Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T01:32:03.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carbon stocks in Indonesian homegarden systems: Can smallholder systems be targeted for increased carbon storage?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

James M. Roshetko ,
Matt Delaney ,
Kurniatun Hairiah  and
Pratiknyo Purnomosidhi
James M. Roshetko*
Affiliation:
Tree Domestication and Training Specialist, Winrock International and International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), PO Box 161, Bogor, 16001, Indonesia
Matt Delaney
Affiliation:
Carbon Forester, Winrock International, 38 Winrock Road, Morrilton, Arkansas. 72110, USA
Kurniatun Hairiah
Affiliation:
Lecturer, Soil Science Department, Brawijaya University, Jl. Veteran, Malang, 65145, Indonesia
Pratiknyo Purnomosidhi
Affiliation:
Associate Research Officer, ICRAF, PO Box 161, Bogor. 16001, Indonesia.
*
J.M. Roshetko ([email protected])
Get access

Abstract

Homegardens are a common smallholder agroforestry system in Indonesia and throughout the tropics. These speciesrich, tree-based systems produce non-wood and wood products for both home use and market sale. Due to their high biomass, these systems simultaneously offer potential for carbon (C) storage. While small size limits the amount of C stored by individual smallholder agroforestry systems, on a per area basis these systems can store as much C as some secondary forests. In aggregate, smallholder homegarden agroforestry systems can contribute significantly to a region's carbon budget while simultaneously enhancing smallholder livelihoods. A field study in Lampung, Indonesia indicates that homegardens with an average age of 13 years store 35.3 Mg C ha−1 in their above-ground biomass, which is on par with the C stocks reported for similar-aged secondary forests in the same area. However, to compare accurately the C stocks of different land-use systems a scale is required that adjusts C stocks of the systems' ages and rotation lengths to a common base. The time-averaged C stock, which is half the C stock at the maximum rotation length, serves this purpose. Our projections reveal that, depending on management options, the time-averaged above-ground C stocks of homegarden systems could vary from 30 to 123 Mg C ha−1. These projected timeaveraged above-ground C stocks of homegardens are substantially higher than those of Imperata-cassava systems (2.2 Mg C ha−1), which is an extensive vegetation type in the study area. If homegarden systems and other smallholder tree-based systems were to expand in currently degraded and underutilized lands, such as Imperata grasslands, the C sequestration potential would be about 80 Mg C ha−1, with considerable variation depending on species composition and management practices. Clear opportunity exists to induce management that leads to higher C stocks at the systems level. However, incentive mechanisms are needed that assure smallholders will benefit from selecting management practices that favor higher C stocks.

Keywords

agroforestryagroforestationcarbon sequestrationcertified emissions reductions (CERs)clean development mechanism (CDM)climate changegreenhouse gasImperata grasslandsland rehabilitationtree farming
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 138 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Brown, S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. FAO Forestry Paper 134. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
2.Cairns, M., Brown, S., Helme, E.H., and Baumgardner, G.A.. 1997. Root biomass allocation in the world's upland forests. Oeclogia 111(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.CIFOR. 2001. A Shared Research Agenda for Landuse, Landuse Change, Forestry and the Clean Development Mechanism. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
4.Detwiler, R.P. 1986. Land use change and the global carbon cycle: the role of tropical soils. Biogeochemistry 2:67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Garrity, D.P., Soekardi, M., van Noordwijk, M., de la Cruz, R., Pathak, P.S., Gunasena, H.P.M., van So, N., Huijun, G., and Majid, N.M.. 1997. The imperata grassland of tropical Asia: Area, distribution and typology. In Garrity, D.P. (ed.). Agroforestry Innovations for Imperata Grasslands Rehabilitaion. Agroforestry Systems, Special Issue 36:3–29.Google Scholar
6.Gintings, A.N., Anwar, C., Samsudin, I., Siregar, M.E., Punama, B.M., and Kasirin, . 1996. Agroforestry characterization in Pakuan Ratu and Tulang Bawang Tengah, North Lampung District, Lampung. In van Noordwijk, M., Tomich, T., Garrity, D., and Fagi, A. (ads.). Proceedings of a Workshop: Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Research in Indonesia, 6–9 June 1995, Bogor. ASB-Indonesia Repon, Number 6. ASB-Indonesia and International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Bogor, Indonesia, p. 59–68.Google Scholar
7.Hairiah, K. 1997. Final Report: Carbon Stock in Various Land-Use Systems in Lampung and Jambi. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
8.Hairiah, K., van Noordwijk, M., and Palm, C.. 1999. Methods for sampling above- and below-ground organic pools. In Murdiyarso, D., van Noordwijk, M., and Suyamto, D.A. (eds.). Modelling Global Change Impacts on the Soil Environment. ICSEA Report No. 6/GCTE Working Document No. 28. Southeast Asian Regional Centre for Tropical Biology (BIOTROP)—Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems (GCTE) / Impacts Centre for Southeast Asia (IC-SEA), Bogor. p. 46–77.Google Scholar
9.ICRAF. 2000. Methods to Reward the Upland Poor for the Environmental Services they Provide to Society: Developing an Asian Environmental Services Facility. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
10.Krol, M. 1992. Changing homegardens in upland Java: the effects of changing economic conditions on the use of Javanese homegardens – a case study in two villages in Gunung Kidul district, Java, Indonesia. FONC Project Communication No. 4. Forestry/ Nature Conservation Project (FONC), Faculty of Forestry, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.Google Scholar
11.Leaving, P., and de Foresta, H.. 1991. Economic Plants of Indonesia: a Latin, Indonesia, French and English dictionary of 728 Species. L'Institut Français de Recherche Scientifique pour le Development en Cooperation (ORSTOM), Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO), and Southeast Asian Regional Centre for Tropical Biology (BIOTROP), Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
12.MacDicken, K.G. 1997. A Guide to Monitoring Carbon Storage in Forestry and Agroforestry Projects. Winrock International, Arlington, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
13.Mackey, M. 1996. Acacia mangium: an Important Multipurpose Tree for the Tropic Lowlands. Factsheet 96–03. FACT Net. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA.Google Scholar
14.Michon, G., and Mary, F.. 1994. Conversion of traditional village gardens and new economic strategies of rural households in the area of Bogor, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 25:31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.O'Connell, A.M., and Sankaran, K.V.. 1997. Organic matter accretion, decomposition and mineralization. In Sadanandan Nambiar, E.K. and Brown, A.G. (eds.). Management of Soils, Nutrients and Water in Tropical Plantation Forests. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Monograph No. 43. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Canberra. Australia.Google Scholar
16.Palm, C., Hairiah, K., and van Noordwijk, M.. 1994. Methods for sampling above and below ground organic pools for ASB sites. In: Murdiyarso, D., Hairiah, K., and van Noordwijk, M. (eds.). Modeling and Measuring Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and Greenhouse Gas Emissions after Forest Conversion. Proceedings of Workshop/ Training Course. 8–15 08, 1994, Bogor/Muara Tebo, Indonesia. ASB-Indonesia Publication No. 1. p. 57–71.Google Scholar
17.Palm, C., Woomer, P.L., Alegre, J., Arevalo, L., Castilla, C., Cordeiro, D.G., Feigl, B., Hairiah, K., Kotto-Same, J., Mendes, A., Moukam, A., Murdiyarso, D., Njomgaang, R., Parton, W.J., Riese, A., Rodrigues, V., Sitompul, S.M., and van Noordwijk, M.. 1999. Carbon sequestration and trace gas emissions in slash-and-burn and alternative land-uses in the humid tropics. ASB Climate Change Working Group, Final Report Phase II. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
18.Pinyopusarerk, K. 1996. Acacia ariculiformis: A Multipurpose Tropical Wattle. Factsheet 96–05. FACT Net, Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA.Google Scholar
19.Roshetko, J.M., and Purnomosidhi, P.. 1998. Second Field Report-Expanding Options for Smallholder Tree Production in North Lampung. 21–2410. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry – Winrock International, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
20.Sampson, R.N., and Scholes, R.J.. 2000. Additional human-induced activities. In Watson, B., Noble, I., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.R., Verardo, D.J., and Dokken, D.J. (eds.). Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry. A special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
21.Sanchez, P.A. 1994. Alternatives to slash and burn: A pragmatic approach for mitigating tropical deforestation. In Anderson, J.R. (ed.). Agricultural Technology, Political Issues for the International Community. Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI), Wallingford. UK. p. 451–480.Google Scholar
22.Schimel, D., Enting, I.G., Heimann, M., Wigley, T.M.L., Rayneud, D., Alves, D., and Seigenthaler, U.. 1995. CO2 and the carbon cycle. In Houghton, J.T., Filho, L.G. Meira, Bruce, J., Lee, H., Callander, B.A., Haites, E., Harris, N., and Maskell, K. (eds.). Climate Changes 1994 Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
23.Schlamadinger, B., and Karjalainen, T.. 2000. Afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (ARD) activities. In Watson, B., Noble, I., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.R., Verardo, D.J., and Dokken, D.J. (eds.). Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry. A special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
24.Schroeder, P. 1994. Carbon storage benefits of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 27:89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Suparman, . 2000. Explanation of the Balai Benih Induk dan Hortikulura (BBI) and training objectives. Presentation at the Timber and Fruit Tree Propagation training courses, 4–809, Balai Benih Induk dan Hortikultura (Horticultural Seed Center), Metro, Lampung, Sumatra, Indonesia.Google Scholar
26.Tomich, T.P., Kuusipalo, J., Metz, K., and Byron, N.. 1997. Imperata economics and policy. In Garrity, D.P. (ed.). Agroforestry Innovations for Imperata Grasslands Rehabilitation. Agroforestry Systems, Special Issue 36:233–261.Google Scholar
27.Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Budidarsono, S., Gillison, A., Kusumanto, T., Murdiyarso, D., Stolle, F., and Fagi, A.M. (eds.). 1998. Alternatives to Slash-and-Bum in Indonesia, Summary Report and Synthesis of Phase II, ASB-Indonesia Report No. 8. Alternatives to Slash and Burn Project (ASB-Indonesia) and International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), Bogor, Indonesia, p. 139.Google Scholar
28.van Noordwijk, M., and Pumomosidhi, P.. 1995. Root architecture in relation to tree-soil-crop interactions and shoot pruning in agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 30:161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.van Noordwijk, M., Lusiana, B., Suyanto, , and Tomich, T.P.. 1996. Soil and other constraints to agricultural production with or without trees in the North Lampung benchmark area of the Alternatives to Slash and Burn project. Agrivita 19(4): 136–145.Google Scholar
30.Walkley, A., and Black, I.A.. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chronic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37:29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., and Moss, R.H.. 1996. Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change. Scientific-Technical Analyses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
32.Yuliyanti, . 2000. Analisis pemasaran kayu di Propinsi Lampung (Timber market analysis in Lampung Province). Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar