e-ISSN :

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE 2583-1062

RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
AND SCIENCE (IJPREMS) Impact
Factor :
www.ijprems.com
Vol. 03, Issue 04, May 2023, pp : 25-32 5.725
[email protected]

SEQUESTERED STANDING CARBON STOCK IN SELECTIVE TREE

SPECIES GROWN IN NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA INDIA
Hitesh Chauvan1, Jujhaar Singh Saini2, Nikhil Gedam3
1,2,3
Civil Engineering Department- RTMNU, K.D.K. College Of Engineering, Nagpur India
ABSTRACT
The management influence on the potential for carbon sequestration of diverse land use types is little understood at the
national level. Carbon sequestration, a booming area of research, is a key component of a complete plan for
controlling carbon emissions to reduce rising CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. According to estimates, terrestrial
ecosystems might store a significant quantity of carbon during the next 50 years. The impact of this sequestration may
help buy time for other technologies to become operational by postponing the need for more extreme reductions in
world emissions. There is considerable interest in scientific breakthroughs that might be utilized to increase soil
carbon sequestration. There are new plans to initiate research that may assist decrease rising CO2 emissions through
particular efforts to sequester CO2. Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems is defined as the net removal of
CO2 from the atmosphere into long-lived carbon storage. This can comprise live biomass located above ground (such
as trees), biomass-derived wood products with a long useful life (such as timber), living biomass found in soils (such
as roots and microorganisms), or refractory organic and inorganic carbon in deeper subsurface ecosystems. The
necessity to boost photosynthetic carbon fixation alone must be emphasized. Long-lasting pools must have this carbon
fixed in them. Thus, one may not be increasing carbon sequestration but rather changing the magnitude of fluxes in the
carbon cycle. Planting more trees has the potential to boost the ability of forests to store carbon. Our study found that
the establishment of protected natural vegetation is the best practise of restoration because it provides a cost-effective
mechanism that prevents animals from grazing freely and human interferencecin nature. We calculated DBH of 200
trees within the 60,703 m2 of campus area within 3 weeks,where we estimated total campus carbon capture to be
601kg.
Keywords -carbon sequestration, biomass, carbon cycle, ecosystems, photosynthetic carbon.
1. INTRODUCTION
Carbon sequestration is the process of capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in long-term
reservoirs, such as underground geological formations, forests, and oceans. This is done to reduce the amount of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is a major contributor to climate change. Carbon sequestration can be
accomplished through various methods, such as afforestation (planting trees), soil carbon sequestration, ocean
fertilization, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. These methods have the potential to remove
significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and help mitigate climate change.Carbon sequestration is
important because it helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow the rate of global warming. The excessive
accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun and causes the Earth's temperature to rise,
leading to a wide range of negative impacts such as sea level rise, more frequent and severe weather events, and loss
of biodiversity. By sequestering carbon, we can help to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which
can mitigate the negative impacts of climate change. Additionally, carbon sequestration can provide other benefits
such as improved soil health, increased biodiversity, and enhanced ecosystem services.Developmental activities and
increased transportation activities are increasing the concentration of air pollutants as greenhouse gases, especially
CO2 because specific heat radiation wavelengths are being trapped in the atmosphere, this is raising the temperature
of the atmosphere. Standing trees' biomass and total organic carbon are evaluated using a non-destructive approach.
For the purpose of calculating biomass and carbon content, the height and girth of the tree are taken into account. A
theoretical model and concept are utilized to measure the height of different tree species with diameters greater than
10 cm. The angle between a tree top and an observer is measured using a theodolite. The study found that the
Theoretical model, may successfully be utilized to calculate the biomass of trees using a non-destructive method
during the assessment of organic carbon storage.
2. OBJECTIVES
• To study carbon sequestration capacity of trees.
• To calculate the carbon sequestration capacity of the area.
• Nullify carbon emission by planting trees having maximum carbon sequestration capacity.

@International Journal Of Progressive Research In Engineering Management And Science Page | 25

 e-ISSN :
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE 2583-1062
RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
AND SCIENCE (IJPREMS) Impact
Factor :
www.ijprems.com
Vol. 03, Issue 04, May 2023, pp : 25-32 5.725
[email protected]
3. METHODOLOGY
A. STUDY AREA
Our study area at Yerla, Nagpur is located at latitude 21.21 0 N and longitude 78.960 E. It has total about 60,703 m2 of
geographical areas, out of which 80% is covered with tress, herbs, shrubs and other vegetation. The total area of
campus is studied in present investigation. The study was carried out on day light during month of march(spring). The
temperature was recorded between 300 _ 390C and humidity around 25% -35%.dry vegetation is present over the entire
campus because Nagpur itself experience hot climate and has Dry Deciduous Forests due to its geographical and
topographical location.
B. MEASUREMENT OF TREE HEIGHT

Figure 1: View of tree height measurement by Theodolite at DBH.

It is not advisable to chop specific tree species in order to determine their biomass. By measuring the girth at DBH and
the diameter at breast height (DBH), mathematical models can calculate the biomass. The DBH at breast height at
roughly 1.30 metre is used to determine girth, and trees with diameters greater than 0.1 m are treated as trees and
measured as such. Theodolite at DBH measured the height of the tree. For the purpose of measuring tree height and
calculating tree height, the angle (α) between the tree top and eye view at breast height is taken into account.The tree
height was computed using the angle ACB between the top of the tree and the distance (b) at the observer's position at
DBH. If is the angle between the observer's eye and the tree's top, an is the tree's height in feet, c is the slope between
the tree and the observer's eye, b is the tree's distance from the observer in feet, and h is the height of the horizontal
plane of the theodolite instrument, then the height of the tree (H) is determined using the following formulas:
H = h + b tan α
An assessment sheet prepared for the data of trees from the area. This summarizes the data collected from the survey
in tabular form.
C. CALCULATION
The mathematical equations has been developed and used by many researchers for carbon estimation of trees. These
equations are species specific, particularly in the tropics. The general equation has been developed in modified form.
It is more general in nature and applicable in field. It is impossible to cut all the trees to estimate their carbon
sequestration capacity.
• H is the height of the trees (meter), D is the diameter at breast height in cm.
• S is the wood density (kg/m3). The standard average value is 0.6 kg/m3 (Patwardhan et al., 2003).
• Below ground biomass was calculated considering 16.7% of the above ground biomass.
According to the condition, the trees of same species are also being categorized and calculated on the basis of their
dimensions, this will help for accurate results. The sample calculation is shown below:
Sample Calculation of Ficus religiosa (Peepal):
• Diameter of the trunk = 1.6 m
• Diameter of girth = 2.2 m
• Number of trees = 1
• Height of tree (H) = 12.6 m
@International Journal Of Progressive Research In Engineering Management And Science Page | 26
 e-ISSN :
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE 2583-1062
RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
AND SCIENCE (IJPREMS) Impact
Factor :
www.ijprems.com
Vol. 03, Issue 04, May 2023, pp : 25-32 5.725
[email protected]
1. Circumference of the tree = π*diameter of girth = π*2.2 = 6.911m 2
2. Volume = πr2H = π*(1.6/2)2*12.6 = 25.34 m3
3. Above ground biomass (AGB) = Volume of tree * S =25.34 * 0.6 = 15.2 kg/tree
4. Below ground biomass (BGB) = AGB * root-shoot factor = 15.2 * 0.167 = 2.53 kg/tree
5. Total Biomass= AGB + BGB = 15.2 + 2.53 = 17.73kg/tree
6. Carbon = Total Biomass*50% = 17.73*50% =8.86 kg/tree
7. Carbon Sequestration = 3.664 * 8.86 = 32.46 kg/tree
8. total carbon sequestration = number of trees* carbon sequestrated by each tree = 1*32.45 = 32.46 kg.
Therefore the total carbon sequestration of Ficus religiosa (Peepal) is found to be 32.46 kg, at a rate of 32.46 kg/tree.\
4. RESULTS
The 200 number of trees of 57 types, having 20+ species present in Yerla Nagpur, Maharashtra, India is studied.
Table No. 1.comprises of one half of assessment sheet ,which includes dimensions and quantity of some trees during
the study. Whereas the carbon capture (kg/tree)in the tress is summarized in the table no. 2. Above Ground
Biomass(AGB), Below Ground Biomass(BGB) and carbon sequestration capacity in following trees are Psidium
guajava (3.66,0.62,7.87kg/tree). Buchanania cochinchinensis(0.7,0.12,1.5kg/tree), Parkia biglundulosa type -2 (0.9,
0.15, 1.93kg/tree), plumeria (frangipani) (0.23, 0.04, 0.5kg/tree), Butea monospermea (palash) is (0.35kg/tree,
0.05kg/tree, 0.73kg/tree), white round kumizh teak is (0.23, 0.4,0.5 kg/tree) respectively and so on. Most of the trees is
having carbon capture in between 1-10 kg/tree. In similar way carbon capture of 200 trees has been calculated.
Table 1: Field Data Of Tree Studied From The Campus
AVARA
GE
DIA.OF DIA.OF CIRCUMF ERANCE
SR. NO. OF HEIGHT
NAME OF TREE TRUNK GIRTH OF
NO TREE OF
(m) (m) TREE
TREE
(m)

1 Psidium guajava 3 0.8 1.1 3.5 4

2 Buchanania cochinchinensis 2 0.35 0.45 1.41 10

3 Parkia biglundulosa type -2 5 0.4 0.5 1.57 11.2

4 plumeria (frangipani) 1 0.2 0.3 0.95 4

Butea monospermea
5 4 0.25 0.36 1.13 9.3
(palash)
6 white round kumizh teak 1 0.2 0.25 0.72 2.7
7 seaned tree 1 0.4 0.5 1.57 10.3
8 Azadirachta indica - 8 3 0.5 0.45 1.41 1.6

9 Azadirachta indica -9 5 0.15 0.6 1.88 1

10 Azadirachta indica -10 1 0.35 0.6 1.88 1

11 Azadirachta indica -11 2 0.9 1.4 4.39 8.5

12 Bambusa vulgaris -1 4 1 1.5 4.71 8.3

13 Bambusa vulgaris -2 5 1.2 0.65 2.04 8.2

14 Bambusa vulgaris -3 3 0.7 0.3 0.94 7

15 Azadirachta indica - 12 2 0.65 0.3 0.94 6.2

16 Bambusa vulgaris -4 2 0.6 1.2 3.77 8

17 Bambusa vulgaris -5 3 0.4 1.2 3.77 8.6

18 detarium 1 0.6 0.9 2.83 12

19 Azadirachta indica - 13 2 0.5 0.7 2.2 9.4

20 Azadirachta indica - 14 1 0.4 0.5 1.57 7.6

21 bauhinia blakeania 3 0.3 0.4 1.25 5.7

22 Mangifera indica 2 0.15 0.2 0.63 4.5

@International Journal Of Progressive Research In Engineering Management And Science Page | 27

 e-ISSN :
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE 2583-1062
RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
AND SCIENCE (IJPREMS) Impact
Factor :
www.ijprems.com
Vol. 03, Issue 04, May 2023, pp : 25-32 5.725
[email protected]
23 citrus limon - 1 2 0.1 0.14 0.44 4.5

24 bautinia 1 0.2 0.25 0.78 7

25 Tectona grandis -5 1 0.1 0.15 0.47 4.5

26 Parkia biglundulosa type -2 2 0.3 0.4 1.25 8.7

27 Parkia biglundulosa type -2 3 0.15 0.2 0.63 4.5

28 Citrus limon -3 3 0.15 1.4 4.39 3

AVARAGE
DIA.OF CIRCUMF
DIA.OF GIRTH HEIGHT OF
SR. NO NAME OF TREE NO. OF TREE TRUNK ERANCE OF
(m) TREE
(m) TREE
(m)

29 Mangifera indica 2 0.9 0.9 2.83 9

30 Azadirachta indica 3 0.5 0.4 1.57 9.4

31 bauhinia blakeania 3 0.5 0.3 0.94 4.6

32 citrus limon - 2 2 0.2 0.12 0.37 4.5

33 Tectona grandis -6 4 0.2 0.35 1.09 8.7

34 Azadirachta indica 5 0.9 0.9 2.83 4.5

35 Tectona grandis - 7 3 0.2 0.2 0.62 1.2

36 Psidium Guajava 3 0.7 0.2 0.62 2.3

37 Prunus avium -1 3 0.35 0.45 1.41 10.3

38 Prunus avium -2 1 0.4 0.45 1.41 10

Tectona grandis(teak)
39 7 0.25 1.4 4.4 10.2
type - 1
Tectona grandis(teak)
40 3 0.32 1047 4.62 11.1
type - 2
Tectona grandis(teak)
41 6 0.21 1.05 3.3 9.8
type - 3
Tectona grandis(teak)
42 5 0.38 1.45 4.55 10.4
type - 4
Azadirachta
43 8 0.75 1.6 5.03 12
indica(neem) type - 1
Azadirachta
44 5 0.82 1.75 5.5 12.8
indica(neem) type - 2
Azadirachta
45 6 0.88 1.82 5.72 13.1
indica(neem) type - 3
Azadirachta
46 7 0.35 1.1 3.45 8
indica(neem) type - 4
Azadirachta
47 4 0.42 1.4 4.4 8.72
indica(neem) type - 5
Azadirachta
48 3 0.45 1.44 4.52 8.78
indica(neem) type - 6
Azadirachta
49 7 0.35 0.6 1.88 6
indica(neem) type - 7
Mangifera
50 2 1.2 1.9 5.96 9.02
indica(Mango)
Tectona grandis(teak)
51 6 0.2 1.2 3.76 14
type - 5
52 Chimarris 3 0.2 1.3 4.08 5
Parkia biglundulosa
53 6 0.2 0.2 0.62 8.4
type - 1
54 Moringa oleifera 3 0.5 1.6 5.02 8.6

@International Journal Of Progressive Research In Engineering Management And Science Page | 28

 e-ISSN :
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE 2583-1062
RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
AND SCIENCE (IJPREMS) Impact
Factor :
www.ijprems.com
Vol. 03, Issue 04, May 2023, pp : 25-32 5.725
[email protected]
55 Pongome oiltree 7 0.6 1.2 3.76 8.5

56 Stryphnodndron 4 0.3 1.2 3.76 7

57 Ficus religiosa 1 1.6 2.2 6.911 12.6

Table 2: Values Of BGB, AGB and Carbon Stock

ABOVE BELOW CO2 Total CO2

TOTAL CARBO
NAME OF VOLm GROUND GOUND SEQUES SEQUES
SR. NO BIOMASS N
TREE (m3) BIOMAS MASS TRATED TRATED
(kg/tree) (kg/tree)
S (kg/tree) (Kg/tree) (kg/tree) (kg)

Psidium
1 6.1 3.66 0.62 4.28 2.15 7.87 23.61
guajava
Buchanania 3
2 cochinchinen 1.15 0.7 0.12 0.82 0.41 1.5
sis
Parkia 9.65
3 biglundulosa 1.5 0.9 0.15 1.05 0.525 1.93
type -2
plumeria 0.5
4 0.38 0.23 0.04 0.27 0.135 0.5
(frangipani)
Butea 2.92
5 monospermea 0.59 0.35 0.05 0.4 0.2 0.73
(palash)
white round
6 0.38 0.23 0.04 0.27 0.135 0.5 0.5
kumizh teak

7 seaned tree 1.5 0.9 0.15 1.05 0.525 1.93 1.93

Azadirachta
8 0.31 0.18 0.03 0.21 0.1 0.36 1.08
indica - 8
Azadirachta
9 0.17 0.1 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.18 0.9
indica -9
Azadirachta
10 0.76 0.45 0.07 0.52 0.26 0.95 0.95
indica -10
Azadirachta
11 5.4 3.24 0.54 3.78 1.89 6.92 13.84
indica -11
Bambusa
12 6.51 3.8 0.65 4.55 2.27 8.31 33.24
vulgaris -1
Bambusa
13 9.27 5.56 0.92 6.48 3.24 11.87 59.35
vulgaris -2
Bambusa
14 2.69 1.61 0.26 1.87 0.9 3.4 10.2
vulgaris -3
Azadirachta
15 2.05 1.23 0.2 1.43 0.71 2.6 5.2
indica - 12
Bambusa
16 2.26 1.35 0.22 1.57 0.78 2.85 5.7
vulgaris -4
Bambusa
17 1.08 0.64 0.1 0.74 0.37 1.35 4.05
vulgaris -5
18 detarium 3.39 2.034 0.34 2.374 1.187 4.35 4.35
Azadirachta
19 2.35 1.41 0.24 1.65 0.825 3.02 6.04
indica - 13
Azadirachta
20 1.5 0.9 0.15 1.05 0.525 1.92 1.92
indica - 14
bauhinia
21 0.85 0.51 0.085 0.6 0.3 1.1 3.3
blakeania
22 Mangifera 0.22 0.132 0.022 0.154 0.077 0.282 0.564

@International Journal Of Progressive Research In Engineering Management And Science Page | 29

 e-ISSN :
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE 2583-1062
RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
AND SCIENCE (IJPREMS) Impact
Factor :
www.ijprems.com
Vol. 03, Issue 04, May 2023, pp : 25-32 5.725
[email protected]
indica

citrus limon -
23 0.095 0.057 0.001 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.22
1
24 bautinia 0.38 0.228 0.038 0.27 0.135 0.5 0.5
Tectona
25 0.1 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.15 0.15
grandis -5
Parkia
26 biglundulosa 0.85 0.51 0.09 0.6 0.3 1.1 2.2
type -2
Parkia
27 biglundulosa 0.22 0.132 0.22 0.154 0.077 0.282 0.846
type -2
Citrus limon -
28 0.05 0.03 0.005 0..035 0.017 0.06 0.18
3
Mangifera
29 1.27 0.76 0.12 0.88 0.44 1.61 3.22
indica
Azadirachta
30 0.58 0.34 0.05 0.39 0.19 0.69 2.07
indica
bauhinia
31 0.58 0.34 0.05 0.39 0.19 0.69 2.07
blakeania
citrus limon -
32 0.06 0.03 5.01 5.01 2.25 9.23 18.46
2
Tectona
33 0.12 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.14 0.56
grandis -6
Azadirachta
34 3.18 1.9 0.31 2.21 1.1 4.03 20.15
indica
Tectona
35 0.09 0.05 8.35 8.4 4.2 15.38 46.14
grandis - 7
Psidium
36 1.15 0.69 0.11 0.8 0.4 1.46 4.38
Guajava
Prunus avium
37 0.28 0.16 0.02 0.18 0.09 0.32 0.96
-1
Prunus avium
38 0.12 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.14 0.14
-2
Tectona
39 grandis(teak) 0.5 0.3 0.05 0.35 0.18 0.66 4.62
type - 1
Tectonagrand
40 is(teak) type - 0.89 0.53 0.09 0.62 0.31 1.13 3.39
2
Tectona
41 grandis(teak) 0.34 0.2 0.03 0.23 0.115 0.42 2.52
type - 3
Tectona
42 grandis(teak) 1.18 0.71 0.12 0.83 0.415 1.52 7.6
type - 4
Azadirachta
43 indica(neem) 5.3 3.18 0.53 3.71 1.86 6.82 54.56
type - 1
Azadirachta
44 indica(neem) 6.76 4.06 0.68 4.74 2.37 8.68 43.4
type - 2
Azadirachta
45 indica(neem) 7.97 4.78 0.79 5.57 2.785 10.20 61.2
type - 3
Azadirachta
46 indica(neem) 0.77 0.462 0.08 0.54 0.27 0.99 6.93
type - 4

@International Journal Of Progressive Research In Engineering Management And Science Page | 30

 e-ISSN :
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE 2583-1062
RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
AND SCIENCE (IJPREMS) Impact
Factor :
www.ijprems.com
Vol. 03, Issue 04, May 2023, pp : 25-32 5.725
[email protected]
Azadirachta
47 indica(neem) 1.21 0.73 0.12 0.85 0.425 1.56 6.24
type - 5
Azadirachta
48 indica(neem) 1.4 0.84 0.14 0.98 0.49 1.795 10.77
type - 6
Azadirachta
49 indica(neem) 0.57 0.34 0.05 0.39 0.195 0.72 5.04
type - 7
Mangifera
50 indica(Mango 10.21 6.12 1.02 7.14 3.57 13.08 26.16
)
Tectona
51 grandis(teak) 0.43 0.25 0.04 0.29 0.145 0.54 3.24
type - 5
52 Chimarris 0.15 0.09 0.01 0.1 0.05 0.18 0.54
Parkia
53 biglundulosa 0.27 0.16 0.02 0.18 0.09 0.32 1.92
type - 1
Moringa
54 1.68 1 0.16 1.16 0.58 2.12 6.36
oleifera
Pongome
55 2.41 1.44 0.24 1.68 0.84 3.07 25.69
oiltree
Stryphnodndr
56 0.50 0.3 0.05 0.35 0.175 0.64 2.56
on
Ficus
57 25.34 15.2 2.53 17.73 8.86 32.46 32.46
religiosa

5. CONCLUSION
In Yerla, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India, over 20 different tree species were counted in the current study to determine the
total organic carbon stock. Ficus religiosa (peepal), Azadirachta indica (neem) type 3, Mangifera indica (mango), and
Tectona grandis (teak) have the highest carbon capture/carbon sequestration potential among the local trees. It is
discovered that 20 well-grown tree species have an average standing storage of organic carbon of roughly 601 kg. The
greatest method for absorbing carbon is via developing long-lasting carbon pools, and the best restoration strategy is
to establish protected natural vegetation.The study may be used to determine the Total Carbon Stock (TCS) in Nagpur
and other cities or forest cover using a non-destructive technique.
6. REFERENCES
[1] A technical report on grassland management and climate change mitigation, Integrated Crop Management Vol.
9–2010 by Colorado State University Fort Collins, United States of America
[2] Research Challenges for Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems
[3] Soil carbon storage capacity as a tool to prioritize areas for carbon sequestration, Nagpur 440010, India
[4] Carbon sequestration potential of natural vegetation under grazing influence in Southern Tigray, Ethiopia:
implication for climate change mitigation
[5] Planting has the potential to increase carbon sequestration capacity of forests in the United States.
[6] Managed Forestin Carbon Sequestration and Climate Change Mitigation of Tripura, India Dipankar Deb & Mary
Jamatia & Jaba Debbarma & Jitendra Ahirwal & Sourabh Deb & Uttam Kumar Sahoo
[7] A Review of Current Science and Available Practices By Daniel Kane November 2015
[8] B. L. Chavan et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3003-3007.
Sequestered standing carbon stock in selective tree species grown in University campus at Aurangabad,
Maharashtra, India.
[9] MacDicken, K.G., (1997). A guide to monitoring carbon storage in forestry and agro forestry projects. USA,
Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development. 19-99.
[10] Matthews, E.; Payne, R.; Rohweder, M. and Murray, S., (2000). Forest ecosystem: Carbon stoarage
sequestration. Carbon Sequestration in Soil, Global Climate Change Digest, 12 (2):
[11] Mohammed Alamgir. and M. Al-Amin., (2007). Organic carbon stock in trees within different Geo positions of
Chittagaon (South) forest division, Bangladesh, Journal of Forestry Research, 18(3): 174-180.

@International Journal Of Progressive Research In Engineering Management And Science Page | 31

 e-ISSN :
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE 2583-1062
RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
AND SCIENCE (IJPREMS) Impact
Factor :
www.ijprems.com
Vol. 03, Issue 04, May 2023, pp : 25-32 5.725
[email protected]
[12] Mohammed Alamgir. and M. Al-Amin., (2008).Allometric model to estimate biomass organic carbon stock in
forest vegetation. Journal Forest Research 19(2): 10
[13] Brown, S., ( 1997). Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a Primer. Rome, Italy: FAO
Forestry Paper 134.
[14] Brown, S.; Gillespie, A.J.R. and Lugo, A.E., (1989). Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with
applications to forest inventory data. Forest Science 35:881- 902.

@International Journal Of Progressive Research In Engineering Management And Science Page | 32