Scholarly article on topic 'Managing woody bamboos for carbon farming and carbon trading'

Managing woody bamboos for carbon farming and carbon trading Academic research paper on "Biological sciences"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Global Ecology and Conservation
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Carbon sequestration" / "Climate change mitigation" / Forest / Agroforestry / "Ecosystem services"}

Abstract of research paper on Biological sciences, author of scientific article — Arun Jyoti Nath, Rattan Lal, Ashesh Kumar Das

Abstract Research on identifying cost-effective managed ecosystems that can substantially remove atmospheric carbon-dioxide (CO2) while providing essential societal benefits has gained momentum since the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Carbon farming allows farmers and investors to generate tradable carbon offsets from farmlands and forestry projects through carbon trading. Carbon trading is pertinent to climate negotiations by decelerating the climate change phenomenon. Thus, the objective of this article is to describe the potential of woody bamboos in biomass carbon storage and as an option for carbon farming and carbon trading. Bamboo is an important agroforestry and forest plant managed and used by the rural communities in several countries of the Asia-Pacific region for generating diverse economic and socio-environmental needs. Mean carbon storage and sequestration rate in woody bamboos range from 30–121 Mg ha−1 and 6–13 Mg ha−1  yr−1, respectively. Bamboo has vigorous growth, with completion of the growth cycle between 120 and 150 days. Because of its rapid biomass accumulation and effective fixation of CO2, it has a high carbon sequestration capacity. Over and above the high biomass carbon storage, bamboo also has a high net primary productivity (12–26 Mg ha−1  yr−1) even with regular selective harvesting, thus making it a standing carbon stock and a living ecosystem that continues to grow. Despite its high potential in carbon storage and sequestration and its important role in livelihood of millions of rural poor’s worldwide, prospects of bamboo ecosystems in CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and REDD (Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) schemes remain to be explored. Thus, there is an urgent need to recognize ecosystem services that woody bamboo provides for well-being of rural communities and nature conservancy. Present synthesis suggests that bamboo offers tremendous opportunity for carbon farming and carbon trading.

Academic research paper on topic "Managing woody bamboos for carbon farming and carbon trading"

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Ecology and Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco

Review paper

Managing woody bamboos for carbon farming and carbon trading

CrossMaik

Arun Jyoti Natha,b'*'1, Rattan Lala, Ashesh Kumar Dasb

a Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA b Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar 788011, India

highlights

Biomass carbon storage in woody bamboo is comparable to the woody biomass of trees. Biomass and carbon storage in bamboo is a permanent sink. Bamboo has high carbon sequestration rate and a large geographical distribution. Woody bamboos provide ample opportunities for carbon farming and carbon trading.

article info

Article history:

Received 29 January 2015

Received in revised form 2 March 2015

Accepted 3 March 2015

Available online 9 March 2015

Keywords:

Carbon sequestration Climate change mitigation Forest

Agroforestry Ecosystem services

abstract

Research on identifying cost-effective managed ecosystems that can substantially remove atmospheric carbon-dioxide (CO2) while providing essential societal benefits has gained momentum since the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Carbon farming allows farmers and investors to generate tradable carbon offsets from farmlands and forestry projects through carbon trading. Carbon trading is pertinent to climate negotiations by decelerating the climate change phenomenon. Thus, the objective of this article is to describe the potential of woody bamboos in biomass carbon storage and as an option for carbon farming and carbon trading. Bamboo is an important agroforestry and forest plant managed and used by the rural communities in several countries of the Asia-Pacific region for generating diverse economic and socio-environmental needs. Mean carbon storage and sequestration rate in woody bamboos range from 30-121 Mg ha-1 and 6-13 Mg ha-1 yr-1, respectively. Bamboo has vigorous growth, with completion of the growth cycle between 120 and 150 days. Because of its rapid biomass accumulation and effective fixation of CO2, it has a high carbon sequestration capacity. Over and above the high biomass carbon storage, bamboo also has a high net primary productivity (12-26 Mg ha-1 yr-1) even with regular selective harvesting, thus making it a standing carbon stock and a living ecosystem that continues to grow. Despite its high potential in carbon storage and sequestration and its important role in livelihood of millions of rural poor's worldwide, prospects of bamboo ecosystems in CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and REDD (Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) schemes remain to be explored. Thus, there is an urgent need to recognize ecosystem services that woody bamboo provides for well-being of

* Correspondence to: Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, 422 A Kottman Hall, School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. E-mail address: arunjyotinath@gmail.com (A.J. Nath). 1 Permanent address: Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar 788011, Assam, India.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.gecco.2015.03.002

2351-9894/© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

rural communities and nature conservancy. Present synthesis suggests that bamboo offers tremendous opportunity for carbon farming and carbon trading.

© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................655

2. Methods for literature selection....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................656

3. Biomass carbon storage and sequestration rate in woody bamboos................................................................................................................................................................................................656

3.1. Bamboo biomass estimation......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................656

3.2. Biomass carbon storage and sequestration rate........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................657

3.3. Soil carbon sequestration................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................657

3.4. Role of bamboo in climate change mitigation..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................659

3.5. Carbon trading opportunity........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................660

4. Future research need......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................661

4.1. Assessment of biomass carbon storage in bamboo..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................661

5. Conclusions......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................662

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................662

References..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................662

1. Introduction

Bamboo is a vernacular term for members of subfamily Bambusoideae of family Poaceae, the giant grasses (McClure, 1966). The subfamily Bambusoideae has about 75 genera with over 1250 species (Soderstrom and Ellis, 1988). Three main lineages of Bambusoideae currently recognized are Sungkaew et al. (2009): Arundinarieae (temperate woody bamboos), Bambuseae (tropical woody bamboos) and Olyreae (herbaceous bamboos). Bamboo grows in Africa, Asia and Central and South America (Banik, 2000). Some species also grow successfully in mild temperate zones in Europe and North America (Soderstrom and Ellis, 1988). Morphologically, all bamboo species can be categorized as monopodial, sympodial and amphipodial, with each group containing species grown for industrial, agricultural, ornamental and ecological purposes (Maoyi and Banik, 1996). Bamboos play an important role in local economies especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Based on bamboo production area, for example, rural landscape or forest areas can be termed as ''village bamboos'' or ''forest bamboos'' (Holttum, 1958). Bamboo provides numerous environmental services both at village and forest ecosystem level. At village level, it provides protection to traditional houses from winds, fulfils requirements of traditional house construction materials and fuel wood purposes (Nath et al., 2009). Unlike other cash crops, bamboo requires little fertilizer and pesticides for its management. At forest ecosystem level bamboo is important for rehabilitation of degraded land, as a timber substitute, for erosion control and watershed protection (INBAR, 2006). With its fast growth rate and high annual regrowth after harvesting, bamboo forests have a high carbon stock potential (INBAR, 2010), especially when the harvested culms are used as durable products (Nath et al., 2009). However, critical ecosystem services of bamboos still remain unrecognized in terms of carbon farming and subsequently carbon trading.

Carbon farming involves implementing practices that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil organic matter. Carbon farming is successful when carbon gains resulting from enhanced land management and/or conservation practices exceed carbon losses (IPCC, 2007; Smith et al., 2014). Carbon trading, part of carbon farming, as described in the Kyoto Protocol, is a voluntary and mandatory emission trading markets for greenhouse gases (Smith et al., 2014). Among the terrestrial ecosystems, agroforestry and forest ecosystems have been given priority for carbon trading based on the efficiency of a particular land use in reducing emissions or capturing carbon by storing it. Reforestation, afforestation and reducing deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) are also eligible for carbon trading (IPCC, 2007). To date, most of the studies have been done on the carbon trading potential of tree species/forest/agroforest, but little on woody bamboo species (Lobovikov et al., 2012). Yet bamboos are known for high productivity (Hunter and Wu, 2002), which has created an increasing interest of scientific communities in studying the role of bamboo in carbon storage, ecosystem carbon budget and ecosystem services (INBAR, 2006,2010). Bamboo has large capacity for biomass accumulation within a short period, and a high potential for carbon storage (Kleinhenz and Midmore, 2001). The CDM Executive Board, in its 39th meeting, decided that ''Palm (trees) and bamboos are equivalent to trees in the context of afforestation and reforestation'' (UNFCCC, 2008). Following this, the Food and Trees for Africa's (FTFA) Bamboo for Africa programme has been certified under the verified carbon standard, and is the first accreditation for bamboo in the world (FTFA, 2012). However, for REDD programme bamboo ecosystems has not been given due recognition. Thus, there is a strong need to assess biomass and soil carbon storage by woody bamboos to promote its recognition for CDM and REDD. However, little if any research has been done on soil carbon storage in bamboo stands. Therefore, the objective of this article is to specifically describe the biomass carbon storage and sequestration potential of woody bamboos with special emphasis on the potential for carbon farming and carbon trading.

Table 1

Biomass equations for estimation of above ground biomass of some major bamboo species.

Species Location Culm ages Biomass equation a b Reference

Dendrocalamus strictus Indian dry tropics Cu-yr Y (g) 3.4053+0.8540 DBH Tripathi and Singh, 1996

>1-yr Y (g) 5.1162+0.6599 DBH

Dead shoot Y (g) 5.1797+0.4696 DBH

Phyllostachys pubescens Central Japan Cu-yr Y (kg) 1.479 x 10-1 DBH1860 Isagi et al., 1997

>1-year Y (kg) 4.673 x 10-2 DBH2337

Bambusa bamboos Southern India Across alla Yn(kg)-12.23+37.281 DBH Kumar et al., 2005

Bambusa oldhamii Mexico 1-yr lnYln (6.85)+1.24 ln DBH Castañeda-Mendoza et al., 2005

2-yr lnYln (5.75)+1.84 ln DBH

3-yr ln Y ln (5.07)+2.23 ln DBH

4-yr lnYln (6.02)+1.64 ln DBH

Bambusa cacharensis NE India Cu-yr lnY(g) 2.078+2.140 ln DBH Nath et al., 2009

1-yr lnY(g) 2.134+2.268 ln DBH

2-yr lnY (g) 2.174+2.306 ln DBH

3-yr lnY (g) 2.184+2.178 ln DBH

Bambusa vulgaris NE India Cu-yr lnY (g) 2.281 2.149 ln DBH Nath et al., 2009

1-yr lnY(g) 2.386 2.079 ln DBH

2-yr lnY (g) 2.554 1.956 ln DBH

3-yr lnY (g) 2.548 1.970 ln DBH

Bambusa balcooa NE India Cu-yr lnY (g) 2.149 2.284 ln DBH Nath et al., 2009

1-yr lnY (g) 2.199 2.353 ln DBH

2-yr lnY (g) 2.368 2.214 ln DBH

3-yr lnY (g) 2.153 2.477 ln DBH

Phyllostachys makinoi Central Taiwan Across all Y(kg) 0.156 DBH2.118 Yenetal., 2010

Phyllostachys heterocycle Central Taiwan 1-yr Y(kg) 3.31 x 10-3 DBH3.75 Yen and Lee, 2011

2-yr Y (kg) 1.77 x 10-2 DBH2' 98

3-yr Y (kg) 3.59 x 10-2 DBH270

4-yr Y (kg) 5.65 x 10-2 DBH246

5-yr Y(kg) 1.71 x 10-2 DBH303

Guadua angustifolia Bolivia Across all lnY (g) ln 2.7599+0.9947 ln DBH Quiroga et al., 2013

In regression models, Y is the aboveground biomass, a and b are the regression coefficients and DBH is the diameter at breast height (cm) of culm. a Across all refers to biomass equation for all culm ages (Cu-yr, 1-yr, 2-yr, 3 yr and 4-yr) for that particular species.

2. Methods for literature selection

Bamboos are generally categorized under woody (resemble trees) and herbaceous (resemble grasses) species (McClure, 1966). Therefore, the literature review in this article is specifically focused on woody bamboos so that comparison for biomass carbon and sequestration rate can be made with tree dominated agroforestry or forest ecosystems. In this article, estimates of biomass carbon do not consider the extreme biomass values of 287 Mg ha-1 for B. bamboos (Shanmughavel and Francis, 1996) and 319 Mg ha-1 for B. pallida (Singh and Kochhar, 2005). Hunter and Wu (2002) opined that the reported average diameter of culm, average height and stand density do not match with the biomass values reported by Shanmughavel and Francis (1996). If there were more than one reports of biomass value for the same species from the same location (by different authors), the median biomass value is used in this study.

3. Biomass carbon storage and sequestration rate in woody bamboos

3.1. Bamboo biomass estimation

The biomass is estimated by a destructive mode (harvesting of bamboo culms), the same method as used for estimating a tree biomass (Verwijst and Telenius, 1999). Unlike woody trees, however, there are no generalized biomass estimation models (Brown and Lugo, 1984, 1992), which can be used for different bamboo species. Development of nondestructive generalized equation for bamboo biomass estimation has been constrained by differences in culm growth behaviour (monopodial, amphipodial and sympodial), species-specific culm and clump characteristics, different culm ages in each clump etc. Species-specific biomass equations have been developed for different bamboo species following the harvest method (Taylor and Zisheng, 1987; Isagi et al., 1993; Tripathi and Singh, 1996; Isagi et al., 1997; Singh and Singh, 1999; Shanmughavel et al., 2001; Embaye et al., 2005; Kumar et al., 2005; Nath et al., 2009; Yen et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2013), and examples of equations for aboveground biomass estimation for some major species are shown in Table 1.

j* 200

R2 = 0.14

y = -0.0029X +153.81

.3 100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Culm density ha-1

Fig. 1. Relationship of stand biomass and culm density in woody bamboos.

3.2. Biomass carbon storage and sequestration rate

Estimation of biomass includes the aboveground and belowground live biomass. Because of the difficulty in collecting field data of the belowground biomass, most research relevant to biomass estimation has focused only on the aboveground biomass. The data in Table 2 show estimates of aboveground biomass of woody bamboo species. Data on carbon stock and sequestration rate are not reported for many of the bamboo species (Uchimura, 1978; Suzuki, 1989; Christanty et al., 1996; Isagi et al., 1997; Shanmughavel and Francis, 1996; Singh and Singh, 1999; Kumar et al., 2005; Embaye et al., 2005; Singh and Kochhar, 2005). Therefore, this study assumes that 50% of the biomass is carbon stock (IPCC, 2007). The average biomass is 124 Mg ha-1, with a range of 60-242 Mg ha-1. Wide range observed in biomass values are attributed to differences in mean annual precipitation (Kleinhenz and Midmore, 2001). However, such relationships are often discarded (Hunter and Wu, 2002). The biomass is rather weakly related to culm stand density (R2 = 0.14, p > 0.05) (Fig. 1). Thus, neither the climatic factors nor the stand density can fully describe the relationship of biomass for diverse bamboo stands. Therefore, it is difficult to identify a few key determinants of biomass values in bamboo. The issue is also confounded by variation in culm size and culm height within a same species over different localities. Consequently, management systems in village landscape or in bamboo forest systems may be crucial in determining the biomass stock. Analysis of biomass content with respect to rhizomal growth behaviour indicates an average biomass of 160 Mg ha-1 in sympodial species (e.g. Bambusa sp., Dendrocalamus sp.) and 111 Mg ha-1 in monopodial species (e.g. Phyllostachys sp.), for a similar stand density.

Mean carbon storage and sequestration rate range from 30-121 Mg ha-1 and 6-13 Mg ha-1 yr-1 respectively (Table 2). Kleinhenz and Midmore (2001) and Hunter and Wu (2002) reported that the biomass carbon storage is within the range of woody biomass. Winjum et al. (1997) estimated the mean carbon storage in above and below-ground biomass of forest plantations at 47 Mg ha-1 in high latitudes, 76 Mg ha-1 in middle latitudes, 62 Mg ha-1 in low-dry latitudes, and 80 Mg ha-1 in low-moist latitudes. Nair et al. (2009) reported that the carbon sequestration potential of the vegetation component (above and belowground) ranged from 0.29 Mg ha-1 yr-1 in a fodder bank agroforestry system of West African Sahel to 15.21 Mgha-1 yr-1 in mixed species stands of Puerto Rico. There are numerous comparable studies on carbon sequestration between bamboo and other tree-based ecosystems. For example, mean aboveground carbon sequestration of a 29-year-old Taiwan red cypress (Chamaecyparis formosensis) and a 33-year-old Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) was 2.83 and 4.44 Mg ha-1 yr-1, respectively, which was much lower than 8.13 Mg ha-1 yr-1 for Moso bamboo and 9.89 Mg ha-1 yr-1 for Makino bamboo forest (Yen and Lee, 2011). The comparative analysis of carbon sequestration between a monopodial Moso bamboo plantation (3300 culms ha-1) and fast growing Chinese Fir (Cunninghamia sp.) plantation (2175 trees ha-1) modelled for subtropical growing conditions in South East China showed a comparatively higher carbon sequestration rate under bamboo plantation (INBAR, 2010).

3.3. Soil carbon sequestration

The term ''soil carbon sequestration" implies removal of atmospheric CO2 by plants and storage of fixed carbon as soil organic matter (Lal, 2004), within the same landscape unit (Olson et al., 2014). Soil contains approximately 2344 Pg (petagram = 1015 g = 1 billion ton) of organic carbon to 2-m depth globally, and is the largest terrestrial pool of organic carbon (Jobbágy and Jackson, 2000). Small changes in the soil organic carbon pool could result in significant impacts on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (Guo and Gifford, 2002). Converting degraded soils of agroecosystems and other land uses into forests and perennial land use can enhance the soil organic carbon pool (Lal, 2004). There are numerous reports on the rate of soil organic carbon sequestration potential in agricultural soils (Lal, 2004, Bouma et al., 2011), forest soils (Lal, 2005; Bradley and Pregitzer, 2007), and agroforestry soils (Dixon et al., 1994; Montagnini and Nair, 2004; Kumar and Nair, 2011; Lorenz and Lal, 2014). However, there are few if any published experimental data on soil organic carbon sequestration under bamboos. Soil carbon sequestration of 0.59 Mg ha-1 yr-1 was reported for bamboo based agroforestry systems from North East India and the data were comparable with other tropical agroforestry systems at the same soil depth (Nath et al. (2015),

Table 2

Biomass C stock and sequestration rate in woody bamboos.

SI No Bamboo species Ecosystem Growth Location Biomass Biomass C Biomass carbon Culm Soil carbon stor- Reference

type pattern (Mgha-1) storage (Mg ha-1) sequestration ratefMgha-1 yr-1] density (ha-1) 1 age (Mg ha"1)

1 Bambusa blumeana Forest Sympodial Philippines 143 72 - 7 600 - Uc hi mura, 1978

2 Bambusa vulgaris Forest Sympodial Philippines 106 53 - 9000 - Uc hi mu ra, 1978

3 Gigantochloa levis Forest Sympodial Philippines 147 73 - 9300 - Suzuki, 1989

4 Phyllostachys bambusoides Plantation Monopodial Japan 136 68 13 12 000 - Isagi et al., 1993

5 Gigantochloa ater and G.verticilleta Forest Sympodial Indonesia 77 37 - 6820 - Christanty et al., 1996

6 Bambusa pallida Plantation Sympodial India 319 160 13 35 000 - Singh and Kochhar, 2005

7 Phyllostachys pubescens Plantation Monopodial Japan 138 69 9 7 100 - Isagi et al., 1997

8 Bambusa bamboos Plantation Sympodial India 287 144 24 4 250 - Shanmughavel and Francis, 1996

9 Dendrocalamus strictus Plantation Sympodial India 60 30 13 27 000 - Singh and Singh, 1999

10 Bambusa bambos Plantation Sympodial India 242 121 6 8 000 Kumar et al., 2005

11 Yushania alpina Forest Sympodial Ethiopia 110 55 8 840 Embaye et al., 2005

12 Bambusa cacharensis, B. vulgaris and B. balcooa Plantation Sympodial India 121 61 8 950 57.3 Nath et al., 2009

13 Phyllostachys makinoi Forest Monopodial Taiwan 105 50 10 21 191 Yen et al., 2010

14 Phyllostachys heterocycla Forest Monopodial Taiwan 89 41 8 7 100 - Yen and Lee, 2011

15 Bambusa oldhamii Plantation Sympodial Mexico 104 51.5 16 10101 Castañeda-Mendoza et al., 2005

16 Guadua angustifolia Forest Sympodial Bolivia 200 100 - 4500 - Quiroga et al., 2013

17 Phyllostachys pubescens Forest Monopodial China 88 40 7 3 968 Zhang et al., 2014

Fig. 2a. Traditional bamboo products in a local market in North East India.

Fig. 2b. Bamboo foot-bridge in a village in North East India.

under review). Thus, there is a strong need to assess soil organic carbon sequestration potential of bamboo forest/plantation globally, and develop a credible data set.

3.4. Role of bamboo in climate change mitigation

From the Stockholm Conference on Environment in June 1972 to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and 2012, some definitive international actions have been suggested to be undertaken through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The 13th Session of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC, held in Bali in December 2007, addressed a post-Kyoto framework which encourages the implementation of demonstration sites to sequester carbon through forestry (Neeff and Francisco, 2009). The activities that can contribute to CO2 mitigation under a REDD+ mechanism by reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation include conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (Bleaney et al., 2010). Research related to forest and agroforest carbon and its function has gained momentum since 2000s (Woodwell et al., 1978; Liu et al., 2000; Kirby and Potvin, 2007; Jose, 2009; Nair et al., 2009). Under selective felling strategy, biomass and carbon stock in bamboo are also the permanent stock as harvesting of bamboos and subsequent loss of biomass and carbon are balanced by new culm produced in the clump every year (Nath and Das, 2011). Notable among merits of bamboo are: large capacity for carbon storage, vast geographical distribution, everyday use by billions of people (Nath and Das, 2008; Lobovikov et al., 2009; Song et al., 2011; Yen and Wang, 2013; Yen, 2015), large impact on rural livelihoods (Marsh and Smith, 2007), traditional utilization of bamboos in construction of rural houses and traditional crafts. These are only a few among numerous reasons of maintaining and increasing carbon stocks through carbon sequestration. It is important that products are not burnt but are used as durable products (Nath and Das, 2012). Because of their large residence time, it is these uses of bamboo which have a negative feedback to climate change. Moreover, commercialization of such bamboo products through value addition enhances the income stream of the craft-persons (Fig. 2). Therefore, there is

Fig. 2c. Commercialization of bamboo products through value addition.

Fig. 3. Bamboo-provisioned ecosystem services.

strong need to recognize the ecosystem services of woody bamboos (Fig. 3) for well-being of society and nature conservancy and for considerations towards trading of carbon credits.

3.5. Carbon trading opportunity

Indeed, biomass carbon stock and sequestration rate in woody bamboos are quite comparable with those in agroforestry and forest ecosystems. Bamboo ecosystems can provide income stream to rural communities from dual source (i) selective harvest and selling bamboo products (e.g. for scaffolding purpose, to paper making industry, bamboo crafts) and, (ii) from carbon credits (Certified Emission Reductions) under various afforestation/reforestation mechanisms under CDM and REDD. Certified emission reductions can be traded in the national and international markets that have committed to reduce their carbon footprint. The 20th Session of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC, held in Lima in December 2014, incorporated under any programmes of activities, an unlimited number of component project activities across a sector, country or region can be registered under a single administrative umbrella. In rural landscape of Asia Pacific region, farmers manages bamboo either in the traditional agroforestry system or in pure stands adjoining to their homegardens called 'bamboo grove' (Fig. 4) (Nath and Das, 2011). Therefore, the recent developments at Conference of the Parties 20 will encourage the aggregation of many small projects together as one project component, which would be ideal for bamboo forestry. However, opportunities of bamboo for consideration under REDD is constrained by many factors. Firstly, bamboo is considered a non-timber forest product, while REDD programme includes forest areas covered by trees. However, neither UNFCCC nor Kyoto Protocol defines a 'tree'. Though bamboo is a member of Poaceae family, but the architecture of woody bamboos resembles trees with individual mean height and weight of 15 m and 30 kg (dry mass), respectively (Nath et al., 2009). Moreover, Warsaw Framework for REDD of 2013 allows countries to come up with their own definitions of forest,

and therefore, providing an opportunity for inclusion of bamboo as part of forest ecosystem. Secondly, for REDD strategies, tree cutting and removal of biomass from forest is actually considered as non-sustainable practice. In case of bamboo, it is selectively harvested annually for livelihood purposes of the rural communities. However, selective felling does not affect the productivity of bamboo forest and therefore, is not an unsustainable practice (Hoogendoorn and Benton, 2014). Hein and van der Meer (2012) suggested sustainable biomass removal can be included in future REDD+, to realize the potential of bamboo to combat deforestation. Therefore, reorganization of ecological implications of bamboo in sustainable forest management is an important consideration for REDD schemes.

4. Future research need

4.1. Assessment of biomass carbon storage in bamboo

Methodological protocols of assessing biomass carbon storage in bamboos include the following:

(i) Based on a strong linear relationship between height, culm weight and diameter at breast height, one could determine the height of the bamboo culm, the culm weight, and predict bamboo biomass yields from the diameter at breast height Mohamed (1993). Therefore, culm diameter measurement is an important part of any bamboo stand characterization. All the normal bamboo culms of a particular species may not have the same length of internode from bottom to top. Therefore, 1.37 m as breast height may fall on different positions of the culm which may indicate false girth size. Therefore, culm diameter should be measured at the middle part of the next internode if 1.37 m is falling on node or near to node portion of culm.

(ii) A bamboo clump (in case sympodial) or a bamboo stand (in case of monopodial) is represented by bamboo population of different ages (McClure, 1966; Banik, 2000). One year old culms are the youngest population in the clump/stand.

Bamboo characteristics (culm weight, culm thickness) are influenced by the culm size and age (McClure, 1966; Mohamed, 1993; Nath and Das, 2011). Therefore, while estimating biomass for sympodial or monopodial species; sample collection must represent all size classes for all age classes of the population prevailing in an area. Regression model for biomass estimation must be developed with respect to age classes to obtain reliable estimates of biomass of different species.

(iii) Belowground living biomass must be incorporated into the aboveground biomass to assess the total biomass. For sympodial species belowground biomass can be separated into root and rhizomes. For monopodial species, however, the rhizome necks are long (Keng, 1982; Banik, 2000) and the belowground biomass can be separated into root, rhizome and rhizome neck.

5. Conclusions

Present synthesis suggests bamboo can generate tradable amount of carbon under CDM and REDD schemes. Biomass carbon storage and sequestration rate of 30-121 Mg ha-1 and 6-13 Mg ha-1 yr-1, respectively in woody bamboos are comparable with agroforestry and forest ecosystems. Considering its role in climate change adaptation and mitigation, its noteworthy contribution in social, economic aspect of rural life and numerous other environmental services, woody bamboos warrant serious consideration for carbon farming and carbon trading. Integrating woody bamboos with carbon trading will promote the cultivation and management of woody bamboos in agroforestry and forest ecosystems and therefore, generating another income stream for the rural communities. Additional research is needed to determine bamboo biomass, vegetation and soil carbon capture and storage through incorporating improved methodological protocols to enable precise estimation of bamboo ecosystem carbon storage and sequestration rate.

Acknowledgements

Senior author greatly acknowledges the research fellowship granted by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India (BT/20/NE/2011/2014) in the form of Overseas Associateship.

References

Banik, R.L., 2000. Silviculture and Field-Guide to Priority Bamboos of Bangladesh and South Asia. Government of the people's Republic of Bangladesh,

Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong, p. 82. Bouma, J., van Altvorst, A.C., Eweg, R., Smeets, P.J.A.M., van Latesteijn, H.C., 2011. The role of knowledge when studying innovation and the associated

wicked sustainability problems in agriculture. Adv. Agron. 113, 293-323. Bradley, K.L., Pregitzer, K.S., 2007. Ecosystem assembly and terrestrial carbon balance under elevated CO2. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 538-547. Brown, S., Lugo, A.E., 1984. Biomass of tropical forests: a new estimate based on forest volume. Science 223,1290-1293. Brown, S., Lugo, A.E., 1992. Aboveground biomass estimates for tropical moist forests of the Brazilian Amazon. Interciencia 17,8-18. Bleaney, A., Peskett, L., Mwayafu, D., 2010. REDD-plus after Copenhagen: what does it mean on the ground? COP 15 Briefing.

Castañeda-Mendoza, A., Vargas-Hernández, J.J., Gómez-Guerrero, A., Valdez-Hernández, J.I., Vaquera-Huerta, H., 2005. Acumulación de carbono en la

biomasa aérea de una plantación de Bambusa oldhamii. Agrociencia 39, 107-116. Christanty, L., MaiHy, D., Kimmins, J.P., 1996. Without bamboo, the land dies: biomass, litterfall, and soil organic matter dynamics of a Javanese bamboo

talun kebun system. Forest Ecol. Manag. 87,75-88. Dixon, R.K., Winjum, J.K., Andrasko, K.J., Lee, J.J., Schroeder, P.E., 1994. Integrated land-use systems: assessment of promising agroforest and alternative

land-use practices to enhance carbon conservation and sequestration. Clim. Change 27,71-92. Embaye, K., Weih, M., Ledin, S., Christersson, L., 2005. Biomass and nutrient distribution in a highland bamboo forest in southwest Ethiopia: implications

for management. Forest Ecol. Manag. 204,159-169. Food and Trees for Africa 2012. World's First Bamboo Carbon Offset Credits Issued under the VCS in the Voluntary Carbon Market. In: trees.co.za.. Guo, L.B., Gifford, R.M., 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change. Global Change Biol. 8, 345-360. Hein, L., van der Meer, J.P., 2012. REDD+in the context of ecosystem management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 604-611. Holttum, R.E., 1958. The Bamboos of the Malay Peninsula, Vol. 16. The Gardens' Bulletin, Singapore.

Hoogendoorn, J.C., Benton, A., 2014. Bamboo and rattan production and the implications of globalization. In: Nikolakis, W., Innes, J. (Eds.), Forest and

Globalization: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development, Vol. 711. Third Avenue, New York, p. 10017. Hunter, I.R., Wu, J., 2002. Bamboo Biomass. INBAR, Beijing.

INBAR 2006. The partnership for a better world—strategy to the year 2015. Beijing, China.

INBAR, 2010. Bamboo and climate change mitigation: a comparative analysis of Carbon sequestration, Beijing, China: International Network for bamboo

and Rattan (INBAR), Technical Report No. 32. p. 47. IPCC, 2007. Climate Change: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. Isagi, Y., Kawahara, T., Kamo, K., 1993. Biomass and net production in a bamboo Phyllostachys bambusoides stand. Ecol. Res. 8, 123-133. Isagi, Y., Kawahara, T., Kamo, K, Ito, H., 1997. Net production and carbon cycling in a bamboo Phyllostachys pubescens stand. Plant Ecol. 130, 41-52. Jobbágy, E.G., Jackson, R.B., 2000. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol. Appl. 10,423-436. Jose, S., 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor. Syst. 76, 1-10. Keng, P.C., 1982. A revision of the bamboo genera of the world. J. Bamboo Res. 1,1-19.

Kirby, K.R., Potvin, C., 2007. Variation in carbon storage among tree species: implications for the management of a smallscale carbon sink project. Forest

Ecol. Manag. 246, 208-221. Kleinhenz, V., Midmore, D.J., 2001. Aspects of bamboo agronomy. Adv. Agron. 74, 99-153.

Kumar, B.M., Nair, P.K.R., 2011. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems: Opportunities and Challenges. Springer, The Netherlands, p. 307. Kumar, B.M., Rajesh, G., Sudheesh, K.G., 2005. Aboveground biomass production and nutrient uptake of thorny bamboo [Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss] in the

homegardens of Thrissur, Kerala. J. Trop. Agric. 43,51-56. Lai, R., 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304,1623-1627. Lai, R., 2005. Forest soils and carbon sequestration. Forest Ecol. Manag. 220, 242-258.

Liu, G.H., Fu, B.J., Fang, J.Y., 2000. Carbon dynamics of Chinese forests and its contribution to global carbon balance. Acta Ecol. Sin. 20,733-740.

Lobovikov, M., Lou, Y., et al., 2009. The Poor Man's Carbon Sink. Bamboo in Climate Change and Poverty Alleviation. FAO, INBAR, Rome.

Lobovikov, M., Schoene, D., Yping, L., 2012. Bmaboo in climate change and rural livelihood. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 17, 261-276.

Lorenz, K., Lal, R., 2014. Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Agron. Sustainable Dev. 34,443-454.

Maoyi, F., Banik, R.L., 1996. Bamboo production systems and their management. In: Rao, I.V.R., Sastry, C.B., Widjaja, E. (Eds.), Bamboo, People and the Environment, Vol. 4. INBAR, EBF, IPGRI, IDRC, pp. 18-33.

Marsh, J., Smith, N., 2007. New bamboo industries and pro-poor impacts: lessons from China and potential for Mekong countries. In: International Conference on Managing Forests for Poverty Reduction: Capturing Opportunities in Forest Harvesting and Wood Processing for the Benefit of the Poor, Ho-Chi Minh City, 3-6 October 2006.

McClure, F.A., 1966. The Bamboos: A Fresh Perspective. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 345.

Mohamed, A.H.J., 1993. Relationships between height, diameter at breast height (DBH) and culm weight of three Malaysian bamboos. J. Trop. For. Sci. 6, 85-86.

Montagnini, F., Nair, P.K.R., 2004. Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor. Syst. 61-62, 281-295.

Nair, P.K.R., Kumar, B.M., Nair, V.D., 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172,10-23.

Nath, A.J., Das, A.K, 2008. Bamboo resources in the homegardens of Assam: a case study from Barak Valley. J. Trop. Agric. 46,46-49.

Nath, A.J., Das, A.K, 2011. Carbon storage and sequestration in bamboo-based smallholder homegardens of Barak Valley. Assam. Curr. Sci. 100, 229-233.

Nath, A.J., Das, A.K., 2012. Ecological implications of village bamboos in climate change mitigation: a case study from Barak Valley, North East India. Int. J. Clim. Change Strat. Manag. 4, 201-215.

Nath, A.J., Das, G., Das, A.K., 2009. Above ground standing biomass and carbon storage in village bamboos in North East India. Biomass Bioenergy 33, 1188-1196.

Nath et al. 2015. Ethnopedology and soil properties in bamboo (Bambusa sp.) based agroforestry system in North East India, under review.

Neeff, T., Francisco, A., 2009. Lessons from carbon markets for designing an effective REDD architecture. Clim. Policy 9, 306-315.

Olson, K.R., Al-Kaisi, M.M., Lal, R., Lowery, B., 2014. Experimental consideration, treatments, and methods in determining soil organic carbon sequestration rates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 78, 348-360.

Quiroga, R., Ricardo, A., Tracey, Li., Gonzalo, L., Andersen, L.E., 2013. A measurement of the carbon sequestration potential of Guadua angustifolia in the Carrasco National Park, Bolivia, Development Research Working Paper Series, No. 04/2013.

Shanmughavel, P., Francis, K., 1996. Above ground biomass production and nutrient distribution in growing bamboo (Bambusa bambos (L) Voss). Biomass Bioenergy 10, 383-391.

Shanmughavel, P., Peddappaiah, R.S., Muthukumar, T., 2001. Biomass production in an age series of Bambusa bambos plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 20, 113-117.

Singh, K.A., Kochhar, S.K., 2005. Effect of clump density/spacing on the productivityand nutrient uptake in Bambusa pallida and the changes in soil properties. J. Bamboo Rattan 4, 323-334.

Singh, A.N., Singh, J.S., 1999. Biomass, net primary production and impact of bamboo plantation on soil redevelopment in a dry tropical region. Forest Ecol. Manag. 119, 195-207.

Smith,, et al., 2014. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlomer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, New York, NY, USA.

Soderstrom, T.R., Ellis, R.P., 1988. The woody bamboos (Poaceae: Bambusoideae) of Sri Lanka. In: A Morphological-Anatomical study. Smithsonian Contributions of Botany, Vol. 72. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.D., pp. 30-36.

Song, X., Zhou, G., et al., 2011. Carbon sequestration by Chinese bamboo forests and their ecological benefits: assessment of potential, problems, and future challenges. Environ. Rev. 19, 418-428.

Sungkaew, S., Stapleton, C.M.A., Salamin, N., Hodkison, T.R., 2009. Non-monophyly of the woody bamboos (Bambuseae; Poaceae): a multi-gene region phylogenetic analysis of Bambusoideae. J. Plant Res. 122,95-108.

Suzuki, T., 1989. Biomass and productivity of bamboo stands. Rep. Trop. Agri. Res. Cent. 65, 94-97.

Taylor, A.H., Zisheng, Q., 1987. Culm dynamics and dry matter production of bamboos in the Wolong and Tangjiahe Giant Panda Reserves, Sichuan, China. J. Appl. Ecol. 24,419-433.

Tripathi, S.K., Singh, K.P., 1996. Culm recruitment, dry matter dynamics and carbon flux in recently harvested and mature bamboo savannas in the Indian dry tropics. Ecol. Res. 11,149-164.

Uchimura, E., 1978. Ecological studies on cultivation of tropical bamboo forest in the Philippines. Bull. For. Prod. Res. Inst. 301,79-118.

UNFCCC, 2008. Thirty-ninth Meeting of the Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board. UN Campus, Langer Eugen, Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10, 53113 Bonn, Germany.

Verwijst, T., Telenius, B., 1999. Biomass estimation procedures in short rotation forestry. Forest Ecol. Manag. 121, 137-146.

Wang, B., Wei, W.J., You, W.Z., Niu, X., Man, R.Z., 2013. Biomass and carbon stock in Moso bamboo forests in subtropical China: characteristics and implications. J. Trop. For. Sci. 25, 127-148.

Winjum, J.K., Dixon, R.C., Schroeder, P.E., 1997. Carbon storage in forest plantations and their wood products. J. World Resour. Manag. 8, 1-19.

Woodwell, G.M., Whittacker, R.H., Reiners, W.A., 1978. The biota and the world carbon budget. Science 199, 141-146.

Yen, T.M., 2015. Comparing aboveground structure and aboveground carbon storage of an age series of moso bamboo forests subjected to different management strategies. J. For. Res. 20, 1-8.

Yen, T.M., Ji, Y.J., Lee, J.S., 2010. Estimating biomass production and carbon storage for a fast-growing makino bamboo (Phyllostachys makinoi) plant based on the diameter distribution model. Forest Ecol. Manag. 260, 339-344.

Yen, T.M., Lee, J.S., 2011. Comparing aboveground carbon sequestration between moso bamboo (Phyllostachys heterocycla) and China fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) forests based on the allomatric model. Forest Ecol. Manag. 261, 995-1002.

Yen, T.M., Wang, C.T., 2013. Assessing carbon storage and carbon sequestration for natural forests, man-made forests, and bamboo forests in Taiwan. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World 20, 455-460.

Zhang, H., Zhuang, S., Sun, Bo, Ji, H., Li, C., Zhou, S., 2014. Estimation of biomass and carbon storage of moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens Mazel ex Houz.) in southern China using a diameter-age bivariate distribution model. Forestry 87, 674-668.