ISSN: 2157-7617

Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change
Open Access

Our Group organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations
700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)
  • Research Article   
  • J Earth Sci Clim Change, Vol 12(9)
  • DOI: 10.4172/2157-7617.1000579

Diversity, Importance Value Indices and Carbon Credit Assessment of Parks in Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria

Okoh Thomas*, Aguoru Celestine Uzoma, Okekporo Efe Stephen, Ebuara Pauline Ochuole and Zaza Sonter Emmanuel
Department of Botany, Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria
*Corresponding Author: Okoh Thomas, Department of Botany, Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria, Email: thomasokoh@gmail.com

Received: 18-Aug-2021 / Accepted Date: 15-Sep-2021 / Published Date: 24-Sep-2021 DOI: 10.4172/2157-7617.1000579

Abstract

The research was undertaken to investigate diversity, important value indices (IVI) and carbon storage of trees located in various parks of Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University Makurdi, Nigeria between 2019 and 2020. Species diversity was determined using Shanon index while tree biomass was determined using the allometric model (AGB = exp (−2.977 + Ln (ρD2H)) = 0.0509 × ρD2H). Total sequestered carbon in trees was determined as 50% of tree biomass. Results revealed a total of 298 trees, belonging to 30 species and 16 families in the study area, with Daniellia oliveri having the highest number of plants (76) and percentage occurrence (26%). Plant height and DBH varied among the species with Daniellia oliveri recording the highest values (19.77 m and 240.80 cm) respectively. The species Height and, Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) was grouped with class >11 m to 15 m (13) and class >51 cm to 100 cm (12) dominating the parks. The species diversity (Shannon Index) in the individual parks varied, with Food Science and Technology, and Nubess parks having the highest (2.138) and lowest (0.652) diversity indices, respectively. Frequency, basal area, relative frequency (RF), relative density (RDe), cover value index (CVI) and IVI varied with species. Daniella oliveri had the highest frequency (76), Delonix regia had the highest basal area (4.55), RF (143.33), RDe (14.43) and RDo (9.90). Family value index (FVI), was highest in the family Fabaceae (684.39). Above ground biomass (AGB) ranged from (24021.48) in Delonix regia to 238.47 in Psidium guajava, while below-ground biomass (BGB) ranged from 4804.30 in D. regia to 47.69 in P. guajava. Total Plant biomass (AGB + BGB) varied between Delonix regia (28825.78) and P. guajava (286.17), respectively. Carbon storage varied with species and parks, with Veterinary Park having the highest total sequestered carbon (105.65 tonnes) and sequestered carbon dioxide equivalent (387.74 tonnes). D. regia had the highest total sequestered carbon (14412.89 tonnes/tree) followed by Daniella oliveri (1148.24 tonnes/tree), with B. ferruginea (201.16) and P. guajava (143.08) having the least total sequestered carbon. D. regia had the highest sequestered CO2 equivalent (SCO2 E) (52.90) followed by D. oliveri (42.09) and P. africana (34.60), while P. guajava, B. ferruginea and Terminalia mentalis had the least SCO2 E (0.53, 0.74 and 1.2), respectively. Moreover, Plant height correlated moderately with AGB (R = 0.597; p = 0.000) and DBH (R = 0.529; p = 0.003), with a positive relationship between AGB and DBH (R = 0.859; p = 0.000), suggesting that AGB increases with increasing DBH and plant height. Extensive assessment of urban parks and garden for carbon storage is hereby advocated.

Keywords: Species diversity; Importance value indices; Carbon sequestration; Total biomass

Introduction

Species composition and structure are valuable parameters for vegetation monitoring [1] and provide a more reliable index on rate of mortality, under-storey development and spread of disturbances within an ecosystem [2-4]. Species richness and diversity are fundamental to total forest biodiversity, because trees provide resources and habitat for almost all wildlife species [5,6] and potential carbon sinks. Changes in density and composition of flora and fauna in natural ecosystems due to intensive anthropogenic pressures have become a global problem in the 21st century, with tropical forests disappearing at alarming rates annually, by about 4% of their current area, worldwide [7,8]. Land use changes especially conversions to agriculture and poor land management practices have been the major contributors to increase in Greenhouse Gases (GHG) [9].

Baseline information on tree species diversity, composition and distribution patterns within the Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi campus have been provided by various researchers [3,10,11], and have elucidated the richness of the vegetation in the study area.

It has been suggested that global warming may be limited within 1.5ºC [12] by keeping GHG emissions under check through internationally binding instruments [13] including carbon quota, clean development mechanism (CDM). As a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, Nigeria needs accurate estimations of existing carbon stocks throughout the country to implement carbon trading and climate change mitigation policies [14]. Achievement of full carbon mitigation potential requires estimation of country-level carbon stocks through statistically validated methods [15]. The determination of carbon stocks through biomass estimation has been widely used in assessing the carbon credit of trees in different ecosystems [16,17].

The quantification of forest biomass has a long history and has received renewed attention in the last decades because forest biomass represents about 44% of the global forest carbon pool [18] and therefore plays a crucial role in climate change mitigation. This highlights the need to precisely determine the amount of carbon stored and CO2 sequestrated in the trees of different ecosystems [19]. Previous studies have also suggested that quantifying carbon storage in urban areas are necessary to support urban landscape planning and management that is focused on ecosystem services and human wellbeing [20].

Justification of the Study

Carbon storage by green infrastructures is an important ecosystem service in forests, urban parks [21,22]. This is particularly important now that anthropogenic activities have greatly increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. In Nigeria, for instance there is limited accurate data on flora composition. Thus, species currently perceived as abundant might actually be endangered while those previously perceived as endangered might be nearing extinction. However, urban green spaces (parks and gardens) have often been disregarded hence, their specific contributions to the global carbon credit system are not well quantified [23-25]. The reliable quantification of carbon sequestration by vegetation will help policymakers, researchers, and entrepreneurs in Nigeria to sell certified emission reduction to developed countries [26,27] in global carbon markets under reduction of emissions through degradation and deforestation (REDD+) and CDM.

Aim and objectives of the study

This study therefore focuses on assessing the carbon credit potentials of the trees in the various parks, in Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria with a view to evaluating their role in climate change mitigation. Specific objectives included estimation of species relative density, dominance and important value indices, above ground and below ground biomass, sequestered carbon and CO2 equivalence of the trees sampled in the various parks.

Materials and Methods

Study area

Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University Makurdi is located in North-central Nigeria (longitude 8°32’00” and latitude 7°44’00”) was the study area. The ecology is a tropical, with distinct wet and dry seasons. The wet season starts from April and lasts till October; while the dry season starts in November and lasts till March. Rainfall ranges from 775 millimeters to 1792 millimeters, with a mean annual value of 1190 millimeters. Mean Monthly Relative Humidity varies between 43% in January to 81% in July-August period. Makurdi falls within the Guinea Savanna belt of Southern Nigeria from the true savannah of the North. It is characterized by a mixture of tall grasses and tress of average height. Most of the trees are deciduous and shed their leaves during dry season [28]. 

Data collection

Data was collected from all parks and garden in both North and South cores of Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University Makurdi. The parks include: Veterinary (Vet) Park, Science Park, Science Extension Park, Student Union (SU) Park, Nubess Park, Engineering Park, Forestry Park, Animal Science Park, Food Science and Technology (FST) Park and Fisheries Park. At each park, all tree species were identified, coordinates taken and the total number of species available recorded.

Data analysis

The Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index, which specifies the comparative occurrence of many species, was used to associate species abundance and relative richness amongst species [29,30]. The cover value indices (CVI) of parks [31] was used to evaluate the importance of woody species within the parks. CVI was calculated by adding relative density (RDe) and relative dominance (RDo) of species [31]. The importance value index (IVI) was calculated by adding CVI and relative frequency (RF) [32].

CVI = RDe + RDo

IVI = CVI + RF

RF, RDe and RDo were obtained using the following equations:

equation

equation

equation

Where Basal Area (BA) = equation

Family importance value index

The family importance value (FIV) = CVI + RDi.

Where, RDi (relative diversity) = equation

Biomass determination

Data was collected on Plant Height (m), Diameter at Breast Height, DBH (cm), while species above ground biomass (AGB) was estimated non-destructively using the equation [33]:

AGB = exp (−2.977 + Ln (ρD2H)) = 0.0509 × ρD2H.

Where AGB is Aboveground biomass, D is diameter at breast height, H is total height and ρ is wood density (wood specific gravity). ρ = 0.56, D2= (DBH)2 and H = Height

Dry Above Ground Biomass (DAGB) = 65% of AGB

Below Ground Biomass, (BGB) = 20% of AGB

Dry Below Ground Biomass (DBGB) = 65% of BGB

Total Biomass (TB) = DAGB + DBGB

Total sequestered carbon (TSC)

TSC/Tree = 50% of TB

Sequestered Carbon dioxide Equivalent, SCO2E (kg) = TSC X 3.67

SCO2E (Tonnes/Tree) = SCO2E (kg) x 0.001 

Results

Species distribution

A total of 298 trees, belonging to 30 species and 16 families Table 1 were recorded in the study area. D. oliveri had the highest number of plants (76), representing 26% (Figure 1) of total plant species. Plant height and DBH varied among the species with D. oliveri recording the highest values (19.77 m, 240.80 cm), respectively Table 1. Table 2 shows the species Height (m) and DBH (cm) classes and their frequency of occurrence. The Height class >11 m to 15 m (13) and DBH class >51 cm to 100 cm (12) were predominant in the study area.

S/N Species Family Total Number of Trees Height (m) DBH (cm)
1 Acacia nilotica Fabaceae 1 10 187
2 Albizia zygia Fabaceae 33 14.74 107.17
3 Anogeissus leiocarpus Combretaceae 1 13.5 160
4 Azadirachta indica Meliaceae 18 12.89 82.6
5 Bridelia ferruginea Phyllanthaceae 1 6.2 54
6 Daniellia oliveri Fabaceae 76 19.77 204
7 Delonix regia Fabaceae 43 12.25 240.8
8 Detarium microcarpum Fabaceae 1 11 202
9 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Myrtaceae 3 11.5 215.5
10 Eucalyptus spp Myrtaceae 2 14 118
11 Ficus sycomorus Moraceae 1 10 194
12 Ficus thonningii Moraceae 1 7 75
13 Gmelina arborea Verbenaceae 11 15.53 158.5
14 Hura crepitans Euphorbiaceae 7 10 145
15 Khaya senegalensis Meliaceae 46 17.39 116.5
16 Leucaena seamis Fabaceae 1 16 135
17 Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae 1 7 90
18 Parkia biglobosa Fabaceae 2 16.5 131
19 Polyalthia longifolia Annonaceae 5 10.07 62.33
20 Prosopis Africana Fabaceae 6 18.5 208.33
21 Psidium guajava Myrtaceae 2 7.65 41
22 Pterocarpus erinnaceus Fabaceae 1 11 89
23 Sarcocephalus latifolius Rubiacea 1 12 80
24 Semia seamis Cicadidae 3 17.7 213
25 Stereospermum kuathianum Bignoniaceae 1 8 70
26 Terminalia avicennioides Combretaceae 1 9.2 75
27 Terminalia mentalis Combretaceae 6 8.13 61.25
28 Unknown spp Unknown 14 13 99
29 Vitellaria paradoxa Sapotaceae 4 13.88 120.5
30 Vitex doniana Lamiaceae 5 12.92 98

Table 1: Species Richness, Frequency of Occurrence, Height and DBH.

Height Class (m) Frequency DBH Class (cm) Frequency
0 to 5 0 0 to 50 1
6 to 10 10 51 to 100 12
11 to 15 13 101 to 150 7
16 to 20 7 151 to 200 4
    201 to 250 6

Table 2: Height and DBH Class Distribution of Species

european

Figure 1: Percentage Occurrence of Trees Species.

Species diversity indices and family value indices

Figure 2A shows the species diversity indices (Shannon Index) of the individual parks on campus, with FST and Nubess parks having the highest (2.138) and lowest (0.652) diversity indices, respectively. Figure 2B shows the FVI, with family Fabaceae having the highest FVI (684.39).

european

Figure 2: Species Diversity (Shannon) Index and Family Value Index of the study area. (A) Shannon Index of the various parks (B) Family Value Index of the sampled plant families.

Species frequency, RF, RDe, RDo, CVI and IVI

Table 3 shows species frequency, Basal Area, RF, RDe, CVI, IVI. D. oliveri had the highest frequency (76), Delonix regia had the highest Basal Area 4.55), RF (143.33), RDe (14.43) and RDo (9.90). Furthermore, D. oliveri had the highest IVI (285.94) while Acacia nilotica, Anogeissus leiocarpus, Bridelia ferruginea, Detarium macrocapum, Ficus sycomorus, Ficus thonningii, Leucaena seamis, Mangifera, indica, and Pterocarpus erinnaceus all had the lowest frequency (1), RF (3.33) and RDe (0.34), respectively. Psidium guajava had the lowest RDo, while Bridellia ferruginea had the lowest CVI and IVI (0.83, 4.17) respectively.

Plant Biomass and Total Sequestered Carbon

S/N Species Frequency Basal Area (m2/hectare) RF RDe RDo CVI IVI
1 Acacia nilotica 1 2.75 3.33 0.34 5.97 6.3 9.64
2 Albizia zygia 33 0.9 110 11.07 1.96 13.03 123.03
3 Anogeissus leiocarpus 1 2.01 3.33 0.34 4.37 4.7 8.04
4 Azadirachta indica 18 0.54 60 6.04 1.16 7.2 67.2
5 Bridelia ferrunginea 1 0.23 3.33 0.34 0.5 0.83 4.17
6 Daniellia oliveri 76 .27 253.33 25.5 7.1 32.61 285.94
7 Delonix regia 43 4.55 143.33 14.43 9.9 24.33 167.66
8 Detarium microcarpum 1 3.21 3.33 0.34 6.96 7.3 10.63
9 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 3 3.65 10 1.01 7.93 8.93 18.93
10 Eucalyptus spp 2 1.09 6.67 0.67 2.38 3.05 9.71
11 Ficus sycomorus 1 2.96 3.33 0.34 6.42 6.76 10.09
12 Ficus thonningii 1 0.44 3.33 0.34 0.96 1.3 4.63
13 Gmelina arborea 11 1.97 36.67 3.69 4.29 7.98 44.65
14 Hura crepitans 7 1.65 23.33 2.35 3.59 5.94 29.27
15 Khaya senegalensis 46 1.07 153.33 15.44 2.32 17.75 171.09
16 Leucaena seamis 1 1.43 3.33 0.34 3.11 3.45 6.78
17 Mangifera indica 1 0.64 3.33 0.34 1.38 1.72 5.05
18 Parkia biglobosa 2 1.35 6.67 0.67 2.93 3.6 10.27
19 Polyalthia longifolia 5 0.31 16.67 1.68 0.66 2.34 19.01
20 Prosopis Africana 6 3.41 20 2.01 7.41 9.42 29.42
21 Psidium guajava 2 0.13 6.67 0.67 0.29 0.96 7.62
22 Pterocarpus erinnaceus 1 0.62 3.33 0.34 1.35 1.69 5.02
23 Sarcocephalus latifolius 1 0.5 3.33 0.34 1.09 1.43 4.76
24 Semia seamis 3 3.56 10 1.01 7.74 8.75 18.75
25 Stereospermum kuathianum 1 0.38 3.33 0.34 0.84 1.17 4.51
26 Terminalia avicennioides 1 0.44 3.33 0.34 0.96 1.3 4.63
27 Terminalia mentalis 6 0.29 20 2.01 0.64 2.65 22.65
28 Unknown spp 14 0.77 46.67 4.7 1.67 6.37 53.04
29 Vitellaria paradoxa 4 1.14 13.33 1.34 2.48 3.82 17.15
30 Vitex doniana 5 0.75 16.67 1.68 1.64 3.32 19.98

Table 3: Species Frequency, RF, RDe, RDo, CVI and IVI.

Above and below ground biomass estimation

The result shows that the maximum and minimum above ground biomass of the plant species ranged from (24021.48) in Delonix regia to (238.47) in P. guajava. Additionally, the maximum and minimum below-ground biomass of the plant ranged from (4804.30) in Delonix regia to (47.69) in Psidium guajava (Table 4).

S/N Species AGB DAGB (kg) (65% of AGB) BGB (kg) (20% of AGB) DBGB (kg) (65% of BGB) Total Biomass (DAGB+DBGB) TSC/Tree) (50% TB) SCO2E (kg) Sequestered SCO2E (kg) (Tonnes/Tree)
1 Acacia nilotica 9976.46 6484.7 1995.29 1296.94 7781.64 3890.82 14279.31 14.28
2 Albizia zygia 5714.49 3714.42 1142.9 742.88 4457.3 2228.65 8179.15 8.18
3 Anogeissus leiocarpus 9859.78 6408.85 1971.96 1281.77 7690.63 3845.31 14112.3 14.11
4 Azadirachta indica 4291.13 2789.23 858.23 557.85 3347.08 1673.54 6141.89 6.14
5 Bridelia ferruginea 515.79 335.26 103.16 67.05 402.32 201.16 738.25 0.74
6 Daniellia oliveri 29405.74 19113.73 5881.15 3822.75 22936.47 11468.24 42088.43 42.09
7 Delonix regia 36956.13 24021.48 7391.23 4804.3 28825.78 14412.89 52895.3 52.9
8 Detarium microcarpum 12805.27 8323.43 2561.05 1664.69 9988.11 4994.06 18328.18 18.33
9 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 10311.5 6702.47 2062.3 1340.49 8042.97 4021.48 14758.85 14.76
10 Eucalyptus spp 5580.99 3627.64 1116.2 725.53 4353.17 2176.59 7988.07 7.99
11 Ficus sycomorus 10737.34 6979.27 2147.47 1395.85 8375.13 4187.56 15368.36 15.37
12 Ficus thonningii 1123.35 730.18 224.67 146.04 876.21 438.11 1607.85 1.61
13 Gmelina arborea 11151.03 7248.17 2230.21 1449.63 8697.8 4348.9 15960.46 15.96
14 Hura crepitans 5990.33 3893.71 1198.07 778.74 4672.46 2336.23 8573.96 8.57
15 Khaya senegalensis 6775.74 4404.23 1355.15 880.85 5285.08 2642.54 9698.11 9.7
16 Leucaena seamis 8319.19 5407.47 1663.84 1081.49 6488.97 3244.48 11907.25 11.91
17 Mangifera indica 1617.62 1051.45 323.52 210.29 1261.74 630.87 2315.3 2.32
18 Parkia biglobosa 8078.3 5250.89 1615.66 1050.18 6301.07 3150.54 11562.47 11.56
19 Polyalthia longifolia 1914.33 1244.32 382.87 248.86 1493.18 746.59 2739.99 2.74
20 Prosopis africana 24173.65 15712.87 4834.73 3142.57 18855.45 9427.72 34599.75 34.6
21 Psidium guajava 366.88 238.47 73.38 47.69 286.17 143.08 525.11 0.53
22 Pterocarpus erinnaceus 2485.8 1615.77 497.16 323.15 1938.92 969.46 3557.92 3.56
23 Sarcocephalus latifolius 2191.06 1424.19 438.21 284.84 1709.03 854.51 3136.07 3.14
24 Semia seamis 22910.04 14891.53 4582.01 2978.31 17869.83 8934.92 32791.14 32.79
25 Stereospermum kuathianum 1118.35 726.93 223.67 145.39 872.32 436.16 1600.7 1.6
26 Terminalia avicennioides 1476.4 959.66 295.28 191.93 1151.59 575.8 2113.17 2.11
27 Terminalia mentalis 870.73 565.98 174.15 113.2 679.17 339.59 1246.28 1.25
28 Unknown spp 3729.28 2424.03 745.86 484.81 2908.84 1454.42 5337.72 5.34
29 Vitellaria paradoxa 8099.72 5264.82 1619.94 1052.96 6317.78 3158.89 11593.13 11.59
30 Vitex doniana 4468.21 2904.34 893.64 580.87 3485.21 1742.6 6395.35 6.4

Table 4: Biomass, Total Sequestered Carbon and Sequestered CO2 Equivalent of Trees Species in the various parks.  

Total plant biomass estimation

Delonix regia had the highest total biomass (28825.78) while P. guajava had the lowest (286.17) (Table 4).

Sequestered carbon and CO2 equivalent estimation

Carbon storage varied with species and parks (Table 4). D. regia had the highest total sequestered carbon (14412.89) followed by D. oliveri (1148.24). The least total sequestered carbon was in Psidium guajava (143.08) followed by B. ferrginea (201.16). Furthermore, the sequestered carbon equivalent (SCO2E) was highest in D. regia (52.90) followed by D. oliveri (42.09) and P. africana (34.60), while Psidium guajava, B. ferruginea and Terminalia mentalis had the least (0.53, 0.74 and 1.2), respectively (Table 4). Also, Veterinary Park had the highest total sequestered carbon (105.65 tonnes) and sequestered carbon dioxide equivalent (387.74 tonnes) (Figure 3A).

european

Figure 3: Sequestered Carbon (CO2) and Correlation Result (A) Total sequestered carbon and carbon dioxide equivalent (SCO2E) in the ten parks (B) Correlation between Height and Above Ground Biomass (AGB) (C) Correlation between Plant Height and DBH (D) Correlation between DBH and AGB (E) Trees Species. ** p<0.01 statistically significant at 99% confidence interval.

Correlation and regression analyses

Correlations between plant height and AGB, plant height and DBH, and DBH and AGB are shown in Figure 3. Plant height correlated moderately with AGB (Figure 3B; R = 0.597, R2 = 0.356, p = 0.000) and DBH (Figure 3C; R = 0.529, R2 = 0.280, p = 0.003), correspondingly. Furthermore, there was high positive correlation between DBH and AGB (Figure 3D; R = 0.859, R2 = 0.738, p = 0.000). All correlations were statistically significant at 99% confidence interval (p<0.01).

Discussion

The 30 species (298 trees) sampled in this study represents the diversity of species reported variously by previous researchers [10,11,3] in the study area. Although, many of the trees in the parks are planted to provide shades, they also serve as green infrastructure that provide multiple ecosystem services, including climate change mitigation and adaptation [34-36]. The dominant plants (Daniellia oliveri and Delonix regia) are species of moderate sizes between 11 m to 15 m (in height) and 51 cm to 100 cm (DBH) that spread close to the ground to provide shades for students on campus, hence the high IVI (285.94) and basal area (4.55), with the family Fabaceae having the highest FVI (684.39).

University land types are often considered a homogeneous land use type (institutional) but the types are designed and used for different purposes and have potential as living laboratories that make them suitable for further in-depth study [37]. The total sequestered carbon (TSC) and sequestered carbon dioxide equivalent (SCO2E) estimated for all trees species in the study area were 264.35 and 970.16 (tonnes), respectively.  The high amount of sequestered carbon and the carbon dioxide equivalent (105.65, 387.74 tonnes tonnes) recorded in veterinary park reflects the quantity of tree biomass recorded in the park, since carbon was determined as 50% of plant biomass, which was well within the range of other previously conducted estimates within the study area [16,17]. Similar studies have been carried out in other climes and results have elucidated the positive contributions of urban trees in carbon storage [37] [38,39]. The allometric model employed also incorporates plant height and diameter, therefore higher biomass implies larger plant size. These estimates are essential in view of their carbon dioxide equivalent (SCO2E), which is a measure of the plants’ potential for mitigating atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations [2,40].

The significant correlation between DBH and AGB implies that, AGB increases with increasing DBH, hence the suitability of the allometric model used in determining biomass, as earlier suggested by [16,17] in the study area. Imperative to effective carbon sequestration is the call for active participation of local communities in protecting and managing tree resources as well as in providing sustained financial and technical support. Although the research is limited to parks, the results demonstrate the need for more extensive estimates of carbon storage in the study area, as well as further comparative studies across urban environments. This will support better environmental planning and design, including policy and management measures related to climate change and urban resilience. More detailed information of various tree species, including allometric constants and region-specific growth estimates could support better accurate analyses and comprehensive future assessments.

Conclusion

The total of 298 trees (30 species and 16 families) sampled from 10 parks in this study revealed the utilization of trees for relaxation and ecosystem services. The results demonstrate that there are differences in carbon storage across the parks in JOSTUM campus and show the usability of allometric model to assess carbon storage in an urban environment. Total sequestered carbon (TSC) and the sequestered carbon dioxide equivalent (SCO2E) were estimated for each tree in the study area resulting in an estimated 264.35 and 970.16 (tonnes) across all parks in Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University Makurdi, Nigeria. The approach could be used in other urban areas to obtain accurate estimations of urban carbon storage in support of urban landscape governance, planning, and management. Carbon storage by urban trees should be carefully integrated with the assessment of other ecosystem services, with a detailed information on the allometry and growth rates of urban trees, which would enhance efficiency of carbon stock assessments.

References

  1. Zisadza-Gandiwa P, Mango L, Edson G, Goza D, Parakasingwa C, et al. (2013) Variation in woody vegetation structure and composition in a semi-arid savanna of Southern Zimbabwe. Int J Biodivers Conserv 5: 71-77.
  2. Aghimien EV, James TK (2019) Above- Ground Bole Carbon Stock Estimation Using Forest Inventory of the Secondary Forest Ecosystem in Ibadan, Nigeria. J For Manage 16: 41-49.
  3. Amonum JI, Jonathan BA, Japheth HD (2019) Structure and Diversity of Tree Species at the College of Forestry and Fisheries, University of Agriculture Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria. Int J For Hortic 5: 20-27.
  4. Francisco MP, Gonçalves RR, Amândio LG, Marcos PM, Aidar MF, et al. (2017) Tree Species Diversity and Composition of Miombo Woodlands in South-Central Angola: A Chrono sequence of Forest Recovery after Shifting Cultivation. Hindawi Int J For Res.
  5. Malik ZA, Hussain A, Iqbal K (2014) Species richness and diversity along the disturbance gradient in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary and its adjoining areas in Garhwal Himalaya, India. Int J Curr Res 6:10918-10926.
  6. Singh S, Malik ZA, Sharma CM (2016) Tree species richness, diversity, and regeneration status in different oak (Quercus spp.) dominated forests of Garhwal Himalaya, India. J Asia Pac Biodivers 9: 293-300.
  7. Athua EM, Pabi O (2013) Tree species composition, richness and diversity in the northern forest savanna ecotone of Ghana. J App Biosc 67: 5437-5448.
  8. Neelo JD, Teketay KK, Masamba W (2015) Stand structure, diversity and regeneration status of woody species in open and ex closed dry woodlands sites around molapo farming areas of the Okavango Delta, Northeastern Botswana. Open J For 5: 313–328.
  9. IPCC (2006) Good practice guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change p: 30.
  10. Aguoru CU, Uduaga BE, Olasan JO (2014) Pattern and distribution of economic trees in the Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi in the North Central Guinea Savanna, Nigeria. Int J Agric Food Syst 8: 10-17.
  11. Ikyaagba TE, Tee TN, Dagba BI, Ancha UP, Ngibo KD, et al. (2015) Tree composition and distribution in Federal University of Agriculture Makurdi, Nigeria. J Res For Wildl Environ Pp: 1778-2141.
  12. Weitzman ML (2017) Voting on prices vs. voting on quantities in a World Climate Assembly. Res Econ 71: 199-211.
  13. Saatchi SS, Harris NL, Brown S, Lefsky M, Mitchard ETA, et al. (2011) Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108: 9899-9904.
  14. Mahmood H, Siddique MRH, Akhter M (2016) A critical review and database of biomass and volume allometric equation for trees and shrubs of Bangladesh. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 39:12-17.
  15. Okoh T, Edu EA, Ebigwai JK (2019) Carbon stocks estimates of eight selected woody species of the Guinea Savanna Ecosystem in Makurdi, Benue State Nigeria. Int J Biol and Biol Sci 5: 001-008.
  16. Paul AM, Iheukwumere CC, Aguoru CU, Okoh T, Alfred UJ (2019) Carbon Sequestration Potentials of Woody Plant Species in Makurdi Zoological Garden Benue State Nigeria. Asian J Res Agric For Pp: 1-12.
  17. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, et al. (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Sci 333: 988-993.
  18. Zhang C, Zhou Y, Qiu F (2015) Individual tree segmentation from LiDAR point clouds for urban forest inventory. Remote Sens 7: 7892-7913.
  19. Yang Q, Su Y, Jin S, Kelly M, Hu T, et al. (2019) The influence of vegetation characteristics on individual tree segmentation methods with airborne LiDAR data. Remote Sens 11: 2880.
  20. Schreyer J, Tigges J, Lakes T, Churkina G (2014) Using airborne LiDAR and QuickBird data for modelling urban tree carbon storage and its distribution. A case study of Berlin. Remote Sens 6: 10636-10655.
  21. Velasco E, Chen KW (2019) Carbon storage estimation of tropical urban trees by an improved allometric model for aboveground biomass based on terrestrial laser scanning. Urban For Urban Greenery 44:  126387.
  22. Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ, Hoehn RE, Lapoint E (2013) Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environ Pollut 178: 229–236.
  23. Giannico V, Lafortezza R, John R, Sanesi G, Pesola L, Chen J (2016) Estimating stand volume and above-ground biomass of urban forests using LiDAR. Remote Sens 8: 339.
  24. Tigges J, Churkina G, Lakes T (2017) Modelling above-ground carbon storage: a remote sensing approach to derive individual tree species information in urban settings. Urban Ecosyst 20: 97-111.
  25. Ahammad R, Hossain MK, Husnain P (2014) Governance of forest conservation and co-benefits for Bangladesh under changing climate. J for Res 25: 29-36.
  26. Ahmed N, Glaser M (2016) Coastal aquaculture, mangrove deforestation and blue carbon emissions: is REDD+ a solution? Marine Policy 66: 58-66.
  27. Areola OO, Filani M (1983) A geography of Nigerian development. Ibadan: Heinemann.
  28. Whittaker RH (1977) Evolution of species diversity in land communities.
  29. DeClerck FA, Barbour MG, Sawyer JO (2006) Species richness and stand stability in conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. Ecol 87: 2787-2799.
  30. De Oliveira-Filho AT, Shepherd GJ, Martins FR, Stubblebine WH (1989) Environmental factors affecting physiognomic and floristic variation in an area of Cerrado in central Brazil. J Trop Ecol 5: 413-431.
  31. Phillips EA (1959) Methods of vegetation study. Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. Inc New York p: 107.
  32. Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S, Cairns MA, Chambers JQ, et al. (2005) Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145: 87-99.
  33. Foster J, Lowe A, Winkelman S (2011) The value of green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation. Cent Clean Air Policy 750: 1–52.
  34. Manes F, Incerti G, Salvatori E, Vitale M, Ricotta C, et al. (2012) Urban ecosystem services: tree diversity and stability of tropospheric ozone removal. Ecol Appl 22: 349-360.
  35. Bolliger J, Silbernagel J (2020) Contribution of connectivity assessments to green infrastructure (GI). ISPRS Int J Geo Inf 9: 212.
  36. Gülçin D, van den Bosch CCK (2021) Assessment of Above-Ground Carbon Storage by Urban Trees Using LiDAR Data: The Case of a University Campus. For 12: 62.
  37. Wilkes P, Disney M, Vicari MB, Calders K, Burt A (2018) Estimating urban above ground biomass with multi-scale LiDAR. Car Balance and Manage 13: 1-20.
  38. Duncanson L, Armston J, Disney M, Avitabile V, Barbier N, et al. (2019) The importance of consistent global forest aboveground biomass product validation. Surv Geophys 40: 979-999.
  39. Aghimien EV, Osikabor B, Adams OT, Adedeji MS (2020) Modelling Above-Ground Bole Biomass of Selected Tree Species within the Forest in Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria (FRIN). J Res For Wildl Environ 12: 41-52.

Citation: Thomas O, Uzoma AC, Stephen OE, Ochuole EP, Emmanuel ZS (2021) Diversity, Importance Value Indices and Carbon Credit Assessment of Parks in Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria. J Earth Sci Clim Change 12: 579. DOI: 10.4172/2157-7617.1000579

Copyright: © 2021 Thomas O, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Top