Content uploaded by Kathleen Buckingham
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kathleen Buckingham on Oct 27, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Technical Report No. 32
Lou Yiping, Li Yanxia,
Kathleen Buckingham
Giles Henley, Zhou Guomo
Printed on recycled paper
Bamboo’s fast growth is one of its many attributes which make it a useful
resource for mankind. It is also commonly seen as an indication of a high
ability to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon and consequently
mitigate climate change, in a similar way that trees do. This report
analyses the work carried out to date to explore different aspects of
bamboo’s growth, management and use which impact bamboo’s carbon
sequestration potential. Using modeling and comparison studies, the
findings of this report suggest that bamboo’s carbon sequestration rate
can equal or surpasses that of fast-growth trees over short time periods in
a new plantation, but only when bamboo is actively managed. A review of
studies carried out in China indicates that bamboo is a relatively important
carbon store at the ecosystem and national level. While the results of the
report underline the gaps in knowledge in the field, they suggest that
bamboo forest ecosystems can be leveraged to help mitigate climate
change, whilst simultaneously providing other important services for
human adaptation and development.
Bamboo and Climate
Change Mitigation
5
INBAR
The International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR) is an intergovernmental
organization dedicated to reducing poverty, conserving the environment and creating
fairer trade using bamboo and rattan. INBAR was established in 1997 and represents
a growing number of member countries all over the world. INBAR's headquarters are
in China and there are regional offices in Ghana, Ethiopia, India and Ecuador. INBAR
connects a global network of governmental, non-governmental, corporate and
community partners in over 50 countries.
All photographs by INBAR except:
The photos on page 1, 7, and 28 are by Anji Photographers Society, China, the photo on
page 34 is by Xia Pengfei, the photo on page 36 is by Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd.
and the photo on page 37 is by Jeevanhandan Duraisamy.
Technical Report No. 32
Bamboo and Climate Change
Mitigation : a comparative analysis
of carbon sequestration
Lou Yiping, Li Yanxia,
Kathleen Buckingham
Giles Henley, Zhou Guomo
6
1
Technical Report No. 32
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Foreword .................................................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction: Purpose of the report ...................................................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1 Bamboo and Climate Change .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Bamboo and the MAD Challenge ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Current global issues -Introduction to climate change ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Climate change and the forestry sector .................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Bamboo in a world of growing timber demand and climate change .......................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 Mechanisms used for addressing Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Carbon accounting ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Carbon markets ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Kyoto Protocol and the Clean Development Mechanism ...................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Voluntary carbon credits ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 REDD ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.4 REDD+ .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Carbon Credits for Bamboo ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Permanence and leakage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 3 Carbon sequestration at stand level ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.1 Data sources .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
3.3 Comparative analysis of the carbon sequestration patterns of a newly aorested Moso bamboo plantation and a
Chinese Fir plantation in subtropical locations ............................................................................................................................... 15
3.3.1 Dynamics of carbon sequestrated in a newly-established Moso bamboo plantation in the rst 10 years ........ 15
3.3.2 Comparative analysis of the carbon sequestration trends of a newly-established Moso bamboo and a
Chinese Fir plantation in the rst 10 years .............................................................................................................................. 16
3.3.3 Comparative analysis of carbon sequestration trends of a newly-established Moso bamboo and a Chinese Fir
plantation in two harvesting rotations (1-60 years) ............................................................................................................. 18
3.3.4 Carbon sequestration by unmanaged bamboo forest (without regular harvesting) ........................................ 19
3.4 Comparative analysis of field data for Moso bamboo and Chinese Fir .................................................... 20
3.5 Comparative analysis of carbon sequestration in a new Ma bamboo and an Eucalyptus plantation
under tropical growing conditions ........................................................................................................................................................ 22
3.5.1 Comparative analysis of carbon sequestration within a new Ma bamboo and a new Eucalypt (Eucalyptus
urophylla) plantation under regular management practices with harvesting rotations within the rst 10 years ... 22
3.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Chapter 4 Carbon sequestration capacity in bamboo forest ecosystems ............................................................................. 25
4.1 Analysis of bamboo forests’ carbon sequestration ........................................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Comparison of carbon stock in bamboo and forest ecosystems (including bamboo, vegetation and soil carbon
sequestration) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 5 Bamboo carbon stock estimates at the national level of China ............................................................................ 28
Chapter 6 Impact of management practices on carbon sequestration in Moso bamboo forests .............................. 31
Chapter 7 Carbon sequestration in durable products .................................................................................................................... 34
7.1 Carbon in Harvested Wood Products (HWP) ...................................................................................................................................... 35
7.2 Carbon in harvested bamboo products (HBP) ................................................................................................................................... 36
7.3 Bamboo biochar ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Chapter 8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
References ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Table of Contents
Copyright 2010
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording
or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher. The presentation of material in this publication and in maps that appear
herein does not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of INBAR concerning
the legal status of any country, or the delineation of frontiers or boundaries.
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR)
P. O. Box 100102-86, Beijing 100102, P. R. China
Tel:00 86 10 64706161; Fax: 00 86 10 64702166 ; Email: info@inbar.int
ii
iii
Foreword
Foreword
The challenges brought on by Climate Change have been succinctly described by Professor
John Schellnhuber1 as a MAD Challenge; one which requires simultaneous action on Mitigation,
Adaptation and Development. Forests are recognized as having a crucial contribution to
meeting these challenges due to the multiple services that they provide, notably carbon
sequestration, timber provision and income generation. The growing literature on bamboo
repeatedly confirms the importance of this multifunctional forest resource in providing
livelihoods, as well the important environmental services that it provides at a local level-
including erosion control, watershed maintenance and a habitat for biodiversity.
Bamboo’s ability to provide global environmental services through carbon sequestration is also
now receiving high levels of interest, and is the subject of research by INBAR and partners. Due
to its fast growth rate, bamboo has long been supposed to be a plant with a high sequestration
capability, and the research to date indeed conrms that bamboo outperforms fast growing
trees in its rate of carbon accumulation. However, important questions remain, especially on
how much carbon a bamboo forest can absorb, and how to store this carbon over longer time
periods. An overview of these multiple and complex issues is presented in this report.
Whilst more research in this area is undoubtedly needed, it is important to recognize the
multiple benets that bamboo can provide on all three fronts of the MAD Challenge. At INBAR
we aim to leverage these benefits through local and global initiatives, so that bamboo can
continue to provide development and adaptation at the local level, while simultaneously
contributing to tackling climate change at the global level.
Dr Coosje Hoogendoorn
Director General
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR)
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank all reviewers of this study, prominently among them:
Professor Walter Liese, Dr. Jules Janssen and Dr. Till Nee.
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Dr. Coosje Hoogendoorn, Wu Zhimin,
Violeta Gonzalez and Tim Cronin at INBAR for their encouragement and support to complete
this report. Thanks also to Jin Wei, Paulina Soria and Andrew Benton for their assistance in
editing and publishing the paper. Thanks also to Ms. Wang Fang in CAF (Chinese Academy of
Forestry) for her assistance in preparing the report.
1 Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany
iv
v
Executive Summary
Within the range of options available to mitigate high levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, forests and forestry practices have received a lot of attention. While global
deforestation is one of the most important sources of carbon emissions, it is thought to be
relatively easy to halt compared with other options. Through forestry practices including the
expansion of forest area and improvements in forest management, forests can act as important
carbon sinks. Although botanically bamboo is a woody grass and not a tree, bamboo forests
have comparable features to other types of forest regarding their role in the carbon cycle. They
sequester carbon through photosynthesis, and lock carbon in the bre of the bamboo and in
the soil where it grows. However, there are also important dierences between bamboo forests
and other forests. Bamboo has a rapid rate of early growth and high annual re-growth when
managed. The lifecycle of individual bamboo culms (between 5-10 years) is comparatively
short. The products derived from bamboo are commonly used in lower durability applications
than those from timber forests. Consequently, INBAR and partners set out to determine how
bamboo behaves in terms of carbon storage, and how it compares to trees in its carbon
sequestration performance.
This report attempts to address the main issues which influence how bamboo should be
seen within the climate change context. Chapter 1 gives a global overview of bamboo and
its importance to global and local economies, societies and environments and its potential in
dealing with the climate change challenge, and Chapter 2 describes the mechanisms that have
been created to tackle climate change, and examines how bamboo ts within these. Chapters
3 to 5 analyse to what extent bamboo could contribute to carbon storage at the plantation
stand, ecosystem, and national level using calculations based on field data of bamboo
and comparable tree species. Chapters 6 and 7 look at issues of management and product
durability which could aect carbon storage performance.
The ndings and conclusions are summarized as follows.
The comparative analysis of carbon sequestration between a monopodial Moso bamboo
plantation and fast growing Chinese Fir plantation modelled for subtropical growing conditions
in South East China showed that a Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) plantation at a
density of 3,300 culms/ha and a Chinese Fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) plantation at a density
of 2,175 trees/ha have comparable features regarding their rapid growth rates and climatic
requirements. The study analysed their growth patterns and used dynamic biomass and carbon
models to ascertain their relative rates of carbon sequestration. The research concluded that
both species had a comparable sequestration rate, but followed a dierent pattern.
• The calculation of the annual net carbon storage for a newly aorested Moso bamboo
plantation showed a peak of 5.5 t C/ha in the 5th year. The bamboo sequestered more
carbon than the Chinese Fir in the rst 5 years, but less than the Chinese Fir during the
next 5 years. Under regular management practices (which include stand and soil
management combined with common harvesting regimes) the study found that the Moso
bamboo plantation sequestrated an equal or greater amount of carbon than the Chinese
Fir plantation within the latter’s rst 30 years harvesting rotation as well as the second 30
year rotation.
Executive Summary
• In contrast, if the bamboo forest wasn’t managed through annual harvesting practices, it
would be signicantly less eective at carbon sequestration. Compared with the rst 30
year of the Chinese Fir plantation, the bamboo plantation only sequestered about 30% of
the total carbon that the r plantation sequestered. In other words, r is likely to be much
more eective at sequestering carbon than bamboo when a bamboo plantation is
unmanaged and un-harvested.
A literature review conrmed that the level of carbon stored in Moso bamboo forests and in
Chinese Fir in various provinces of China are indeed comparable.
For tropical conditions, the carbon sequestration capacity of Eucalypt plantations was
compared to sympodial Ma bamboo (Dendrocalamus latiflorus) in the same area. This is a
suitable comparison due to their relative rapid growth rates and similar climatic requirements.
The study analysed their respective growth patterns and calculated their relative carbon
sequestration capacity. The results indicated that both plantations had comparable carbon
sequestration capacity and performance.
• Under regular management practices with annual harvesting for the bamboo, the Eucalypt
plantation outperformed the bamboo in the rst 5 years until it was cut, to be replaced by
a new Eucalypt plantation. In the second 5 years, the Ma bamboo started to outperform
the Eucalypt plantation.
• The results indicate that sympodial bamboo in the tropics is likely to sequester equal or
more carbon than Eucalypt plantations. The review of the data calculated and collected
from the literature also has clearly shown that more carbon is likely to be sequestered by
species growing in tropical areas (both bamboo and trees), than by species growing in
sub-tropical areas.
A literature review indicated that the carbon stock in vegetation (including understory species
and other mixed vegetation) of Moso bamboo is within the range of 27-77 t C/ha. The majority
of carbon appears to be sequestered in the arbour layer accounting for 84-99%; the shrub
layer and the herbaceous layer accounted for very small contributions, especially in intensively
managed bamboo forests. When looking at the whole ecosystem, including the soil, Moso
bamboo forest ecosystem carbon storage capacity was reported to be between 102 t C/ha and
289 t C/ha, of which 19-33% was stored within the bamboo culms and vegetative layer and
67-81% stored within the soil layer (rhizomes, roots and soil carbon). This indicates that the soil
layer carbon content is likely to be about 2-4 times greater than the vegetative layer. Bamboo
ecosystems were found to have an equal or somewhat lower carbon stock (between 102- 288
t C/ha) when compared with other forest types (between 122 - 337 t C/ha). The total carbon
stock in bamboo forests is obviously aected by climatic factors. The carbon stock of bamboo
in Fujian province (Qi, 2009), where the climate is more suitable for bamboo growth than in
Zhejiang province (Zhou, 2004), surpassed Pinus elliottii in its 19th year, Chinese Fir in its 15th
year, and showed comparable carbon stock to broad-leaved forest (262.5 t C/ha) and tropical
forest (230.4 t C/ha).
vi
vii
List of Acronyms
At the national level in China, the carbon stock in bamboo forests has been estimated by
combining carbon density data with inventory data on bamboo resources in China. The results
varied greatly between dierent studies. The total carbon stock in bamboo forests in China was
estimated between 605.5 - 837.9 Tg C and carbon density for bamboo between 130.4 -173.0 t
C/ha.
The effects of management regimes on carbon storage were also studied. Intensive
management of Moso bamboo seems to be able to increase the carbon storage capacity
in above ground biomass. It was also noted that the carbon in rhizomes, roots and soil
may be lower under intensive management. The role of management practices on carbon
sequestration by bamboos needs further study.
As with other forest products, bamboo products retain their carbon content until they either
biologically deteriorate or are burnt. Although bamboo has many advantageous features over
many timber species such as high tensile strength, flexibility and hardness, it is argued that
bamboo products are not as durable as many wood based products, therefore having a shorter
life cycle. However, this appears to be more due to customs than to technical limitations, and in
recent years many more durable bamboo products have entered the market. This investment
in producing more high quality, durable bamboo products needs to continue, because it is
a key issue in order to optimize and prolong carbon storage. Prolonged storage of carbon is
only possible when the culms are processed into durable products with long lifecycles, such as
construction materials, panel products and furniture.
An alternative is to utilise bamboo as a bio- energy resource as an alternative for fossil fuel,
or for charcoal products, including biochar. The promotion and development of bamboo
management and utilization for such purposes could provide additional opportunities to
mitigate climate change.
In conclusion, within this comparative analysis considering Eucalypt and Chinese Fir, rapid
growing trees from tropical and subtropical regions respectively, bamboo plantations seemed
to be highly comparable to fast-growing trees. Moreover, the benefits appear to extend to
the ecosystem and regional level due to bamboo’s carbon sequestration capacity, stemming
from its re-growth capacity and annual harvesting regimes. Sustainable management and
appropriate utilization of bamboo resources can increase the amount of carbon sequestered,
through management changes which increase storage capacity within the ecosystem in the
short-term, and through transformation of carbon into durable products in the long-term.
Bamboo is managed and utilized by hundreds of millions of people globally, who rely on it
for many dierent uses, from household uses and protection of riverbanks to being a source
of income. Many bamboo farmers live in less developed regions and are aected by poverty.
The promotion of bamboo as a sustainable carbon sequestration tool will not only create new
opportunities for mitigating climate change but can improve and protect millions of rural
livelihoods through investment in sustainable bamboo management, industry and technology.
List of Acronyms
AFOLU: Agriculture, forestry and other land use
AGB: Above ground biomass
A/R: Aorestation/ Reforestation
CA: Carbon accumulation
CAF: Chinese Academy of Forestry
CDM: Clean Development Mechanism
CO2e: Carbon dioxide equivalent
COP: Conference of the Parties
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
GHG: Greenhouse gas
GIS: Geographical Information System
HBP: Harvested Bamboo Products
HWP: Harvested Wood Products
INBAR: International Network for Bamboo and Rattan
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
JI: Joint Implementation
MAD: Mitigation, Adaptation and Development.
MBC: Microbial biomass carbon
MC: Mineralizable carbon
Pg: Petagram (a unit of weight equal to 1015 grams)
REDD: Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
REDD+: “REDD+” goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the
role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of
forest carbon stocks
SBFM: Sustainable Bamboo Forest Management
SFM: Sustainable forest management
Tg: Teragram (a unit of weight equal to 1012 grams)
TOC: Total organic carbon
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WSOC: Water-soluble organic carbon
YNC: Yearly net carbon
viii
ix
1. Bamboo and
Climate Change
Introduction: Purpose of the report
The challenge involved in addressing the concurrent needs of Mitigation, Adaptation and
Development - the MAD Challenge (Schellnhuber, 2009) requires an investigation into the
interaction between all natural systems and people to determine how natural systems can be
better utilised.
Bamboo’s ability to sequester carbon at high rates based upon its fast growth has long been an
important part of its green credentials. However, given the complexities of establishing models
for vegetative sinks, there are a number of questions regarding bamboo’s ability to sequester
and store carbon over dierent time horizons. Among the complications of quantifying carbon
sequestration, there are important questions regarding bamboo’s comparative advantage
when compared to other fast growing trees, the length of time over which it sequesters carbon
at higher rates than competing species, the role of a bamboo ecosystem in acting as a carbon
store, the role that management of bamboo plays in its performance, and the durability of
bamboo-derived products2.
This publication examines these questions through modelling studies and a review of the
existing work that has been carried out on quantifying carbon sequestration of bamboo
systems.
2 This report approaches the question of climate change mitigation by looking at the rate carbon sequestration and carbon storage
in the bamboo ecosystems, as determined by growth models. It does not address rates of removal of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere directly, or the ux in carbon dioxide within the bamboo ecosystem. It focuses rather on carbon sequestration based
upon volumes of carbon stored in bamboo over its growth period, and compares the eects of dierent management practices on
this process. This is the only area which has been researched in detail for bamboo to date, although it is hoped that this work can be
built upon to look at the other aspects of carbon dynamics in the bamboo ecosystems
1. Bamboo and
Climate Change
2
3
1.1 Bamboo and the MAD Challenge
Bamboo holds signicant importance for humanity on numerous levels. Throughout history, its
properties have been repeatedly used by dierent cultures to provide the goods and services
needed for their lives. Today, it remains highly important as a basic livelihood crop and material
for rural people living in Asia, Latin America and Africa, as well as a growing number of higher-
income people who purchase green bamboo products throughout the world. Bamboo should
be seen as a useful tool to tackle the MAD Challenge of Mitigation of, Adaptation to and
Development in the face of Climate Change. Whilst the main focus of this publication is on
the mitigation potential of bamboo systems, this section briey describes the importance of
bamboo to human development and adaption.
1.1.1 Bamboo botany, distribution and use
The way bamboo grows and its wide distribution throughout the world makes it an important
natural resource for hundreds of millions of people across the globe (INBAR Strategy, 2006).
Taxonomically a grass, bamboo has properties of fast growth and rejuvenation after cutting,
which means it can provide a harvestable yield every 1-2 years once maturity is reached. This
makes it a quick and reliable source of bamboo bre; a versatile material which lends itself to
processing into many different forms and products (Scurlock, 2000). Its ability to rejuvenate
itself from its below-ground rhizome stock means that it does not require replanting,
needs little tending, and generally has little need for capital, labour or chemical inputs to
provide adequate levels of bre. As such it is highly suited to a diversied agricultural system,
constituting one of several livelihood resources for farmers (INBAR, 2004).
The wide distribution of bamboo across the tropics and subtropics of Asia, Africa and Latin
America, with an annual production estimated at between 15-20 million tonnes of bre implies
that it is highly significant as a livelihood material (Williams, 1994). Although traditionally
associated more closely with Asian cultures, a number of economically important species
are found in Latin America and Africa, where they too constitute important crops for local
inhabitants. Dual characteristics of lightweight and high tensile strength of Guadua angustifolia
have resulted in its main use as a building material throughout its range in Colombia, Ecuador
and Peru. Arundinaria alpine, which is distributed in mountainous parts of East Africa, is an
important source of construction material and fuel. With the highest concentration of species
occurring in South and Southeast Asia, bamboo has occupied a central role in the development
of culture and civilisation there with both a utilitarian, functional as well as spiritual signicance.
Used for food, clothing and shelter, infusing writing, spoken language and art, bamboo has
traditionally contributed to the multiple physical and spiritual requirements of mankind.
1.1.2 Bamboo and development
Bamboo is relied on heavily by some of the world’s poorest people, and can be a significant
pathway out of poverty (Belcher, 1995). It is commonly available as a common-pool resource
and relatively easy to harvest and manage. Low investment costs for processing inputs
and flexible time requirements for undertaking seasonal work means that bamboo-based
employment is suitable to both full and part-time employment opportunities (INBAR, 2004). The
development of the bamboo industry has lead to job creation and raising rural incomes with
associated benets. For example, a conservative estimate indicates that there are 5.6 million
people working in China’s bamboo sector, 80% of whom are working in forest cultivation (Jiang,
1. Bamboo and Climate Change
2002a). Case studies on ‘bamboo counties’ in Eastern China demonstrate the important role
that the development of the bamboo sector can have in reducing rural poverty, maintaining
high levels of rural employment. Impact assessments of INBAR project communities in northern
India show that bamboo-based interventions have high value-addition through enhancing
incomes, generating extra rural employment and empowering women in their communities
(Rao et al., 2009). The expansion of global trade in bamboo is expected to contribute to
development in bamboo growing areas. Currently bamboo contributes to between 4-7% of
the total tropical and subtropical timber trade (Jiang, 2007).
1.1.3 Bamboo and Adaptation to Climate Change
Human beings are fundamentally dependent upon the flow of ecosystem services (MEA,
2005). Enhanced protection and management of natural ecosystems and more sustainable
management of natural resources and agricultural crops can play a critical role in climate
change adaptation strategies (World Bank, 2010; TEEB, 2009).
Bamboo is an important part of many natural and agricultural eco-systems, providing a
number of crucial ecosystem services. It provides food and raw materials (provisioning services)
for consumers in developing and developed countries. It regulates water flows, reduces
water erosion on slopes and along riverbanks, can be used to treat wastewater and can act as
windbreak in shelterbelts, oering protection against storms (regulating services).
As poor people will be worse hit by the eects of climate change, action plans for adaptation
need to be tailored to their situation (UNFCCC, 2007). Investing in ‘ecological infrastructure’ is
increasingly acknowledged to be a cost-eective means of adapting to climate-change related
risks, in many cases surpassing the use of built infrastructure (TEEB, 2009). For instance, the
use of mangrove forests to protect shorelines provides an equal level of protection at a lower
cost. Using bamboo forests as part of a comprehensive approach to rehabilitating degraded
hillsides, catchment areas and riverbanks has shown promising and quick results (Fu and Banik,
1995).
The light-weight and versatility of harvested bamboo also lends itself to innovations to cope
with increased floods, such as raised housing in Ecuador and Peru and floating gardens
in Bangladesh (Oxfam, 2010). Bamboo thus has a high potential to be used in adaptation
measures to alleviate threats imposed by local changes in climate on vulnerable populations.
4
5
1.2 Current global issues -Introduction to
climate change
Climate change is considered to be one of the greatest threats facing humanity. According
to the IPCC, global warming is unequivocal, with evidence from increases in average air
and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice and sea level rise (IPCC, 2007). If global
emissions continue down the Business as Usual (BAU) trajectory, the scientific evidence
points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts (Stern, 2006). In order to avoid the
most damaging effects of climate change, it is estimated that global levels of atmospheric
greenhouse gases (GHGs) need to be stabilized at approximately 445-490 parts per million
CO2e (CO2 equivalent) or less. To achieve this target, it is essential that urgent international
action is taken. Forests will have a central role in meeting this target (Eliasch, 2008).
1.3 Climate change and the forestry sector
Forests have been discussed very specically in the climate change research and discussions
because of the high contribution that deforestation makes to increasing atmospheric stocks of
carbon, and the potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere through improvement and
expansion of forests.
i) Halting deforestation There is increased interest in reduced deforestation as a tool for
climate change mitigation, as avoided deforestation is a relatively low-cost carbon abatement
option (Gullison et al., 2007). Forests accounts for the largest store of carbon amongst terrestrial
plant communities, and the reduction of this store through the process of deforestation is
responsible for approximately 17 per cent of global emissions (Eliasch, 2008). This ranks it as
the third largest source of GHG emissions after the burning of coal and oil (Brickell, 2009). The
IPCC (2007) estimated emissions from deforestation in the 1990s were 5.8 GtCO2/year. Other
estimates suggest that 1-2 billion tonnes of carbon were released from forestry during the
1990s (Mahli and Grace, 2000). McKinsey and Company (2009) mapped the costs of abatement
practices on a greenhouse gas cost abatement curve showing that the costs within forestry
are relatively low, with high benefits to be attained from carbon sequestration projects
incorporated within carbon markets. In order to reduce deforestation it is estimated that a
minimum annual cost of US$2.5 billion is needed to achieve signicant reductions in emissions.
This estimate is equivalent to approximately 500 Mt CO2e/year of reduced emissions at an
average cost of US$5/tCO2e (Nee et al., 2009). Recent technical research and policy proposals
have focused on viable mitigation approaches using mechanisms to pay for keeping forests
standing, which are collectively grouped under the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and
Degradation (REDD) initiative.
ii) Sequestering more carbon through vegetation Increasing the level of carbon
sequestration- the process in which plant communities capture carbon dioxide through
photosynthesis and transform the gas into solid biomass- is one of a range of viable options
for reducing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus mitigating future
dangerous climate change-related scenarios. By converting land containing relatively low levels
of carbon (e.g. shrub and pasture lands, agricultural elds, or degraded forests) into forested
land, which contains more carbon in the vegetation and soil, more atmospheric CO2 could
potentially be sequestered in terrestrial ecosystems. This is the more relevant research area for
bamboo, as bamboo forests are important for production, and are not at risk from deforestation
to the same extent that primary tropical forests are.
1. Bamboo and Climate Change
1.4 Bamboo in a world of growing timber
demand and climate change
The demand for timber and agricultural commodities will continue to increase as the global
population expands and becomes wealthier. Global policies will need to shift towards more
efficient and sustainable production methods in order to satisfy the rising demand for
commodities. The sustainable management of forests will play a key role in meeting this
demand.
Bamboo has an important role to play in reducing pressure on forestry resources. For instance,
in China, since nationwide logging bans of certain forests came into effect in 1998, bamboo
has increasingly been seen as a possible substitute to timber and has entered many markets
traditionally dominated by timber. The successful use of bamboo in different product lines,
ranging from furniture and ooring to paper and packaging demonstrates the high potential
for bamboo as a more sustainable alternative material in production of many products.
As discussed in section 1.3, given the increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, another
major environmental service that humans rely on forests to provide is carbon sequestration,
and a major part of forestry research is now focussed on quantifying how different forests
perform as sinks (i.e. whether they absorb more carbon than they emit, and for how long) and
as stores (how much carbon do they hold in their standing static state).
Questions have similarly been raised over how well bamboo performs as a carbon sink.
Although bamboo is a woody grass and not a tree, bamboo forests have comparable features
and functions to other types of forests regarding their function in the carbon cycle. Bamboos
have rapid growth rates, high annual re-growth after harvesting and high biomass production.
Bamboos are believed to perform roughly equivalent to fast growing plantation species with
an increment biomass of between 5 and 12 t C/(ha•yr) (Lobovikov et al., 2009). It is therefore
hypothesised that bamboo has a capacity of carbon sequestration that is similar to that of fast
growing forests.
However, given the complexity of natural systems, and the fact that scientic research in carbon
cycle research in forests and especially in bamboo has started only recently, there are a number
of issues which have been raised about factors which inuence the performance of bamboo as
a carbon sink.
1.) The relationship between rates of bamboo growth and carbon sequestration
Magel et al (2005) argue that growth of the new shoots in a bamboo forest occurs as a result
of transfer of the energy accumulated in culms through photosynthesis in the previous year.
As such, the growth of a bamboo culm is not driven by its own carbon sequestration, but by
sequestration in previous seasons in other parts of the bamboo system, and as such growth
of new shoots is not an indicator of sequestration rate. On the other hand, Zhou (2009) argues
that as the bamboo system requires more inputs in the shooting season of young culms (when
new shoots grow), high growth in bamboo shoots can be equated with a high rate of carbon
sequestration.
It can be argued of course that as long as carbon sequestration is determined by measuring
the dierence in standing carbon between Year(t+1) and Year(t) (a stock change approach), it
doesn’t matter whether and how the relocation of carbon between old and new culms occurs.
Therefore in this study, we focus on carbon per unit area, rather than carbon/ culm.
6
7
2.) Storage length of carbon in a bamboo system
Bamboo culms of most species reach maturity after approximately 7-10 years, after which they
deteriorate rapidly, releasing carbon from the above-ground biomass back into the atmosphere
(Liese, 2009). Therefore in a natural state, bamboo will reach a stable level of above ground
carbon relatively quickly, where carbon accumulation through sequestration is oset by carbon
release through deterioration of old culms. In order for the bamboo system to continue to be
a net sink, carbon has to be stored in other forms, so that the total accumulation of carbon in
a solid state exceeds the carbon released to the atmosphere. Chapters 7 and 8 discuss these
questions, amongst other issues that can aect the length of storage of carbon.
3.) The threat of bamboo owering
As a member of the grass family, many (although not all) bamboos have a gregarious owering
characteristic where the plants die after owering, with often all plants from the same species
dying at the same time. As a risk typical to bamboo systems, this has received special attention
in the literature. Such flowering in bamboo species results in the loss of all carbon in the
biomass of the plant. Although little is known about the flowering determinants, relatively
fixed flowering cycles are known for important species. For instance, Melocanna baccifera
(the common species in Northern India) is known to flower ever 45-50 years. Whether or
not bamboo flowering presents a threat to carbon sequestration is largely a question of risk
assessment and based upon the state of the information known about the owering cycle of
the particular species in question. Of course, where mechanisms are designed for the use of
bamboo in carbon osets, careful consideration of the owering risk should be made. For the
species considered in Chapters 3-5 of this report, Phyllostachys pubescens has been observed
to ower with intervals of at least 67 years (Watanabe, 1982), and Ma bamboo (Dendrocalamus
latiorus) has been observed to have sporadic owering but only very occasionally resulting in
a large area of the bamboo forest dying.
In order to explore the potential of bamboo sequestration, and address the concerns raised
above, this study has identied the following key questions which currently shape the debate
on bamboo sequestration:
1) Does the higher rate of rapid canopy closure and plantation maturation of bamboo
equate to a higher absorption rate of CO2 from the atmosphere compared with
other comparable fast growing trees in subtropical and tropical regions? In other
words, does a bamboo plantation have a higher rate of carbon sequestration than
other species?
2) A special feature of bamboo stands is the annual harvesting and re-growth pattern.
How does this feature relate to accumulation of biomass and thus carbon
sequestration?
3) Are there any signicant dierences between carbon uptake by bamboo forests and
by fast growing tree species in the long term?
4) What is the dierence between carbon storage in a bamboo forest ecosystem and
other comparable forest ecosystems?
5) How does a bamboo forest perform in terms of carbon sequestration at a landscape
and regional level compared to other forest types?
6) What are the impacts of current bamboo forest management on the carbon
sequestration capacity of bamboo forests? Do current management practices
improve or worsen the carbon sequestration capacity in bamboo forests?
7) To what extent are the management options able to full the multiple goals of the
bamboo industry, local communities and sustainability of bamboo forests?
2. Mechanisms used
for addressing Climate
Change
2. Mechanisms used
for addressing Climate
Change
8
9
2.1 Carbon accounting
Scientists have raised the issue of carbon sinks’ permanence within the terrestrial biosphere
(Schlamadinger and Marland, 2000), since carbon storage in forests is nite and therefore not
permanent, whereby after a period of time, carbon locked in vegetation and soil is released
into the atmosphere through respiration, decomposition, digestion, or fire (Locatelli and
Pedroni, 2004). Nevertheless, carbon sequestration through forestry is commonly considered to
contribute to mitigating climate change.
Carbon offsetting involves the purchase of carbon credits from greenhouse gas reduction
projects to negate the equivalent of a ton of CO2 emitted in one area by avoiding the release
of a ton of CO2 or sequestering a ton of CO2 in another place. Often these are equated using
so-called CO2 equivalents (CO2e) Carbon markets allow CO2e to be traded as a commodity. The
key characteristic of carbon osets is additionality. Additionality refers to emissions reductions
being additional to what occurs under a business-as-usual scenario (Taiyab, 2006).
2.2 Carbon markets
2.2.1 Kyoto Protocol and the Clean Development Mechanism
The Kyoto Protocol was the first legally binding agreement to reduce GHG emissions, which
aimed to curb GHGs by 5% of 1990 levels (Boyd, 2009). The Protocol created two classes of
countries with different obligations and opportunities for greenhouse gas emissions and
trading of emissions credits. Countries listed as Annex I of the Protocol (developed countries
and economies in transition) have commitments to limit GHG emissions, while those countries
not listed (developing countries) have no such commitments.
The Kyoto Protocol provides three ‘flexibility’ mechanisms to reduce the cost of meeting
emissions targets.
1) Emissions Trading
Countries that have satised their targets can sell their excess carbon allowances to other countries.
2) Joint Implementation (JI)
Purchase of emissions credits from GHG oset projects in Annex I countries (industrialized countries)
3) The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
Purchase of emission credits from projects in non Annex-I countries (Taiyab, 2006). Under
the protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows developed countries to
oset carbon dioxide through industry or forestry projects (reforestation or aorestation),
which allows developing countries to voluntarily participate in reducing CO2 through
receiving payments from developed countries (Boyd 2009). In 2006, CDM projects were
estimated at US $5.3 billion (EcoSecurities, 2007).Presently there are 8 registered forestry
CDM projects.
2.2.2 Voluntary carbon credits
A voluntary market for carbon has emerged as an alternative to CDM, operating outside of
international agreements. The voluntary market is driven by Corporate Social Responsibility
(EcoSecurities, 2007), involving companies, governments, organisations, organizers and
individuals, taking responsibility for their carbon emissions by voluntarily purchasing carbon
osets. These voluntary osets are often bought from retailers or organisations that invest in
oset projects and are sold to customers in relatively small quantities. The voluntary market is
2. Mechanisms used for addressing Climate Change
not required to adhere to the strict guidelines of CDM, therefore voluntary oset projects tend
to be smaller, have a greater sustainable development focus, have lower transaction costs and
involve a wider range of methods or techniques (House of Commons Environmental Audit
Committee, 2007).
The voluntary carbon oset market grew by 200% between 2005 and 2006. In 2007 there were
over 150 retailers of voluntary carbon credits worldwide, with a record 65 million tonnes of
carbon being traded, worth US $330 million (Hamilton et al, 2008). A key dierence between
regulatory and voluntary markets is the variety of forestry related carbon abatement activities
in the latter. Forest conservation projects have been traded on voluntary markets since the
early 1990’s (EcoSecurities, 2007).
There are two categories of carbon credits within voluntary carbon markets:
CDM/JI: These projects are registered with CDM or JI projects and aim to generate CERs (Certied
Emissions Reductions) and ERUs (Emissions Reduction Units)
Non CDM/JI: These projects are registered under CDM/JI, but are considered VERs (Verified
Emission Reductions)
A buyer can voluntarily purchase credits from a CDM or a non-CDM project, however voluntary
credits cannot be used to meet regulatory targets (Taiyab, 2006).
2.2.3 REDD
The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (ending in 2012) considered addressing
industry and energy-related emissions as more important than emissions related to agriculture,
forestry and other land uses (AFOLU). Although rewarding reforestation and afforestation,
the CDM did not address emissions stemming from ‘avoided deforestation’ as a project
class, therefore leaving the largest source of GHG emissions in many developing countries
unaddressed (Nee et al., 2009). Since 2005 international GHG abatement talks have focused
on producing a mechanism that could reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation
(REDD) in developing countries. The 13th Session of the Conference of the Parties of the
UNFCCC, held in Bali in December 2007, addressed a post-Kyoto framework which encourages
the implementation of demonstration activities to sequester carbon through forestry (Neeff,
2009). A number of policy options on how to incentivize REDD are being proposed, including
both market-based and non-market-based approaches (Streck, 2008). REDD primarily intends
to provide financial incentives to help developing countries voluntarily reduce national
deforestation rates and associated carbon emissions (Gibbs et al., 2007).
2.2.4 REDD+
REDD focuses only on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. REDD+
intends to go further by rewarding activities that improve forest health; including better forest
management, conservation, restoration, and afforestation. This could potentially improve
environmental services and biodiversity whilst enhancing carbon stocks. The REDD+ model
may be more suitable for smallholders who can be rewarded for forest conservation activities.
The activities that can contribute to mitigation under a REDD+ mechanism are reducing
emissions from deforestation, reducing emissions from forest degradation, conservation of
forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests; and enhancement of forest carbon
stocks (Bleaney et al., 2010). Although “enhancement of forest carbon stocks” generally refers to
aorestation, reforestation and restoration activities on deforested and degraded lands, it can
also be interpreted to include the sequestration of carbon in healthy standing forests (Bleaney
et al., 2010).
10
11
2.3 Carbon Credits for Bamboo
Since bamboo is botanically a grass and not a tree, many carbon accounting documents fail
to include bamboo, or don’t consider bamboo within forestry. Bamboo therefore does not
adequately fit under the terminology for a ‘forest’ in either the Kyoto Protocol, Marrakech
Accords or IPCC. If bamboo were to be adequately recognized within ‘forestry,’ bamboo could
potentially occupy an important position in climate change mitigation, adaptation, and
sustainable development (Lobovikov et al., 2009).
Forest denitions are myriad. However, common to most denitions are threshold parameters
including minimum forest area, tree height and level of crown cover. Under the Kyoto Protocol,
a “forest” is defined according to these three parameters as selected by the host country. To
be eligible for voluntary credits and REDD, project forests must meet internationally accepted
denitions of what constitutes a forest, e.g., based on UNFCCC host-country thresholds or FAO
denitions (UNFCCC, 2009).
Discussions are ongoing on the acceptance of tall and medium height woody bamboos as
trees under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, and in the future, under REDD and REDD+. The
Executive Board of the CDM, in its 39th meeting, decided that “Palm (trees) and bamboos can
be considered equivalent to trees in the context of A/R”. However, the nal decision on what
constitutes a ‘forest’ lies with the country Designated National Authorities (DNAs), therefore
potentially aecting whether CDM or other schemes include palms and/or bamboos (Lobovikov
et al., 2009).
Since bamboo is often managed by rural households with little nancial capital for investment,
monitoring A/R projects or REDD+ would be impossible without external project funding.
Moreover, due to bamboo being outside conventional forestry projects, bamboo projects
would face considerable challenges regarding sampling designs, carbon assessment methods
and default parameters devised for timber trees (Lobovikov et al., 2009). Any mechanism which
generates payments for forest carbon, whether through a fund or a market, will not function
effectively unless consistently and effectively regulated. Well-aligned policies depend on
well-coordinated institutions and effective governance practices. Coordination depends on
information ow and participation particularly at the grassroots level (Saunders et al., 2008),
and such policies are currently not yet common for, and not yet adapted to bamboo.
However, bamboo forests constitute an important livelihood source for millions of rural people;
the current extent of bamboo forests and area of potential distribution justies amending the
IPCC guidelines and additional methodological tools to allow for the inclusion of bamboo in
carbon schemes (Lobovikov et al., 2009). To make this happen, more insights are needed in the
potential contribution of bamboo to mitigating climate change.
2. Mechanisms used for addressing Climate Change
2.4 Permanence and leakage
As vegetation is an unstable dynamic system, emission credits generated by carbon offsets
face the risks of premature expiration due to unforeseen shocks which can destroy standing
carbon. A cause for concern is the leakage associated with mitigation projects. The magnitude
of leakage can be large enough to negate the carbon benets of a project (Dutschke, 2003).
Due to the potential magnitude of natural disturbance events at the individual project level,
integrated approaches to address forest offset project reversal risk need to be considered
adequately. Bamboo forests face the same types of risk as many other types of forest, including
fire, pest attacks, drought and extreme weather events, as well as gregarious flowering (see
Chapter 1).
In addition, climate change is predicted to aect forestry and agriculture in a number of ways,
thus potentially debilitating the efficiency of forests to act as a carbon sink. There is general
agreement amongst climate scientists that natural disturbances are highly likely to increase
in frequency and intensity and extreme climate events will become more frequent with
an increase in spring temperature fluctuations and summer drought (IPCC, 2007). Climate
extremes and higher average temperatures will negatively affect forest ecosystems and
increase their susceptibility to pests and diseases (Hemery, 2008)
Policymakers should ensure that forest offset policies and programmes do not provide an
incentive to maximize carbon storage at the expense of risk management (Galik and Jackson,
2009).
12
13
3. Carbon
sequestration at the
stand level
3. Carbon sequestration at the stand level
As part of the analysis of how bamboo can play a role in fulfilling demand for timber and
sequestering atmospheric carbon, this chapter looks at how the carbon sequestration (levels
and patterns) of bamboo compares with other fast growing trees which are commonly used
for providing timber. The analysis concentrates on the situation in China, because it is the
only country for which sucient data could be found for both bamboo and comparable fast
growing species. The models deal with the accumulation of carbon in the bamboo plant, and
do not describe the ux in carbon dioxide between the plant and the atmosphere.
From the literature, data were collected for growth patterns of Moso bamboo, Ma bamboo,
Chinese Fir and Eucalypt plantations. The longest period covers 60 years, which is the typical
length of a Chinese Fir plantation in China, consisting of two rotations of 30 years. The harvest
method for Chinese Fir and Eucalypt plantation are clear cutting, which removes all above
ground carbon stock, while for bamboo, cutting takes place every year, which is equivalent
to leaving a xed amount of carbon stock standing every year (for Moso bamboo 5/6, for Ma
bamboo 2/3 of the above ground carbon stock) which is replaced in the year following the
harvest.
3.1 Data sources
The section is based on an extensive literature review, focusing on biomass and carbon
sequestration in the biomass of the whole plant of bamboo (above and below ground) and
rapid growing tree species such as Eucalypt and Chinese Fir plantations. The methodology for
calculating carbon sequestration was based on techniques used within the cited literature. In
order to verify data, authors were contacted on occasion.
3.2 Methodology
Bamboo biomass data were used to calculate the bamboo forest carbon stock increases,
based on the compiled data and research findings from various authors. Through screening,
comparison and verication of the compiled research, we selected the most credible biomass
formula and models:
(1) The development of newly aorested Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) plantations
Simulations of the changes in biomass from the initial shooting to canopy closure within
bamboo stands were modelled using observational data (number of newly grown bamboo
culms, diameter at breast height (DBH), and biomass). The simulation model on DBH changed
simultaneously with the age of the plantation (Chen et al, 2004a, 2004b):
D=5.2000+0.5722 y+0.0452 y2-0.0056 y3 (R=0.9990, y∈[1, 7]) [1]
H=0.5702+1.6426D-0.0465D2 (R=0.727, D ∈[D (y=1), D (y=7)]) [2]
Where D represents the DBH of bamboo stands (cm), y presents afforestation years (years),
H is the height of bamboo stand in metres (m). The bamboo forest that was used to collect
the data from 1997 to 2003 is located in a hilly area of Zhejiang province (28°31’-29°20’N,
118°41’-119°06’E).
3. Carbon
sequestration at the
stand level
14
15
(2) Living individual biomass of Moso bamboo model [3] and whole bamboo stand living
biomass [4] (Chen 1998):
W=213.4164D-0.5805H2.3131 (R=0.8321) [3]
Bw=W*DS [4]
Where W is the biomass of the whole individual bamboo culm including rhizomes and roots (g/
culm), D is the DBH (cm), H is the height of the bamboo stand (m); the data from year 1 to year
7 reported by Chen (2004b) are used for calculations using formula [3]. DS is the density of the
bamboo (culms per hectare), a common density of 3,300 culms/ha for a mature bamboo forest
is used in the calculations using [4]. Bw is the biomass of the forest (t/ ha). The bamboo forest
that was used to collect the data for the formula (in 1998) is located in northern Fujian province
(26°14’-28°20’N, 117°02’-119°07’E).
(3) Chinese Fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) biomass model (Tian, 2005):
W
1=217.8639(1-e-0.118053t)3.3402 (R=0.99) [5]
W
2=168.91357(1-e-0.13344t)3.4170(R=0.999) [6]
W1 and W2 are respectively the rst and second cycle of the total living biomass of Chinese Fir in
a plantation, t is the Chinese Fir trees age. The data for the formula were collected from Hunan
Huitong Forest Ecosystem Research Station [1979-2004] (26°50’N, 109°45’E). Equation [4] is
used to calculate total biomass in the Chinese Fir forest, using the common density of 2,175
trees/ha.
(4) DBH module for Ma Bamboo (Dendrocalamus latiorus) aorestation (Chen, 2002):
D=1.960772+1.039603 X (R=0.5324, X∈ [1, 5]) [7]
D is the DBH of Ma Bamboo(cm), X is the afforestation years. Data for the formula were
collected from 1995 to 1999 in a forest in southern Fujian province (24°31’N, 117°21’E).
(5) Total biomass of Ma Bamboo (Liang, 1998):
W=0.540093D1.9305 (R=0.945) [8]
W is the biomass (kg); D is diameter at breast height (cm). Data for the formula were collected
in 1997 in a Ma bamboo stand in Fujian province (25°24’-25°29’N, 118°23’-118°50’E). Equation [4]
above is used to calculate the whole stand biomass, using a density of 1728, 1612, 1504, 1750
and 1723 culms/ha respectively for the rst ve years.
(6) The Eucalyptus urophylla forest living biomass:
Equation [4] above is used to calculate the Eucalyptus urophylla forest living biomass. Where W
is the total biomass of an average individual Eucalyptus urophylla tree (kg/ individual tree) as
measured per year during a 5 year rotation, DS is the density of the Eucalyptus urophylla forest
(1,350 trees per hectare).The data were collected from 1996 to 2000 in an Eucalyptus urophylla
forest located in Fujian province (24°37’N, 117°28’E) (Lin, 2003) .
(7) Carbon stock in biomass (Xu et al., 2007)
C=0.5B [9]
Where C is the carbon stock in biomass, 0.5 is the carbon fraction commonly used for trees and
bamboo (Xu et al., 2007; Zhou at al., 2004; Xu et al., 2009; Qi et al., 2009).
3.3 Comparative analysis of the carbon
sequestration patterns of a newly afforested
Moso bamboo plantation and a Chinese Fir
plantation in subtropical locations
3.3.1 Dynamics of carbon sequestrated in a newly-established Moso bamboo
plantation in the rst 10 years
In subtropical regions, monopodial bamboo species (such as Phyllostachys pubescens and
P. bambusoides) can achieve canopy closure within 6-8 years after planting and can reach
maturity for regular harvesting from the 9th or 10th year. One of the most frequently asked
questions regarding bamboo carbon sequestration is to what extent the rapid canopy closure
and early harvest inuences the creation of biomass and carbon sequestration.
The pattern of net annual carbon increment in the rst 10 years after planting is shown in Figure
3-1 and Table 3-1, demonstrating the fluctuations in bamboo carbon sequestration during
stages of growth. The gure is based on the bamboo growth pattern formula [1, 2], bamboo
biomass formula [3, 4] and bamboo carbon formula [9]. From the 6th year onwards bamboo
culms are harvested. The harvested culms are included in the total carbon sequestration of the
Moso plantation.
Fig. 3-1 Change in annual net carbon sequestrated in the Moso plantation in the rst 10 years t C/(ha • yr)
3. Carbon sequestration at the stand level
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
12345678910
16
17
Year12345678910
YNC 1.0 1.4 1.8 3.8 5. 5 3.7 1.2 3.3 4.8 4.4
CA 1.0 2.5 4.3 8.1 13.5 17.2 18.5 21.8 26.5 31.0
Table 3-1 Yearly net carbon (YNC) sequestration and carbon accumulation (CA) in the Moso plantation in the rst 10 years
Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1 demonstrate that within the initial ten year period there are two peaks
of carbon sequestration at years 5 and 9. The increase in culms reaches its peak at Year 5, when
there are approximately 2,175 culms/ ha, and reaches a constant level of 3,300 culms/ ha in year
10, which is a common density of a mature Moso forest. In the year 5, the net annual carbon
stock increase is about 5.5 tonnes. The increase in growth is smaller in the 6th and 7th year due
to less culms being added every year, but increases again from the 8th year onwards because
new culms have increasingly bigger diameters during this phase. In the first ten years, the
annual average net carbon stock in the new bamboo plantation is approximately 3.1 tons/ha.
3.3.2 Comparative analysis of the carbon sequestration trends of a newly-
established Moso bamboo and a Chinese Fir plantation in the rst 10 years
Chinese Fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) is one of the most rapidly growing plantation species in
subtropical China. Chinese Fir and Moso bamboo forests naturally grow at similar sites and require
similar climatic conditions3. Due to similarities in distribution and use, a comparison of carbon
sequestration between Chinese Fir and Moso bamboo can reveal how bamboo’s ability to sequester
carbon compares with that of a fast growing tree.
The growth patterns of Chinese Fir (Tian, 2005) and Moso bamboo are very different, as shown
in Table 3-2. The Chinese Fir plantations are even-aged whereas Moso is uneven-aged. Whilst a
plantation of Chinese Fir younger than 10 years resides in the ‘young forest’ phase, a Moso bamboo
plantation achieves canopy closure and maturation already in its 8th year. Normally, after 8 years, an
individual Moso bamboo culm ages and dies, and therefore it should be harvested before that time
in order to provide utility and store carbon for a longer period.
Age
Species
<=10 11-20 21-25 26-35 >=36
Chinese Fir Young stand Medium age Close to maturity Matured Old
Moso Individual Culm Matured Dying
Stand Young to mature Matured
Table 3-2 The growth patterns of Chinese Fir and Moso bamboo plantations
3 Since the calculations for bamboo and r are based on data from comparable but not identical locations in China, the dierences
and similarities in sequestration between bamboo and Chinese Fir should be considered as an indication only, not as absolute and
quantitative.
3. Carbon sequestration at the stand level
Fig. 3-2 Comparison of modelled carbon sequestration patterns of the Chinese Fir and Moso bamboo plantations during
the rst 10 years.
(The bars show net annual carbon sequestration t C/ (ha•yr))
Fig. 3-3 Patterns of modelled aggregate carbon accumulation during the rst 10 years of the Chinese Fir and Moso
plantations t C/ha
Fig. 3-2 shows that Moso bamboo sequesters carbon rapidly in the rst 5 years, and then slows down
with a 2nd peak at 8 and 9 year, while Chinese Fir starts relatively slowly but increases steadily during
the initial growth period. Fig. 3-3 indicates that by the 9th and 10th year the carbon sequestrated by
both plantations presented here would be comparable.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6Moso Chinese fir
Moso Chinese fir
18
19
3.3.3 Comparative analysis of carbon sequestration trends of a newly-established
Moso bamboo and a Chinese Fir plantation in two harvesting rotations (1-60
years)
Chinese Fir plantations are composed of even-aged stands which are commonly clear-felled
as they reach maturity at approximately 30 years. A managed Moso bamboo forest has an
annual continuous production of biomass. The rst ‘mature’ culms are harvested after 3 years,
and thereafter 1/3 of all the culms are harvested biannually after the 5th year4. A Moso bamboo
stand is considered to be in biological balance when 1/3 new biomass re-grows after 1/3 of the
total biomass is harvested and removed from a bamboo plantation.
The formula used for the Chinese Fir plantation is based upon a 2 x 30 year harvesting rotation
cycle, after which the land is put to other use. This is currently the most common practice in
China. Fig. 3-4 shows that the annual carbon increase for the Moso bamboo peaks at year 5
and for the Chinese Fir at year 13, at a similar level of 5.5 t C/(ha • year). For the Moso bamboo,
carbon increase becomes level at 3.8 t C/ha at year 10. For the Chinese Fir, the calculations
show diminishing increases until the end of the first cycle, at 30 years, when all the carbon
in the fir is removed (and for the purpose of this study assumed to be converted to durable
products) and a new plantation is established that follows a similar pattern. Due to some level
of soil degradation, the second cycle of Chinese Fir produces a lower amount of biomass and
therefore carbon in comparison with the rst cycle5. At the end of the rst cycle of Chinese Fir
(year 30), the carbon calculated to be sequestered by both plantations is roughly equal, while
after 60 years the calculated total carbon accumulation for the Moso bamboo plantation was
217 t C/ha and for the Chinese Fir 178 t C/ha6.
4 For the purposes of this study, this has been converted to annual harvests of 1/6 of the culms. This is shown in the graphs presented
in this study.
5 No studies were found that reported soil degradation and therefore less biomass production for a regular Moso forest between the
30th and 60th year.
6 For both Moso bamboo and Chinese Fir in the model, harvested culms and stems are included in the total amount of carbon
sequestered.
Fig. 3-4 Annual net carbon sequestration patterns adopting regular harvesting patterns within a 60 year period t C/(ha • yr)
3.3.4 Carbon sequestration by unmanaged bamboo forest (without regular
harvesting)
Moso forests without human interventions, or Moso plantations that are planted but
not managed are rare in China. However, for the benefit of this analysis, it is important to
compare and contrast the dierences between carbon sequestration between managed and
unmanaged bamboo stands.
Liese (2009) states that an unmanaged, naturally regenerating bamboo forest contains culms
of all ages, including many dying and dead ones. The underground rhizome system also may
suffer from deterioration. Such forests are often situated far from human settlements and
have not been researched. According to FAO (2005), in Asia about 30% of bamboo forests are
planted and 70% are natural, and only a part of that is managed by communities or forestry
entities.
For the calculations a complete biological deterioration of the dead bamboo culms was assumed
so that these would not contribute anymore to plant carbon stock.
3. Carbon sequestration at the stand level
Fig. 3-5 Calculated accumulation of carbon sequestration patterns with regular bamboo harvesting within a 60 year
timescale t C/ha
Fig. 3-6 Modelled annual net carbon sequestration patterns without regular bamboo harvesting over a 30 year time period
t C/(ha • yr)
Moso Chinese fir
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1357911131517192123252729
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
014710131619222528313437404346495255
Moso Ch inese fir
58
6
5
4
3
2
1
014710131619222528313437404346495255
Moso Chinese fir
58
20
21
Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 show that the patterns of the accumulated above-ground carbon
in the Chinese Fir plantation is about 3.2 times greater than the accumulation of carbon in an
unmanaged Moso bamboo plantation within a 30 year period7. Xiao et al. (2007) reported that
the carbon stock in Chinese Fir at 15 years is 2.13 times higher than Moso bamboo at 10 years.
Figure 3-7 shows that carbon in the Chinese Fir at 15 years is 1.9 times higher than the Moso
bamboo equilibrium level (which is reached at 10 years).
These data indicate that carbon sequestered in Moso bamboo forests only would be
comparable or exceeding that of Chinese Fir forests when managed with regular harvesting
cycles. Where Moso bamboo forests are not managed with regular harvesting, the carbon
sequestration of Chinese Fir is likely to be higher. This identifies the need for Moso bamboo
management to be encouraged and developed for carbon stock management, and suggest
Moso bamboo plantation carbon projects merit inclusion under initiatives such as CDM A/R
and potentially the inclusion of management of currently unmanaged Moso bamboo stands
under a REDD+ scheme.
3.4 Comparative analysis of eld data for Moso
bamboo and Chinese Fir
The results of the calculations and the studies of the pattern of carbon sequestration for Moso
bamboo and Chinese Fir as presented above are compared with eld data from a large variety
of Chinese studies in Table 3-3. Total standing biomass carbon for Moso plantations at a similar
density as that used for the calculations vary between 25 t C/ha to 91 t C/ha. The gures for
Chinese Fir range from 17 to 48 t C/ha (at approximately 10 years); from 37 to 62 t C/ha (at 15
years); and from 70 to 81 t C/ha (at maturity-approximately 25 years). Chinese Fir plantations
older than 30 years contain around 195 t C/ha in standing biomass. These eld data are in the
same range as the ones presented in Figures 3-1 to 3-6, and support the conclusion that Moso
bamboo can contribute to carbon sequestration in a similar way as Chinese Fir, provided that
the harvested product is turned into durable products that continue to store carbon for long
periods.
7 The sharp drop in carbon increment from 4.5 to 0 tC/(ha•yr) in Fig. 3-6 is due to the calculation used, which provides incremental
growth only in the rst 10 years. Following this, an equilibrium is maintained as loss due to dying plant material is matched by new
growth. Whilst in the eld, lower levels of incremental growth may be seen in the rst few years after the 10 year mark in some
situations, a zero-net gain equilibrium for bamboo forests around the 10 year mark is common.
Fig. 3-7 Calculated accumulation patterns of carbon stock without regular harvesting within a 30 year time period t C/ha
Type Location Density
Above
ground
Carbon
Below
ground
Carbon
Total Age
(years) Ref.
Moso
Culms/ha (ton/ha) (ton/ha) (ton/ha)
Nanjing, Fujian (24°52'N, 117°14'E) \ 28.29 10.68 38.97 \ Li,1993
Fujian (26°14'-28°20'N, 117°02'-119°07'E) \ 29.39 11.49 40.88 \ Chen, 1998
Yongchun, Fujian
(26°14'-28°20'N, 117°02'-119°07'E) \ 23.38 8.99 32.37 \ Peng, 2002
Wuyishan, Fujian
(27°33'-27°54'N, 117°27'-117°51'E)
\ 35.47 19.88 55.35 \ He, 2003
\ 29.38 11.49 40.87 \
Yongan, Fujian (25°21'-25°31'N, 117°40'E)
2,551~2,801 51.18 22.97 74.15 \
Qi, 2009
2,251~2,776 44.61 16.69 61.30 \
2,201~2,751 37.33 13.70 51.03 \
Miaoshanwu, Fuyang, Zhejiang (30°04'N) \ 36.65 34.00 70.65 \ Huang, 1987
Miaoshanwu, Fuyang, Zhejiang (30°04'N) 3,750 64.63 26.57 91.19 24 Huang, 1993
2,700 29.09 30.97 60.06 24
Lin' an, Zhejiang (30°14'N, 119°42'E) 2,000~4,500 19.08 11.50 30.58 \ Zhou, 2004
Tianmushan, Lin an,
Zhejiang (30°18'-30°24'N, 119°23'-119°28'E) 4,642 26.81 8.88 35.69 \ Hao, 2010
Changning, Sichuan \ 17.55 8.21 25.76 \ He, 2007
Huitong, Hunan (26°50'N, 109°41'E) 2,100 15.54 27.31 42.85 10 Xiao, 2007
Modelling
Moso
With
harvesting
Quzhou, Zhejiang 3,300 22.3 8.7 31.00 10 This study, 2010
\ \ 105.20 30
Chinese
Fir
Nanping, Fujian (117°57'E, 26°28'N) 1,061 153.09 37.69 190.78 40 Zhong, 2008
1,316 169.03 29.20 198.23 87
Huitong, Hunan (26°48'N, 109°30'E) 1,530 43.59 8.95 52.54 15 Xiao, 2007
Nandan, Guangxi
(24°58'-25°01'N, 107°29'-107°30'E)
2,200 14.54 2.54 17.08 8 He, 2009
2,000 21.82 5.41 27.23 11
1,967 30.74 6.54 37.28 14
Dagangshan, Fenyi, Jiangxi
(27°30'-27°50'N, 114°30'-114°45'E)
1,667 42.26 5.34 47.60 12 Duan, 2005
1,667 48.58 6.20 54.78 14
1,667 54.72 6.99 61.71 16
Sichuan
\ \ \ 23.30 <10
Hou, 2009
\ \ \ 47.45 11~20
\ \ \ 70.85 20~25
\ \ \ 81.23 26~35
\ \ \ 194.22 >36
Chinese
Fir
modelling
Huitong, Hunan (26°48'N, 109°30'E) 1,530 \ \ 32.00 10 This study, 2010
Table 3-3 Carbon sequestration reported for Moso bamboo and Chinese Fir plantations
3. Carbon sequestration at the stand level
Moso Chinese fir
100
75
50
25
0
1357911131517192123252729
22
23
3.5 Comparative analysis of carbon
sequestration in a new Ma bamboo and an
Eucalyptus plantation under tropical growing
conditions
Ma bamboo (Dendrocalamus latiorus) is a medium-large-sized sympodial bamboo plantation
species distributed extensively across tropical regions, particularly South Asia. Ma bamboo’s
rapid growing forest counterpart is Eucalypt. Eucalypt is one of the fastest growing plantation
species on the planet, demonstrating high yielding characteristics. Introduced to China
from Eastern Indonesia in 1890, the rapid development of Eucalypt plantations has led to
a current coverage of 1.4 million hectares, which ranks China second only to Brazil in terms
of the national Eucalypt plantation area. (Wen, 2000). This section will compare the carbon
sequestration patterns of Ma bamboo and Eucalyptus urophylla, the most commonly grown
Eucalyptus species in tropical China. Because of the rapid growth patterns of these tropical
species, the analysis has been limited to dierences during the rst 10 years.
3.5.1 Comparative analysis of carbon sequestration within a new Ma bamboo and
a new Eucalypt (Eucalyptus urophylla) plantation under regular management
practices with harvesting rotations within the rst 10 years
The calculations for Ma bamboo have been made using equations [4], [7] and [8]. For Eucalypt,
a model based upon a new plantation of Eucalyptus urophylla was used, with the density about
1,350 individual/ha.
Fig. 3-8 shows that annual carbon increment in the Ma bamboo plantation peaked at year
8 when the culms/ha start reaching a maximum, and the annual replacement of harvested
culms becomes balanced. The Eucalypt is felled after 5 years, the calculated pattern for annual
increment is similar for the two cycles (years 1-5 and years 6-10). The annual increments for the
Eucalypt are both lower (e.g. years 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9) and higher (years 2,3,4,5 and 10) than the
Ma bamboo. The pattern of accumulated carbon sequestered for both plantations is shown in
Fig 3-9, and appears to be at similar levels, with the Eucalyptus rising earlier but levelling o in
comparison with the Ma bamboo plantation in the second 5 year period.
Fig. 3-8 Modelled annual net carbon sequestration patterns under regular harvesting Ma bamboo and Eucalypt
plantation practices over a 10 year period t C/(ha · yr)
3.6 Summary
Moso bamboo and Chinese Fir plantations have comparable features regarding their rapid
growth rates and climatic requirements. The study analysed their respective growth patterns
and used biomass and carbon calculations to ascertain their relative carbon sequestration
patterns and capacity. The results indicate that bamboo and trees have very different
sequestration patterns, but are likely to have comparable carbon sequestration capacity, as
long as the bamboo forest is managed and the total amount of harvested fibre from both
species is turned into durable products.
The Moso bamboo forest used for the modeling parameters in this study had an initial planting
density of 315 culms/ha, then grew up to 2,550 culms/ha in year 7. This study assumes that
the forest canopy closure and maximum density of 3,300 culms/ha is reached at the 10th
year with an average DBH of 10cm. However, under intensive management practices in Moso
bamboo forests in China, a density of 4,500 culms/ha and higher can be reached. In this
case, the carbon stock and annual sequestrated carbon in the above ground biomass in an
intensively management bamboo forest would be higher than the modelling data used in
this study. However, the total effect is unclear, as it is expected that intensive management
may reduce the sequestration capacity of the soil layer (see also Chapter 6). There may also be
higher emissions resulting from the management practices, such as from fertiliser inputs. More
research is needed on carbon models under dierent management regimes.
The carbon sequestration capacity of Eucalypt plantations were compared to sympodial Ma
bamboo (Dendrocalamus latiorus) due to the relative rapid growth rates and similar climatic
requirements of both species. The study analysed their respective growth patterns and the
results indicate that both species may have a comparable carbon sequestration capacity and
performance.
Fig. 3-9 Calculated patterns of accumulation of carbon sequestration under regular harvesting practices for the Ma
bamboo and the Eucalypt plantation over a 10 year period t C/ha
3. Carbon sequestration at the stand level
Ma Ba mboo Eucalypt
150
120
90
60
30
Ma Ba mboo Eucalypt
24
25
Species
Climate Bamboo Tree
Subtropical 31 (Moso bamboo) 32 (Chinese Fir)
Tropical 128 (Ma bamboo) 115 (Eucalypt)
Table 3-4 Modelled accumulated carbon at 10 years t C/ha
Table 3-4 lists the calculated accumulated carbon/ha after 10 years for the 4 plantations
included in this study. As explained previously these two bamboo species and two tree species
were chosen because they are commonly grown and recognised as having the highest rate of
biomass accumulation amongst bamboos and tree species in tropical and subtropical China.
It is clear that that in the tropics in Southern China, more carbon is sequestered by both trees
and bamboo species. This is likely to be due to the climatic conditions that include higher
temperatures, longer growing seasons, and more sunlight, all stimulating photosynthesis and
thus carbon sequestration. Since Ma bamboo and Moso bamboo are grown under climatically
dierent conditions, the comparison between the two bamboo species cannot be used as an
indication of the importance of genotypic dierences for carbon sequestration. For this, further
experiments would be needed involving several high performing bamboo species that would
be grown under comparable climatic conditions.
It is evident that sustainable bamboo management is the key to achieving sustained carbon
sequestration within bamboo plantations, which then can compare at least with tree species.
Management techniques should be advocated for both bamboo plantations and natural
bamboo forests to realize the full potential of bamboo carbon sequestration.
4. Carbon
sequestration
capacity in bamboo
forest ecosystems
4. Carbon
sequestration
capacity in bamboo
forest ecosystems
26
27
The study has shown that when compared to Chinese Fir and Eucalyptus in managed plantation
sites, bamboo is at least equal to the other species in terms of its carbon sequestration capacity.
However, results from studies focusing on bamboo carbon sequestration capacity vary greatly
as they adopt dierent methodologies and management practices. Recent research conducted
in China indicates that Moso bamboo plays a signicant role in regional and national carbon
budgets in China. The adoption of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing
has expanded the scope to attempt to estimate biomass stocks (Lu, 2006).
The following section presents an analysis of Chinese research focusing on the capacity of
bamboo forests to sequester carbon at the ecosystem level (including bamboo, vegetation, and
forest soil carbon stocks). An attempt is made to compare the bamboo forest ecosystems with
comparable forest ecosystems, whereby the carbon sequestration of each respective forest
strata has been analysed to provide more comprehensive results.
4.1 Analysis of bamboo forests’ carbon
sequestration
Table 4.1 shows that above-ground carbon sequestration storage capacity of Moso bamboo
forests including shrubs and litter has been reported at levels varying between 27-77 t C/ha.
The majority of carbon was found to be sequestered in the arbour layer, accounting for 84-99%
of the total. The shrub layer and the herbaceous layer accounted for very small contributions,
especially in intensively managed forests.
Location Stand
management
Vegetation Soil sampling depth and layer Ecosystem Ref.
Arbor
plant
Shrub Grass Litter Sum 0-20
cm
20-40
cm
40-60
cm
Sum Total
Lin’an
Intensive 32.991 0 0 0.602 33.593 34.017 21.56 12.385 67.962 101.56 Zhou,
2004,
2006a
Extensive 29.456 4.166 0.666 0.669 34.957 39.734 22.138 12.309 74.181 109.14
Medium 30.58 3.17 0.481 0.656 34.887 36.96 22.294 12.221 71.475 106.36
Huitong High-yielding 31.97 0 0.64 0.74 33.35 56.91 55.71 26.97 139.59 172.94 Xiao,
2007,
2009
Medium
-yielding 25.59 0 0.63 0.53 26.75 49.66 36.04 25.26 110.96 137.71
Dagang
shan 31.2 3.8 0.2 0.16 35.36 48.66 48.23 17.02 113.91 149.27 Wang
2007
Yong’an
Intensive
management 74.15 0 0 2.59 76.74 45.34 52.2 53.1 150.64 227.38 Qi,
2009
Medium 61.3 0 0 3.01 64.31 83.55 56.71 57.11 197.36 261.67
Extensive
management 51.03 0 0 4.88 55.91 95.41 76 61.15 232.56 288.47
Table 4-1 Carbon stock within Moso bamboo ecosystems (t C/ha)
4. Carbon sequestration capacity in bamboo forest ecosystems
Table 4-1 also shows that the distribution of carbon storage varies between dierent layers of
soil. Within Moso bamboo forests, the carbon storage down to a depth of 60cm is reported to
have a range between 68.0 -232.6 t C/ha, which includes rhizomes, roots and soil carbon. The
carbon storage decreases with the soil depth. The soil layer between 0-20cm has the highest
carbon stock.
The reported total bamboo forest ecosystem carbon storage capacity collected for this study
ranges between 101.6 t C/ha and 288.5 t C/ha, amongst which 19-33% was stored within the
bamboo and vegetative layer, and 67-81% was stored within the soil layer, which is about 2-4
times greater than the vegetative layer capacity. The shrub layer accounted for 3.3-5.6% of the
carbon stock and the grass and the litter layer accounts for a very limited contribution.
The data in Table 4-1 are for forests where bamboo is the main species. However, many non-
commercial species are found as minor species in forests dominated by trees. Very little data on
the contribution of such bamboos to the carbon stored in those forests is available.
4.2 Comparison of carbon stock in bamboo
and forest ecosystems (including bamboo,
vegetation and soil carbon sequestration)
Parts
Forest Arbor & Shrub Litter In soil Total Ref.
Moso bamboo in Lin’an
(medium-intensity management) 34.2 0.66 71.48 106.34 Zhou, 2004; 2006a
Pinus elliottii at 19th year 86.78 8.86 26.30 121.94 Tu, 2007
Chinese Fir at 15th year 53.60 3.43 93.16 203.79 Xiao, 2009
Moso bamboo in Yong’an
(medium- intensity management) 61.3 3.01 197.36 261.67 Qi, 2009
Deciduous broad-leaved forest 47.75 5.85 208.90 262.50 Zhou, 2000
Tropical forest 110.86 3.00 116.49 230.35
Evergreen broad-leaved forest 73.68 5.43 257.57 336.68
Table 4-2 Comparison of carbon stock in bamboo and tree forest ecosystems (t C/ha)
Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 indicate that managed bamboo ecosystems are likely to be a somewhat
lower static carbon store (varying from 102 t C/ha to 288 t C/ha) when compared with other
forest types-both managed and unmanaged (varying from 122 t C/ha to 337 t C/ha), although
there is considerable overlap. The amount of carbon that all forest types can sequester is
of course influenced by climatic and soil factors. However, it should be realised that the full
potential of bamboo for sequestration can only be achieved if bamboo is sustainably managed
and if the harvested culms are included in the carbon calculations for comparisons with other
aorestation or sustainable forestry management options. This is further discussed in Chapter 7.
28
29
5. Bamboo carbon stock
estimates at the national
level of China
Moso bamboo is the most prevalent species of bamboo in China, accounting for about 3% of
the total forest area. The total Moso bamboo area in China is 3.37 million ha, representing 70%
of the total bamboo forest in China (according to the forestry inventory of SFA, China).
Carbon density is a key indicator of a forest’s ability to sequester carbon, which is dened as the
quantity of carbon in a unit area.
Chen (2008, 2009) used data from the 20th century on bamboo forest area, biomass
accumulation, carbon storage, carbon density and soil organic carbon to calculate the average
Chinese bamboo biomass, the average per plant biomass, soil organic matter content and the
carbon density. Data from the period between 1950 and 2003 was used to calculate estimates
of carbon storage, changes and area dynamics using two dierent types of bamboo; Moso and
some small sized bamboo species which were grouped together. According to the research,
Chinese bamboo forest carbon storage between 1950 and 2003 showed a rising trend. In the
period from 1999-2003 the carbon storage capacity was 639.32 Tg C.
The data collected in Table 5-1 show that large variations exists in estimations of total bamboo
carbon sequestration, depending on the dierent methodologies employed, area estimation
and culm estimation. Chen (2008) reported that bamboo forest carbon storage in China during
a period spanning 26 years (compiled from four of China’s five-year national forest surveys)
had increased. The initial period saw a rise of 6.5% -7.2% (1977-1981), followed by 7.8% - 9.8%
(1984-1988), 9.3% -10.4% (1989-1993), 9.4% -10.6% (1994-1998), 10.6% -11.6% (1999-2003).
During the same period the bamboo forest area only increased from 2.87% to 2.96%, and
therefore this suggests that there has been a considerable increase of plant biomass per
hectare of bamboo over that 26 year period.
Method 1950-1962 1977-1981 1984-1988 1989-1993 1994-1998 1999-2003 Ref.
Based on area 318.55 427.37 463.8 493 548.79 631.58 Chen,
2008
Based on the
number of culms 286.59 341.81 414.54 436.28 504.82 605.5
Based on carbon
stock capacity
at dierent ages & area
\ 537.6 598.61
(168.798) \710.14
(168.647)
837.92
(173.031)
Wang,
2008
Based on area & average
carbon density \ \ \ \ \ 1138.88*
(258.818)
Li,
2003
Based on area & average
carbon density \ \ \ \ \ 1425**
(259.091)
Guo,
2005
Note: 1Tg=1012g , * Carbon storage in 2003,** Carbon storage in 2005
Table 5-1 Estimates of total carbon storage (Tg C) and carbon density ((t C/ha (in italics) in bamboo forests in the past
6 decades in China
Currently it is believed that forestry and forest vegetation sequesters a global average of 359
Pg C with an average carbon density of 86 t C/ha. China’s forest carbon density at 38.7 t C/ha is
below the global average (Wei, 2007). Pinus sylvestris forest carbon density is recorded at 31.1 t
C/ha, larch forest at 60.2 t C/ha, Spruce-r forest at 82.01 t C/ha, and tropical forest at 110.86 t
C/ha (Zhou, 2000).
The carbon density in bamboo forests, as shown by the data included in table 5.1, is relatively
high, ranging from 168.647 to 259.091 t C/ha. While this is within the range reported in Chapter
4, it is currently much higher than the average forest carbon density at the national level of
China. One of the reasons for this could be that a large portion of China’s forests are newly-
5. Bamboo carbon stock estimates at the national level of China
5. Bamboo carbon stock
estimates at the national
level of China
30
31
planted young plantations with a low carbon stock, while most bamboo forests are mature
secondary forests. It is expected that when the maturation stage for other forests is reached,
the Chinese average will rise, and the carbon density of bamboo will be much closer to the
Chinese average, as other forests are likely to sequester carbon to a level at least equal to
bamboo, as was shown in Chapter 3 and 4.
Chen (2009) estimated that the carbon stocks in bamboo stands for 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, and
2050 are expected to increase to 727.08 Tg C, 839.16 Tg C, 914.43 Tg C, 966.80 Tg C, and 1017.64
Tg C respectively. These data are based on government predicted trends over the next five
decades which have been adjusted according to forest and bamboo variables, mainly because
of an expected increase in bamboo area.
Increasingly studies are demonstrating that bamboo does have a role to play in carbon
sequestration within forest ecosystems (Yang et al., 2008). The great variation in attempts to
estimate total bamboo forest carbon identify a need to harmonize the measurements of carbon
density across dierent sites, species, climates and conditions. While the case of China has been
used above, this is only because data from other countries is lacking, both regarding the area
of bamboo forests and estimates of bamboo carbon density in other countries. These would be
needed before a reliable global estimation of bamboo carbon stock can be made.
6. Impact of management
practices on carbon
sequestration in Moso
bamboo forests
6. Impact of management
practices on carbon
sequestration in Moso
bamboo forests
32
33
Research indicates that bamboo has high productivity and, through management techniques,
could sequester higher amounts of carbon, which could create a sink eect. A Moso bamboo
forest requires approximately seven years to grow to maturity, which is significantly faster
than tree species. Bamboo stands require more frequent management practices compared
with other kinds of forestry stands. Due to its rapid growth and regeneration, bamboo can
be harvested by annual selective cutting. Bamboo stands pass from the establishment stage
through phases of tending, pre-commercial and commercial thinning, and harvesting. Each
stage requires specic silvicultural interventions (Lobovikov et al., 2009).Therefore the impact
of management practices on carbon sequestration capacity, the ecosystem and carbon
distribution patterns of bamboo forest are key issues to be addressed. At present, this issue has
received little attention from researchers (Zhou, 2006a; Qi, 2009).
Generally there are three management types that are utilized in China for bamboo forest
silviculture practices: high intensive, intensive and extensive management (Table 6-1).
Types Management practices The general characteristics of forest land
High intensive Fertilising, clearing the understory once a year,
tending, cutting bamboo and harvesting
bamboo shoots
Only bamboo in arbor layer
(no other trees), no understory
Intensive Fertilising once a year, tending,
cutting bamboo and harvesting bamboo shoots Limited understory
Extensive Tending, cutting bamboo and harvesting
bamboo shoots
There may be mixed species, with shrub
and herb layers and tree seedlings
Table 6-1 bamboo forest silviculture types in China
The data presented in table 4-1 suggested that extensively managed bamboo forest
ecosystems have a higher carbon stock (288.5 t C/ha) than intensive management systems
(262-227 t C/ha). However, intensively managed plantations increase carbon stock in the arbor
part of the bamboo (51-74 t C/ha) compared with extensively managed plantations (39-51 t C/
ha). Therefore intensively managed bamboo forests appeared to store about 1.4 times more
carbon in the tree layer than extensively managed forests, while the carbon stock in the litter
layer and soil of extensively managed bamboo forests appeared to be higher than those of
intensively managed bamboo forests, 1.6 and 1.3 times respectively (Qi, 2009). Similarly, the
annual xed-carbon stock of Moso bamboo was reported at 12.7 t C/( ha•yr) when intensively
managed, which is about 1.6 times the capacity when extensively managed (8.1 t C/( ha•yr)),
3.6 times the rate of Chinese Fir plantations, and 2-4 times the rate of tropical rain forests and
pine forests (Zhou, 2006b). Intensive management increases the density of the bamboo stands.
Qi (2009) reports that Moso bamboo annually fixed-carbon stock can be as high as 20.1 to
34.1 t C/(ha•yr). For the carbon in the litter and shrub layer and in the soil, i.e. the rhizomes, the
roots and other carbon present in the soil, the indications point in the other direction (i.e. that
intensive management decreases carbon sequestration in the below ground pool). Within the
understory of extensively managed bamboo forests, the annual carbon sequestration capacity
can reach up to 0.546 t C/ha, and the litter layer up to 6.114 t C/ha, which is equal to about 2
times the capacity of intensively managed bamboo forests (3.049 t C/ha) (Zhou, 2006).
Also, under intensive management, the soil total organic carbon (TOC), water-soluble organic
carbon (WSOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and mineralizable carbon (MC) were found to
be signicantly lower (Zhou, 2006c; Xu, 2003). The repeated use of annual chemical fertilizers
6. Impact of management practices on carbon
sequestration in Moso bamboo forests
(itself a source of GHG) led to the decrease in water soluble carbon and soil microbial biomass
carbon storage, causing a reduction in soil carbon storage (Jiang 2002b; Zhou, 2006c). Five
years after intensive management, the TOC, WSOC, MBC and MC were signicantly lower than
those in extensively managed bamboo, and the TOC continued to decline for 20 years before
stabilizing.
It is clear that intensive management has mixed eects on the carbon sequestration capacity
of bamboo stands, and that much more research is needed to establish the best management
option for carbon sequestration.
There are many policies that advocate aorestation as a carbon oset option. The establishment
of productive monoculture plantations of rapidly growing tree species are considered to
contribute to the terrestrial carbon pool. However, afforestation in monocultures on a large
scale can impact water resources, cause substantial losses in stream flow, and increased soil
salinization and acidification (Jackson et al., 2005). There are further concerns regarding the
decline in forest biodiversity due to the expansion of such monoculture plantations, leading
to reductions in ecosystem services (Bunker et al., 2005). Policies that advocate carbon
sequestration in forest ecosystems should also consider the protection of ecosystem services
and biodiversity, rather than just advocating an increase in monoculture plantations (Lal,
2008). Similarly with bamboo plantations for carbon sequestration it is important to advocate
sustainable bamboo management.
In China bamboo species have been successfully combined within agroforestry and agriculture
systems (Lobovikov et al., 2009), and this should be explored further in other parts of the world
in the context of the specic local conditions.
34
35
7. Carbon sequestration
in durable products
7. Carbon sequestration in durable products
The models used in Chapters 3 and 4 assume that for both wood and bamboo species, all the
carbon which was sequestered was retained in a durable state, be it in standing biomass or
harvested products. Clearly this is an assumption which is not realistic since in practice, some
carbon is lost when wood is converted into other products. The transformation of carbon in
biomass into carbon locked in products is discussed in this chapter.
7.1 Carbon in Harvested Wood Products (HWP)
A carbon pool is created through the use and disposal of harvested wood products (HWP).
The management of the life cycle of HWP therefore aects the concentration of carbon in the
atmosphere (Hashimoto, 2008). The IPCC HWP report classifies HWP as a ‘carbon reservoir’
(Pingoud et al., 2006). The IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (IPCC, 2006) provide
four accounting approaches to HWP: the stock-change approach, the atmospheric-flow
approach, the production approach, and the simple decay approach (Hashimoto 2008), which
are all methods of estimating the HWP contribution regarding carbon sequestration (Pingoud
et al., 2006).
In contrast to the approach used in Chapter 3, carbon within HWP is not often accounted for as
being sequestered and it is assumed that either all of the carbon in harvested trees is released
into the atmosphere, or that there is no increase in the stock of wood products (IPCC 1996;
Marland et al., 2010). Skog and Nicholson (1998) estimated that wood and paper products
in use and in landfills in the USA in 1990 accounted for approximately 2.7 Pg C (20% of the
amount of carbon in forest trees in the USA) and that this was increasing by 0.06 Pg C per year.
In 2000, the amount of carbon in HWP produced globally was 0.71 Pg C (Pingoud et al., 2003).
The annual inventories of CO2 emissions for major wood producing countries can change by
as much as 30% depending on how harvested wood products are treated in the inventory
(Pingoud et al., 2003; Marland et al., 2010).
The continuous growth of the size of the pool of harvested products is thus a key determinant
in whether the system acts as a sink. Gustavsson (2001) also noted that wood-based building
materials can affect the carbon balance through relatively low levels of generated CO2 as
shown in their life cycle analysis when compared to industrial materials which consume high
levels of GHGs in their production and development.
7.2 Carbon in harvested bamboo products (HBP)
For the comparison between bamboo and rapid growing wood species such as Chinese Fir
and Eucalyptus, a key question is whether bamboo can be considered on the same terms as
Harvested Wood Products, based upon the characteristics of the material, and the uses of
the products. An individual culm has a limited lifetime of 7-10 years in a natural forest, and
thereafter its biomass and the carbon contained will biodegrade and CO2 will be released into
the atmosphere. On the other hand, prolonged sequestration of carbon is provided through a
great variety of bamboo products that range from construction materials to pulp (Liese, 2009).
Comparisons between bamboo species and wood species in Chapters 3-5 assume that there is
an equal rate of conversion from living carbon to biomass. A number of factors may aect this
assumption, amongst which the durability of products is of key concern. According to product
7. Carbon sequestration
in durable products
36
37
longevity and durability, bamboo products may be divided into short-term products such as
fuel, papers or other agricultural usages, medium-term products such bamboo baskets and
bamboo panels, and long-term products such as furniture, laminated products and permanent
bamboo houses or ooring. The longevity and durability of bamboo products may determine
the carbon storage performance to a great degree. It is important to reduce by-products and
waste and to produce durable bamboo products during bamboo processing.
Current processing technology innovations and product development have increased
the proportion of durable bamboo products. The prolonged storage of carbon is possible
whenever the culms are processed into products with long life cycles, such as construction
materials, panel products and furniture. The development and promotion of durable products
can also contribute to the global campaign to promote low-carbon industry.
7.3 Bamboo biochar
Biochar may be considered as a potential alternative to bamboo products as a durable carbon
stock. Through a process of pyrolysis, up to 50% of the carbon can be transferred from plant
tissue to the biochar, with the remaining 50% used to produce energy and fuels (Lehmann,
2007). Biochar is a highly stable carbon compound created when biomass is heated to
temperatures between 350 and 600 °C in the absence of oxygen (Whitman and Lehmann,
2009), which is subsequently mixed into soil to raise productivity. Conversion of biomass into
biochar increases the residence time of carbon in the soil (Lehmann and Joseph 2009), as well
as also reducing emissions of other Green House Gases (GHG) such as methane and Nitrous
Oxides from the soil (Yanai et al., 2007). Biochar not only presents a potential carbon sink,
but was known by ancient cultures as an effective fertilizer (Glaser, 2007). Biochar provides
an opportunity to enhance agricultural productivity in nutrient-poor soils, has proven long
term benets in terms of nutrient retention and availability, reduced leaching of nutrients and
other contaminants, potentially increased water availability for plants and potential benets to
microorganisms (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). Biochars are also known de-taniers and have
been tested as additives in animal feed (Lehmann and Joseph 2009). Van et al. (2007) also found
7. Carbon sequestration in durable products
that when bamboo biochar was added to goat feed there were noted production benets.
Hua et al (2009) found that bamboo biochar was an eective fertilizer when incorporated with
sludge composing thereby effectively reducing nitrogen loses in the soil. The positive effect
was related to the high adsorption capacity of biochar particles during composting (Dias et
al., 2009). Asada et al. (2002) found that bamboo biochar was eective in absorbing ammonia
in soils. This was attributed to acidic functional groups formed as a result of thermolysis of
cellulose and lignin at temperatures of 400 and 500°C (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009).
Due to the complexities of many of the carbon trading mechanisms, biochar presents a viable,
simple alternative to sequester carbon for many rural households. The UNFCCC included
biochar in their 2009 draft for the Copenhagen meeting, stating “Consideration should be given
to the role of soils in carbon sequestration, including through the use of biochar and enhancing
carbon sinks in drylands” (UNFCC, 2009). Many developing countries could benefit from
investment in technology to enable the production of biochar; biochar can be produced in
small and large scale systems from small cooking stoves to larger bioenergy systems (Whitman
and Lehmann, 2009). Studies have found that biochar has average residence times in excess of
1000 years (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009), indicating that biochar could be an eective method
of storing carbon, and presenting a potential alternative to durable products which do not
have such longevity. The stability of biochar is a key issue in evaluating the potential benets of
bamboo biochar. Studies show that residence times vary from 293 years in Russian ecosystems
(Hammes et al., 2008) to 9529 years in Australian woodland calculations (Lehmann et al., 2009).
More research is needed to ascertain the potential for bamboo biochar; the long-term storage
times contradict the fertilizer functions that require bio-degrabability of the material. Steinbeiss
et al (2009) found that biochars produced by hydrothermal pyrolysis could contribute to the
soil carbon pool, however the rate of degradation depends on the type of biochar which is
related to the condensation grade and chemical structure. Biochars could be designed to act
as fertilizers whilst simultaneously adding to the soil carbon pool on a decadal time scale. Tens
of years however contradicts the hundreds to thousands of years cited in other studies. Further
studies are necessary to design the best possible soil amendments and to investigate the long-
term behavior of these biochars in natural systems (Steinbeiss et al., 2009).
38
39
8. Conclusions
Under regular management practices including stand and soil management and yearly
harvesting regimes, this study, through an analysis of the carbon sequestration patterns, found
that bamboo plantations are likely to sequester carbon at a similar level as comparable fast
growing trees, but following a dierent pattern:
1. The modelled Moso bamboo plantation during the process of canopy closure in the rst 5
years sequestered much more carbon than the Chinese Fir. The modelling of the Ma bamboo
plantation indicated slower sequestration than the comparable Eucalyptus during the rst 5
years. Later on, the situation for both sets of comparisons equalized. Based on these data,
and an extensive overview of the literature on carbon and biomass production of plantation
forests in China, bamboo appears to be a viable option for carbon sequestration within
forestry.
2. Sustainable management and harvesting practices are essential for bamboo plantations and
natural bamboo forests to exploit and sustain their capacity for carbon sequestration. If not
properly managed or left un-managed, the quantity of carbon sequestered in Moso bamboo
was calculated to be only about 30% of the Chinese Fir in 30 years in subtropical regions.
Thus to achieve higher levels of carbon sequestration, sustainable bamboo management,
regular harvesting and utilization for durable products should be advocated.
3. At the ecosystem level, the carbon stock of a mature bamboo forest appears to be equal
or somewhat lower than most other natural forests and plantations. However, in a mature
bamboo forest, the annual net carbon sequestration is constant due to the practice of full
re-growth after regular harvesting. About 2/3rds of the above ground total carbon and all of
the below-ground carbon stays on site for a much longer period of time than other
plantations, which are subject to clear felling when the plantation reaches maturity.
Substantial amount of carbon are stored in the bamboo forests of China, and the total
amount is expected to increase in the future primarily as a result of the planned increase of
the area under bamboo due to aorestation programmes.
4. Since harvested bamboo and plantation wood are counted as stored carbon in the models
used, the importance of Harvested Wood Products (HWP) and their potential to contribute to
carbon sequestration has been briey analysed. The new generation of bamboo products
with long life spans is positive for prospects that carbon in biomass can be sequestrated
for a longer period before they biodegrade, and further innovations should be encouraged
to enhance the number of durable bamboo products.
5. Conversion of biomass into biochar is thought to stimulate carbon with a long residence
time in soil. Biochar is considered to provide an opportunity to enhance agricultural
productivity in nutrient-poor soils, has proven long term benets in terms of nutrient
retention and availability, reduced leaching of nutrients and other contaminants, potentially
could increase water availability for plants and may have potential benets to
microorganisms. Biochar made out of bamboo oers interesting prospects but still requires a
lot of research.
6. The calculations presented in this study are based on current climate conditions. Climate
change will probably change the way bamboo and the other tree species used for
comparisons grow, photosynthesises, and may alter their resilience to increased
precipitation, temperature variability, pests and diseases as well as exposure to extreme
weather events and res. Scenario studies are needed to try to understand how climate
change will aect the capacity of bamboo and the other trees to mitigate climate change.
8. Conclusions
8. Conclusions
40
41
This study underlines the similarities and dierences in carbon sequestration between bamboo
and other rapid-growing tree plantations. This study is based on data from China, because very
little data are available from other parts of the world. It is hoped that research in other countries
and regions will be carried out in the future to complement the work presented here.
While recognising that much more work needs to be done, the results from this report provide
an indication that that bamboo forests potentially contribute significantly to meeting the
three distinct components of the MAD Challenge brought about by Climate Change. As
the importance of bamboo forests in providing both development needs and adaptation
opportunities for local communities is already recognised, the role that they can play in
providing global carbon sequestration services, as explored in this study, suggests that bamboo
deserves more recognition as a plant of considerable importance in meeting the demands of a
planet in need of both prosperity and sustainability.
References
1. Asada, T., Ishihar, S., Yamane, T., et al., 2002. Science of bamboo charcoal; Study on carbonising
temperature of bamboo charcoal and removal capacity of harmful gases, Journal of Health and
Science. 48: 473-479; In Lehmann and Joseph, (2009) Biochar for the Environment: science and
technology, Earthscan.
2. Belcher, B. 1995. Bamboo and rattan production to consumption systems: A framework for
assessing development options. INBAR working paper No. 4. International Network for Bamboo
and Rattan, New Delhi.12p.
3. Bleaney, A., Peskett, L., Mwayafu, D., 2010. REDD-plus after Copenhagen: what does it mean
on the ground? COP 15 Brieng, January 2010.
4. Boyd, E., 2009. Governing the Clean Development Mechanism: global rhetoric versus local
realities in carbon sequestration projects. Environment and Planning. 41:2380 – 2395.
5. Brickell, E., 2009. WWF position paper on forests and climate change mitigation. WWF Global
Climate Policy.
6. Bunker, D. E., DeClerck, F., Bradford, J. C, et al., 2005. Species loss and aboveground carbon
storage in a tropical forest, Science. 310, 1029-1031.
7. Chen, H., Hong, W., Lan, B., et al., 1998. Study on biomass and productivity of Phyllostachys
Heterocycla cv pubescens forest in the North of Fujian, Scientia Silvae Sinicae.1: 60-64. (In
Chinese with English summary).
8. Chen, K. S., 2002. Studies on the annual dynamic of mountain Dendrocalamus latiflorus
growth and its prediction model. Jour. of Fujian Forestry Sci. and Tech. 29(2): 21-25. (in Chinese
with English summary).
9. Chen, S. L., Wu, B. L., Wu, M., et al., 2004a. A study of aboveground biomass of young bamboo
stands of Phyllostachys pubescens in degenerative hill soil area. Acta Agriculture Universities
Jiangxiensis. 26 (4): 527-531. (in Chinese with English summary).
10. Chen, S. L., Wu. B. L., Wu, M., et al., 2004b. A study of the inter-annual succession rule
influential factor of young stands structures of Phyllostachys pubescens, Jour. of Zhejiang
Forestry College. 21(4): 393-397. (In Chinese with English summary).
11. Chen, X. G., 2008. Carbon stock changes in bamboo stands in China over the past 50 years.
Acta Ecologica Sinica. 28(11): 5218-5227 ( in Chinese with English summary).
12. Chen, X. G., Zhang, X. Q., Zhang Y. P., et al., 2009, Changes of carbon stocks in bamboo stands
in China during 100 years, Forest Ecology and Management. ELSEVIER, 258: 1489-1496.
13. Dias, J. M., Alvim-Ferraz, M. C. M., et al., 2007. Waste materials for activated carbon
preparation and its use in aqueous-phase treatment: A review, Journal of Environmental
Management. 85(4): 833-846.
14. Duan, A. G., Zhang, J. G, He, C. Y. et al., 2005. Study on the change laws of biomass of Chinese
Fir plantations. Forest Research. 18(2): 125~132.
References
42
43
15. Dutschke, M., Schlamadinger, B., 2003. Practical Issues Concerning Temporary Carbon
Credits in the CDM. HWWA Discussion Paper No. 227. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/
abstract=413340 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.413340
16. EcoSecurities, 5 Policy Brief: REDD Policy Scenarios and Carbon Markets. December 2007.
17. Eliasch, J., 2008. Climate change: nancing global forests: The Eliasch Review.
18. FAO. 2005. World bamboo resources. A thematic study prepared in the framework of the
Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005.
19. Fu, M., Banik, R.L., 1995, Bamboo productions systems and their management, In Bamboo,
People and the Environment, Proceedings of the Vth International Bamboo Workshop, Ubud, Bali.
20. Galik, C.S., Jackson, R.B,. 2009. Risks to forest carbon oset projects in a changing climate.
Forest Ecology and Management, 257, 2209–2216.
21. Gibbs, H., Brown, S., O’Niles, J., Foley, J., 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest
carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ. Res. Lett. 2 045023.
22. Glaser, B., 2007. Prehistorically modied soils of central Amazonia: a model for sustainable
agriculture in the twenty-rst century, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 362:187-196.
23. Gullison, R. E., Frumho, P.C., et al., 2007. Tropical Forests and Climate Policy, Policy Forum,
Science. 316.
24. Guo, Q. R.,Yang, G. Y., Du,T. Z., et al., 2005. Carbon character of Chinese bamboo forest, World
Bamboo and Rattan.3: 25-28. (In Chinese with English summary).
25. Gustavsson, L., Pingoud, K., et al., 2001. Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution:
comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change. 11(3): 667-691.
26. Hamilton K., Sjardin M., Marcello T., Xu G., 2008. Forging a frontier: state of the
voluntary carbon markets 2008', http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/cms
documents/2008 StateofVoluntaryCarbonMarket2.pdf.
27. Hammes, K., Torn, M.S., Lapenas, A.G. et al., 2008. Centennial black carbon turnover
observed in a Russian steppe soil, Biogeosciences Discussion. 5: 661-683.
28. Hao, Y.Q., Jiang, H., Xiang, C.H., et al., 2010. Biomass structure of Phyllostachys heterocuclaa
cv. Pubescens population in the Tianmi Mountain. Journal of Sichuan forestry science and
technology. 31(4):29-33
29. Hashimoto, S., 2008. Different accounting approaches to harvested wood products in
national greenhouse gas inventories: their incentives to achievement of major policy goals,
Environmental Science & Policy. 11(8): 756-771.
30. He, B., Wu, Q. B., Huang, X. Y. et al., 2009. Dynamic change of carbon accumulation in the
second rotation Chinese Fir plantation. Journal of northeast forestry university. 37(7): 36-38.
31. He, D., Hong, W., Wu, C. H. et al., 2003. Study of biomass and energy distribution of natural
Phyllostachys Heterocycla cv. Pubesens in Wuyi Mountains and its comparison with high-yield
forest. Acta Bot. Boreal.-Occident. Sin. 23(2): 291-296.
32. He, Y.P., Fei, S.M., Jiang, J.M. et al., 2007. The Spatial Distribution of Organic Carbon in
Phyllostachys pubescens and Pleioblastus amarus in Changning County. Journal of Sichuan
forestry science and technology. 5:13-17
33. Hemery, G. E., 2008. Forest management and silvicultural responses to projected climate
change impacts on European broadleaved trees and forests. International Forestry Review
10(4): 591-607.
34. Hou, Z.H., Zhang, X.Q., Xu, Y.D., et al., 2009. Study on biomass and productivity of Chinese Fir
plantation. Chinese agricultural science bulletin. 25(5) :97-103
35. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2007. The voluntary carbon offset
market: sixth report of session 2006- 07 (The Stationery Oce, London).
36. Hua, L., Wu W., Liu Y., et al., 2009. Reduction of nitrogen loss and Cu and Zn mobility during
sludge composting with bamboo charcoal amendment. Environ Sci. Pollut. Res. 16: 1-9.
37. Huang Q.M.,1987. Studies on the biomass of bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens), Journal of
Subtropical Forestry Science and Technology.15(2) :90-98
38. Huang, Q.M., Yang, D.D., Shen, Y.G., et al.,1993. Studies on the primary productivity of
bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) grove. Forest research. 6(5) :536-540
39. INBAR Strategy 2006. International Network for Bamboo and Rattan Strategy to the Year
2015, INBAR, Beijing
40. INBAR, 2004. Bamboo – a brief introduction: a unique resource for livelihood development.
INBAR Development Pages: http://www.inbar.int/livelihood/doc/Bamboo%20Introduction%20
Devpage.pdf
41. IPCC, 1996. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
42. IPCC, 2006. IPCC GUIDELINES FOR NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES.
43. IPCC, 2007. Solomon, S., Qin D., Manning M., Chen Z., Marquis M., Averyt K.B., M. Tignor
and H.L. Miller (eds.). The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996.
44. Jackson, R. B, et al., 2005. Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration.
Science. 310, 1944–1947.
45. Jiang, P., K., Xu Q. F., 2002b. Effects of intensive cultivation on the carbon pool of soil in
Phyllostachys praecox stand. Scientia silvae sinicae. 38(6):6-11.
46. Jiang, Z. H., 2002a. Bamboo and Rattan in the World. Liaoning Sci. & Tech. Publishing Press.
86. (in Chinese).
References
44
45
47. Jiang, Z. H., Ed., 2007. Bamboo and Rattan in the World China. Forestry Publishing House.
48. Lal. R. 2008. Carbon sequestration. Phil Trans R Soc B 363, 815-830.
49. Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2007. Biochar for environmental management: science and
technology, Earthscan.
50. Li, Z. C., Fu, M. Y., Xu, D. Y., 2003. Bamboo ecosystem and carbon dioxide sequestration,
Journal of bamboo Research. 4: 1-6. (In Chinese with English summary).
51. Li, Z.J., Lin, P., Qiu, X.Z.,1993. Studies on the biomass and productivity of Phyllostachys
Pubescens community in South Fujian, Journal of Xiamen university (Natural science).
32(6):762-767
52. Liang, H., Chen, X. K., 1998. Studies on the models for biomass of Sinocalamus latiflorus,
Journal of Fujian College of Forestry. 3: 1-3. (In Chinese with English summary).
53. Liese, W., 2009. Bamboo as carbon-sink - fact or fiction? VIII World Bamboo Congress
Proceedings. 3: 71-77.
54. Lin, D. X., Luo, S. F., Gao, X. K., 2003. Study on growth situation of Eucalyptus urophylla S.T.
Blake after planting one circle six years, Journal of Fujian College of Forestry. 23(3): 261-265. (In
Chinese with English summary).
55. Lobovikov, M., Lou Y. P., et al., 2009. The poor man's carbon sink. Bamboo in climate change
and poverty alleviation. Non-Wood Forest Products. Working Document (FAO), no. 8, FAO, Rome
(Italy). Forestry Dept. 68 p., FAO.
56. Locatelli, B., Pedroni, L., 2004. Accounting methods for carbon credits: impacts on the
minimum area of CDM forestry projects. Climate Policy. 4(2):193-204.
57. Lovell, H., Bulkeley, H., Liverman, D., 2007. Carbon offsetting: sustaining consumption?
Environment and Planning A 2009, 41: 2357-2379.
58. Lu, D., 2006. The potential and challenge of remote sensing-based biomass estimation,
International journal of remote sensing. 27(7):1297-1328
59. Magel, E.; Kruse, S.; Lütje, G.; Liese, W.: Soluble Carbohydrates and Acid Ivertases involved in
the rapid growth of the developing culms in Sasa palmata (Bean) Camus. Bamboo Science and
Culture*, Baton Rouge/USA 19 (2005) 1, S. 23-29.
60. Mahli, Y., Grace, J., 2000. Tropical forests and atmospheric carbon dioxide, Trends in Ecology
& Evolution. 15:332–337.
61. Marland, E. S., Stellar, K., et al., 2010. A distributed approach to accounting for carbon in
wood products, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 15(1): 71-91.
62. McKinsey & Company, 2009. Pathways to a low-carbon economy, Version 2 of the Global
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve (McKinsey & Co., London).
63. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
64. Nee, T., Francisco, A., 2009. Lessons from carbon markets for designing an eective REDD
architecture Climate Policy, 9(3): 306-315.
65. Oxfam (2010) http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoce/2010/10/08/sowing-
the-seed-in-the-south-west/
66. Peng, Z.Q., Lin, Y.M., Liu, J.B., et al., 2002. Biomass structure and energy distribution of
Phyllostachys Heterocyla cv. Pubescens population. Journal of Xiamen university(Narural
science) 41(5) :579-583
67. Pingoud, K., Kenneth E. S., Daniel L., et al., 2006. Chapter 12: Harvested Wood Products.
2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4. Geneva: IPCC
68. Pingoud, K., Perälä, A.-L., et al., 2003. Greenhouse gas impacts of harvested wood products.
Evaluation and development of methods. VTT Tiedotteita, Research Notes 2189. 120 p. + app.
16 p.
69. Pingoud, K., Wagner, F., 2006. Methane emissions from landfills and carbon dynamics of
harvested wood products: the rst-order decay revisited, mitigation and adaptation strategies
for global change. 11(5): 961-978.
70. Qi, L. H., Liu G. L.,Fan S. H., et al., 2009. Effects of different tending measures on carbon
density, storage, and allocation pattern of Phyllostachy edulis forests in western Fujian province,
Chinese Journal of Ecology. 28(8): 1482-1488. (In Chinese with English summary).
71. Rao, et al., 2009. Braking Barriers and Creating Capital: Sustainable Development with
Bamboo in the Konkan Region, Maharashtra, India, INBAR and CIBART.
72. Saunders, J., Ebeling, J. and Nussbaum, R., 2008. Reduced emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation (REDD): lessons from a governance perspective. Proforest, Oxford, UK.
(Available at: www.proforest.net.)
73. Schellnhuber J., 2009. The Mad Challenge: Towards a Great Land-Use Transformation? http://
klima.ku.dk/pdf/professor_h.j._schellnhuber_-_countdown_to_copenhagen.pdf/
74. Schlamadinger, B., Marland, G., 2000. Land use & global climate change: forests, land
management, and the Kyoto Protocol. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA,
USA, p.54 (available at www.pewclimate.org).
75. Scurlock, J. M. O., Dayton, D.C., Hames, B., 2000. Bamboo: an overlooked biomass resource?
Biomass and Bioenergy. 19: 229-244.
76. Skog, K., Nicholson, G., 1998. Carbon cycling through wood products: the role of wood and
paper products in carbon sequestration. Forest Products Journal. 48(7-8).
77. Steinbeiss, S., Gleixner, G., et al., 2009. Eect of biochar amendment on soil carbon balance
and soil microbial activity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 41(6): 1301-1310.
78. Steiner, C., 2007. Research and Prospects, In Soil ecology research developments, Tian-Xiao
Liu (Ed.); Nova Publishing.
79. Stern, N., 2006. The Economics of Climate Change. The Oce of Climate Change, London. UK.
References
46
47
80. Streck, C., 2008. "Forests, carbon markets, and avoided deforestation: legal implications."
CCLR the Carbon 38; Climate Law Review 2: 239-247.
81. Taiyab, N., 2006. Exploring the market for voluntary carbon osets. International Institute for
Environment and Development, London.
82. TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy
Makers (2009) http://www.teebweb.org/Portals/25/Documents/TEEB%20for%20National%20
Policy%20Makers/TEEB%20for%20Policy%20exec%20English.pdf
83. Tian, D. L., Eds., 2005. Ecosystem function of Chinese Fir forest. Beijing Science Publishing
House: 26-35 (in Chinese).
84. UNFCCC, 2007. Climate Change Impact, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing
Countries Website: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/impacts.pdf
85. UNFCCC, 2009. Website: http://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA/index.html.
86. Van Z., L., Kimber, S., Downie, A., et al., 2007. Papermill char: Benets to soil health and plant
production’ in proceedings of the conference of the international agrichar Initiative, 30 April-2
May 2007, Terrigal, NSW, Australia in Lehmann and Joseph, (2009) Biochar for the Environment:
science and technology , Earthscan.
87. Wang, B., Wei, W. J., 2007. Carbon storage and density of forest in Jiangxi Province. Jiangxi
Science. 6:681-687. (In Chinese with English summary).
88. Wang, B., Wei, W. J., Xing, Z. K., et al., 2008. Carbon storage of forest ecosystem in China
.Ecology and Environment, (4): 1680-1684. (In Chinese with English summary).
89. Watanabe, M., Ueda, K., Manabe, I. and Akai, T. 1982. Flowering, seeding, germination and
owering periodicity of Phyllostachys pubescens. Journal of the Japanese Forestry Society 64:
107-111.
90. Wei, H. D., Ma, X. Q., Liu, A. Q., et al., 2007. Review on carbon of forest ecosystem. Chinese
Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2: 188-192. (In Chinese with English summary).
91. Wen, Y. G., Liang, H. W., Zhao, L. J., et al., 2000. Biomass production and productivity of
Eucalyptus Urophylla, Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany, 8(2): 123-127. (In Chinese
with English summary).
92. Whitman, T., Lehmann, J., 2009. "Biochar-One way forward for soil carbon in offset
mechanisms in Africa?" Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7): 1024-1027.
93. Williams, J. T., Ramanatha Rao, V. eds. 1994. Priority species of bamboo and rattan. Technical
Report N° 1. New Delhi, INBAR.
94. World Bank, 2010. Convenient Solutions to an Inconvenient Truth, The International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development. http://beta.worldbank.org/climatechange/content/
convenient-solutions-inconvenient-truth
95. Xiao, F. M., Fan, S. H., Wang, S. L., et al., 2007. Carbon storage and spatial distribution in
Phyllostachys pubescens and Cunninghamia Ianceolata plantation ecosystem. Acta ecology
Snica,7: 2794-801. (In Chinese with English summary).
96. Xiao, F. M., Fan, S. H., Wang, S. L., et al., 2009. Soil carbon cycle of Phyllostachy edulis
plantation in Huitong region, Hunan Province. Scientia Silave Sinicae, 6: 11-15. (In Chinese with
English summary).
97. Xu, Q. F., Xu, J. M., Jiang, P. K., 2003. Study on organic carbon poll of soil under intensive
management bamboo forest. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 17(4): 15-21.
98. Xu, X. J., Zhu, X. H., Wang, F. D., et al., 2009. Carbon content rate of 11 reforestation tree
species for carbon sink in Zhejiang. Journal of Bamboo Research, 1: 21-24. (In Chinese with
English summary).
99. Xu, X. L., Cao, M. K., Li, K. R., 2007. Temporal-spatial dynamics of carbon storage of forest
vegetation in China. Progress in Geography. 26(6):1-10.
100. Yanai, Y., Toyota, K., Okazaki, M., 2007. Eects of charcoal addition on N2O emissions from
soil resulting from rewetting air-dried soil in short-term incubation experiments. Soil Sci Plant
Nutr. 53:181-188.
101. Yang, Q., Su, G. R., Duan, Z. B., et al., 2008. Biomass structure and its regression models of
Dendrocalamus hamiltonii Nees et Arn. ex Munro population, 36(7): 127-134. (In Chinese with
English summary).
102. Zhong, X. Y., Gao, Y. S., GAO, R. et al., 2008. Carbon storage and allocation in old-growth
Cunninghamia lanceolata Plantation in Subtropical China. Journal of Subtropical Resources and
Environment. 3: 11-18.
103. Zhou Y. R., Yu Z. L., Zhao S. D., 2000. Carbon storage and budget of major Chinese forest
types, Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, Vol. 24, No. 5: 518-522. (In Chinese with English summary).
104. Zhou, G. M. Research on bamboo forest ecosystem carbon storage, distribution and
xation. Zhejiang University. Ph. D Dissertation, 2006a.
105. Zhou, G. M., Jiang, P. K., 2004. Density, storage and spatial distribution of carbon in
Phyllostachy pubescens forest. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 6: 20-24. (In Chinese with English
summary).
106. Zhou, G. M., Jiang, P. K., Mo, L. F., 2009. Bamboo: a possible approach to the control of
global warming. International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences & Numerical Simulation, 10(5):
547-550. Freund Publishing House Ltd.
107. Zhou, G. M., Wu, J. S., Jiang, P. K., 2006b. Eects of dierent management models on carbon
storage in Phyllostachys pubescens forest. Journal of Beijing Forestry University. 6:51-55. (In
Chinese with English summary).
108. Zhou, G. M., Xu, J. M., Wu, J. S., et al., 2006c. Changed in soil active organic carbon with
history of intensive management of Phyllostachy pubescens forest. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 6:
124-128. (In Chinese with English summary).
References
