Search

The bioeconomic potential of monopodial and sympodial bamboos is not well understood. Therefore, Net primary productivity (NPP), total biomass, carbon (C) stock, soil organic carbon (SOC), CO 2 sequestration, and bioenergy potential were studied in a sympodial Chimonocalamus griffithianus and a monopodial Phyllostachys mannii bamboo in Meghalaya, north-eastern India. P. mannii stand with mean culm density 16,877 ha−1, height 14.8 m and diameter 4.4 cm, accumulated 107.56 Mg ha−1 biomass with a total NPP of 18.83 t ha−1yr−1. It stored 50.67 Mg C ha−1 in biomass, 77.28 Mg C ha−1 in soil, and had sequestration potential of 469.58 t CO 2 ha−1. C. griffithianus stand with mean clump density 1065 ha−1, mean culm density 52,185 ha−1, height 7.19 m and diameter 3.04 cm, accumulated 67.08 Mg ha−1 biomass with a total NPP of 15.30 t ha−1 yr−1. It stored 31.30 Mg C ha−1 in biomass, 83.25 Mg C ha−1 in soil, and had sequestration potential of 420.40 t CO 2 ha−1. Matured culms (>2–3 years old) of P. manni and C. griffithianus produced 143.08–166.65 MW h and 87.13–101.48 MW h of energy per ha, respectively. Although landuse history and site characteristics of the two stands were not 100 % identical, significantly greater (p < 0.05) standing biomass, NPP, growth rate, carbon sequestration potential, and energy values of P. mannii than C. griffithianus makes the monopodial bamboo a better choice for energy plantation and climate change mitigation tool than the sympodial. • Monopodial bamboo, Phyllostachys mannii , surpasses sympodial Chimonocalamus griffithianus in bioeconomic potential. • P. mannii exhibits higher biomass, NPP, carbon sequestration, and energy values. • Comparative analysis reveals the superior suitability of monopodial bamboo for energy plantations. • Results provide valuable insights for sustainable development in India's biobased economy. • Study contributes to understanding the role of bamboos in mitigating climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In this study we analyze and compare the climate impacts from the recovery, transport and combustion of forest residues (harvest slash and stumps), versus the climate impacts that would have occurred if the residues were left in the forest and fossil fuels used instead. We use cumulative radiative forcing (CRF) as an indicator of climate impacts, and we explicitly consider the temporal dynamics of atmospheric carbon dioxide and biomass decomposition. Over a 240-year period, we find that CRF is significantly reduced when forest residues are used instead of fossil fuels. The type of fossil fuel replaced is important, with coal replacement giving the greatest CRF reduction. Replacing oil and fossil gas also gives long-term CRF reduction, although CRF is positive during the first 10–25 years when these fuels are replaced. Biomass productivity is also important, with more productive forests giving greater CRF reduction per hectare. The decay rate for biomass left in the forest is found to be less significant. Fossil energy inputs for biomass recovery and transport have very little impact on CRF. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]