Systematic literature review shows carbon sequestration potential in Nilgiris agroforestry, highlighting sustainable agriculture benefits.
Background Climate change mitigation strategies increasingly focus on carbon trading, with agroforestry systems presenting promising opportunities for carbon sequestration while supporting sustainable livelihoods. The Nilgiris district in India, with its rich biodiversity and significant scheduled caste population dependent on agriculture, offers a unique context for such initiatives. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature review analyzing 80 articles from Web of Science and Scopus databases (2015–2025). The research employed bibliometric and thematic analyses to examine carbon sequestration potential through agroforestry systems in the Nilgiris, focusing on quantification approaches and economic valuation. Results and conclusion Agroforestry systems in the Nilgiris can sequester carbon at rates of 0.25–19.14 Mg C/ha/year in tree components and 0.01–0.60 Mg C/ha/year in crop components, with variation based on system design, species composition, and management practices. Agro-horticulture systems showed the highest potential (38.11 Mg C/ha), 31.64% higher than conventional agriculture. Economic analyses revealed agroforestry systems to be approximately four times more profitable than monoculture even without carbon revenues, with carbon pricing further enhancing profitability. The research proposes a methodological framework for carbon trading in the Nilgiris, addressing key challenges including high transaction costs, methodological complexities, and equitable benefit-sharing. Our proposed framework combines environmental conservation goals with community welfare by linking carbon storage and income generation opportunities. The context of our study focussed on the carbon measurement protocols and the need of an affordable monitoring system for the resource poor areas.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaisridhar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: