WOLLEGA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

FACULTY OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND
ECONOMICS
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

CARBON SEQUESTRATION POTENTIAL OF COFFEE BASED

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS: TO CLIMATE CHANGE
MITIGATION IN NONO SALE DISTRICT, ILUBABOR ZONE,
ETHIOPIA

MSc. THESIS
BY:
GEZAHEGN NIGUSE TAKLE

March, 2021
SHAMBU, ETHIOPIA
CARBON SEQUESTRATION POTENTIAL OF COFFEE BASED
AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS TO CLIMATE CHANGE
MITIGATION IN NONO SALEDISTRICT, ILUBABOR ZONE,
ETHIOPIA

Thesis Submitted to Department of Natural Resource Management,

School of Post Graduate Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the
requirement for the Degree of Masters (M.Sc.) in Climate Change and
Sustainable Agriculture

BY

GEZAHEGN NIGUSE TAKLE

MAJOR ADVISOR: BIRHANU ITICHA (ASST. PROF)

CO-ADVISOR: GETENET KEBEDE (ASST.PROF)

Apreal, 2021
SHAMBU, ETHIOPIA
 WOLLEGA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
P.O. Box: 38, Shambu, Ethiopia
___ ______________________________________________

APPROVAL SHEET FOR SUBMITTING FINAL THESIS

As members of the Board of Examining of the Final MSc. thesis open defense, we certify
that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Gezahegn Niguse under the title "
Carbon sequestration potential of coffee-based agroforestry systems to climate change
mitigation in Nono sale district, ilubabor zone, Ethiopia " and recommend that the thesis be
accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement for the Degree of Master of sciences in Climate
Change and Sustainable Agriculture
__________________________ _________________ ________________
Chairperson Signature Date
__________________________ _________________ ________________
Internal Examiner Signature Date
__________________________ _________________ ________________
External Examiner Signature Date
Final Approval and Acceptance
Thesis Approved by
__________________________ _________________ ________________
Department PGC Signature Date
__________________________ _________________ ________________
Dean of College Signature Date
Certification of the Final Thesis
I hereby certify that all the correction and recommendation suggested by the board of
examiners are incorporated into the final thesis entitled “by Gezahegn Niguse”
__________________________ _________________ ________________
Dean of SGS Signature Date

ii
 DECLARATION

This is to declare that this thesis entitled “Carbon sequestration potential of coffee-based
agroforestry systems to climate change mitigation in Nono Sale district, Ilubabor Zone,
Ethiopia” accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of
Master of Science in Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture by the school of Graduate
Studies, Wollega University through College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, done by
Gezahegn Niguse Takle is genuine work carried out by him under my guidance. The matter
embodied in this thesis work has not been submitted earlier for the award of any degree or
diploma. The assistance and help received during this investigation have been acknowledged.
Therefore, I recommend that it can be accepted as fulfilling the research thesis requirements.

Birhanu Iticha (Asst. Prof) _____________ _______________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Getenet Kebede (Asst. Prof) _____________ _______________

Co-Advisor Signature Date

iii
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

I, Gezahegn Niguse, hereby declare and affirm that the thesis entitled “Carbon sequestration
potential of coffee-based agroforestry systems to climate change mitigation in Nono sale
district, ilubabor zone, Ethiopia, Ethiopia” is my work conducted under the supervision of
Mr. Birhanu Iticha (Asst.Prof.) and Mr. Getenet Kebede (Asst.Prof.). I have followed all the
ethical principles of authorship in the preparation, data collection, data analysis, and
completion of this thesis. All scholarly matter that is included in the thesis has been given
recognition through citation. I have adequately cited and referenced all the sources. I also
declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity and I have not
misrepresented, fabricated, or falsified any idea/data/fact/source in my submission. This
thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for a degree from the Postgraduate
Studies at Wollega University. I further declare that this thesis has not been submitted to any
other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma or certificate.

I understand that any violation of the above will because for disciplinary action by the
University and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have thus not been
properly cited or from whom proper permission has not been taken when needed.

Name: __________________________ Signature: _________ Date: _____________

School/Department:

iv
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born from his father Mr. Niguse Takle and his mother Mrs. Zanabu Damiso
on October 11/ 09/1976 E.C at Shambu Town, Horro Guduru Wollega Zone. He attended
Grade 1 to 8 at Shambu primary school and Grade 9 to 10 at Shambu High School where he
completed Grade 10 in June 1993 E.C. He joined agarfa Agricultural Technical Vocational
treaning College In 1994 E.C, College to pursue his study his Diploma in Natural Resource
Management and graduated in July 1996 E.C. The author upgraded to a BA degree in Natural
Resource Management at Jimma University 2003.

After graduation, he employed by the Ministry of Agriculture where he served as a Forestry

expert at Horro Guduru Wollega Zone Agriculture office. He joined Wollega University in
November 2010 E.C to study his Masters of Science Degree in Climate Change and
Sustainable Agriculture.

v
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AGB Above Ground Biomass
AGC Above Ground Carbon
AGCB Above Ground Coffee Biomass
AGCC Above Ground Coffee Carbon
ATA Agriculture Transformation Agency
BGB Below Ground Biomass
BGB Below Ground Coffee Biomass
BGC Below Ground Carbon
BGCC Below Ground Coffee Carbon
CBA Coffee Based Agroforestry
CRGE Ethiopia's Climate-ResilientGreen Economy
DBH Diameter at Breast Height
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FDRE The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GIS Geographical Information System
HB Herbaceous Biomass
HC Herbaceous Carbon
ICO International Coffee Organization
LB Litter Biomass
LC Litter Carbon
masl Meter Above Sea Level
MEFCC Minister of Environment Forest and Climate Change
NSAO Nono Sale Agriculture Office
NSLO Nono Sale Livestock Office
OFWENSD Oromia Forest and Wild Life Enterprise Nono Sale District
SOC Soil Organic Carbon
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I give the utmost glory to the almighty God who helped me throughout
my life in general and in this research work in particular. The continuous prayer of my
parents, wife, and friends has given me the energy to resist the challenges during my
academic years. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my major advisor Birhanu
Iticha (Asst. Prof.) and my co-advisor Getenet Kebede (Asst. Prof.) for their academic
advice, consistent guidance and constructive criticism and comments from the beginning to
the end of my work. My deepest gratitude also goes to all the people who cooperated with
me in providing valuable information. Moreover, I would like to extend my special gratitude
to the Nono Sale District Administration, Rural and Agricultural Development Office,
Development Agents, Kebele Administration, and farmers. I am also grateful to my friend
Malese Shigut, Ambachew Hagos, Tagegn Mohamed, and others for tirelessly assisting me
during the field work.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
APPROVAL SHEET.................................................................................................................ii
DECLARATION......................................................................................................................iii
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR..........................................................................................iv
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.....................................................................................................v
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.................................................................................vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................xi
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................xii
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................xiii
1.1. Background of the Study............................................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the Problem...........................................................................................................3
1.3. Objectives..................................................................................................................................4
1.3.1. General Objective.............................................................................................................4
1.3.2. Specific Objectives...........................................................................................................4
1.4. Research Questions....................................................................................................................4
1.6. Scope of the Study.....................................................................................................................5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................6
2. 1. Agro-forestry land use system...................................................................................................6
2.2. Climate Change and agroforestry in Ethiopia.............................................................................7
2. 3. Coffee Based Agroforestry in Ethiopia.....................................................................................9
2.4 Coffee Farming in Ethiopia.........................................................................................................9
2.5. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry.......................................................................10
2.6. Agroforestry Biomass and Carbon Pools..................................................................................11
2.6.1. Above-ground biomass and carbon pool.........................................................................12
2.6.2. Belowground biomass.....................................................................................................12
2.6.3. Herbaceous biomass and carbon pools............................................................................13
2.5.4. Litter biomass and carbon pools......................................................................................13
2.6.5. Soil organic carbon.........................................................................................................13
2. 7. The Role of Agroforestry on Climate Change Mitigation.......................................................14

viii
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS.........................................................................................16
3.1. Description of the Study Area..................................................................................................16
3.1.1. Location..........................................................................................................................16
3.1.2. Climate............................................................................................................................16
3.1.3. Land use and soil type.....................................................................................................17
3.1.4. Demography and socio-economy of the study area.....................................................17
3.1.5. Farming systems.............................................................................................................17
3.2. Methods....................................................................................................................................18
3.2.1 Sources of data.................................................................................................................18
3.2.2. Characterization of the experimental area.......................................................................18
3.2.3. The delineation, mapping, stratification, and sampling techniques.................................19
3.4. Estimation of Carbon Stocks in Different Carbon Pools..........................................................20
3.4.1. Estimating above-ground living biomass (AGTB)..........................................................20
3.4.2 Estimation of belowground biomass (BGB)...................................................................20
3.4.3. Herbaceous/ saplings biomass.........................................................................................21
3.4.5. Estimation of aboveground biomass for coffee...............................................................21
3.4.6. Estimation of belowground biomass for coffee...............................................................22
3.4.7. Soil organic carbon.........................................................................................................22
3.5. Estimation of Carbon from Biomass........................................................................................22
3.5.1 Estimation of carbon from biomass of each pool.............................................................22
3.6. Estimation of equivalent CO2 Sink...........................................................................................23
3.7. Statistical Data Analysis...........................................................................................................23
4. RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS...........................................................................................24
4.1. Biomass Accumulation in the Coffee-based Agroforestry Systems...................................24
4.1.2. Biomass Accumulation in the Coffee Plants...................................................................25
4.1.3. Carbon Storage Capacity of Coffee Agroforestry Systems.............................................26
4.1.4. Carbon Storage Capacity of Coffee Plants......................................................................28
4.1.5. PCA Analyses result.......................................................................................................29
4.1.6. The implication of CBA to Climate change mitigation...................................................30
4.2. Discussion................................................................................................................................31

ix
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...................................................................34
5.1. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................34
5.2. RECOMMENDATION............................................................................................................35
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................36
APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................40

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table1.Biomass accumulation by biomass components in the different coffee-based

agroforestry systems………………………………………………………….…..………….25
Table2.The proportion of biomass accumulated in the coffee trees…....................................27
Table3. The C storage potential in the different pools by major CAF strata……….……......28
Table4. The proportion of carbon accumulated in the coffee trees.........................................30
Table5. Total C stock and equivalent carbon-dioxide sink across different agroforestry......32
Table6. Data collection formats: aboveground biomass field inventory from for trees….….41
Table7.Data collection formats: for litter and grass, herbs and shrubs ...........................…....41
Table8. Data field inventory format for coffee biomass………………………………..........41
Table9.Tree local name, scientific name, family,and density in the study area…..................42
Table10.Soil laboratory results………………………………………………………...…….43
Table11. The coordinates of sample area………………………………………….………...47

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure1. The different forest carbon pools and their relative importance.................................7
Figure2. The GHGs emission in Ethiopia................................................................................12
Figure3. The study area map...………….................................................................................17
Figure 4.The map of the strata in the study area………………………………………….…20
Figure5. Biomass accumulation in the different CAF strata and Biomass components..........26
Figure6.The proportion of carbon sequestered in the different coffee management systems
and carbon pools......................................................................................................................29
Figure7. The Correlation between carbon pool and coffee carbon…………………………..31
Figure8.The map of the sample point in the study area…………………………….………..49

xii
 ABSTRACT

Carbon sequestration is the process through which carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is
trapped by plants and stored as carbon in the biomass (tree trunks, branches, grasses,
foliage, and roots) and soil. Coffee-based agroforestry systems play a great role in carbon
sequestration and climate change mitigation. This study was aimed to estimate the carbon
stock of coffee-based agroforestry (CAF) systems to climate change mitigation at Nono Sale
District, southwestern Ethiopia. Based on differences in management systems, tree species
abundance, availability, and density of coffee plants, the study area was stratified into three
strata; namely mixed natural forest coffee strata, Albizia dominated strata, and Syzygium
dominated strata. A total of 34 nested plots of 20 m x 20 m, 2 m x 2 m, and 1 m x 1 m sizes
were laid in the stratum to measure the biomass of woody plants, herbaceous/saplings, litter
biomass, and soil carbon for the upper 0-30 cm soil layer, respectively. The total carbon
stored in the different coffee management systems ranged from 189.05 Mg ha-1 in the
Syzygium dominated strata to 233.5 Mg ha-1 in the Albizia dominated strata, with a mean
value of 204.78 Mg ha-1. The Albizia-dominated strata had stored more carbon than mixed
natural forest strata and Syzygium strata. The mean carbon storage in the study area by
carbon pools ranged from 2.14 Mg ha-1 in the liter fall to 156.64Mg ha-1 in the aboveground
pool. Soil carbon stock was higher in the mixed natural forest than in other strata. Average
carbon stock of 37.46 Mg ha-1 was stored in the coffee plants alone which account for 18.29
% of the average carbon sequestration potential of the agroforestry systems in the study
area. The average distribution of carbon storage potential of the study area shows that
74.65% of the carbon was stored in the tree biomass, 18.29% in the coffee plants, 4.47% in
the soil, 1.54% in the HC, and 1.05% in the litterfall.

Keywords: Biomass, carbon pools,Dominant,Strata,Stratified

xiii
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

Carbon sequestration is the process through which carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is
absorbed by trees, plants, and crops through photosynthesis, and stored as carbon in biomass
(tree trunks, branches, grasses, foliage, and roots) and soil (Cook et al., 2013). Agroforestry
component act as a sink through the process of tree growth and resultant biological carbon
sequestration for C by fixing carbon during photosynthesis and storing excess carbon as
biomass Carbon sequestration can be increased by increasing the amount of standing biomass
and increasing the rotation length of trees and shrubs, and in converting the biomass into
durable products (Nowak and Crane, 2002)

The agroforestry system contributes to climate change mitigation directly through the
accumulation of C in above and belowground biomass, soil and, indirectly through avoiding
deforestation via sustainable intensification (land sparing) and provision of alternative
sources of products otherwise derived from forests (Zomer et al., 2016). Agroforestry is
therefore particularly suited to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation,
and accumulating C through sustainable forest management, forest conservation, and
afforestation and reforestation (Bardhan, 2012).

The agroforestry system has a high potential for C sequestration owing to the availability of
trees and shrubs while simultaneously contributing to maintaining food and nutrition
security. Besides, the system diversifies household income, provides fiber and energy to local
communities, and serves agro tourism, aesthetic values, demonstration, and education (Jose
and Bardhan, 2012). These systems improve soil fertility through increasing soil organic
matter and biological nitrogen fixation by leguminous trees. Trees help recover nutrients and
conserve soil moisture, and hence, may also enhance agricultural productivity. Agroforestry
can provide assets and income from carbon and wood energy and enhancement of local
climate conditions (Mbow et al., 2014).

1
Agro-forestry systems play a great role in carbon storage. Due to the diversification of trees,
agro-forestry or forest farming has a higher carbon storage potential than mono-cropping
Due to high plant species diversity, agroforestry systems have larger chances to sequester C
in the long-term than annual cropping systems, adding aboveground C storage capacity
through a broader diversity of living forms, including fruit or timber trees, perennial crops,
and potential fertilizer and fodder trees. Albrecht and Kandji (2003) estimated a potential C
sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems of 95 t C ha -1 (varying widely between 12 and
228 t C ha-1).

Coffee farm (coffee-based agroforestry) is the type of agroforestry land use system; with
various tree species used as a coffee shade combined with coffee plant in different ways
(Abebe, 2005). Globally, coffee covers an area of 10.2 million hectares of land, supporting
20-25 million households. Coffee farming in Ethiopia takes place over a vast area, under a
wide variety of production systems and various growing conditions, with many different
cultivation practices. Ethiopian coffee is mainly grown under the shade of trees (shade or
forest coffee), either within the forest or in farming systems that incorporate specific shade
plants – usually indigenous (native) trees, or sometimes fruit trees which have many biomass
components in the system. In Ethiopia, coffee is produced within specific Agro-ecological
zones; most coffee is grown in areas of humid (moist) evergreen forest. This type of
rainforest is found at 650–2600 m above sea level, with coffee mainly confined to altitudes of
1200–2100m. Coffee farming alone provides a livelihood income for around 15 million
Ethiopians (16% of the population) and based on four million smallholder farms (Jenny et
al., 2017).

Ethiopian farmers have experience of cultivating coffee crops under different shade trees.
Albizia chimperiana, Albizia gummifera, Milletti aferruginea, Cordia africana, and
Erythrina abyssinica are the most compatible trees for coffee shade in Ethiopia. In addition
to shade services, the high productivity of these forests may make them particularly
responsive to the growth enhancement from rising atmospheric CO 2 concentrations (Tian et
al., 1998). Several researchers also revealed that coffee-based agroforestry systems have

2
larger chances to sequester C in the long-term ((Nair et al., 2010; Tadesse et al., 2014;
Vanderhaegen et al., 2015; Mulugeta et al., 2020).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Globally, coffee occupying over 10.2 million ha of land worldwide (FAO, 2009), and
employing 20–25 million families in the production process, many of whom live in rural and
impoverished communities (Jha et al., 2011; Lewin et al., 2004; Oxfam, 2001). This needs a
better understanding of the capacity of coffee agroforests to store carbon relative to tropical
forests must be developed. Coffee agroforestry has emerged as a promising land-use system
for reducing or offsetting deforestation (Soto-Pinto et al., 2010), while at the same time
sequestering carbon and contributing to climate change mitigation (Dossa et al., 2008).
Given enhanced carbon (C) sequestration that occurs with tree planting and the practice of
agroforestry farming, shade-grown coffee systems have been recognized as viable
afforestation and reforestation strategies.

In the last few years, the importance of research on mitigation, i.e. reducing the sources or
enhancing the sinks of greenhouse gases, especially mitigation of CO2, has been increasing
due to climate change effects. Unsuitable land-use activities like changing forest land to
agricultural land) are the second major source of CO 2 emissions (IPCC, 2013), and
agroforestry systems seem to be acceptable management of crop production, as well as for
CO2 mitigation through an increase in carbon stocks (Schroth et al., 2002). Research directly
related to carbon (C) storage finds that coffee agroforests store substantially more carbon
than sun-grown coffee, maize, and other traditional agricultural systems (Dossa et al., 2008;
Harmand et al., 2006; Soto-Pinto et al., 2010; van Noordwijk et al., 2002); however, the
comparability of C-storage within coffee agro-forests and forests remains little studied.

According to the information obtained from the district agricultural office (2017), nearly
13,669 hectares of land was covered by plantation coffee, 47,000, hectares of land was
covered by semi-forest coffee, and 2,015 hectares of land was covered by natural coffee
forest. In general, a total of 62,684 hectares of land (i.e. 29% of the district) was occupied by
coffee-based agroforestry systems. This shows the potential of the coffee-framing systems in

3
carbon sequestration. However, the quantity of carbon stored in the different coffee-based
agroforestry practices in the district was not estimated. Therefore, this study was aimed to
estimate the amount of carbon stored in the coffee-based agroforestry system in the Nono
Sale district of western Ethiopia.

1.3. Objectives

1.3.1. General Objective

The general objective of the study was to estimate the carbon sequestration potential of
different coffee-based agroforestry systems and their contribution to climate change
mitigation.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

The study was designed with the following specific objectives:

 To estimate the carbon sequestration potential of coffee-based agroforestry systems in

the study area
 To estimate CO2 equivalent and climate change mitigation potential of coffee-based
agroforestry practices

1.4. Research Questions

1. How much biomass and C are being stored in the non-coffee-based agroforestry systems
of the study area?
2. What is the potential of coffee-based agroforestry systems in mitigating climate change?

4
1.5. Significance of the Study
Coffee-based agroforestry system is a better option in our country for the dual objectives;
mainly regulating climate change through carbon sinks and improving the livelihoods of
smallholder farmers (Emiru, 2014). As coffee is the primary source of income for rural
people in the area, the findings of the study help to promote the role of the coffee-based
agroforestry. The findings of the study also help as baseline information and input for policy
for monitoring the carbon storage potential of the forest and carbon trade initiation.

1.6. Scope of the Study

The study area has a good potential for coffee-based agroforestry. The study was focused on
the amount of carbon stored in the Qofe’s coffee based agroforestry which exists between
Onose and Kimo Vilage( Ganda )of Nono Sale district, Ilubabor Zone, Ethiopia.

5
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2. 1. Agro-forestry land use system

The agroforestry system is defined based on components, structural arrangement, ecological

and socioeconomic interactions within the system. The earlier definition by Lundgren (1982),
agroforestry system is an interaction of woody species (trees and shrubs) with herbaceous
plants (crops, pastures) and/or animals where there are ecological and economic interactions
among the components. According to FAO (2013) agroforestry system defined as any land
use that contributes to increasing productivity of forest crops, food crops, and livestock at the
same land unit alternatively or simultaneously under local people’s management practices,
and ecological and economic condition of the area.

International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF, 2000) defined agroforestry as “an
ecologically-based natural resource management system that integrates trees (for fiber, food,
and energy) with crop and/or animal on farms with aim of diversifying and sustaining income
and production while maintaining ecosystem services”. Structuvrally, agroforestry systems
can be classified into crops under tree cover, multi-strata agroforestry, and agroforestry in
linear arrangement, animal agroforestry, sequential agroforestry, and minor agroforestry
techniques (ICRAF, 2000).

Agroforestry provides various ecosystem services and It is not only provides provisioning
services such as diversification of household income, fiber, food, and energy to local
communities but also provides cultural services such as agro-tourism, aesthetic values,
demonstration, and education. On top of this, agroforestry provides regulating services such
as soil conservation, watershed protection, pest control (Pandey,2002), and sinks for carbon
and thereby contributing to the mitigation of global climate change. The concept of
agroforestry stems from the expected role of on-farm and off-farm tree production in
supporting sustainable land-use and natural resource management (Nair,1998).

6
2.2. Climate Change and agroforestry in Ethiopia

Globally, climate changes were issues in the world. Different countries' have their
contribution to aggravating climate change. The Greenhouse gas emissions per capita in 1994
totaled to 900 kg CO2 equivalent per capita and year (CRGE, 2011). Compared to other
countries, Ethiopia’s emissions are very low. Sector-wise, Ethiopia’s GHG emissions are
dominated by agriculture, which contributes 80% of the total GHG emissions. This reflects
the fact that livestock farming goes together with high methane emissions. The dominant
position of livestock farming in Ethiopia’s economy also influences the relative contribution
of GHG to the total emissions (CRGE, 2011).

Ethiopia Climate-Resilience Green Economy (CRGE, 2011) reported that, the annual
emission of GHGs in Ethiopia is 150 Mt CO2 equivalents and that agriculture and forestry are
the two major sources of GHGs in the year 2010. Compared to the global annual emission of
the same year, the emission from Ethiopia is less than 0.3%. However, the impacts of climate
change will reach Ethiopia since it is a global phenomenon.

Figure1: Sources of GHGs in Ethiopia (CRGE, 2011)

7
To overcome the problem of climate change Agroforestry is the best option; because it
represents a traditional production system in Ethiopia. It is one of the policy strategies for a
climate-resilient green economy and readiness preparation proposal in Ethiopia (FDRE,
2011). Agroforestry currently covers an estimated area of 6 million ha in Ethiopia; and is
projected to increase to 16 million ha by 2020 (Franks et al., 2017).

Agroforestry, which is an ecologically-based traditional farming practice, integrates trees into

the farming systems to increase agricultural productivity and ameliorate soil fertility, control
erosion, conserve biodiversity, and diversify income for households and communities. It is
also an alternative and probably cheaper option for agricultural intensification and
sustainability in Ethiopia.also as a way of improving rural incomes and nutrition, protecting
biodiversity and environmental services, and helping the rural poor to adapt to climate
change and is now widely recognized in Ethiopia. Agricultural producers, in particular the
smallholder farmers of Ethiopia, are facing unprecedented challenges in the 21st century. The
main economic activity is agriculture, a climate change-sensitive or prone activity that
employs about 80-85 percent of the total population. Subsistence farming practices are the
main livelihood for most people living in developing regions, which is characterized by
degraded soils, small farm sizes, and low agriculture outputs (Bishaw et al., 2013).

Agroforestry is an alternative and probably cheaper option for agricultural intensification and
sustainability in Ethiopia. The impact of agroforestry on the improvement of livelihoods and
environmental protection is being demonstrated in many regions of Ethiopia. Productivity is
restored on degraded lands and food security has been effectively achieved with agroforestry
practices (Dereje and Girmay, 2011).

There is a rising interest in agroforestry in Ethiopia for increasing rural productivity and as
adaptation and mitigation to climate change. This is reflected by the government of Ethiopia
in its Climate Resilient Green Economy initiative. It is high time and imperative to assess and
review the existing agricultural and environmental policies, strategies, experiences, and
achievements related to agroforestry made so far, and identify the suitable policy and
governance options that promote the scaling up of agroforestry in Ethiopia (Emiru, 2014).

8
2. 3. Coffee Based Agroforestry in Ethiopia

Coffee based agroforestry is the type of agroforestry land use system; with various tree
species used as a coffee shade combined with coffee plant in different ways (Abebe, 2005).
Globally, coffee covers an area of 10.2 million hectares of land, supporting 15-20 million
households. Coffee is grown in 70 countries and it is the world’s most widely traded tropical
agricultural commodity; (Labouisse et al. 2008) ;from those Ethiopia is the origin of Coffee
arabica, Coffee arabica is native to Ethiopia, originating in the south-western part of the
country and was first identified about 1,500 years ago (Bertrand et al., 2011).

Today, coffee is growing on 662,000 ha, of which 496,000 ha are estimated to be productive,
yielding an average of 350,000 tons/yr of coffee beans and accounting for more than 60% of
Ethiopia’s export earnings (Muleta et al., 2007). There are four coffee management systems
in Ethiopia: forest coffee, semi-forest coffee, garden coffee, and plantation coffee, which
respectively cover 5, 35, 50, and 10% of the productive coffee area (Labouisse et al., 2008).

Coffee provides Ethiopia with its most important agricultural commodity, contributing
around one-quarter of its total export earnings. In 2014/15 Ethiopia exported around 180,000
metric tons of coffee (ICO, 2015) at a value estimated to be more than 800 million USD.
Ethiopia is Africa’s largest coffee producer and the world’s fifth-largest exporter of Arabica
coffee (ICO, 2015), even though yields (kg/hectare) are low compared to other producing
countries

2.4 Coffee Farming in Ethiopia

In its wild state, Arabica coffee is a forest plant restricted to the highlands of Ethiopia and a
small area in neighboring South Sudan. It has been used in Ethiopia as a food and beverage
for many hundreds, if not thousands, of years (Davis et al., 2012).
Thus, Ethiopia can be considered as the biological and cultural home of coffee. Its early use
was no doubt restricted to gathering fruits from the wild forests, with semi-domestication
possibly coming soon afterward. Today, an estimated 525,000 hectares (5,250 km 2) of coffee

9
are planted in Ethiopia although the actual area is probably more than 20,000 km 2 (Tefera,
2015).

2.5. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry

Carbon sequestration is the process of removing C from the atmosphere and depositing it in a
reservoir. It entails the transfer of atmospheric C, especially CO 2, and its secure storage in
long-lived pools (UNFCCC, 2007). According to the 1997 United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), there are two ways to reduce levels of
atmospheric CO2: reduce emissions or increase C sequestration (Montagnini and Nair, 2004).
IPCC was predicted that by 2040 agroforestry would offer the highest potential of C
sequestration in developing countries (Smith et al., 2007).

According to Albrecht and Kandji (2003), the total C stocks of the agroforestry systems of
this study was within the range reported for agroforestry systems globally (12–228 Mg C
ha−1) Carbon sequestration can be increased by increasing the amount of standing biomass
and increasing the rotation length of trees and shrubs, and in converting the biomass into
durable products. The sequestration can also aid by enhancing the C sinks in soil. Many tree
species in agroforestry systems can sequester C for 30–50 years until they attain rotation age,
and in some cases, trees can be maintained in the system for up to 300 years (Smith et al.,
2007). Agroforestry practices offer the high potential of carbon (C) sequestration in
developing countries. However, the roles of tropical agroforestry to mitigate climate change
have only recently been recognized (Mulugeta et al., 2020)

The amount of carbon stored in a coffee forest varies depending on management intensity.
For example, compared to nearby natural forests, SFC systems have been reported to retain
50–62% (and 48–65% (of carbon storage, with many stems ha −1 (DBH > 10 cm) of 64% in
Yeki and Decha (Tadesse et al., 2014), and 32–51% in Gera and Garuke, with coffee 331
stems ha−1 around Jimma (Vanderhaegen et al., 2015). Supporting coffee growers in their
sustainable management of the potentially suitable area for agroforestry globally is estimated
to 1.55 billion ha with an estimated C sequestration potential of 44.8–466.5 Pg C yr −1 (in
biomass and soil). The biomass C sequestration potential of agroforestry systems ranges from

10
0.29 for fodder bank agroforestry systems in West African Sahel to 15.21 Mg C ha −1 yr−1 for
a perennial mixed-species stand at age 4-year-old in Puerto Rica (Nair et al., 2010).

2.6. Agroforestry Biomass and Carbon Pools

Agroforestry components act as a sink through the process of tree growth and resultant
biological carbon sequestration for C by fixing carbon during photosynthesis and storing
excess carbon as biomass (Nowak and Crane, 2002). Biomass assessments illustrate the
amount of carbon that may be sequestered by trees. FAO (2004) defined biomass as “organic
material both above-ground and belowground, and both living and dead, e.g., trees, crops,
grasses, tree litter, roots, etc.” Above-ground biomass consists of all living biomass above the
soil including stem, stump, branches, bark, seeds, and foliage. Below-ground biomass
consists of all living roots excluding fine roots (less than 2 mm in diameter).

A carbon pool is a system that can accumulate or release carbon. According to the IPCC
(2006), carbon pools in agroforestry ecosystems comprises carbon stored in the living trees
including above-ground, below-ground (roots), leaf litter, deadwood, and soil organic matter.
The CO2 fixed by plants during photosynthesis is transferred across the different carbon
pools.

11
Figure2. The different forest carbon pools and their relative importance (% of the total pool)
(Source: Watson, 2008).

2.6.1. Above-ground biomass and carbon pool

The above-ground biomass of a tree constitutes the major portion of the carbon pool. It is the
most important and visible carbon pool of the terrestrial forest ecosystem. Any changes in the
land use system like forest degradation and deforestation had a direct impact on this
component of the carbon pool (Ravindranath et al., 2008).
Aboveground biomass: This is of two types: above ground living biomass and aboveground
non-living biomass, above ground living biomass comprises all living tree stems, branches,
leaves, bark, seeds including climbers and epiphytes as well as understory living plants
(grasses, seedlings, saplings, etc.) and herbaceous growth. The aboveground non-living
biomass also called above ground dead organic wood includes dead standing or fallen trees
and stumps. Also other coarse woody debris, the litter layer, and charcoal (or partially
charred organic matter) above the soil surface are included in above-ground non-living
biomass. The tree in the natural forest has a large amount of biomass (Birhanu, 2017). The
proportion depends on forest condition. Finally, if the stock of long-lived wood products

12
increases, the carbon held capacity in wood products stock would also increase
(Ravindranath et al., 2008).

2.6.2. Belowground biomass

The belowground biomass (BGB) constitutes all the live roots (Eggleston et al.,2006), and
plays an important role in the carbon cycle by transferring and storing carbon in the soil. The
dead mass of litter and woody debris are not a major carbon pool as they contribute merely a
small fraction to the carbon stocks of forests (Ravindranath et al., 2008).

BGB is a component that represents 4-8% ( Watson, 2008). It refers to living and dead roots,
soil fauna, and the microbial community. The living biomass of live roots includes fine roots
(< 2 mm diameter), small roots (2-10 mm diameter), and large roots (> 10 mm diameter).
Organic litter (DOM) (0.4%): these comprise non-coarse dead materials leaves, small
branches, and twig. Soil organic matter (SOM) (60-80%): comprises humus and other soil
organic C pools in the mineral soil.

2.6.3. Herbaceous biomass and carbon pools

Herbaceous plants are those plants that do not have woody stems, they include
many perennials and nearly all annuals and biennials they include grasses and grass-like
plants grouped as graminoids, forbs, and ferns. Herbaceous plants include plants that have an
annual, biennial, or perennial life cycle. Under a natural coffee-based agroforestry there are
numerous herbaceous that contribute a significant role in biomass accumulation of carbon.
Any vegetation below < 5 cm DBH will be considered as as Herbaceous biomass (Genene et
al., 2013).

2.5.4. Litter biomass and carbon pools

Carbon is stored in trees (stem, branches, leaves, and root), understory, and forest litter, and
forest soils. The mechanism of species-driven carbon sequestration in soil is influenced by
two major activities, aboveground litter decomposition and belowground root activity
(Lemma et al., 2007). Litter decomposition is one of the major sources of SOC and the

13
quality of litter is very important in this regard (Issac and Nair, 2006). In the systems with
high plant diversity, litters are present with different degrees of chemical resistance, creating
the possibility of longer residence of carbon through the slower decomposition of litters from
some species. Lignin in the litter is highly resistant to decomposition and therefore, litter with
high lignin content would have a slower decomposition rate (Mafongoya et al., 1998). In
contrast, litter with low lignin, phenols, and high nitrogen content would have a faster rate of
decomposition (Issac and Nair, 2006)..

2.6.5. Soil organic carbon

The term ‘‘soil carbon sequestration’’ implies the removal of atmospheric CO 2 by plants and
storage of fixed carbon as SOM. The strategy is to increase SOC density in the soil, improve
fertiity within stable micro aggregates so that carbon is protected from microbial processes or
as recalcitrant carbon with a long turnover time. Soil carbon sequestration also increases
SOC stocks through judicious land use and recommended management practices. The
potential of soil carbon sink capacity in managed ecosystems is comparable with the
cumulative historic carbon loss estimated. The attainable soil carbon sink capacity is only 50-
66% of the potential capacity. The strategy of soil carbon sequestration is cost-effective and
environmentally friendly (Lal, 2004).

Soils are the largest carbon reservoirs of the terrestrial carbon cycle, 1500–1550 Gt of
organic soil carbon and soil inorganic carbon approximately 750 Gt both to 1 m depth (Post
et al., 2001; Lal, 2004). Soils play a key role in the global carbon budget and greenhouse gas
effect. Soils contain 3.5% of the earth's carbon reserves, compared with 1.7% in the
atmosphere, 8.9% in fossil fuels, 1.0% in biota, and 84.9% in the oceans (Lal, 2004).

Forest soils are one of the major carbon sinks on earth, because of their higher organic matter
content. Soils can act as sinks or as a source for carbon in the atmosphere depending on the
changes happening to soil organic matter. Equilibrium between the rate of decomposition and
the rate of supply of organic matter is disturbed when forests are cleared and land use and
land cover is changed (Lal, 2004). Soil organic matter can also increase or decrease

14
depending on numerous factors, including climate, vegetation type, and nutrient availability,
disturbance, and land use and management practice. About 75% of the total terrestrial carbon
is stored in the global soils and 40% of it resides in forest ecosystems (Dixon et al., 1994;
Baker, 2007).

2. 7. The Role of Agroforestry on Climate Change Mitigation

According to IPCC (2015), mitigation refers to reducing drivers of climate change such a
reducing heat-trapping gasses from being emitted to the atmosphere or sequestering back
from the atmosphere those already emitted (actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
to enhance carbon sink to curb climate change). Mitigation mainly focuses on managing the
greenhouse gasses sources and sinks of the greenhouse gasses.

The agroforestry system contributes to climate change mitigation directly through the
accumulation of C in above and belowground biomass, litter, soil, and indirectly through
avoiding deforestation via sustainable intensification (land sparing) and provision of
alternative sources of products otherwise derived from forests (Jose and Bardhan, 2012).

The agroforestry system has a high potential for C sequestration owing to the availability of
trees and shrubs while simultaneously contributing to maintaining food and nutrition
security. Besides, the system diversifies household income, provides fiber, and energy to
local communities, and serves for agro-tourism, aesthetic values, demonstration, and
education (Jose and Bardhan, 2012). And also, these systems improve soil fertility through
increasing soil organic matter and biological nitrogen fixation by leguminous trees. Trees
help recover nutrients and conserve soil moisture, and hence, may also enhance agricultural
productivity. Agroforestry can provide assets and income from carbon and wood energy and
enhancement of local climate conditions (Zomer et al., 2016).

Ethiopia’s remnant coffee-based natural forest patches could represent a cost-effective option
for climate change mitigation and conservation of canopy tree species. To support coffee-
based natural forest, it is critical to understand the amount of carbon stored by coffee-based
natural forest, relative to the degraded natural forest (hereafter simply called ‘natural forest’)

15
1 as a baseline (invariably degraded), and to alternative forms of land use, as well as farmers’
preference for canopy shade tree species (Tadesse et al., 2014),

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

3.1.1. Location

The study was conducted in Nono Sale District. Nono Sale District is one of the 13 Districts
of Ilubabor Zone of Oromia Region, South-west Ethiopia, and it is located at a distance of
694 km south west of Addis Ababa. Geographically, it situated between 7° 27′ to 8º 18′ N
latitude and 34° 52′ to 35º 26′ E longitude, with altitudinal ranges between 1300 to 2552 m
a.s.l. Nono Sale is bordered on the southwest by the Gambella region, on the north by Bure,
on the northeast by Ale, and on the southeast by the southern nations and nationalities and
peoples region ( NSANRO, 2018).

16
Figure 3.The map of the study area

3.1.2. Climate

According to the Nono Sale Agricultural and Natural Resource Office (NSANRO, 2018),
mean annual rainfall ranges from 1700-2200mm. The mean minimum and maximum
temperatures are 10OC and 27 OC, respectively (NSANRO, 2018). The district is divided into
three agro-ecology zones, that is,Dega (Bada 32% (7 vilage), Wayina Dega (Bada Dare
50% (10 Vilage), and Kola (Gamooji 18% 4 Vilage) traditional climatic Zone..

3.1.3. Land use and soil type

According to Oromia Forest and Wildlife Enterprise Nono Sale district (OFWENSD, 2012),
the total area of the District is 215,550 hectares.Of these, 204,772 hectares of land was
covered by forest which accounts for 94% of the total area. The district has the loam major
soil type. (NSANRO, 2018).

3.1.4. Demography and socio-economy of the study area

According to the NSANRO,2018 the total population of the District was estimated at
33,573. The total number of the rural population is 29,039 out of which 14,381 are male and

17
14,658 are female. The total numbers of rural HHs are 4,630 (441 female and 4189 male).
The total urban population are 4,534.Of these, 2,066 are males while the remaining 2,468 are
females .

3.1.5. Farming systems

There are many potential rivers which can be used for irrigation. The dominant agricultural
production system of the district is a coffee-based agroforestry system which occupies about
12000 hectares of land and only 5015 hectares of land is used for crop production comprising
75.33% maize, 10.6% bean, 5.54% field pea, 5.38% teff, and 3.11% barely (NSAO,2019).
Inset is one of the other major perennial crops produced in the district. The district is highly
potential for the production of coffee, honey, and livestock, which is mainly undertaken by
smallholder farmers. The study area is best suited for agroforestry systems and practices.

According to Nono Sale Livestock and Fishery Office (NSLFO, 2019), bee production is
another dominant practice in the district. Nearly, 510 tons (510,000 Kg) of honey is produced
per year because of the potential of forest cover. It is harvested 2-3 times per year. The total
beehive of the district is 51,774 from these 888 are modern hive, 1,119 are transitional hive
and 49,767 are traditional hive (NSLFO, 2019). So, the Nono Sale district has economic
potential with reliable rainfall for agriculture, coffee, and honey bee production. Relatively,
the district has adequate physical and market infrastructure. Infrastructures like
telecommunication, electric power, and schools are on expansion in the district. Rural roads
that branched to different Ganda and villages have played a significant role in the supply of
inputs and output of agricultural production.

3.2. Methods

3.2.1 Sources of data

The data for the study was comprised of quantitative data based on primary and secondary
data sources. Nono sale Agricultural office and Oromia Forest and wildlife Enterprise Nono
Sale district was the source of secondary data. The primary data was collected by field

18
measurement of tree biomass parameters (height, diameter,Recordind the weight of herb and
liter) and laboratory for soil organic carbon.

3.2.2. Characterization of the experimental area

From the total area of the district (215,550 hectares), nearly 13,669 hectares of land was
covered by plantation coffee, 47,000 hectares of land was covered by semi-forest coffee, and
2,015 hectares of land was covered by natural coffee forest. In general, about 62,684 hectares
of land (i.e. 29% of the district) were occupied by coffee. Out of the vast forest resources in
the district, my study area focused on the Qofe forest which exists between Onose and Kimo
Vilage (Ganda). The study area is endowed with indigenous trees that have been used for
coffee shade and carbon sequestration as well. In the study area, 23 tree species were
measured for carbon accounting; the dominant tree species found in the study area was;
Albizia gummifera, Syzygium guineense, Schefflera abyssinica, Croton macrostachyus,
Cordia africana, Olea welwitschia, Millettia ferruginea, Diospyros abyssinica.

3.2.3. The delineation, mapping, stratification, and sampling techniques

Nearly 105 hectares of coffee-based agroforestry were identified and delineated (demarcated)
using global positioning system for the parpas of determination of the namber of sample and
for stratified . Then, using the stratified sampling technique, the study area was classified
into three strata based on the species abundance, type of coffee management system, and
availability and density of coffee plants.

19
Figure 4.The map of the strata based on species dominance

The three strata were 51 hectares of mixed natural forest coffee with semi-natural coffee
management system, 34 hectares of Albizia dominated strata with semi-natural coffee
management system, and 20 hectares of Syzygium dominated strata with the natural coffee
management system. During the stratification process, local community members who know
the area in detail participated.

Sample plots were laid in the stratum using a purposive sampling technique. Nested sample
plots of 20 m x 20 m, 2 m x 2 m, and 1 m x 1 m were laid in the stratum to measure the
biomass of woody plants, herbaceous and litter biomass, respectively. For each stratum, the
biomass of coffee, as well as all trees and shrubs in the sample plot, were measured. The soil
sample was collected from the upper 0-30 cm depth at four corners and center of the larger
plot and mixed to make one composite sample for each main plot to estimate soil organic
carbon in the stratum. According to UNFCCC sample estimation of biomass stocks, for 105
hectares of the study area, 34 sample plots were surveyed; one sample plot represents three

20
hectares of agroforestry system (17 sample plots for mixed natural forest coffee, 11 for
Albizia strata, and 6 for Syzygium strata). (UNFCCC,2010).

3.4. Estimation of Carbon Stocks in Different Carbon Pools

3.4.1. Estimating above-ground living biomass (AGTB)

In the larger plot, diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height (H) were measured for
every live tree using caliper and hypsometer, respectively. During the estimation of
biomass, the wood-specific gravity (density) was obtained at the species level from the
global wood density database (Chave et al., 2009). Then, the aboveground biomass of
living trees with DBH ≥ 5 cm was estimated using the revised non-destructive allometric
equation described by Chave et al. (2014). This equation was selected because it was
developed for tropical forest stands:
0 . 976
AGTB = 0 .0673 x ( ρD2H ) ( equ . 1)

Where AGTB = aboveground tree biomass (kg), ρ = wood specific gravity (g cm-3), D = tree
DBH (cm), and H = tree height

3.4.2 Estimation of belowground biomass (BGB)

According to Geider et al. (2001), and Genene et al. (2013), the belowground biomass
estimation is more difficult and time-consuming than estimating aboveground biomass. In
this research, MacDicken (1997) standard method for estimation of belowground biomass
which is 20% of aboveground tree biomass i.e. root-to-shoot ratio value of 1:5 was used.
Thus, the equation developed by MacDicken (1997) was used to estimate belowground
biomass as follows:

BGB = ABG∗0 . 2 ( equ . 2 )

Where, BGB is below ground biomass, AGB is above ground biomass, 0.2 is conversion
factor (or 20% of AGB).

21
3.4.3. Herbaceous/ saplings biomass

Any live vegetation (grasses and herbaceous) < 5 cm DBH was considered as non-woody
above-ground biomass.The sampling frame method (i.e. 2 m x 2 m frame) was deployed to
measure these herbaceous vegetation. The frame laid at the four corners and the center of the
sample plot; then cut all living herbaceous inside the frame at base and record the fresh
weight, from which 500 g sample size taken to the laboratory, oven-dried at 85 0C. Then
estimate biomass as follow:
dry mass
Dry mass= ×sample of fresh mass ( equ . 3 )
all fresh mass

3.4.4. Litter biomass

The dry matter of litter and finer plant debris was collected from 1 m x 1 m plot in every

four corners and center of the main 400 m 2 plot in the nest. In the 1 m2 plot, litter was
collected and total fresh weight was recorded, from which 250 g sample size taken to the

laboratory, oven-dried at 85 0C.

dry mass
Litter Biomass= × sample of litter ( equ . 4 )
all litter

3.4.5. Estimation of aboveground biomass for coffee

The aboveground coffee arabica biomass estimation was made following the allometric
equations developed by Negash et al. (2013). All coffee stamps ≥ 3.8cm diameter at 40 cm
from the ground (soil) in the larger plot was measured. The equation is as follow;

Coffee( coffee arabica) AGB= 0. 147 × d 402 ( equ .5 )

Where AGB = aboveground biomass kilogram/plant d40 = diameter at 40cm

22
3.4.6. Estimation of belowground biomass for coffee

While belowground biomass of Coffee arabica was estimated based on the root-to-shoot
ratios except for enset (Kuyah et al., 2012; Negash et al., 2013). The equation is as follows:

BGB =0 . 28× AGB ( equ .6 )

Where BGB =Billow ground Biomass kilogram/plant, AGB = aboveground biomass

3.4.7. Soil organic carbon

The SOC (Mg ha-1) to specific soil depth was estimated as (Birhanu, 2017) as follows:

SOC = OC × pb × d×CFU ( equ .7 )

where OC is mg g-1 C concentration, d is soil thickness or depth i.e. 0–30 and 30–60 cm,

ρb is bulk density of the soil (g cm-3) and CFU is the correction factor for units (equal to 10-
1).

3.5. Estimation of Carbon from Biomass

3.5.1 Estimation of carbon from biomass of each pool

The amount of C stored in each pool (kg) was determined by multiplying the biomass
of each pool by 0.5 (Chave et al., 2014) as follows:

Cx =Biomass × 0 .5 ( equ. 8 )
3.5.2. Estimation of carbon from coffee biomass

According to Kuyah et al. (2012) and Negash et al. (2013), the amount of C in the Coffee
arabica was obtained by multiplying 0.49 to the AG and BG biomass of coffee as follows:
Cx =Biomass of coffee × 0 . 49 ( equ . 9)

3.6. Estimation of equivalent CO2 Sink

23
According to Craig et al. (2010); 1 Mg of C = 3.67 Mg of CO 2 so that the total equivalent CO2
sink (Mg) in the agroforestry was estimated as:

CO 2 e = 3 . 67 × CT ( equ . 10 )
Where CO2 e =Carbon dioxide Equivalent CT = total Carbon 3.67 is conversion factor.

3.7. Statistical Data Analysis

The results were subjected to analysis of variance using R version 4.0.3 software as well as
XLSTAT Version 2017 software. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to see the
relationship between components of biomass. The least significant difference (LSD) of
means was computed at P < 0.05.

4. RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Biomass Accumulation in the Coffee-based Agroforestry Systems

The amount of biomass accumulated in the coffee-based agroforestry (CBA) varied with the
type of coffee management system. The variability of biomass accumulation in the different
coffee management systems was influenced by shade tree species, species composition, the
abundance of the species, tree size class and density, and type of biomass pool. The study

24
result shows that the mean biomass accumulated in the different biomass pools ranged from
4.27 Mg ha-1 in the liter fall to 313.28 Mg ha -1 in the aboveground biomass (Table 1). The
average biomass stored (Mg ha-1) in different biomass pools increased in order LB < HB <
BGB < AGB for all types of stratum and coffee management systems. There was a
significant difference at P < 0.01454 . between AGB and BGB. Also, there was a high
significant deferent at P < 4.164e-10 between HB of CBA strata (table1).

Table 1. Biomass accumulation by biomass components in the different coffee-based

agroforestry systems
Stratum Biomass storage (Mg ha-1) in the different parts of the plants Total biomass
AGB BGB HB LB (Mg ha-1)
Mixed natural forest 287.39b 63.17b 7.72a 4.75a 363.03
Albizia dominated 361.97a 78.57a 3.61b 3.12b 447.27
Syzygium 290.49ab 60.49ab 7.54a 4.93a 363.45
dominated
Mean 313.28 67.41 6.29 4.27 391.25
CV 20.74 20.74 17.98 14.94
P value 0.01454 * 0.02523 * 4.164e-10 *** 2.534e-07 ***

NB: AGB = aboveground live biomass, BGB = belowground biomass HB = herbaceous biomass, LB = litter
biomass. p < *** 0.001 p < ** 0.01 p < * 0.05 the difrent later show the significant defferance between
strata.

The Albizia-dominated strata accumulated higher total biomass (447.27 Mg h -1) than
Syzygium dominated strata (363.45 Mg h-1), and mixed natural forest (363.03 Mg h-1) (Table
1). The total biomass includes the biomass of all plants in the strata including the biomass of
coffee plants. The biomass accumulation in the different coffee management systems was in
the order of Albizia dominated strata > Syzygium dominated strata> mixed natural forest
strata. Biomass was more variable in the AGB (CV = 20.74%) and BGB (20.74%) than in the
other biomass pools (Table 1).
The combined effect of the coffee management system and type of pool on biomass
accumulation determine the proportions of biomass accumulation (Figur 4). Nearly 79% of
the total biomass accumulated in the mixed natural forest was stored in the AGB (Figure 5).

25
About 80% of the total biomass accumulated in the Syzygium-dominated strata was also
stored in the AGB. The highest proportion of biomass (81%) was accumulated in the AGB of
Albizia-dominated strata. For all coffee management systems and biomass pools, the lowest
proportion of biomass was stored in the litter pool (Figure 5).

90 79.280.9 80.0
80
Proportion of biomass (%)

70
60 Mixed natural forest
Albizia dominated
50
Syzygiam dominated
40
30
17.4 17.6 16.6
20
10 2.1 0.8 2.1 1.3 0.7 1.4
0
AGB BGB HB LB

Type of biomass pools

Figure5. The proportion of biomass accumulation in the different coffee-based agroforestry systems
and biomass components (%)

4.1.2. Biomass Accumulation in the Coffee Plants

Coffee plants were one of the different plant species in the coffee-based agroforestry
systems. The amount of biomass explicitly stored in the coffee plants was used to see the role
of coffee plants in biomass accumulation and climate change mitigation. The total biomass
stored in the coffee plants alone ranged from 38.4 Mg ha -1 in the Syzygium dominated strata
to 99.04 Mg ha-1 in the Albizia dominated strata (Table 2). About (22.14 %) % of the total
biomass stored in the Albizia-dominated strata was accumulated in the coffee plants (Table
2). The highest proportion of biomass (25.31%) stored in the coffee plants was observed in
the mixed natural forest strata. From the mean biomass accumulation of 391.21 Mg ha-1
stored in the coffee-based agroforestry systems in the present study area, about 19.54% was
the contribution of coffee plants. There was a significant difference between biomass

26
accumulated in the different pools of the coffee plant; the P-value show that highly
significant difference at 99 %.
Table2. The proportion of biomass accumulated in the coffee trees

Strata Coffee biomass storage (Mg Total Total The proportion

ha )
-1
in the different coffee CAF of coffee
components biomass biomass biomass in CBA
AGCB BGCB (Mg ha -
(Mg ha ) -1
systems (%)
1
)
Mixed natural forest 71.79a 20.10a 91.89a 363.03 25.31
Albizia dominated strata 77.37a 21.66a 99.03a 447.27 22.14
Syzygiam dominated 30.01b 8.40b 38.41b 363.45 10.57
strata
Mean 59.73 16.72 76.44 391.25 19.54
CV 16.56 16.56
P value 2.192e-09 *** 2.199e-09 ***
NB: AGCB= above ground coffee biomass BGB = below ground Coffee biomass. The symbol *** shows
highly significant difference. p < *** 0.001 p < ** 0.01 p < * 0.05 the difrent later show the
significant defferance between strata.

4.1.3. Carbon Storage Capacity of Coffee Agroforestry Systems

The total carbon stored in the coffee agroforestry systems ranged from 189.05 Mg ha -1 in the
Syzygium dominated strata to 233.45 Mg ha-1 in the Albizia dominated strata, with a mean
value of 204.78 Mg ha-1. The study result shows that Albizia-dominated strata had
accumulated more total carbon than mixed natural forest and Syzygium strata (Table 3).

The mean carbon storage in the different carbon components ranged from 2.14 Mg ha -1 in the
liter fall to 156.64 Mg ha-1 in the aboveground carbon pools (Table 3). Trees stored the
greatest amount of carbon followed by soil organic carbon. When all aboveground,
belowground, and soil carbon were added up, the Albizia strata had significantly stored more
carbon than mixed natural forest and Syzygium strata (Table 3).

The total C storage capacity of different strata decreased in the following order: AGB >BGC
> SOC> HC > LC. The soil carbon stock was varied across the strata. It was found to be

27
10.32 Mg ha-1 C in the mixed natural forest, 9.81 Mg ha-1 C in the Albizia dominant strata,
and 7.32 Mg ha-1 C in the Syzygium dominant strata (Table 3). The amount of SOC stock in
the coffee-based agroforestry systems relatively decreased in the following order: mixed
natural forest > Albizia dominant strata> Syzygiam dominant strata. Soil carbon stocks in all
different strata were not significantly different from each other. Also, there was a significant
difference between strata in carbon storage except SOC (Table 3).

Table 3. The C storage potential of major coffee-based agroforestry systems by pools

Strata Carbon storage (Mg ha-1) in the different components
AGC BGC HC LC SOC Total
Mixed natural forest strata 143.70b 31.59b 3.86a 2.38a 10.32a 191.84
Albizia dominated strata 180.99a 39.29a 1.81b 1.56b 9.81a 233.45
Syzygiam dominated strata 145.25ab 30.25ab 3.77a 2.47a 7.32a 189.05
Mean 156.64 33.57 3.15 2.14 9.15 204.78
CV 20.74 20.74 17.98 14.94 61.45
P value 0.02523* 0.02523* 4.164e-10 2.534e-07 *** 0.378
*** 1
AGC = aboveground carbon, BGC = belowground carbon, HC = herbaceous carbon, LC = litter carbon, SOC = soil organic

carbon. p < *** 0.001 p < ** 0.01 p < * 0.05 the difrent later in the table show the significant defferance between
strata.

The mean the carbon storage in the different carbon pool ranged from 1.05% in the litterfall
to 76.49 % in the aboveground carbon. The large amount of carbon had stored in the above-
ground tree from the mean including coffee plants accounts for 76.49 % in ABC, 16.39 %,
4.47%, 1.54%, 1.05% BGC, SOC, HC, and LC accumulation of C from the mean,
respectively (Figure 6).

In each stratum, there was a difference in Carbon sequestration. Albizia dominated strata
accumulated 77.53 % in AGC whereas other parts accumulated 16.83 %, 4.20 %, 0.78% and
0.67 inBGC, SOC, HC, and LC, respectively. From three strata Albizia dominated strata was
high in accumulation of carbon in AG and less with HC and LC. SOC was high in mixed
natural forest strata than other strata.

28
 77.53 76.83
80.00 74.91 76.49

70.00
Mixed natural forest strata
60.00
Albizia dominated strata
50.00 Syzygiam dominated strata
carbon in %

40.00 Mean
30.00
16.83 16.0016.39
20.00
16.47 4.20
10.00 2.01 0.78 1.99 1.54 1.24 0.671.31 1.05 5.38 3.87 4.47
0.00
AGC BGB HC LC SOC
Type of carbon pools
Figure6. The proportion of carbon sequestered in the different coffee management systems
and carbon pool

4.1.4. Carbon Storage Capacity of Coffee Plants

Coffee plants sequestered a significant amount of carbon in the agroforestry system. Nearly
23.47% of the total carbon was stored in the mixed natural forest while 20.78 % in the
Albizia dominated strata and 9.95 % in Syzygium strata. These total carbon stored was due
to coffee plants (Table 4). The mean proportion of carbon stored in the coffee plants (AGC
and BGC) accounts for 18.29 % of the mean carbon stock of the agroforestry systems.

Table 4. The proportion of carbon accumulated in the coffee plants

Strata Coffee carbon storage (Mg ha- Total Total carbon The proportion
1
) in the different pools coffee stock of CAF of carbon stored
carbon (Mg ha-1) in the coffee
AGCC BGCC (Mg ha-1) plants (%)

29
Mixed natural forest strata 35.18a 9.85a 45.03a 191.84 23.47

Albizia dominated strata 37.91a 10.62a 48.53a 233.45 20.78

Syzygium dominated strata 14.70b 4.12b 18.82b 189.05 9.95

Mean 29.27 8.19 37.46 204.78 18.29

CV 16.6 16.6

P value 2.191e-09 *** 2.191e-09 ***

NB: AGCC = aboveground coffee carbon, BGCC = belowground coffee carbon. p < *** 0.001 p < **
0.01 p < * 0.05 the difrent later in the table show the significant defferance between strata.

4.1.5. PCA Analyses result

The eigenvalues of the first and the second axes were 5.692 and 1.31 respectively and
together they explained 62.6% variation between three strata and carbon storage. There is a
correlation between carbon pool and coffee carbon in the strata. When SOC increase coffee
carbon also increase, in Albizia strata AGC and BGC storage of coffee was high than other
strata (Figure7). In the mixed natural forest strata, coffee carbon was correlated with HC and
LC.

Biplot (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)

5
SOC
4
cc
3
F2 (18.69 %)

2
HC
1 LC
0

-1 BGC
Total
-2
AGC
-4 -3 -2 -1 F1 0(81.31 %)1 2 3 4 5

Figure7. Biplot showing the PCA of deferent strata with carbon stock

30
 4.1.6. The implication of CBA to Climate change mitigation

In the entire coffee-based agroforestry system of the study area, a total of 21.41Gg C was
stored in the plant biomass and the soil (Table 5). This data was the carbon stored in the 105
hectares of coffee forest in the study area (Qofe forest). Considering each stratum, 9.74, 7.90,
and 3.77 Gg C was stored in the mixed natural forest strata, Albizia dominated strata and
Syzygium dominated strata, respectively. So, complete deforestation (land-use change) of
each hectare of mixed natural forest strata, Albizia dominated strata and Syzygium
dominated strata would cause the loss of about 190.92 Mg C, 232.43 Mg C, and 188.54 Mg
C, respectively. Besides, deforestation and degradation of the whole coffee-based
agroforestry system of the study area would emit 78.59 Gg of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Coffee plant had accumulated 4.33 Gg C in the entire study area . Considering each stratum,
coffee plants stored 2.3 Gg C in the mixed natural forest, 1.65 Gg C Albizia dominated strata,
and 0.376 Gg C Syzygiam dominated strata (Table 5). This shows that coffee had stored
20.22% of the total carbon stock of the study area.

Table5. Total C stock and equivalent carbon-dioxide sink across different agro-forestry systems
Type of CAF strata Total carbon stock (Gg) Equivalent CO2 storage (Gg)
In the CBA In the coffee In the CBA In the coffee
system plants system plants
Mixed natural forest strata 9.74 2.3 35.74 8.44
Albizia dominated strata 7.90 1.65 29.00 6.06
Syzygiam dominated 3.77 0.38 13.84 1.38
strata
Total 21.41 4.33 78.58 15.88
* 1Gg =1000 tons

31
The result of table 5 was estimated by changing Mg to Gg (1Gg =1000 tons )of each CBA
carbon stock and converting to Equivalent CO2 storage by avalible formula CO2
Equivalent=3.67 *total carbon.

So, the growing of coffee plants helped the agroforestry system to sequester 45 Mg ha -1, 48.5
Mg ha-1, and 18.8 Mg ha-1 carbon in the mixed natural forest strata, Albizia dominated strata
and Syzygium dominated strata, respectively. This means, the coffee plants had stored 2.3,
1.65, and 0.38 Gg C in the mixed natural forest strata, Albizia dominated strata and
Syzygium dominated strata, respectively. The coffee plants have trapped 15.88 Gg of CO 2
from the atmosphere and stored it in the form of carbon. So, apart from it’s economic merit,
coffee plants plays a great role in contributing to climate change mitigation.

4.2. Discussion

The coffee-based agroforestry AGB varies across strata; the biomasses stocks also vary
depend on stem density, species composition, management practices, and labor availability to
manage the agroforestry system. From the mean total, the aboveground biomass values of
our study account for 80 % which was higher than what was reported by Mesele and Mike
(2015) in biomass and soil carbon stocks of indigenous agroforestry systems on the south-
eastern Rift Valley escarpment, Ethiopia.

Biomass accumulation was high in the aboveground pool which might be attributed to
canopy cover and height of trees while the lowest biomass accumulation was observed in the
liter fall. Also, the coffee was sequestering a significant amount of carbon in the agroforestry
system. Albizia dominant strata had accumulated more total carbon than mixed natural forest
and Syzygium strata. This shows that the carbon sequestration potential of coffee forest
systems varied with abundance and the type of shade trees.

The biomass and carbon storage in herbaceous plants (3.72 Mg ha-1) were less than the
findings of Mesele & Mike (2015) in biomass and soil carbon stocks of indigenous
agroforestry systems on the south-eastern Rift Valley escarpment, Ethiopia. This could be

32
due to biomass of herbs vary with strata and depends on the management practice and type of
herbs grown in the strata.

Compared to other woody species grown in agroforestry systems, our results for
aboveground biomass of coffee was higher than the findings of Mulugeta et al. (2020) from
Mana district Jima zone oromiya region of Ethiopia .

The average amount of carbon sequestered in the coffee plants was 18% of the total carbon
stored in the whole coffee-based agroforestry system. This indicates the potential of coffee
plants in carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. The carbon stored in the coffee
plants was higher in the Albizia-dominated strata than mixed natural forest and Syzygium
dominant strata. This shows that Albizia was suitable for the coffee shade as the age of the
coffee plants in all the agroforestry systems was similar.

The mean C stocks of the coffee-based agroforestry land-use systems of the study area were
204 Mg C ha-1. This finding is within the range reported for global agroforestry systems
(12−228 Mg C ha-1) (Dixon 1995; Albrecht and Kandji, 2003). Similarly, our findings for
the mean C stocks of the CBA systems were higher than the range reported for agroforestry
systems in sub-Saharan Africa (4.5–19 Mg C ha -1) (Unruh et al., 1993). However, our
findings were lower than the report for coffee agroforestry in Guatemala that was 259.0 Mg
C ha-1( Mikaela et al., 2012 ) and the findings of Soto-Pinto et al.(2010) that revealed 213.8
Mg C ha-1 in Mexico.

Similarly, the biomass C stocks (average 204 Mg C ha−1) of CAFS in this study was higher
than that of Coffee based agroforestry systems practiced at Mana district, southwestern
Ethiopia (194.96 Mg C ha-1). Other studies have shown carbon stocks of shade-grown coffee
systems equal to 82 Mg C ha-1 in Indonesia (van Noordwijk et al,. 2002) as well as 82 Mg C
ha-1 in Togo (Dossa et al., 2008). Mohammed and Bekele (2014) also indicated 58.3 Mg C
ha−1 from coffee agroforestry in Gera, Jimma Zone, South-West Ethiopia.

The difference in biomass C stocks observed in different regions of the world might be due to
various factors such as the inclusion of coffee plants in carbon accounting, the difference in
the adopted allometric equation, and site factors like management practices and climate. For

33
instance, in the CAFS studied by Mohammed and Bekele (2014), the diameter of coffee
shrubs was measured at 15 cm aboveground while in our study the diameter was measured at
40 cm aboveground from the ground. Besides, in the case of the coffee based agroforestry
system studied by Mohammed and Bekele (2014), trees and coffee aboveground biomass
were determined using Brown et al (1989) and Segura et al (2006) allometric equations. But,
for our study, the generic equation developed by (Chave et al. (2014) for tree biomass and
(Negash et al. 2013) for coffee was applied.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. CONCLUSION

Coffee-based agroforestry systems store carbon in the biomass and reduce global warming.
Soil also acts as a sink of carbon in the form of soil organic matter. Quantifying and
understanding the carbon profile of shade-grown coffee systems is critical for the global
carbon cycle and the development of climate change mitigation strategies. The study was
conducted at Kofe coffee-based agroforestry systems of Nono Sale district, Ilubabor Zone,
Ethiopia. Nearly 105 hectares of the coffee-based agroforestry system were identified in the

34
study area, and classified into three strata based on density and species diversity of shade
trees and coffee management system.

In the CBA stady area Albizia-dominated strata had accumulated a large amount of total
biomass than Syzygium-dominated strata and mixed natural forest strata. Total carbon stored
in the different coffee management systems ranged from 188.54 in the Syzygium-dominated
strata to 232.43 Mg ha-1 Albizia-dominated strata. The average carbon stock in the study site
was 204 Mg ha-1. The mean carbon storage in the study area by major pools ranged from 2.13
Mg ha-1 in the litterfall to 156.1 Mg ha -1 in the aboveground carbon pools. The carbon
accumulated in the coffee plants was 48.5, 45, and 18.8 Mg ha -1 in the Albizia-dominated
strata, mixed natural forest strata, and Syzygium-dominated strata, respectively. The average
proportion of carbon sequestration in the coffee plants was 18% (37.5 Mg ha -1) of the total
carbon stock of the agroforestry system.

The tota carbon stock of the coffee-based agroforestry systems of the study area
were21.41Gg C. While the coffee plants C stock was 4.3 Gg C. So, the coffee plants alone
have trapped significant amount of CO2 from atmosphere and stored it in the form of carbon.
As a result, the conservation of coffee-based forests plays a great role in carbon sink and
contributing to the mitigation of climate change.

5.2. RECOMMENDATION

The coffee-based agroforestry systems in the study area sequestered carbon in the different
components (different tree species, coffee plants, soil). Therefore, to improve the carbon
sequestration and climate change mitigation potential of coffee-based agroforestry systems;
the following activities are mandatory:
 The coffee-based agroforestry needs to be strengthened to enhance dual benefits
including carbon sequestration and income generation
 Special carbon credit has to be initiated for coffee forests. This would have many
benefits including:
 encourage farmers to grow more coffee plants and conserve the forests;

35
  boosts yield of organic coffee and contributes to the economic development
of the country, and sequester more carbon and ultimately contribute to
climate change regulation.
 Site-specific allometric equations need to be developed for the coffee plants and
shade trees to reduce the uncertainty during the estimation of carbon stock
 Different stakeholders should work on creating awareness among societies about
coffee-based agroforestry conservation and finding a market for the product which
came from CBA (coffee production, spices, and honey) for its sustainability.

REFERENCES

Abebe, T. (2005). Diversity in home garden agroforestry system of southern Ethiopia; PhD
Agroforestry Systems 38:223-245.Agro-forestry systems. Advance in Agronomy 108:
237–307.
Albrecht, A., Kandji, S.T. (2003) Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems.
Agriculture ,Ecosystem,and Environment)9:15–27.
Azene Bekele,Tesemma, (2007). Useful trees of Ethiopia: identification, propagation and
management in 17 agro-ecological zones. Nairobi: RELMA in ICRAF Project, 552p.
Bertrand , B., Alpizar, E., Lara L, SantaCreo R, Hidalgo M, Quijano JM, Montagnon C,
Georget F, Etienne H. (2011). Performance of Coffea arabica F1 hybrids in agroforestry
and full-sun cropping systems in comparison with American pure line cultivars.
Euphytica 181:147–158.
Birhanu Iticha (2017). Ecosystem Carbon Storage and Partitioning in Chato Afro-montane
Forest: Its Climate Change Mitigation and Economic Potential. International Journal of
Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology 2(4): 1785-1794.
Bishaw Badege, Henry, Neufeldt, Jeremias Mowo ,Abdu Abdelkadir, Jonathan Muriuki,
Gemedo Dalle, Tewodros Assefa, Kathleen Guillozet, Habtemariam Kassa, Ian K.

36
 Dawson, Eike Luedeling, and Cheikh Mbow (2013). Farmers Strategies for Adapting to
And Mitigating Climate Variability and Change through agroforestry in Ethiopia and
Kenya’, Forestry Communications Group, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Brown, S. (1997). ‘Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests’, a primer
FAO Forestry Paper 134. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’,
Rome, Italy
Charlene Watson (2008).Uncertain Emission Reductions from Forest Conservation: REDD
the Bale Mountains , Ethiopia. Ecology and Society 18(3):6.
Chave. J., Rejou-Mechain. M, Burquez A., Chidumayo .E., Colgan .MS., Delitti .WBC.,
Duque. A., Eid .T., Fearnside .PM., Goodman .RC., (2014).Improved allometric models
to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob Chang Biol. 20:3177–3190.
Chave, J.,Coomes, D., Jansen, S., Lewis, S.L., Swenson, N.G. & Zanne, A.E., (2009).
Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum . Ecological Letter 12, 351–366.
Cook .S., Ma. Z., Brain. R., (2013). Rangeland Carbon Sequestration’, USU Extension
Publication:Sustainability/2013/13pr.Availableat:http://extension.usu.edu/files/
publications /publication/ sustainability 2013/13 pr. Pdf
CRGE.,(2011). Climate-resilient green economy strategy; Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia’: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Davis, A.P., Gole, T.W., Baena, S. & Moat, J. (2012). the impact of climate change on
natural populations of Arabica coffee: predicting future trends and identifying priorities’.
PLOS ONE 7(11): e 47981
Dossa., EL., Fernandes .ECM., Reid .,WS., (2008). Above and belowground biomass,
nutrient, and carbon stocks contrasting an open-grown and a shaded coffee plantation.
Agro for Syst 72:103–115
Emiru Birhane (2014). Final Consultancy Report Agro-forestry Governance in Ethiopia’
estimate for sub-Saharan Africa. Climate Research 3:39−52.

FAO (2009)FAOSTAT: production\crops. http://faostat.fao. org/site/567/.

FAO (2013). Advancing Agroforestry on the Policy Agenda: A Guide for Decision-Makers
in G. Buttoud, in collaboration with O. Ajayi, G. Detlefsen, F. Place and E.
Torquebiau Agroforestry Working Paper no. 1. Rome.

FDRE (2011). Ethiopia Land Degradation Neutrality National Report to UNCCD ’, Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia:-http://www.unccd.int/en /programmers’ /Rio
Conventions /Rio Plus 20 Forests, Trees and livelihoods 17(2):157-168.
Franks, P., Hou-Jones, X., Fikreyesus, D., (2017). Reconciling forest conservation with food
production in sub-Saharan Africa: case studies from Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania.
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Research report,
London
Geider, J. R., Delucia, H. E., Falkowsk, G. P., Finzi, C. A., Grime, P. J., Grace, J., Kana, M.
T., Roche, J. (2001). Primary productivity of planet earth: biological determinants
and physical constraints in terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Global Change Biology, 7:
849-882.

37
Genene Asseffa, Teffera Mengiistu, Zeriihun Getu and Sollomon Zewdie, (2013).Forest
carbon pools and carbon stock assessment in the context of SFM and REDD+:
Training manual’, Wondo Genet, Ethiopia
Harmand, JM., Hergoualc’h, K., de, Miguel, S., Dzib B, Siles, P., Vaast, P. (2006) Carbon
sequestration in coffee agroforestry plantations of Central America. In: Proceedings
of the 21st international conference on coffee science (ASIC). CIRAD, Montpelier,
France,
ICO (2015). World coffee trade; International Coffee Organization (ICO).http://www.ico.
Org/ trade.
ICRAF (2000). Paths to prosperity through agroforestry. ICRAF’s corporate strategy, 2001-
2010. Nairobi: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
IPCC (2013). Climate change: The Physical science basis. Intergovernmental panel on
climate change.Cambridge University Press.
Jenny Williams, Susana Baena, Justin Moat & Tim Wilkinson (2017). Coffee Farming and
Climate Change in Ethiopia: Impacts, Forecasts, Resilience and Opportunities;
Summary Report, https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/317897380.
Jha, S., Bacon .CM., Philpott ,SM., Rice ,RA., Me´ndez ,VE., La¨derach ,P., (2011) A review
of ecosystem services, farmer livelihoods, and value chains in shade coffee agro-
ecosystems. Integrating agriculture,conservation, and ecotourism: examples from
thefields. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 141–208
Jose, S., Bardhan, S., (2012). Agroforestry for biomass production and carbon sequestration:
an overview.Agrofor Syst 86:105–111.
Kuyah ,S., Dietz, J., Muthuri ,C., (2012). Allometric equations for estimating biomass in
agricultural landscapes: I. Aboveground biomass. Agriculture Ecosystem
Environment 158:216–224.
Labouisse ,JP., Bellachew ,B., Kotecha ,S., Bertrand, B.,(2008) .Current status of coffee
(Coffea arabica L.) genetic resources in Ethiopia: implications for conservation.
Genet Resour Crop Evol 55:1079–1109.
Lal, R., (2004).Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security.
Science (80-) 304:1623–1627.
Lewin B, Giovannucci D, Varangis P (2004).Coffee markets :new paradigms in global
supply and demand. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Lundgren, B.O,.(1982). Cited in Editorial: What is Agroforestry? Agroforestry Systems 1:7-
12
MacDicken., K.G.,(1997). A Guide to Monitoring Carbon Storage in Forestry and Agro
forestry Projects.Winrock International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. Mafongoya,
P.L.,Nair, P.K.R., and Dzowela, B.H., 1998. Mineralization of nitrogen from
decomposing leaves of multipurpose trees is affected by their chemical composition.
Biol. Fertile Soils 27: 143-148.
Mbow, C., Smith ,P., Skole, D.,(2014). Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate
change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr Opin Environ
Sustain 6:8–14.
Mikaela ,Schmitt-Harsh, James ,C .,Randolph, Edwin Josue, Castellanos (2012 ). Carbon
stocks in coffee agro-forests and mixed dry tropical forests in the western highlands
of Guatemala. DOI: 10.1007/s10457-012-9549-x

38
Mohammed, A., Bekele, L., (2014). Changes in carbon stocks and sequestration potential
under native forest and adjacent land-use systems at Gera, south-western Ethiopia
changes in carbon stocks and sequestration potential under native forest and adjacent
land use systems at Gera, south-western Ethiopia. Glob J Sci Front Res 14:2249–
4626.
Montagnini, F., Nair, PKR., (2004). Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental
benefit of agroforestry systems. Agro-forestry system 61:281–295
Muleta, D., Assefa, F., Nemomissa, S., Granhall, U,. (2007). Composition of coffee shad tree
species and density of indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) spores in
Bonga natural coffee forest, southwestern Ethiopia. For Ecol Manag 241:145–154.
Mulugeta Betemariyam, Mesele Negash, Adefires Worku (2020). Comparative Analysis of
Carbon Stocks in Home Garden and Adjacent Coffee Based Agroforestry Systems in
Ethiopia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09439-4.
Nair, P., K .R., Nair, V.D., Kumar, B.M., & Showalter, J.M., (2010). Carbon sequestration
Agro-forestry systems . Advance in Agronomy 108:237–307.
Nair, P.K.R., (1998). Directions in tropical agroforestry research: past, present and future.
Agroforestry Systems 38:223-245.
Negash, M., Starr ,M., Kanninen M., Berhe ,L., (2013) Allometric equations for estimating
aboveground biomass of Coffea arabica L. grown in the Rift Valley escarpment of
Ethiopia. Agrofor Syst 87:953– 966.
Negash, M. ,(2007). Trees management and livelihoods in Gedeo’s agro-forests, Ethiopia.
Nowak, D., J. , and Crane, D., E .,(2002) . Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in
the USA’, Environmental Pollution 116: 381-389.
Oxfam (2001) Bitter coffee: how the poor are paying for the slump in coffee prices
http://www.maketradefair.com/en/ assets/ English /Bitter Coffee.pdf.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC (2010).The revision 02.1.0 simplifies the method of calculation of
sample plots; EB 58 Report Annex 15 Page 1-7
Pandey ,D.,N., (2002).Carbon sequestration in agro-forestry systems Clim Policy 2:367–377.
Ravindranath, NH., Ostwald ,M., (2008). Methods for estimating above-ground Biomass
Carbon Inventory Methods: Handbook for greenhouse gas inventory, carbon
mitigation and round wood production projects’, Springer Science + Business Media
B.V 113-14.
Schroth (2002) .Conversion of secondary forest into agroforestry and monoculture
plantations in Amazonia: consequences for biomass litter and soil carbon stocks after
7 years. For Ecol Manag 163:131–150
Segura, M., Kanninen, M., Suárez, D., (2006) Allometric models for estimating aboveground
biomass of shade trees and coffee bushes grown together. Agroforestry System
68:143–150.
Soto-Pinto, L., Anzueto ,M., Mendoza ,J., Ferrer ,G,.J.,de, Jong, B,. (2010) Carbon
sequestration through agroforestry in indigenous communities of Chiapas, Mexico.
Agroforestry System 78:39–51
Tadesse, G., Zavaleta, E., Shennan ,C.,(2014).Effects of land-use changes on woody species
distribution and above-ground carbon storage of forest-coffee systems. Agreeculture
Ecosystem Environment. 197:21–30.

39
Tefera, A.,(2015). Ethiopia: Coffee Annual Report. GAIN Report (number ET1514–
26/5/2015). USDA Foreign Agricultural Service pp 6
Unruh, J.D., Houghton, R.A., & Lefebvre, P.A., (1993) Carbon storage in agroforestry: an
Estimate for sub-Saharan Africa. Climate Research 3:39−52.
Van Noordwijk, M., Rahayu S., Hairiah K., Wulan YC., Farida A., Verbist ,B., (2002).
Carbon stock assessment for a forest-to coffee conversion landscape in Sumber-Jaya
(Lampung, Indonesia): from allometric equations to land-use change analysis.
Science in China Series C-Life Sciences 45:75–86. Suppl
Vanderhaegen K.,Verbist ,B., Hundera ,K., Muys, B., (2015). REALU vs. REDD+: Carbon
and biodiversity in the Afro-montane landscapes of SW Ethiopia. Forest Ecol
Manage. 343:22–33.
Zomer, RJ., Neufeldt,H., Xu,J., (2016) Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural
land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Science
Report 6:1–12.

APPENDIX

1. Data Collection Formats:

Name District______________ Name of Kebele_______________
Type of Strata_____________ Name of data collector__________
Plot Number:- _____ Land use type: _____________
Northing: ______
Easting: ______
GPS Type and Zone__________ Nest: Date:_________________
Table.6: Data Collection Formats: Above Ground Biomass
No Local Name Scientific name DBH(cm) HEIGHT(m Density Remark
)
1

40
2
3
4

2. Data Collection Formats: Above Ground Biomass Field Inventory from for Liter and
grass, herbs, and shrubs

Table. 7: Data Collection Formats: for Liter and grass, herbs and shrubs

No Litter or grass from five Take Liter or grass from Dry litter Remark
sample area in Kg. collected sample in Kg or grass
1
2
3
4

2. Data Collection Formats: Above Ground Biomass Field Inventory from for Coffee

Table.8: Data Field Inventory Format for coffee biomass

No Local Name Scientific name DBH(cm) at 40 cm Remark

1
2
3

Table.9: Tree Local Name, Scientific name, Family and woody density in the study area

No Local Name Scientific name Family Density

1 Sotalu Milletia ferruginea Fabaceae 0.738
2 Baddeessaa Syzygiam guineense Myrtaceae 0.712
3 Bakanisa Croton macrostachyus Euphorbiaceae 0.560
4 Wandabiyoo Apodytes dimidiate Icaciaceae 0.610
5 Gagama Olea capensis Oleaceae 0.805
7 Ulumayi Clausena anisata(wild .)benth Rutaceae 0.482
8 Gatama Schefflera abyssinica Araliaceae 0.491
9 Ambabbeessa Albizia gummifera Febaceae 0.580
10 Bottoo Schefflera myrlantha Araliaceae 0.491
11 See’o Allophylus abyssinicus Sapindaceae 0.580
12 Lookko Diospyros abyssinica Celastraceae 0.790
13 Qararoo Acokanthera schimperi Sapotaceae 0.784
14 Waddeesa Cordia africana boraginaceae 0.482

41
15 Hadheessaa Teclea nobilis Del. Rutaceae 0.798
16 Hoomii Prunus africana Rosaceae 0.850
17 Harbu Ficas sur Moraceae 0.5
18 Qeto Ilex milis(l )Radlk aquaifoliaceae 0.466
19 Baha Olea welwitscheii Oleaceae 0.820
20 Mixo Mimusops kummel Sapotaceae 0.880
21 Karaso Polyscias fulva Araliaceae 0.440
22 Sombo Ekebergia capensis Meliaceae 0.58
23 Buna Coffee arabica

Table 10. Soil laboratory results

42
43
44
45
46
Table. 11:The coordinates of the sample area

Mixed natural forest coffee strata Albizia dominant strata Syzygium dominant strata

ID Easting Northing ID Easting Northing ID Easting Northing

754981 875717 754544 875319 1
1 1 755064 874882
754691 875785 754842 875275 2
2 2 755024 874704
754437 875824 755056 875247 3
3 3 754754 874783
754429 875638 755028 875041 4
4 4 754465 874843
754742 875642 754842 875097 5
5 5 754322 874898
755008 875602 754608 875172 6
6 6 75411.721 876743.9
7 755147 875368 7 754397 875251
8 754750 875491 8 754286 875279
757180 875440 754326 875017
9 9
10 877450 875844 10 754584 875001

47
 757553 876047 754810 874962
11 11
737438 873309
12
757374 876082
13
757132 875991
14
754278 875386
15
754981 875717
16
754691 875785
17

Table 12. The coordinates of the outer boundary of the study area

Syzygium dominant strata Albizia dominant strata Mixed Natural forest coffee strata
I I
D Easting Northing ID Easting Northing D Easting Northing
1 754779 875705 1 757315 876022 1 754242 875434
2 754792 875698 2 757296 876040 2 754321 874973
3 755075 875430 3 757286 876022 3 754317 874901
4 755134 875290 4 757261 876047 4 754461 874747
5 755210 875359 5 757176 876021 5 754650 874677
6 755200 875421 6 757115 876047 6 754820 874691
7 755163 875494 7 757081 876021 7 754944 874697
8 755156 875487 8 757086 876080 8 755002 876643
9 755075 875567 9 757120 876011 9 755079 874734
10 755031 875640 10 757091 875940 10 755095 874853
11 755032 875696 11 757127 875941 11 755135 874980
12 755042 875883 12 757180 875849 12 755118 875043
13 755029 875993 13 757224 875794 13 755049 875118
14 754987 876027 14 757300 875793 14 755022 875185
875207
15 754935 876041 15 757385 875761 15 755065
16 754746 876036 16 757461 875775 16 755134 875290
17 754681 876047 17 757509 875757
18 754642 876099 18 757550 875784
19 754554 876119 19 757616 875860
20 754510 876144 20 757591 875970

48
21 754489 876131 21 757627 876031
22 754473 876106 22 757563 876114
23 754426 876060 23 757483 876193
24 754421 876001 24 757499 876283
25 754400 875898 25 757570 876322
26 754405 875756 26 757591 876455
27 754342 875732 27 757568 876455
28 754338 875603 28 757515 876499
29 755049 875118 29 757446 876502
30 755210 875359
31 755134 875290
32 755065 876207
33 755022 875185
34 754867 875413

49