Agroforestry has a vital role in climate change mitigation and adaptation

1. Agroforestry for Climate Change
Mitigation and Adaptation
Mir Faizan Anwar
Dept. of Silviculture and Agroforestry
College of Forestry
Kerala Agricultural University

2. Table 1. Greenhouse gas concentrations
(IPCC, 2013)
Gas Pre- A.D 1750
tropospheric
conc.
Recent
tropospheric
conc.
Percentage
increase
since A.D
1750
CO2 280 ppm 395.4 ppm 41.2 %
CH4 700 ppb 1893 ppb 170.4 %
N2O 270 ppb 326 ppb 20.7 %
Greenhouse gas concentrations
Climate change
Impacts
Responses
AdaptationMitigation
Recognition of
Agroforestry
Kyoto Protocol CDMBinding targets
2

3. Climate change mitigation through land management
Avoiding or reducing
emissions
Sequestering CO2
Climate change adaptation through land management
Enhancing soil resilience
Adopting efficient land-use
systems/practices
Improving NPP
3

4. Agroforestry and Carbon storage
Carbon sequestration
Carbon Conservation
Carbon Substitution
A&R, restoration of degraded
lands- Vegetation and soil
1 ha offsets 5-10 ha of
deforestation (Dixon, 1995)
Biofuels can offset C emission
through fossil fuel burning to the
extent of 0.3- 0.7 Pg C year-1 (Lal,
2001 )
Conservation of biomass and
soil carbon in exiting forests
Conversion of biomass into
durable wood products
Table 2. Comparison of different pillars of 3 m length designed for the
same load of 20 kN (Burschel and Kursten et al., 1992)
Materials Primary energy input for
production (kWh)
Resulting CO2
emissions (kg)
Wood 60 15
Steel 561 126
Concrete 221 54
Brick 108 26
4

5. Reduction in soil C pool by 1 Pg = atmospheric enrichment of CO2 by 0.47 ppv (Lal, 2007)
Baitjes et al. , 1996
Above ground (Vegetation) Carbon
sequestration
Belowground (Soil) Carbon
sequestration
2300 Pg
610 Pg
C sequestration
5

6. (Nair, 2012)
Carbon sequestration in relation to
Soil aggregates
MRT= 1-2 years
(approx.)
MRT= 25 years
(approx.)
MRT= 100- 1000
years (approx.)
Macro
Micro
Slit
+
Clay
Active
Passive
Slow
6

7. Soil Fraction Forest Coconut HGL HGS Rubber Rice-
paddy
250 μm–2000 μm 58.52 28.72 34.66 37.96 45.42 17.84
53 μm–250μm 61.74 32.8 37.66 40.04 39.62 16.39
<53 μm 56.3 30.2 35.86 41.32 34.12 21.36
Total 176.56 91.72 108.18 119.32 119.16 55.59
Table 3. Total soil organic carbon ( Mg ha-1) in various soil aggregate fractions in land-use
systems
(Saha et al. 2010)
Figure 1. Total soil organic carbon (SOC) content in the
whole soil up to 1 m depth in six different land-use systems
7

8. Tillage
Residue management and
nutrient cycling
Manure use and grazing
Cropping systems and Plant
diversity
Land Management practices in AF viz-a- viz Carbon Sequestration
Conventional to no-till= 0.57 Mg Cha-1yr-1
(Rees, 2005)
“Soil Carbon
Dilemma”
(Janzen, 2006)
8

9. Tropical alley cropping
Temperate alley cropping
Shaded coffee system
Homegarden
Riparian buffers
Windbreaks
Live fence
Grazing system
Browsing system
RM(NC), PD/PSM, EC, RT
RT, EC, RM/NC
PD/PSM, RM (NC), EC
PD, PSM, NC, EC, RT
EC, NC, RM
EC, NC, RM
EC, PD
PSM, RT
RT, EC, NC
EC-erosion control
NC-nutrient
cycling
PD- plant diversity
PSM-plant- species
mixture
RM-residue
management
RT- reduced tillage
Alley cropping
Multistrata
Systems
Protective systems
Silvopasture
Agroforestry System/practice Major Management Factors
(Nair, 2012)
Woodlots Fodder banks EC, NC
9

10. Alley cropping
o Gliricidia sepium+ maize; 10 years old in Malawi, humid and sub- humid tropics = 123-149
(Mg ha-1 yr-1)- Makumba (2006)
o Erythrina poeppigiana + maize+ beans; 19 years old Costa Rica; humid and subhumid lowland tropics
= 162 (Mg ha-1 yr-1) Oelbermann et al. (2006)
o L. leucocephala+ maize Nigeria, humid low land tropics = 13.6((Mg ha-1 yr-1)- Lal (2005)
Multistrata systems
o Shaded coffee system in a 13 year old (AG and BG) Togo, tropical humid = 6.31 (Mg ha-1 yr-1) Dossa et al.
(2008)
o Homegarden Sumatra, Indonesia; 8.00 (Mg ha-1 yr-1)in 13 years old (AG and BG) - Roshetko et al. (2002).
o Homegarden Kerala, India= 101-126 Mg ha-1 (AG and BW)- Saha et al. (2009)
Figure 3. Global land area under AFS (Nair, 2009)
10

11. Protective systems
o Riparian buffer strips U.S.A; temperate 1.5 Tg C year-1 for 0.8 million km by 30m (AG and BG)-
Montagnini and Nair (2004)
oWindbreaks U.S.A; temperate 4.0 Tg C year-1 (AG and BG )- Montagini and Nair (2004)
oWindbreaks and riparian buffers U.S.A; temperate 2..9 Tg C year-1 for 4.25 million ha (potential)- (AG and BG)
USDA (2011)
oLive fence; A, nilotica, A senegal, Z. mauritiana Mali, Tropics 24 Mg ha-1 for an 8- year old (AG and BG)
Takimoto et al. (2008)
Silvopature
o Browsing system Kerala, India= 6.55 Mg ha-1 yr -1 (Kumar et al.,1998)
o Grazing system Southern USA 350- 540 Mg ha-1 (Shreshtha and Alavalapati, 2004)
Woodlots
oFodder bank; Gliricidia sepium, Pterocarpus lucens, P. erinaceus Mali, semi arid tropics 0.29 Mg Cha-1 yr -1
(Takimoto et al.,2008)
oFodder bank; Acacia auruculiformis Kerala 180 Mg Cha-1 (Kumar et al.,1998)
11

12. Land use
systems
Carbon
stock
(above
ground)
(Mg C
ha–1 )
Carbon
stock
(below
ground)
(Mg C
ha–1 )
Total
Plant
carbon
stock
(Mg C
ha–1)
Acacia 5.03 0.98 6.02
Neem 2.92 0.71 3.64
Cenchrus
ciliaris
2.44 1.82 4.26
Cenchrus
setegerus
1.04 0.71 1.74
Acacia +
C. ciliaris
5.08 1.75 6.82
Acacia+
C. setegerus
4.91 1.24 6.15
Neem+
C. Ciliaris
3.53 1.39 4.91
Neem +
C. Setegerus
3.65 1.22 4.87
Table 4. Carbon stocks (aboveground)in selected land
use systems in Kutch, India
Figure 4. Soil organic carbon stock (Mg C ha–1) in various
land-use systems at different soil depths in Kachchh, India
Shamsudheen et al., 2014
Carbon sequestration in Silvipastoral system
12

13. References:
A. Takimoto et al. (2008)
B. Takimoto et al. (2008)
C. Peichl et al. (2006)
D. Takimoto et al. (2008)
E. Swamy and Puri (2005)
F. Sharrow and Ismail
(2004)
G. Kaur et al. (2002)
H. Kumart et al. (1998)
I. Beer et al. (1990)
J. Duguma et al. (2001
K. Parrotta (1999)
L. Dossaet et al. (2008)
M. Kumar et al. (1998)
N. Roshetko et al. (2002
O. Parrotta (1999)
Figure 5. Mean vegetation carbon sequestration
potential (Mg ha-1 yr-1) of agroforestry systems
13

14. Agroforestry system Location Soil C
(Mg ha-1)
Reference
Mixed stands, Eucalyptus + Casuarina, Casuarina +
Leucaena, and Eucalyptus + Leucaena
Puerto Rico 61.9,
56.6, and 61.7
Parrotta (1999)
Agroforest (Pseudotsuga menziesii + Trifolium
subterraneum)
W Oregon, USA 95.89 Sharrow and Ismail
(2004)
Agrisilviculture (Gmelina arborea +
eight field crops)
Chhattisgarh, Central
India
27.4 Swamy and Puri (2005)
Tree-based intercropping: hybrid poplar +
Hordeum vulgare
Ontario, Canada 78.5 Peichl et al. (2005)
Silvopastoral system: Acacia mangium +
Arachis pintoi
Pocora, Atlantic
coast, Costa Rica
173 Amezquita et al. (2005)
Silvopastoral system: Brachiaria
brizantha + Cordia alliodora +
Guazuma ulmifolia
Esparza, Pacific
coast, Costa Rica
132 Amezquita et al. (2005)
Alley cropping: hybrid poplar + wheat,
soybeans (Glycine max.), and maize rotation
S. Canada 1.25 Lal (2005)
Table 5. Soil sequestration potential of agroforestry systems.
14

15. Agroforestry system Location Soil C
(Mg ha-1)
Reference
Shaded coffee, Coffea canephora var.
robusta + Albizia adianthifolia
SW Togo 97.27 Dossa et al. (2008)
Live fence (Acacia nilotica, A. senegal,
Bauhinia rufescens, Lawsonia inermis, and
Ziziphus mauritiana)
Segou, Mali 24 Takimoto et al. (2008)
Fodder bank (Gliricidia sepium,
Pterocarpus lucens, and P. erinaceus
Segou, Mali 33.4 Takimoto et al. (2008)
Tree-based pastures: slash pine (Pinus
elliottii) + bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum)
Florida, USA 6.9 to
24.2
Haile et al. (2008)
Gliricidia sepium + maize (Zea mays) Zomba,
Malawi
123 Makumba et al. (2007)
Continued,..
15

16. Potential Pathways
Grazing land
Grazing and pasture- 3.4 billion ha
Savannas- 1/6 th of global land surface
30% of primary production
Cerado region of Brazil-200 million ha (Nair, 2012)
Drylands
40% global land area
Great green wall of Africa
 Three shelter forest china
(Tonnuci et al., 2011)
CSP: 12 to 228 Mg ha−1 [median value of 95 Mg ha −1]
Area : 1.2 billion
1.9 Pg of carbon over 50 years
(Nair, 2009)
17,000 Mg C y-1 by 2040 with improvement of current management practices
 586,000 Mg C y-1 by 2040 with conversion of 630 million ha of unproductive
croplands and grasslands could be converted to agroforestry
(Jose, 2009 )
India
40.48% of total geographical area
70 m ha under wastelands
16

17. Figure 6. Carbon sequestration potential of different
land use and management options (IPCC, 2000)
Figure 7. C stocks at maturity in different ecosystems of
the humid tropics. (Verchot et al., 2011)
17

18. Causes of N2O reduction N fertilizer saved (kgha-1) N2O emission reduction (N2O
kg ha-1)
10% less land area 8 0.1
N cycling in tree- based
intercropping
7 0.09
Reduction in N leaching 20 0.5
Total N2O reduction potential 0.69
Table 6. The potential for annual N2O reduction eight years after the establishment of trees, based on N
cycling budget developed for a fast growing poplar- based intercropping system, Ontario, Canada.
Thevasthasan et al., 2004
Agroforestry and other non- CO2 GHGs
Silvopasture: increased nutrient efficiency and reduced N fertilizer inputs- reduction in CH4 and
N2O emissions (Allen et al., 2009 )
18

19. Land use system N2O
(µg N m–2
h-1 )
CH4
(µg N m–2
h-1
High input cropping 31.2 15.2
Low input cropping 15.6 -17.5
Cassava/ Imperata 7.1 -14.8
Multistrata
agroforestry
5.8 -23.3
Rubber agroforest 3.3 -27.5
Forest 5.0 -31.0
Mutuo et al., 2005
Average fluxes of N2O and CH4 in cropping systems, agroforestry practices and forests in the
Peruvian Amazon and lowland humid tropics in Sumatra, Indonesia
19
Land use system
NO2andCH4Flux
Figure 8. Fluxes of N2O and CH4
Table 7. Fluxes of N2O and CH4

20. Agriculture- Vulnerable
Adaptation
Figure. Yield projection (IPCC, 2013)
PovertyClimate change
20

21. Season 1
(1001 mm)
Season 2
(1017 mm)
Season 3
(551 mm)
Season 4
(962 mm)
Season 5
(522 mm)
Maize IF Maize IF Maize IF Maize IF Maize IF
Grain yield 990 1100 1300 2400 600 1850 1100 2300 500 1180
RUE 0.99 1.10 1.28 2.36 1.09 3.36 1.14 2.39 0.96 2.26
Table 8. Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) and rainfall use efficiency (RUE) of maize in continuous maize and
improved fallow (Sesbania sesban) systems in Malawi
Figure 9. Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) of maize in continuous
maize and improved fallow
(Mbow et al., 2013 )
21

22. Figure 10. Effect of improved fallow on soil erosion in
the long rains in Kenya
Figure 11. Change in soil water stocks (0–60 cm depth) in
a western Kenyan soil under continuous maize, natural
fallow and improved fallow systems
Verchot et al., 2007
22
Overall water increase (mm)Soil loss(kg ha-1)
Tc- Tephrosia candida, Cg- Crotolaria grahamiana, Cm- continuous maize

23. Decrease in farm productivity, livestock
weight loss, loss of harvestable products and
decreased milk production
Pre project observations
Increase in milk production during the dry season by upto
70% as a result of establishing pastures with Brachiaria
brizantha Improved management practice of grasslands
Lowered grazing pressure
Increased livestock carrying capacity
Trees served multiple functions
Pre project observations
Initiative: payment for
ecological services (PES)
program through GEF-
silvopastoral
Benefits observed from B. brizantha Landowner
Observation (%)
Reduced erosion 96
Greater drought resistance 100
Increased forage production during
dry season
98
Increased number of livestock per
unit area
100
Increased milk production 92
Improved calf health 96
Climate change adaptation using agroforestry practices: a case study from Costa Rica
(Oelbermann et al., 2011)
Agroforestry as Adaptation Strategy
under Climate Change in Mwanga
District, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
(Charles et al., 2013 )
Climate change adaptation in Indian hot
regions
(Rao et al., 2011)
23

24.  Additionality
 Baseline Data
 Emission reductions = (Activity data × Emission factors) – Reference emissions
area of land changed carbon stock change emissions without the project
 MRV- Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying
Kyoto mechanisms
Emission Trading
Clean Development
Mechanism
Joint Implementation
Agroforestry and CDM
24

25. Figure 12 . Factors determining the economic
potential of agroforestry systems to sequester
carbon
Carbon sequestration rate
Carbon price
Carbon value
MRV and other transactions
Added costs for sequestering carbon
Direct profit from carbon
Total profit from seq activity
Income from carbon[higher yield,
additional products]
×
=
=
-
-
+
=
Luedling et al., 2009
25

26. Tree density
Time averaged carbon
stocks
Products
Smallholder AFS Tree density Time averaged C stock ( Mg
ha-1)
Agroforests high 175 (60 years)
Tree gardens; plantations high Forest 175 (60 yrs)
HG 140 (60yrs)
Rubber 100 (30yrs)
Coffee 80 (25yrs)
Plantations high Timber 150 (40yrs)
Rubber 95 (25yrs)
Oil Palm 90 (20yrs)
Coffee 50 (25yrs)
Rows or scattered trees low to medium Low
livestock systems (silvopastoral) low to medium Low
Community forests high 175 (60 years)
Improved fallows low tree density during
development stage
low
Table 9. Categories of smallholder AFS as per CDM perspective
(Roshetko et al., 2002)
Smallholder agroforestry and CDM
26
Additionality
Permanence
Leakages
Challenges

27. Murthy et al., 2013
Villages Area under
cropland (ha)
Total
biomass (Mg
ha-1)
Total carbon
stocks
(MgCha-1)
Total carbon
stocks in
village
(MgCha-1)
Karnataka
Sirsimakki 72.00 9.47 4.73 340.56
Hallusange 198.80 1.62 0.81 161.03
Hegle 240.69 3.96 1.98 476.57
Lukkeri 58.00 8.51 4.25 246.57
Tamil Nadu
Kempanaickenaplayam 501.00 13.17 6.59 3301.59
Sellipalayam 389.00 10.15 5.07 1972.23
Thalakudi 77.00 3.51 1.76 135.52
Valadi 183.00 1.33 0.66 120.78
Total 1719.49 6754.77
Table 10.Total biomass and carbon stocks in AFS (excluding forest and plantation)
C Sequestration potential- Local level
27

28. Table 11. Establishment costs and carbon stored under tree plantations
Agroforestry model Land area (ha) Initial cost (Rs.
ha-1)
Carbon stored
(Mg ha-)
Carbon flow(Mg C)
Poplar block planting 9,005 13,156 66 (115) 597,33 (1,035,575)
Polar bund planting 10,693 6,774 37 (64) 395,641 (684,352)
Eucalyptus bund planting 15,194 3,120 42 (56) 638,148 (85,864)
Total 34,892 6,830 46.67 (73.68) 1,628,119 (2,570,791)
Table 12. Annual incremental carbon and likely
benefits
Annual
incremental
Carbon (Mg C)
Annual incremental
carbon per ha (Mg
C)
Likely carbon
benefits (Rs./ha/yr)
19,811 (34,489) 2.20 (3.83) 1,857 (3,233)
13,152 (22,776) 1.23 (2.13) 1,038 (1,798)
21,272 (28,413) 140 (1.87) 1,182 (1,578)
18,406 (28,254) 1.55 (246) 1,308 (2,076)
Table 13. Cost effectiveness indicators
Agroforestry
model
Net
present
value
Rs Mg-1 C
IRR
without
carbon
benefits
(%)
IRR with
carbon
benefits
(%)
Poplar block
planting
12,973 64.1 73.7
Polar bund
planting
9,387 68.1 80.3
Eucalyptus bund
planting
8,044 65.3 79.8
Carbon seq. in Agroforestry under CDM in Punjab (Gera et al., 2011)
28

29. Reducing emissions from deforestation and
degradation
Conservation of forest carbon stocks
Sustainable management of forests
Enhancement of carbon stocks
C substitution
C conservation
Agroforestry REDD+
Agroforestry and REDD +
29

30. Figure 14. Carbon stock and economic
profitability
(White and Minang, 2011)
30

31.  Synergy between mitigation and adaptation.
 High carbon stock rural development.
 Trade-offs between C sequestration and the emission of other GHGs to the atmosphere will
determine the success.
 Better information required on the role of agroforestry in buffering against disasters
 Standard estimation methodologies.
 Biological pest control
 Impact of climate change on agroforestry
Conclusion
Way ahead
31

32. Thank You
32