Conserving Carbon Stock under Climate Change: The Importance of Trees Outside Forests in Agricultural Landscapes of the Mongala Province, Democratic Republic of Congo
Résumé fourni par la source
This study aimed to evaluate the role of trees outside forests on agricultural land (TOF-AL) in preserving the initial aboveground biomass (AGB) of forests within the agricultural landscape of Mongala province in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2024, tree inventories were conducted over four months in the forests and agricultural lands of Mongala province to estimate above-ground biomass (AGB). The effects of artisanal logging and charcoal production activities on the AGB conservation rate were considered. The study indicates that 78.3% of trees encountered in the agricultural lands were large-diameter trees (DBH ≥ 10 cm). In forest areas, large-diameter trees account for 55.9% of tree density. The average AGB are 66.8 Mg ha-1 for TOF-AL and 373.5 Mg ha-1 for forest trees. The AGB of TOF-AL accounts for 17.9% of the total forest trees AGB. The AGB conservation rates vary by region, with Lisala having the highest at 22.1%, Bumba the lowest at 11.2%, and Bongandanga at 20.5%. Artisanal logging and charcoal production reduce the AGB conservation rate by TOF-AL. The AGB conservation rate is positively correlated with the distances to the major cities. These results prove that conserving trees in agricultural landscapes can reduce AGB losses associated with slash-and-burn agriculture and contribute to mitigating climate change effects.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Conserving Carbon Stock under Climate Change: The Importance of Trees Outside Forests in Agricultural Landscapes of the Mongala Province, Democratic Republic of Congo
- Date Crossref
- 28/02/2025
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.