CARBON SEQUESTRATION ASSESSMENT IN MANGO ORCHARD AT REGIONAL FRUIT RESEARCH STATION, GANESHKHIND, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

M.R. REDDY¹, A.V. PATIL²*, D.D. SAWALE³, A.B. JADHAV⁴, A.B. GOSAVI⁵, D.H. PHALKE^6
1Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413722, Maharashtra, India
²Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413722, Maharashtra, India
³Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413722, Maharashtra, India
⁴Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413722, Maharashtra, India
⁵Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413722, Maharashtra, India
⁶Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413722, Maharashtra, India
* Corresponding Author : patilssac1978@gmail.com

Received : 03-03-2022     Accepted : 27-03-2022     Published : 30-03-2022
Volume : 14     Issue : 3       Pages : 11196 - 11198
Int J Agr Sci 14.3 (2022):11196-11198

Keywords : Mango genotypes, Soil carbon stock, Carbon sequestration
Academic Editor : S. K. Yadav, Dr S S Patil, Dr Naveena K, Dr Pratibha Gupta, P K Deshpande, Dmello Basil Rudolph, Nidagundi Pradnyarani
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413722, Maharashtra, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The present investigations were studied at Regional Fruit Research Station, Ganeshkhind, Pune and Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Pune during 2020-2021. The experiment was conducted with existing mango orchard of age 13 years grown on Inceptisol. Eight alternate bearing exotic mango genotypes were delineated for study along with conventionally cultivated soil (without mango tree). The experimental soil was medium deep (80 cm) black in colour dominated by montmorillonite clay under the order Inceptisol having Typic Haplustept. Biometric observations of mango viz., tree height, diameter at breast height, volume of tree, above ground biomass, below ground biomass, total plant biomass and plant carbon were taken uniformly. The soil organic carbon stock at two depth and carbon sequestration per tree over the period thirteen year were estimated. Among the selected eight mango genotypes Hy-13/3 recorded higher tree height (427 cm), diameter at breast height (54.61 cm), volume of tree (1000007.36 cm3), above ground biomass (680.01 kg tree-1), below ground biomass (176.80 kg tree-1) and total plant biomass (856.81 kg tree-1) which resulted into higher accumulation of plant carbon (428.40 kg tree-1) followed by Palmer and Lily genotypes. Significantly higher soil organic carbon stock was recorded with Hy-13/3 (36.24 and 34.32 Mg ha-1) followed by Lily (36.05 and 33.74 Mg ha-1) while lower soil organic carbon stock was observed in Kent (34.85 and 31.12 Mg ha-1) mango genotypes at 0-30 and 30-60 cm depths. However least soil organic carbon stock was recorded in conventionally cultivated soil (30.35 and 26.22 Mg ha-1). In case of carbon sequestration per plant after thirteen years of mango orchard, Hy-13/3 genotype was superior (90.60 and 85.80 kg tree-1) among all the genotype studied which was closely followed by Lily (90.13 and 84.35 kg tree-1) at both depths

1. Kerr R.A. (2007) Science, 315, 754–757.
2. Schrag D.P. (2007) Science, 315, 812–813.
3. Nelson D.W. and Sommer L.E. (1982) American Society Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 9, 539-579.
4. Jackson M.L. (1973) Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 69-182.
5. Allison L.E. and Moodier C.D. (1965) American Society of Agronomy, Madison, 1387-88.
6. Subbiah B.V. and Asija G.L. (1965) Current Science, 25, 259-260.
7. Watanabe E.S. and Olsen S.R. (1965) Proceedings of Soil Science Society of America, 29, 677-678.
8. Lindsay W.L. and Norvell W.A. (1978) Soil Science Society of America Journal, 42, 421-428.
9. Ravindranath N.H. and Ostwald M. (2008) Springer, 9, 237-269.
10. Chavan B.L. and Rasal G.B. (2011) Global Journal of Researches in Engineering, 11(7), 15-20.
11. Jasmine E., Wagner B.T. and Abbott G.D. (2021) Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, 600-629.
12. Chavan B. and Rasal G. (2012) Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 2, 37-49.
13. Sahu C., Nayak H.N. and Sahu S.K. (2020) Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 29(10), 8757-8766.
14. Sharma S., Rana V.S., Prasad H., Lakra J. and Sharma U. (2021) Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, Article No. 700768, 1-10
15. Ingram J.S.I. and Fernandes E.C.M. (2001) Agricultural Economics and Environment, 87, 111–117.
16. Yasin G., Nawaz M.F., Zubair M., Qadir I., Saleem A.R., Ijaz M., Gul S., Bashir M.A., Rehim S.U. and Du Z. (2021) Sustainability, 13, 1-10.