Floristic Diversity and Carbon Sequestration in Shade-Grown Coffee Agroforestry Systems of Chikkamagaluru, Western Ghats
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/aivp.1303.18975Keywords:
Agroforestry, Floristic Diversity, Aboveground Biomass, Carbon Stock, Coffee PlantationsAbstract
Coffee-based agroforestry systems offer a synergistic blend of ecological and economic benefits, especially in biodiversity-rich regions like the Western Ghats of India. This study, conducted at the Central Coffee Research Institute (CCRI), Balehonnuru, Chikkamagaluru district, Karnataka, to assess the floristic diversity, aboveground biomass and carbon storage potential in coffee-based agroforestry systems. A total of 115 tree species were identified, indicating high floristic diversity, with species richness ranging from 59 to 80 across the blocks. Total enumeration of tree species above 30 cm GBH was performed across four blocks (A–D), encompassing a total area of 90.8 ha. Species richness varied significantly, with Block D exhibiting the highest diversity (80 species) and Block B the lowest (59 species). The Shannon–Wiener diversity index (Hʹ) ranged from 2.65 (Block B) to 3.44 (Block D), while Simpson’s index (D) confirmed the highest heterogeneity in Block D (D = 0.36). Tree density ranged from 93.5 to 116.0 stems ha⁻¹, with Block A showing the highest basal area (34.04 m² ha⁻¹) and Block C the lowest (20.25 m² ha⁻¹). Aboveground biomass varied from 91.4 t ha⁻¹ (Block C) to 113.9 t ha⁻¹ (Block A), translating into carbon stocks of 45.7 to 57.0 Mg ha⁻¹, respectively. Notably, although Block D exhibited the highest species diversity, it stored only 46.0 Mg ha⁻¹ of carbon, indicating a potential trade-off between biodiversity and biomass. Importance Value Index (IVI) analysis revealed Grevillea robusta as the most dominant species (IVI = 35.80), followed by Ficus virens (IVI = 27.43), reflecting both structural and ecological significance. These findings highlight the multi functionality of coffee agroforestry systems, where structurally mature stands like Block A contribute significantly to carbon sequestration, and biodiverse stands like Block D bolster ecological resilience. This dual role emphasizes the importance of integrated management approaches that balance productivity with biodiversity conservation in agroforestry landscapes.
References
Bhagwat, S. A., Willis, K. J., Birks, H. J. B., & Whittaker, R. J. (2008). Agroforestry: A refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(5), 261–267.
Bhagwat, S. A., Willis, K. J., Birks, H. J. B., & Whittaker, R. J. (2005). Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(5), 261–262.
Brown, S. (1997). Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. FAO Forestry Paper 134.
Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., et al. (2005). Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia, 145(1), 87–99.
IPCC. (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use.
IUCN (2023). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2023-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org
Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agroforestry Systems, 76(1), 1–10.
Lugo, A. E. (2004). The outcome of alien tree invasions in Puerto Rico. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(5), 265–273.
Mace, G. M., Collar, N. J., Gaston, K. J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Akçakaya, H. R., Leader-Williams, N & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2008). Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conservation Biology, 22(6), 1424–1442.
Magurran, A. E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Montagnini, F., & Nair, P. K. R. (2004). Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems, 61(1–3), 281–295.
Nair, P. K. R. (1993). An Introduction to Agroforestry. Springer Science & Business Media.
Parrotta, J. A. (1999). Productivity, nutrient cycling, and succession in single- and mixed-species plantations of Casuarina equisetifolia, Eucalyptus robusta, and Leucaena leucocephala in Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management, 124(1), 45–77.
Perfecto, I., Rice, R. A., Greenberg, R., & Van der Voort, M. E. (1996). Shade coffee: A disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience, 46(8), 598–608.
Poorter, L., van der Sande, M. T., Arets, E. J. M. M., et al. (2015). Diversity enhances carbon storage in tropical forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 24(11), 1314–1328.
Rodrigues, A. S., Pilgrim, J. D., Lamoreux, J. F., Hoffmann, M. & Brooks, T. M. (2006). The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(2), 71–76.
Shanahan, M., So, S., Compton, S. G., & Corlett, R. (2001). Fig-eating by vertebrate frugivores: a global review. Biological Reviews, 76(4), 529–572.
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Bhagwat, S. A., Buchori, D., Faust, H., Hertel, D., & Wanger, T. C. (2011). Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes – A review. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 619–629. van der Sande, M. T., Poorter, L., Kooistra, L., et al. (2017). Biodiversity in species, traits, and structure determines carbon stocks and uptake in tropical forests. Biotropica, 49(5), 593–603. 113.9 a/h 104.4 ealu 91.4 92.1 von bar cd 57.0 an 52.2 mass 45.7 46.0 oBi A B C D Blocks of coffee-based agroforestry Biomass/ha Carbon stock/ha
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Somashekhargouda Patil, Rudragouda, C., J. S. Nagaraja, Senthilkumar, M., Sathish, B. N., Anwar Nadaf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
