar energy and the light requirements forest stand structure (Semwal, Nautiyal, Maikhuri, are broadly distributed in the vertical plane Rao, & Saxena, 2013). Performance of a tree species (Guariguata et al., 1995). was indicated by their vigor and size, as it partially A major challenge of the forestry sector is to re-estab- reflects the competitive ability of a tree (Nakashizuka, lish/recreate closed forest cover in deforested and 2001). Growth-mortality trade-off can also be pre- degraded areas to mitigate effects associated with defor- dicted by their relationship in plants functional traits estation such as biodiversity loss, soil degradation, ero- (Baker et al., 2004; Nguyen et al., 2016). sion, flooding, and salinization (Kunert & Cardenas, However, the success of the establishment of mixed 2015). The establishment of managed tree plantations forest plantations depends on plantation design and an on suitable tropical lands currently classified as degraded appropriate definition of the species to be used, taking could satisfy the current and projected growing demand into consideration ecological and silvicultural aspects for industrial roundwood, while limiting the harvesting (Wormald, 1992). There exists very limited information pressure on the remaining natural forests (Bauhus, van on the growth of tree species native to the tropics, and der Meer, & Kanninen, 2010; Kunert & Cardenas, 2015). information on experiences comparing mono- and The overall global carbon sequestration could be sub- mixed-species plantations is limited. However, in the stantially enhanced by reforestation in the tropical coun- present study, we tested that the mixed forest tree tries (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). So far, most of the species can grow/survive in the coastal sand dunes. reforestation responsible for a gain in forested area in the The main objective of the present study is to determine tropics has been conducted in form of industrial mono- the growth, aboveground biomass, and carbon seques- cultures involving a limited number of species. Most of tration between the mixed-species plantation and these species originate from few genera (i.e., Pinus, mono-species plantation after over a decade (2006– Eucalyptus, Tectona, Gmelina, Acacia, and Casuarinas) 2016). The hypotheses tested were: there is variation and are exotic to most of the areas where they are in growth, carbon stock, and survival among species; cultivated (ITTO, 2009). Such traditional mono-specific the growth, survival, and carbon stocking potential of plantations have supplied a range of goods and services native species are higher in mixtures that in mono- by providing a forest-like habitat connecting fragmented species plantations. forests, filtration of waste water and temporally seques- tering high amounts of carbon (Bauhus et al., 2010). But there is rising concern about their environmental sus- 2. Materials and methods tainability as they make only minor contributions to the 2.1. Study description and process of seedling restoration of ecological functions and biodiversity com- production in the nursery pared to mixed-species plantations containing indigen- ous tree species (Lamb et al., 2005). The study plots were established in 2006 in Fundamental goal of ecological research in tropical Koonimedu Coastal village on the Coromandel forests is about understanding the patterns of highly Coast of southern India. The mean annual maximum dynamic plant growth. Forest growth function is and minimum temperature are 33 and 24.5°C. The important for determining the size and multitude of mean annual rainfall is 1282 mm per year with a six- ecological cum management applications (Vivek, month dry period (2006–2016). In general, coastal Parthasarathy, & Monica, 2016). For providing prac- sandy soils prevail in the region with poor nutrient. tical and meaningful classification of tropical forest Prior to planting within the restoration program, species, foresters in modeling growth and yield fac- seedlings were propagated from seeds of tree species tors are needed, whereas the ecologists explain the life native to the area. The presence and availability of history of tropical forest and their diversity (Vivek et local seed sources was considered to ensure the pro- al., 2016). In prediction of forest dynamics, under- vision of genetic material for the production of seed- standing of tree mortality is inevitable and its center lings to be used in the forest restoration program. to any long-term dynamics of woody plants as their Seed collection was carried out in the Tropical Dry biomass is regulated by the difference between gains Evergreen forests, on the Coromandel Coast, in areas through individual growth and losses through mor- containing both primary and secondary forest during tality (Scherer-Lorenzen et al., 2005). The growth and the dry season between March and June. Seeds were mortality of saplings of trees are dependent on cleaned and dried at the Pitchandikulam Forest, impacts of various factors, such as species specific, where seeds were stored in sacks. Periodic germina- tree vigor and size, and environmental conditions on tion tests were carried out to test seed viability. Seeds the interactions and processes in stands (Radosevich, of some species received treatments to improve ger- Hibbs, & Ghersa, 2006; Scherer-Lorenzen et al., mination rates, including scarification, wetting, and 2005). Differences in mortality rates among species drying in hot, as well as cold water. Seeds were are the major determinants of ecological succession planted in shaded seedbeds with the seedlings trans- (Schneider, Ashton, Montagnini, & Milan, 2014) and planted to 6 by 12 cm polyethylene bags with GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 113 perforations at the bottom to insure drainage. The et al. 2005) for few species for which WSD value was trees remained in the nursery for six to one year not available, using diameter as the only variable. The depending on the species and its growth rate before carbon stock was estimated to be 50% of the total out planting with a minimum seedling height of biomass (AGB + BGB). Above ground biomass and 30 cm. carbon stock were calculated for only 47 native tree species (woody species) and casuarina in the mono plantation. 2.2. Preparation of sites and planting The averages of total height, dbh, basal area, and survival and mortality were calculated for each 1-ha Once the site was prepared for planting, planting holes plot in each species. The differences in diameter dis- were dug, with dimensions of 45 cm deep by 20 cm in tribution of trees between the two inventories (2006– diameter. The planting holes were spaced at 3 m inter- 2016) were tested using Kolmogorov–Smirnov two vals along the access paths. The distances of the applied sample test (Zarr 2006), and we used paired t-tests to planting points were 4 m between the axes of the rows check for the significant differences in tree variables in and 3 m between holes. The distance of 1.5 m gave an two different plantations using SPSS software. average planting density of 1200 trees per hectare in enrichment areas. After planting, manual clearance of grass and other herbaceous vegetation was carried out 3. Results twice a year with machetes during the first three years 3.1. Survival of species after planting as part of maintenance to ensure that young trees are not outcompeted by weed species. Measurements in the mixed species plantation, at Weeding was the main maintenance activity after field 10 years of age, showed that Albizia amara, planting of trees, and a pruning of secondary apical Lepisanthes tetraphylla, Diospyros ferrea, Eugenia shoots was conducted in the first year. bracteata, Mimusops elengi, Sapindus emarginata, and Terminalia bellerica exhibited the highest rate of survival (100%), followed by Wrightia tinctoria, 2.3. Data analysis Mitragyna parviflora, Streblus asper, Pleiospermium alatum, Gmelina asiatica, Ixora pavetta, and A total of 2055 individuals of 82 native trees and 1500 Coccoloba uvifera showed that 99% of the survival Casuarina equisetifolia were planted in 2 ha in 2006. rate (Table 2). In a total of 19 species were not Table 1 includes the list of species, families, and ecolo- survived during an over decade. No species exhibited gical importance. Species choice was based on growth significant differences (P < 0.05) of survival between rate, timber, and ecological importance. In each 1 ha the pure and mono plantation plots. Species such as plot, diameter at breast height (dbh) and total height Bauhinia purpurea, Benkara malabarica, Calophyllum were measured for each tree after over a decade (2016). −1 inophyllum, Limonia acidissima, Polyalthia suberosa, Differences in (i) height growth rate (cm yr ) and (ii) −1 −1 Pterospermum xylocarpum, Strychnos potatorum, average biomass carbon gain per year (kg C yr stem ) Terminalia catappa, and Thespesia populnea not sur- for the most characteristic species within the plots were vive even single saplings in the 2-ha plots. calculated. For calculation of height growth rate, the Barringtonia acutangula, Cassia fistula, Chloroxylon differences in height were divided by the time between swietenia, Pamburus missionis, and Pterocarpus mar- measurements in years. Average biomass carbon gain supium demonstrated survival rates less than 20%. per year was calculated similarly, following conversion Comparing mono- and mixed-species plantations, in of DAP measurements using allometric equations general, species in the mono plantation demonstrated (given below). better survival rates. Notably, in the single species Total carbon for each species was calculated using plot, Casuarina equisetifolia exhibited high survival a dry tropical forest allometric equation for above and growth rates in the single species plantation. and below ground biomass (Chave et al., 2005). The equation forms for estimation of carbon were as follows: 3.2. Species height and growth rate AGB est ¼ ρ  exp ð1:499 þ 2:148 lnðÞ D In the mixed species plantation, measurements taken at þ0:207ðÞ lnðÞ D 2  0:0281ðÞ lnðÞ D 3Þ 10 years of interval resulted in Ficus benghalensis and Where D is the diameter and ρ is the wood specific Bauhinia racemosa demonstrating the best growth in density of tree species. terms of height, followed by Alibizia amara and The wood specific density of each tree species was Azadirachta indica, with no statistically significant differ- taken from available literature (Mani & Parthasarathy ences (P < 0.05) between mono- and mixed native species 2007) and also from global wood density database. plantations. In the mono plantation, C. equisetifolia We used the generalized allometric equation (Pearson showed a moderate growth of height (average 9.5) and 114 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. Table 1. List of species with families and their ecological importance. Sl. No. Species Family Ecological values Mixed species 1 Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa Rutaceae Medicinal, Economic 2 Aglaia elaeagnoidea (Juss.) Benth. Meilaceae Ecological 3 Alangium salvifolium (L.f.) Wangerin Alangiaceae Medicinal 4 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin Mimosaceae Medicinal, Commercial 5 Atalantia monophylla (L.) Correa Rutaceae Medicinal, Ecological 6 Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Meliaceae Medicinal, Cultural 7 Barringtonia acutangula (L.) Gaertner Barringtoniaceae Ecological 8 Bauhinia purpurea Lam. Leguminosae Medicinal 9 Bauhinia racemosa Lam. Leguminosae Timber, Ecological 10 Benkara malabarica (Lam.) Tirven. Rubiaceae Ecological 11 Calophyllum inophyllum L. Calophyllaceae Medicinal 12 Calotropis gigantea L. Apocynaceae Medicinal, Cultural 13 Carmona retusa (Vahl) Masm Boraginaceae Ecological 14 Canthium dicoccum(Gaertn.) Merr. Rubiaceae Medicinal 15 Cassia auriculata L. Fabaceae Medicinal 16 Cassia fistula L. Fabaceae Ecological 17 Cassine glauca Rottb. Kuntze. Celastraceae Ecological 18 Chloroxylon swietenia DC. Rutaceae Timber 19 Coccoloba uvifera L. Polygonaceae Fruit, Ecological 20 Commiphora berryi (Arn.) Engl. Ecological 21 Dalbergia latifolia Roxb. Fabaceae Timber 22 Delonix elata Gamble. Fabaceae Medicinal, aesthetic 23 Diospyros ebenum J. Koenig ex Retz. Ebenaceae Timber 24 Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh. Ebenaceae Ecological 25 Diospyros montana Roxb. Ebenaceae Ecological 26 Dolichandrone falcata Seem. Bignoniaceae Ecological 27 Drypetes sepiaria (Wight and Arn.) Pax and Hoffm. Euphorbiacae Ecological 28 Ehretia pubescens Benth. Boraginaceae Ecological 29 Erythrina indica L. Fabaceae Medicinal 30 Eugenia bracteata (Willd.) Roxb. ex DC. Myrtaceae Ecological 31 Ficus benghalensis L. Moraceae Cultural, Medicinal 32 Ficus hispida Lf. Moraceae Medicinal 33 Ficus religiosa L. Moraceae Cultural, Medicinal 34 Garcinia spicata (Wight and Arn.) J.D. Hook. Clusiaceae Ecological 35 Glycosmis mauritiana (Lam.) Tanaka Rutaceae Fruit, Ecological 36 Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth ex Walp. Fabaceae Medicinal 37 Gmelina asiatica L. Verbenaceae Medicinal, Aesthetic 38 Helicteres isora L. Malvaceae Medicinal, Aesthetic 39 Holoptelea integrifolia Planch. Ulmaceae Timber 40 Ixora pavetta T. Anderson Rubiaceae Cultural, Aesthetic 41 Lawsonia inermis L. Lythraceae Cultural, Medicinal 42 Lepisanthes tetraphylla (Vahl.) Radlk. Anacardiaceae Cultural 43 Limonia acidissima L. Rutaceae Cultural, Medicinal 44 Madhuca longofolia (L.) Macbr. Sapotaceae Oil, Cultural 45 Maerua oblongifolia Forssk. Capparaceae Ecological 46 Mallotus rhamnifolius Muell.-Arg. Euphorbiaceae Cultural, Aesthetic 47 Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard Sapotaceae Fruit, Ecological 48 Melia azedarach L. Meliaceae Medicinal 49 Memecylon umbellatum Burm.f. Melastomataceae Ecological, Aesthetic 50 Mimusops elengi L. Sapotaceae Medicinal, Cultural 51 Mitragyna parviflora (Roxb.)Korth. Rubiaceae Timber 52 Murraya paniculata (L) Jack Rutaceae Aesthetic 53 Ochna obtusata DC. Ochnaceae Ecological, Aesthetic 54 Ormocarpum sennoides (Willd.)DC. Leguminosae Medicinal 55 Pamburus missionis (Wight) Swingle Rutaceae Ecological 56 Pandanus oddaratissimus L.f. Pandanaceae Ecological 57 Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir. Euphorbiaceae Ecological, Medicinal 58 Pleiospermium alatum (Wall. ex Wight. & Arn.) Swingle Rutaceae Ecological, Medicinal 59 Polyalthia suberosa (Dunal) Thw. Annonaceae Ecological, Aesthetic 60 Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre Fabaceae Oil, Cultural 61 Pterocarpus marsupium Roxb. Combretaceae Timber, Medicinal 62 Pterospermum canescens Roxb. Sterculiaceae Ecological 63 Pterospermum xylocarpum (Gaertn.) Sant. & Wagh. Sterculiaceae Ecological 64 Salacia chinensis L. Celastraceae Medicinal 65 Salvadora persica L. Salvadoraceae Medicinal, Economic 66 Sapindus emarginatus Vahl Sapindacea Medicinal, Economic 67 Streblus asper Lour. Moraceae Ecological 68 Strychnos nux-vomica L. Loganiaceae Medicinal 69 Strychnos potatorum Lf. Loganiaceae Ecological, Medicinal 70 Suregada angustifolia (Baill. ex. Muell-Arg.) Airy Shaw Meliaceae Ecological 71 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Myrtaceae Medicinal, Fruit 72 Tarenna asiatica (L.) Kuntze. Rubiaceae Medicinal, Cultural 73 Terminalia arjuna (DC.) Wight & Arn. Combretaceae Medicinal, Timber 74 Terminalia bellirica (Gaertner) Roxb. Combretaceae Medicinal, Timber 75 Terminalia catappa L. Combretaceae Ecological, Fruit 76 Thespesia populnea (L.)Sol. Malvaceae Timber, Cultural (Continued) GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 115 Table 1. (Continued). Sl. No. Species Family Ecological values 77 Tricalysia sphaerocarpa (Dalz.) Gamble Rubiaceae Timber, Cultural 78 Vitex leucoxylon Lf. Lamiaceae Timber, Ecological 79 Vitex negundo L. Lamiaceae Medicinal, Cultural 80 Walsura trifolia (A.Juss.) Harms Rubiaceae Ecological 81 Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R.Br. Apocynaceae Medicinal, 82 Ziziphus mauritina Lam. Rhamnaceae Ecological Mono plantation 1 Casuarina equisetifolia L. Casuarinaceae Fuel wood girth. Simple linear regression between annual girth 3.5 Contribution of different tree species to total increment and height produced very strong positive carbon stock relation (R 0.759; Figure 1). Total carbon was significantly different between spe- Thegrowthindiameterof Ficus benghalensis was the cies (F = 6.6, p < .0001). Bauhinia racemosa had greatest in the mixed native species plantation plots, significantly greater total biomass gain per year than followed by Albizia amara, Vitex leucoxylon,and all other species in the mixed species plantations Azadirachta indica with no statistically significant differ- (p < 0.05). Among the 47 tree species in the mixed ences (P < 0.05) between diameter increment in the species plantation, the contribution of Bauhinia race- mixedplots.Whencomparedtomonoplantation, it mosa to the total carbon stock was high (1427.75 kg) showed highly significant differences (P < 0.05) values. followed by Albizia amara (712.52 kg), Lepisanthes In the mono plantation, Casuarina equisetifolia showed a tetraphylla (207 kg), Wrightia tinctoria (204.51 kg), greater diameter increment in the last 10 years when and Azadirachta indica (181.32 kg) (Table 3). A posi- compared to the mixed species plantation. Tricalysia tive correlation was observed between the carbon sphaerocarpa, Tarenna asiatica, Strychnos nux-vomica, stock and density of the top 10 species which con- Salvadora persica, Murraya paniculata, Glycosmis maur- tributed predominantly to the total carbon stock itiana, Cassia fistula,and Aegle marmelos showed the (rs = 0.773, p < 0.05). slowest growth rates, with no significant differences in the mixed plantation. Single species plantations of Casuarina equisetifolia were the most productive, show- 4. Discussions ing significant differences (P <0.05) in basalarea, com- pared to all species and the mixture of native species The results of the present study provide valuable plantations. information to support the establishment of planta- tions with native mixed species and pure design. Introducing new species, however, is not without 3.3. Total aboveground biomass and risks. Many reforestation projects fail due to inap- contribution per species propriate species choice, a consequence of inadequate knowledge about the potential of species and their The total aboveground biomass estimated for the two growth and survival rates under different site and different plantations (mono and mixed) was 14.98 environmental conditions (Corlett, 1999; Rodrigues, tonnes. The aboveground biomass estimated for the de Castro, Cancho, & Balakrishnan, 2009; Wuethrich, mixed native plantation was 8.007 tonnes and the 2007). The use of a greater variety of native indigen- mono plantation Casuarina had 5.585 tonnes of above- ous species in reforestation may improve the resili- ground biomass. Among the 47 native mixed species, ence of ecosystems, decrease sensitivity to pest and Bauhinia racemosa shared a maximum of 2.855 tonnes diseases, and increase functional diversity (Benayas, (35.7%) to total biomass followed by Albizia amara Newton, Diaz, & Bullock, 2009; Hooper et al., 2005; (17.8%), Lepisanthes tetraphylla (5.2%), and Wrightia Rodrigues et al., 2009). Creation of forests in the tinctoria (5.1%; Table 3; Figure 2). A positive correlation tropics takes place across a wide variety of non-cli- was observed between height and biomass of all 47 matic and climatic conditions. Different reforestation species (rs = 0.773, p < 0.05; Figure 3). experiments have elucidated the strong effects that environmental conditions may have on species 3.4. Total carbon stock growth and survival (Butterfield, 1996; Calvo- Alvarado, Arias, & Richter, 2007; Park et al., 2010). The total carbon stock estimated for the tree planta- Local climate conditions also have a larger impact on tion in the two plots (both mixed native and mono) plantations success. The development in height and was 7.492 tonnes. The carbon stock estimated for the girth of the crown is mainly determined during mixed native plantation was 4.003 tonnes and the growth in the monsoon (rainy season), while, mini- mono plantation Casuarina had 2.792 tonnes of mal growth occurring during dry seasons. Initial total carbon (Table 3). 116 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. Table 2. List of species with survival and growth rate after 10 year period of intervals. Sl.no. Species Planted in 2006 Survival in 2016 Mean annual Girth Increment (cm) Mono plantation 1 Casuarina equisetifolia L. 1500 1380 14.564 ± 0.478 Mixed species 1 Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa 10 8 2.337 ± 0.678 2 Aglaia elaeagnoidea (Juss.) Benth. 4 4 2.774 ± 0.478 3 Alangium salvifolium (L.f.) Wangerin 26 22 2.945 ± 1.317 4 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin 40 40 14.978 ± 9.127 5 Atalantia monophylla (L.) Correa 50 31 2.464 ± 0.863 6 Azadirachta indica A. Juss. 20 18 12.65 ± 4.608 7 Barringtonia acutangula (L.) Gaertner 10 1 14.4 8 Bauhinia purpurea Lam. 25 0 0 9 Bauhinia racemosa Lam. 150 145 12.458 ± 5.055 10 Benkara malabarica (Lam.) Tirven. 20 0 0 11 Calophyllum inophyllum L. 15 0 0 12 Calotropis gigantea L. 10 4 2.525 ± 0.853 13 Carmona retusa (Vahl) Masm 35 29 2.658 ± 0.797 14 Canthium dicoccum(Gaertn.) Merr. 10 10 3.95 ± 2.204 15 Cassia auriculata L. 20 13 7.36 ± 3.509 16 Cassia fistula L. 10 2 1.9 ± 0.707 17 Cassine glauca Rottb. Kuntze. 30 28 6.275 ± 3.750 18 Chloroxylon swietenia DC. 10 2 4.4 ± 1.414 19 Coccoloba uvifera L. 30 29 5.786 ± 4.142 20 Commiphora berryi (Arn.) Engl. 100 81 7.907 ± 3.142 21 Dalbergia latifolia Roxb. 5 4 5.4 ± 1.914 22 Delonix elata Gamble. 15 12 5.608 ± 3.538 23 Diospyros ebenum J. Koenig ex Retz. 70 69 4.066 ± 2.681 24 Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh. 70 70 4.271 ± 2.534 25 Diospyros montana Roxb. 20 18 2.927 ± 1.143 26 Dolichandrone falcata Seem. 50 45 6.122 ± 4.170 27 Drypetes sepiaria (Wight and Arn.) Pax and Hoffm. 28 26 3.419 ± 1.808 28 Ehretia pubescens Benth. 10 0 0 29 Erythrina indica L. 10 0 0 30 Eugenia bracteata (Willd.) Roxb. ex DC. 20 20 2.425 ± 2.009 31 Ficus benghalensis L. 5 3 24.066 ± 9.928 32 Ficus hispida Lf. 10 0 0 33 Ficus religiosa L. 1 1 14.9 34 Garcinia spicata (Wight and Arn.) J.D. Hook. 15 13 3.746 ± 1.983 35 Glycosmis mauritiana (Lam.) Tanaka 20 16 1.931 ± 0.618 36 Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth ex Walp. 5 0 0 37 Gmelina asiatica L. 25 24 6.796 ± 3.175 38 Helicteres isora L. 30 28 3.978 ± 2.404 39 Holoptelea integrifolia Planch. 90 82 7.332 ± 4.175 40 Ixora pavetta T. Anderson 20 19 3.924 ± 1.219 41 Lawsonia inermis L. 5 4 3.9 ± 1.732 42 Lepisanthes tetraphylla (Vahl.) Radlk. 101 101 7.172 ± 4.037 43 Limonia acidissima L. 5 0 0 44 Madhuca longofolia (L.) Macbr. 5 3 5.066 ± 4.618 45 Maerua oblongifolia Forssk. 5 0 0 46 Mallotus rhamnifolius Muell.-Arg. 5 0 0 47 Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard 85 83 6.719 ± 3.075 48 Melia azedarach L. 5 3 6.566 ± 5.107 49 Memecylon umbellatum Burm.f. 5 2 2.15 ± 0.535 50 Mimusops elengi L. 35 35 5.82 ± 3.083 51 Mitragyna parviflora (Roxb.)Korth. 15 15 4.233 ± 2.135 52 Murraya paniculata (L) Jack 10 7 2.471 ± 0.449 53 Ochna obtusata DC. 10 7 7.525 ± 3.224 54 Ormocarpum sennoides (Willd.)DC. 10 1 3.4 55 Pamburus missionis (Wight) Swingle 5 0 0 56 Pandanus oddaratissimus L.f. 10 9 3.177 ± 0.440 57 Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir. 20 0 0 58 Pleiospermium alatum (Wall. ex Wight. & Arn.) Swingle 100 88 8.396 ± 5.134 59 Polyalthia suberosa (Dunal) Thw. 5 0 0 60 Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre 5 0 0 61 Pterocarpus marsupium Roxb. 5 1 8.5 62 Pterospermum canescens Roxb. 50 42 7.269 ± 4.281 63 Pterospermum xylocarpum (Gaertn.) Sant. & Wagh. 10 0 0 64 Salacia chinensis L. 5 5 4.7 ± 3.383 65 Salvadora persica L. 20 16 2.622 ± 1.617 66 Sapindus emarginatus Vahl 40 40 6.5 ± 4.071 67 Streblus asper Lour. 30 29 3.796 ± 2.114 68 Strychnos nux-vomica L. 35 31 2.722 ± 1.235 69 Strychnos potatorum Lf. 10 0 0 70 Suregada angustifolia (Baill. ex. Muell-Arg.) Airy Shaw 10 8 5.837 ± 3.580 71 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels 10 8 9.462 ± 4.617 72 Tarenna asiatica (L.) Kuntze. 5 2 2.9 ± 1.414 73 Terminalia arjuna (DC.) Wight & Arn. 10 9 10.955 ± 4.126 74 Terminalia bellirica (Gaertner) Roxb. 10 10 5.95 ± 4.126 (Continued) GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 117 Table 2. (Continued). Sl.no. Species Planted in 2006 Survival in 2016 Mean annual Girth Increment (cm) 75 Terminalia catappa L. 30 0 0 76 Thespesia populnea (L.)Sol. 25 0 0 77 Tricalysia sphaerocarpa (Dalz.) Gamble 5 3 2.4 ± 0.866 78 Vitex leucoxylon Lf. 15 14 13.864 ± 5.607 79 Vitex negundo L. 10 8 9.025 ± 2.100 80 Walsura trifolia (A.Juss.) Harms 50 48 4.29 ± 4.16 81 Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R.Br. 70 69 9.146 ± 3.860 82 Ziziphus mauritina Lam. 10 0 0 Total 2055 1616 growth of the tree species vary according the species and the local seasonal weather conditions, including the amount of rainfall generated in a given year. In general, mortality rate are determined by the amount of rainfall in a given year. Tree species in their first three years of growth are especially vulnerable to the drying out the soil. On the other hand, the finding that 23% of the species may have high initial mortal- ity and unsatisfactory early growth is critical informa- tion for avoiding early failure of reforestation projects. Several species showed poor performance and seemed to be unsuitable for large-scale planting Figure 1. Simple linear regression between annual girth in open plantation sites. Ashton, Gunatilleke, increment and average height of mixed species plantation Singhakumara, and Gunatilleke (2001) reported that (2 ha). some of these species might do better when planted after site amelioration by earlier planted or extant nurse trees. siamea, Azadirachta indica, Gmelina arborea (Brown, Overall, species in mixed plantings had higher values Lugo, & Chapman, 1986;Lugo&Brown, 1992; of carbon sequestration than the mono plantation. Schroeder, 1992; Silver, Ostertag, & Lugo, 2000;Subak, According to our results, it seems that fast-growing 2000). species (i.e., B. racemosa, A. Amara, L. tetraphylla) accu- The present study revealed that the variation of GBH mulate biomass and carbon very fast in the first stage of increment was also found on trees from similar species. their lifespan, before they are about 10 years old. On the This might be due to the response of each species to the other hand, tree plantations that include slower-growing growth process, which is different among species, as species (i.e., Aglaia elaeagnoidea, Memecylon umbella- well as among trees of similar species. Many research tum) may accumulate more biomass and carbon within showed that the internal and external factors had the system in the long term, compared to stands or affected tree growth and development (Breugel et al., mixtures of fast-growing species only. This shift in the 2011). The internal factors comprised genetic factor, accumulation of biomass and carbon may be related to plant growth process, internal growth property, and differences in the wood specific gravity and growth pat- physiological process. On the other hand, the soil para- terns among fast and slow growing species (Elias & meters, micro climatic factors, and response plant to Potvin, 2003; Redondo-Brenes & Montagnni, 2006; the environment could be the external factors. Miya, Thomas, 1996). Wood specific gravity varies widely Yoshida, Noguchi, and Nakamura (2009) reported that between tropical forest tree species, and it is closely variation in diameter growth of different saplings of related to differences in diameter growth rates and life different species in an uneven-aged mixed stand was history strategies (Baker et al., 2004;Redondo-Brenes& influenced by individual growth conditions, but it was Montagnni, 2006;Whitmore, 1998). The values of above- negatively related to the wood density (Keeling, Baker, ground biomass and carbon sequestration in mono Martinez, Monteagudo, & Phillips, 2008). Overall, the plantings from this study are lower than values found findings indicated that raising plantations on degraded in other regions of tropical humid climate, such as in 8.5- lands or open land, particularly where seedbanks of year-old mono plantings of Casuarina equisetifolia, native forest species are lacking, initiates the process Eucalyptus robusta,and Leucaena leucocephala in of forest succession with nurse effect for woody native Puerto Rico (Parrotta & Knowles, 1999). Values of this species regeneration. The plantations C. equisetifolia in study are also higher than those reported for pure plan- this area would have been thinned out on a rotational tation of Pinus caribaea, Leucaena spp., Casuarina spp., basis to facilitate native species establishment. The Pinus patula, Cupressus lusitanica, Acacia nitolica, Senna 118 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. Table 3. The Aboveground biomass (AGB) and Carbon stock of mixed and mono plantations. −1 Sl. No. Species Total AGB (kg) Mean with error (kg) AGB yr (kg) Carbon stock (kg) 1 Aglaia elaeagnoidea (Juss.) Benth. 1.137 0.284 ± 0.28 0.114 0.569 2 Alangium salvifolium (L.f.) Wangerin 8.734 0.380 ± 0.35 0.873 4.367 3 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin 1425.042 38.515 ± 55.40 142.504 712.521 4 Atalantia monophylla (L.) Correa 5.641 0.182 ± 0.18 0.564 2.821 5 Azadirachta indica A. Juss. 362.653 20.147 ± 43.35 36.265 181.326 6 Barringtonia acutangula (L.) Gaertner 5.62 5.620 ± 0.28 0.562 2.81 7 Bauhinia racemosa Lam. 2855.513 19.693 ± 34.48 285.551 1427.756 8 Canthium dicoccum(Gaertn.) Merr. 6.255 0.626 ± 0.59 0.626 3.128 9 Cassia fistula L. 0.125 0.062 ± 0.04 0.012 0.062 10 Cassine glauca Rottb. Kuntze. 60.899 2.175 ± 3.30 6.09 30.449 11 Chloroxylon swietenia DC. 1.663 0.832 ± 0.23 0.166 0.832 12 Dolichandrone falcata Seem. 142.95 3.177 ± 6.07 14.295 71.475 13 Dalbergia latifolia Roxb. 10.974 2.744 ± 2.89 1.097 5.487 14 Delonix elata Gamble. 13.541 1.128 ± 0.28 1.354 6.771 15 Diospyros ebenum J. Koenig ex Retz. 54.478 0.790 ± 1.45 5.448 27.239 16 Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh. 51.181 0.731 ± 0.93 5.118 25.59 17 Diospyros montana Roxb. 4.654 0.259 ± 0.38 0.465 2.327 18 Drypetes sepiaria (Wight and Arn.) Pax and Hoffm. 12.36 0.475 ± 0.57 1.236 6.18 19 Eugenia bracteata (Willd.) Roxb. ex DC. 5.309 0.265 ± 0.79 0.531 2.654 20 Ficus benghalensis L. 166.456 55.485 ± 21.51 16.646 83.228 21 Ficus religiosa L. 47.328 47.328 ± 0.28 4.733 23.664 22 Garcinia spicata (Wight and Arn.) J.D. Hook. 5.673 0.436 ± 0.45 0.567 2.836 23 Glycosmis mauritiana (Lam.) Tanaka 0.976 0.065 ± 0.07 0.098 0.488 24 Gmelina asiatica L. 207.439 9.429 ± 12.27 20.744 103.719 25 Helicteres isora L. 6.734 0.536 ± 0.28 0.673 3.367 26 Ixora pavetta T. Anderson 11.673 0.475 1.167 5.836 27 Lepisanthes tetraphylla (Vahl.) Radlk. 415.137 4.110 ± 6.36 41.514 207.569 28 Madhuca longofolia (L.) Macbr. 2.339 0.780 ± 1.21 0.234 1.17 29 Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard 202.453 2.439 ± 3.14 20.245 101.227 30 Memecylon umbellatum Burm.f. 0.149 0.075 ± 0.02 0.015 0.075 31 Mitragyna parviflora (Roxb.)Korth. 7.307 0.487 ± 0.46 0.731 3.654 32 Murraya paniculata (L) Jack 3.072 0.439 ± 0.32 0.307 1.536 33 Ochna obtusata DC. 2.202 0.68 0.22 1.101 34 Pleiospermium alatum (Wall. ex Wight. & Arn.) Swingle 3.215 0.357 ± 0.28 0.322 1.608 35 Pterospermum canescens Roxb. 193.633 4.610 ± 6.14 19.363 96.816 36 Salacia chinensis L. 2.373 0.680 ± 0.28 0.237 1.186 37 Sapindus emarginatus Vahl 84.585 2.169 ± 1.54 8.458 42.292 38 Streblus asper Lour. 165.439 5.710 ± 0.28 16.544 82.719 39 Strychnos nux-vomica L. 11.207 0.362 ± 0.39 1.121 5.604 40 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels 39.199 4.900 ± 5.56 3.92 19.599 41 Tarenna asiatica (L.) Kuntze. 1.373 0.686 ± 0.85 0.137 0.686 42 Terminalia arjuna (DC.) Wight & Arn. 120.651 13.406 ± 16.70 12.065 60.325 43 Terminalia bellirica (Gaertner) Roxb. 15.468 1.547 ± 1.61 1.547 7.734 44 Tricalysia sphaerocarpa (Dalz.) Gamble 0.638 0.213 ± 0.08 0.064 0.319 45 Vitex leucoxylon Lf. 16.468 1.647 ± 0.28 1.647 8.234 46 Walsura trifolia (A.Juss.) Harms 52.935 1.103 ± 1.02 5.293 26.467 47 Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R.Br. 409.032 5.928 ± 9.14 40.903 204.516 Total 8007.726 264.166 800.773 4003.863 Mono plantation 1 Casuarina equisetifolia L. 5585.652 558.565 2792.826 Grand total 13.593. 378 1359. 33 6796. 68 numbers of vascular plant species in the native species y = 129.35x + 386.47 mixed plantation plot were much higher than C. equi- R² = 0.3025 setifolia (mono plantation), indicating that reforestation of open areas with native species might indeed speed up the recolonization of some other native flora through their influence on understorey microclimate and soil fertility improvement, and provision of habitats for seed-dispersing animals. 0 5 10 15 20 Height (ft) 5. Conclusions Figure 2. Total AGB and most contributed species in both mixed and mono plantations. In conclusion, the present study shows that both mono and mixed native species can perform well in the planta- majority of species planted here were shade-tolerant tion sites. Although the plantations are still young and it mature forest species whose survival appeared to be may be too soon to determine the behavior of the species consistent in the mixed species plot. The species that studied, it is evident that best growth for these species performed poorly were mature forest species that may was demonstrated in mixed native species systems. A Total AGB (kg) GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 119 7000 Ashton,P.M.S.,Gunatilleke,C.V.S.,Singhakumara,B.M.P., &Gunatilleke,I.A.U.N.(2001). Restoration pathways for rain forest in southwest Sri Lanka: A review of concepts and models. Forest Ecology Management, 154, 409–430. Baker, T. R., Phillips, O. L., Malhi, Y., Almeida, S., Arroyo, L., & Di Fiore, A. (2004). Variation in wood density determines spatial patterns in Amazonian forest bio- mass. Global Change Biology, 10(5), 545–562. Bauhus, J., van der Meer, P., & Kanninen, M. (2010). Bau rac Alb ama Lep tet Wri tin Aza ind Cas equ Ecosystem goods and services from Plantation forests. (mono) London, UK: Earthscan. Species Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A., & Bullock, J. M. (2009). Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem ser- Figure 3. Simple linear regression between height increment vices by ecological restoration: A meta-analysis. Science, and total aboveground biomass in mixed species plantation 325, 1121–1124. (height class were distrusted like 1–3, 3–6, 6–9, 9–12, 12–15, Breugel, M. V., Hall, J. S., Craven, D. J., Gregoire, T. G., and 15–18). Park, A., Dent, D. H., . . . Ashton, M. S. (2011). Early growth and survival of 49 tropical tree species across require special efforts in restoration programs, such as sites differing in soil fertility and rainfall in Panama. provision of tree guards to prevent browsing, selection of Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 1580–1589. appropriate microsites (e.g., shaded areas), and the use of Brown, S., Lugo, A. E., & Chapman, J. (1986). Biomass of older or hardened saplings that can better tolerate tropical plantations and its implications for the global carbon budget. Canadian Journal Forest Research, 16(2), 390–394. droughtorbrowsing. Thehighermortality ofshade- Butterfield, R. (1996). Early species selection for tropical intolerant species appears to be the results due to high reforestation: A consideration of stability. Forest Ecology intensity of light in coastal dune ecosystem. This result in and Management, 81, 161–168. not surprising because most of the species that were Calvo-Alvarado, J. C., Arias, D., & Richter, D. D. (2007). planted are late-successional trees found in mature forest Early growth performance of native and introduced fast growing tree species in wet to sub-humid climates of the and included few pioneer species. Management practices Southern region of Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and such as pruning and thinning could favor the develop- Management, 242, 227–235. ment of these species in mixed plantations and provide Canadell, J. G., & Raupach, M. R. (2008). Managing forests for revenues at earlier ages, when an appropriate group of climate change mitigation. Science, 320, 1456–1457. species is used. Plantation of C. equisetifolia seems to be Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M. A., Chambers, well adapted and had more carbon stocking potential. J. Q., Eamus, D., Fölster, H., Fromard, F., Higuchi, N., Kira, T., Lescure, J. -P., Nelson, B. W., Ogawa, H., Puig, On the other hand, mixed plantation with indigenous H., Riéra, B., & Yamakura, T. (2005). Tree allometry and species would contribute more to sustainable manage- improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in ment and they provide great shelters for many faunal tropical forests. Oecologia, 145,87–99. doi:10.1007/ communities and provide a greater range of ecological s00442-005-0100-x goods and ecosystem services than the mono plantations. Corlett, R. T. (1999). Environmental forestry in Hong Kong: 1871–1997. Forest Ecology Management, 116,93–105. Elias, M., & Potvin, C. (2003). Assessing inter- and intra- Acknowledgments specific variation in trunk carbon concentration for 32 neotropical tree species. Canadian Journal of Forest The receipt of financial assistance from Pitchandikulam Research, 33, 1039–1045. Forest, Auroville (PFs), India is gratefully acknowledged. Forrester, D. I., Theiveyanathan, S., Collopy, J. J., & Marcar, N. E. (2010). Enhanced water use efficiency in a mixed Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii plantation. Forest Disclosure statement Ecology and Management, 259(9), 1761–1770. Guariguata, M. R., Rheingans, R., & Montagnini, F. (1995). No potential conflict of interest was reported by the Early woody invasion under tree plantations in Costa authors. Rica: Implications for forest restoration. Restoration Ecology, 3, 252–260. Healy, C., Gotelli, N. J., & Potvin Partitioning, C. (2008). Funding the effects of biodiversity and environmental heteroge- neity for productivity and mortality in a tropical tree The receipt of financial assistance from pitchandikulam plantation. Journal of Ecology, 96, 903‒913. forest, auroville (pfs), india is gratefully acknowledged. Herbohn, J. L., Vanclay, J., Ngyuen, H., Le, H. D., Baynes, J. R., Harrison, S., . . . Lamarre, E. (2014). Inventory pro- cedures for smallholder and community woodlots in the References Philippines: Methods, initial findings and insights. Small Scale Forestry, 13,79–100. Anbarashan,M.,Padmavathy,A.,&Alexandar,R.(2017). Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, Short communication: Survival and growth of mono and P., Lavorel, S., . . . Wardle, D. A. (2005). Effects of biodi- mixed species plantations on the coromandel coast of india. versity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current Asian Journal of Forestry, 1, 70-76. doi:10.13057/asianjfor/ knowledge. Ecological Monograph, 75,3–35. r010203 Total AGB (kg) 120 M. ANBARASHAN ET AL. Hung, T. D., Herbohn, J. L., Lamb, D., & Nhan, H. D. Technical report. Winrock International, Little Rock, (2011). Growth and production varies between pair-wise Arkansas, USA mixtures and monoculture plantations in North Viet Puettmann, K. J., & Tappeiner, J. C. (2014). Multi-scale Nam. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(3), 440–448. assessments highlight silvicultural opportunities to ITTO. (2009). Encouraging industrial forest plantations in the increase species diversity and spatial variability in for- tropics. Yokokama, Japan: International tropical timber ests. Forestry, 87(1), 1–10. organization. Radosevich, S. R., Hibbs, D. E., & Ghersa, C. M. (2006). Keeling, H. C., Baker, T. R., Martinez, R. V., Monteagudo, Effects of species mixtures on growth and stand devel- A., & Phillips, O. L. (2008). Contrasting patterns of opment of Douglas-fir and red alder. Canadian Journal diameter and biomass increment across tree functional of Forest Research, 36(3), 768–782. groups in Amazonian forests. Oecologia, 158, 521–534. Redondo-Brenes, A., & Montagnni, F. (2006). Growth, Kunert, N., & Cardenas, A. M. (2015). Are mixed tropical productivity, aboveground biomass, and carbon seques- tree plantations more resistant to drought than mono- tration of pure and mixed native tree plantations in the cultures? Forests, 6, 2029–2046. Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Lamb, D., & Lawrence, P. (1993). Mixed species plantations Management, 232, 168–178. using high value rainforest trees in Australia. In H. Lieth & Richards, A. E., Forrester, D. I., Bauhus, J., & Scherer- M. Lohmann (Eds.), Restoration of tropical forest ecosystems Lorenzen, M. (2010). The influence of mixed tree plan- (pp. 101–108). Holanda: Kluwer Academic Publishers. tations on the nutrition of individual species: A review. Lamb, D., Erskine, P. D., & Parrotta, J. A. (2005). Tree Physiology, 30, 1192‒1208. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Rodrigues,J.,deCastro,M.,Cancho, V.G.,&Balakrishnan,N. Science, 310(5754), 1628. (2009). COM–Poissoncureratesurvivalmodels andan Lawson, S. S., & Michler, C. H. (2014). Afforestation, application to a cutaneous melanoma data. Journal of restoration and regeneration ― Not all trees are created Statistical Planning and Inference, 139(10), 3605–3611. equal. Journal of Forest Research, 25(1), 3–20. Rodrigues, R. R., Gandolfi,S.,Nave,A.G.,Aronson,J.,Barreto, le Maire, G., Nouvellon, Y., Christina, M., Ponzoni, F. J., T. E., & Vidal, C. Y. (2011). Large-scale ecological restoration Goncëalves, J. L. M., & Bouillet, J. P. (2013). Tree and of high-diversity tropical forests in SE Brazil. Forest Ecology stand light use efficiencies over a full rotation of single- and Management, 261(10), 1605–1613. and mixed-species Eucalyptus grandis and Acacia man- Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Potvin, C., Koricheva, J., Schmid, B., gium plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 288, Hector, A., & Bornik, Z. (2005). The design of experimental 31–42. tree plantations for functional biodiversity research. In M. Lugo,A.E.,&Brown,S.(1992). Tropical forests as sinks of Scherer-Lorenzen, C. Koèrner, & E.-D. Schulze (Eds.), Forest atmospheric carbon. Forest Ecology and Management, 54, diversity and function. Ecol studies (Vol.176,pp. 347–376). 239–255. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Mani, S., & Parthasarathy, N. (2007). Above-ground bio- Schneider, T., Ashton, M., Montagnini, F., & Milan, P. mass estimation in ten tropical dry evergreen forest sites (2014). Growth performance of sixty tree species in of Peninsular India. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31, 284–290. smallholder reforestation trials on Leyte, Philippines. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.08.006 New Forests, 45(1), 83–96. Miya, H., Yoshida, T., Noguchi, M., & Nakamura, F. Schroeder, P. (1992). Carbon storage potential of short (2009). Individual growing conditions that affect dia- rotation tropical tree plantations. Forest Ecology and meter increment of tree saplings after selection harvest- Management, 50,31–41. ing in a mixed forest in Northern Japan. Journal of Semwal, R. L., Nautiyal, S., Maikhuri, R. K., Rao, K. S., & Forest Research, 14, 302–310. Saxena, K. G. (2013). Growth and carbon stocks of Montagnini, F., Gonzalez, E., Rheingans, R., & Porras, C. multipurpose tree species plantations in degraded lands (1995). Mixed and pure forest plantations in the humid in Central Himalaya, India. Forest Ecology and neotropics: A comparison of early growth, pest damage Management, 310, 450–459. and establishment costs. Commonwealth Forest Review, 74 Silver, W. L., Ostertag, R., & Lugo, A. E. (2000). The (4), 306–314. potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation Nakashizuka, T. (2001). Species coexistence in temperate, of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands. mixed deciduous forests. Trends In Ecology Evolution, 16 Restoration Ecology, 8(4), 394–407. (4), 205–210. Subak, S. (2000). Forest protection and reforestation in Costa Nguyen, H., Vanclay, J., Herbohn, J., & Firn, N. (2016). Rica: Evaluation of a clean development mechanism proto- Drivers of tree growth, mortality and harvest preferences type. Environment and Management, 26(3), 283–297. in species-rich plantations for smallholders and commu- Thomas, S. C. (1996). Asymptotic height as a predictor of nities in the tropics. PloS one, 11(10), e0164957. growth and allometric characteristics in Malaysian rain- Nichols, J. D., Bristow, M., & Vanclay, J. K. (2006). Mixed- forest tress. American Journal of Botany, 83(5), 556–566. species plantations: Prospects and challenges. Forest Vivek, P., Parthasarathy, N., & Monica, P. (2016). Short-term Ecology and Management, 233(23), 383–390. girth increment in tree species of Tropical Dry Evergreen Park, A., van Breugel, M., Ashton, P. M. S., Mariscal, E., forest on the Coromandel Coast of India. Journal of Global Deago, J., Ibarra, D., . . . Hall, J. S. (2010). Local and Ecology and Environment, 4(3), 147–152. regional environmental variation influences the growth Whitmore, T. C. (1998). An Introduction to Tropical Rain of tropical trees in selection trials in the Republic of Forests (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Panama. Forest Ecology and Management, 260,12–21. Wormald, T. J. (1992). Mixed and pure forest plantations in Parrotta,J. A., &Knowles,O. H.(1999). Restoration of the tropics and subtropics (Vol. 103, pp. 166). FAO tropical moist forests on bauxite-mined lands in the Wuethrich, B. (2007). Biodiversity: Reconstructing Brazil’s Brazilian Amazon. Restoration Ecology, 7(2), 103–116. Atlantic rainforest. Science, 315, 1070–1072. Pearson, T., & Walker, S., & Brown. S. (2005). Sourcebook Zarr,J.H. (2006). Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice for land use, land-use change and forestry projects. Hall.

Journal

Geology Ecology and LandscapesTaylor & Francis

Published: Apr 2, 2020

Keywords: Aboveground biomass; carbon stock; native tree species; plantations; survival

There are no references for this article.