Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2024 Sep 26:12:e18176.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.18176. eCollection 2024.

Impact of community-based forest restoration on stand structural attributes, aboveground biomass and carbon stock compared to state-managed forests in tropical ecosystems of Sri Lanka

Shahzad Ahmad  1 , Haiping Xu  1 , E M B P Ekanayake  2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Impact of community-based forest restoration on stand structural attributes, aboveground biomass and carbon stock compared to state-managed forests in tropical ecosystems of Sri Lanka

Shahzad Ahmad et al. PeerJ. .

Abstract

Estimation of plant community composition, aboveground biomass and carbon stock is crucial for understanding forest ecology, strengthening environmental management, and developing effective tools and policies for forest restoration. This study was conducted in nine different forest reserves in Sri Lanka from 2012 to 2018 to examine the impact of community-based forest restoration (CBFR) on stand structural attributes, aboveground biomass, and carbon stock compared to state-managed forests. In total, 180 plots (90 plots in community-managed restoration blocks (CMRBs) and 90 plots assigned to state-managed restoration blocks (SMRBs)) were sampled at the study site. To conduct an inventory of standing trees, circular plots with a radius of 12.6 m (equivalent to an area of 500 square meters) were established. The Shannon diversity index, Allometric equations and Difference in Differences (DID) estimation were used to assess the data. Our study provides evidence of the positive impact of the CBFR program on enriching trees diversity. Considering stand structural attributes of both blocks showed higher trees density in the smaller diameter at breast height (DBH) category, indicating growth in both CMRBs and SMRBs. The results showed that tree biomass and carbon density were disproportionally distributed across the nine different forest reserves. On average, tree biomass and carbon density were higher in SMRBs (79.97 Mg ha-1, 37.58 Mg C ha-1) compared to CMRBs (33.51 Mg ha-1, 15.74 Mg C ha-1). However, CMRBs in Madigala reserve represent the highest biomass (56.53 and 59.92 Mg ha-1) and carbon density (26.57 and 28.16 Mg C ha-1). The results of biomass and carbon estimates were higher in all SMRBs in the nine different forest reserves compared to CMRBs. The findings suggest that future forest restoration programs in Sri Lanka should enhance participatory approaches to optimize tree species diversity, density and carbon storage, particularly in community-controlled forests. Our findings could assist developing tropical nations in understanding how CBFR impacts forest restoration objectives and improves the provision of ecological services within forests.

Keywords: Biomass; Carbon stock; Community-based forest restoration; DID model; Woody species diversity and density.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Location of the study area in a semi-mixed evergreen forest in Sri Lanka.
Community-based forest restoration (CBFR) sites in Sri Lanka (Ekanayake et al., 2022).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forest plot layout sampling and data collection for woody species diversity, density, biomass and carbon stocks assessment.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Species distribution in semi-mixed evergreen forest.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Trees density and basal area based on diameter distribution in the CMRBs.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Trees density and basal area based on diameter distribution in the SMRBs.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Total biomass in the community-managed forest reserves.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Total biomass in the state-managed forest reserves.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Acharya K. Conserving biodiversity and improving livelihoods: the case of community forestry in Nepal. International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity; 2003. pp. 19–23.
    1. Agrawal A, Cashore B, Hardin R, Shepherd G, Benson C, Miller D. New York: United Nations; 2013. Economic contributions of forests. Background Paper 1. (accessed 4 August 2023)
    1. Anup K. Global Exposition of Wildlife Management. London: InTech; 2017. Community forestry management and its role in biodiversity conservation in Nepal.
    1. Bandaratillake H, Durst P, Bishop A. Use of non-wood forest products by village communities in Sri Lanka. 1995. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b8fb5393-5478-4.... https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b8fb5393-5478-4... (accessed 6 August 2023)
    1. Basnet S, Sharma P, Timalsina N, Khaine I. Community based management for forest conservation and livelihood improvement: a comparative analysis from forests in Myanmar. Journal of Forest and Livelihood. 2018;17(1):16–33.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources