Authors : Ettagbor Hans Enukwa; Louis Njie Ndumbe; Ghogomu Whitney Yeye; Elvis Tetuh Tendong; Mary Ashu Mbi; Fonwi Blanche-Kelly; Ochiafor Nelvis Onorakwa; Modesta Agborta Apah; Alusombom Godswill

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4drdxs6z

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/ycxyy53r

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jul170

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Plantation forestry in South West Cameroon offers both climate mitigation potential and livelihood challenges. This study comparatively assessed biomass production, carbon sequestration, and livelihood implications in a rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantation in Tiko and a Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) plantation in the Buea Fuelwood Reserve. Field inventory data were collected from 102 rubber trees in a 0.25 ha plot and 15 Eucalyptus trees across 0.5 ha. Aboveground and belowground biomass were estimated using allometric equations and a root-to-shoot ratio, with carbon stock and CO₂ equivalent calculated using standard conversion factors. Livelihood implications were derived from field observations and literature review. Results showed rubber had higher biomass density (141.81 t ha⁻¹) than Eucalyptus (21.56 t ha⁻¹), though Eucalyptus stored more total landscape-level carbon (5,934.05 vs. 1,301.11 t CO₂e) due to its larger area (150 ha vs. 5 ha). Livelihood implications included employment and income generation, but also land-use conflicts, reduced access to traditional resources, and food security concerns. Silvicultural practices significantly influenced biomass accumulation and wood quality. The study concludes that while both plantation systems are valuable carbon sinks, their long-term sustainability requires integrated silvicultural management, regular monitoring, equitable benefit-sharing, and socially inclusive land-use planning.

Keywords : Aboveground Biomass; Carbon Stock; Livelihoods; Rubber; Eucalyptus; Silviculture; Cameroon

References :

1. Stips A., Macias D., Coughlan C., Garcia-Gorriz E., Duarte CM., On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature, Sci Rep, 2016;6:21691. doi:10.1038/srep21691
2. Bonan, G. B. (2008). Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science, 320(5882), 1444–1449. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155121.
3. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., Phillips, O. L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S. L., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Pacala, S. W., McGuire, A. D., Piao, S., Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S., & Hayes, D. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science, 333(6045), 988–993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609
4. Adams, W. M., & Mortimore, M. J. (1997). Agricultural intensification and flexibility in the Nigerian Sahel. The Geographical Journal, 163, 150–160.
5. Borras, S. M., Jr., & Franco, J. C. (2012). Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(1), 34–59. https:
6. //doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2011.00339.x
7. Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R., & Keeley, J. (2009). Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
8. Hall, R. (2011). Land grabbing in Southern Africa. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), 193–214.
9. Fonjong, L. (2017). Left out but not backing down: Exploring women's voices against large-scale agro-plantations in Cameroon. Development in Practice, 27(8), 1114–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2017.1360258
10. Evans, J., & Turnbull, J. W. (2004). Plantation forestry in the tropics: The role, silviculture, and use of planted forests for industrial, social, environmental, and agroforestry purposes (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
11. Ferraz Filho, A. C., Scolforo, J. R. S., & Mola-Yudego, B. (2014). The coppice-with-standards silvicultural system as applied to Eucalyptus plantations: A review. Journal of Forestry Research, 25(2), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-014-0455-0
12. 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.
13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Volume 4 - Agriculture, forestry and other land use. IPCC.
14. Chave, J., Réjou-Méchain, M., Búrquez, A., Chidumayo, E., Colgan, M. S., Delitti, W. B. C., Duque, A., Eid, T., Fearnside, P. M., Goodman, R. C., Henry, M., Martínez-Yrizar, A., Mugasha, W. A., Muller-Landau, H. C., Mencuccini, M., Nelson, B. W., Ngomanda, A., Nogueira, E. M., Ortiz-Malavassi, E., ... Vieilledent, G. (2014). Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Global Change Biology, 20(10), 3177-3190. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12629
15. Parresol, B. R. (1999). Assessing tree and stand biomass: A review with examples and critical comparisons. Forest Science, 45(4), 573–593.
16. Schönau, A. P. G., & Coetzee, J. (1989). Initial spacing, stand density and thinning in eucalypt plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 29(4), 245–266. https: //doi.org/10.1016/ 0378-1127(89)90100-2
17. Smith, D. M., Larson, B. C., Kelty, M. J., & Ashton, P. M. S. (1997). The practice of silviculture: Applied forest ecology (9th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
18. Nkwain, N. L., Nkenne, J. M., Bomono, H. Y., & Simun, R. F. (2024). Large-scale agro-industries and host community land restitution demands: understanding the land-use conflicts between the CDC and Fako elites in the south west region, Cameroon. Sociology International Journal, 8(4), 183–188.
19. IIED & CED. (2019). Apes, crops and communities: Land concessions and conservation in Cameroon (IIED Briefing). International Institute for Environment and Development. https: //iied.org/17710iied
20. Kuyah, S., Dietz, J., Muthuri, C., Jamnadass, R., Mwangi, P., Coe, R., & Neufeldt, H. (2012). Allometric equations for estimating biomass in agricultural landscapes: II. Belowground biomass. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 158, 225–234. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.05.010
21. Sunjo, E., & Page, B. (2022). Land restitution and conflict in Cameroon: The case of the Bakweri. African Affairs, 121(485), 623–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adac034
22. Rafdinal, R., Pitopang, R., Linda, R., Raynaldo, A., & Subrata, E. (2021). Comparative study of aboveground biomass and carbon storage between Tembawang and conventional rubber agroforestry in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, 117(1), 1–7.
23. WWF. (2024). How to unlock carbon and biodiversity finance for community forest managers. WWF.
24. Tennigkeit, T., Solymosi, K., Seebauer, M., & Lager, B. (2011). Carbon intensification and poverty reduction in Kenya: Lessons from the Kenya agricultural carbon project. Land Portal.
25. Resquin, F., Navarro-Cerrillo, R. M., Carrasco-Letelier, L., & Carrasco, P. (2024). Impact of thinning on the yield and quality of Eucalyptus wood. Forests, 15(5), 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15050810