Land cover changes reduce net primary production in tropical coastal peatlands of West Kalimantan, Indonesia

  • Imam Basuki
  • J. B. Kauffman
  • James Peterson
  • Gusti Anshari
  • Daniel Murdiyarso
Original Article


Tropical peat swamp forests are carbon-rich ecosystems that have been threatened by high rates of land use change (LUC). Despite the ecosystem’s shifts from sequestering carbon (C) to emitting carbon, few studies have quantified the changes in ecosystem productivity associated with LUC in tropical peatlands. This study quantified net primary production (NPP) in intact peat swamp forests (PSF), logged forests (LPSF), early seral sites (ES), and smallholder oil palm plantations (OP) in a peat dome of West Kalimantan, Indonesia. All sites were dominated by peat forest prior to deforestation. The NPP of intact forests was 13.2 Mg C ha−1 year−1 making it among the world’s most productive terrestrial ecosystems, exceeding that of many tropical rainforests and similar to the most productive mangrove ecosystems (12.9 Mg C ha−1 year−1). Land cover change resulted in large shifts in NPP. Logged forest and early seral sites were < 11.1 Mg C ha−1 year−1. The NPP of oil palm plantations was 3.7 Mg C ha−1 year−1. Aboveground NPP was recorded at 10.5 Mg C ha−1 year−1 in forests, exceeding the NPP of LPSF, ES, and OP (8.9, 5.1, and 3.5 Mg C ha−1 year−1, respectively). Early seral sites (5.7 Mg C ha−1 year−1) were estimated to have the highest belowground NPP (p = 0.05). Root productivity in PSF, LPSF, and OP was 2.7, 2.1, and 0.2 Mg C ha−1 year−1, respectively. Land use change and forest degradation have reduced the productivity of tropical peatlands.


Land use changes Forest degradation Tropical peat swamp forests Oil palm plantation NPP 



We wish to thank Randi Ade Chandra, Samsudin, and the community of Sungai Pelang village for their assistance in the field, as well as Yudi Almanggari, M. Agus Salim, Rahayu Subekti, Beni Okarda, Sigit D. Sasmito, Meli F. Saragih, and Erwin Tumengkol for their advice on spatial and statistical data. We also wish to thank Flora Fauna Indonesia, the United State Agency International Development - Indonesia Forest and Climate Support (USAID - IFAC), Yayasan Palung, and International Animal Rescue for their collaboration during the field research. We are grateful for the work of Dr. Iswandi Anas and Mrs. Asih Karyati of Bogor Agricultural University’s Biotechnology Laboratory, who conducted the carbon analysis. This paper is based on a PhD dissertation submitted to the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University. This study was made possible through funding provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and USAID’s Kalimantan Wetland and Climate Change Studies.


  1. Amiro BD, Chen JM, Liu J (2000) Net primary productivity following forest fire for Canadian ecoregions. Can J For Res 30:939–947. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anshari GZ, Afifudin M, Nuriman M et al (2010) Drainage and land use impacts on changes in selected peat properties and peat degradation in West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 7:3403–3419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arifanti VB (2017) Influences of land use on carbon cycles in mangrove ecosystems of the Mahakam delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Dissertation, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Averti I, Dominique N (2011) Litterfall, accumulation and decomposition in forest groves established on Savannah in the Plateau Teke, Central Africa. J Environ Sci Technol.
  5. Basuki I (2017) Carbon dynamics in response to land cover change in tropical peatlands, Kalimantan, Indonesia. Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Basuki I, Sheil D (2005) Local perspectives of forest landscapes: a preliminary evaluation of land and soils, and their importance in Malinau. CIFOR, BogorGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackham GV, Webb EL, Corlett RT (2014) Natural regeneration in a degraded tropical peatland, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia: implications for forest restoration. For Ecol Manag 324:8–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bond WJ, Keane RE (2017) Fires, ecological effects of. Ref Modul Life Sci 1–11. doi:
  9. BP-REDD+ (2015) National forest reference emission level for deforestation and forest degradation in the context of the activities referred to in decision 1 / CP . 16 , Paragraph 70 ( REDD + ) Under the UNFCCC: A Reference for Decision MakersGoogle Scholar
  10. Brando PM, Nepstad DC, Davidson EA, et al (2008) Drought effects on litterfall , wood production and belowground carbon cycling in an Amazon forest: results of a throughfall reduction experiment. 1839–1848. doi:
  11. Cao M, Woodward F (1998) Net primary and ecosystem production and carbon stocks of terrestrial ecosystems and their responses to climate change. Glob Chang Biol 4:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapin FS, Woodwell GM, Randerson JT et al (2006) Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods. Ecosystems 9:1041–1050. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapin FSI, Matson PA, Vitousek PM (2011) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chimner RA, Ewel KC (2005) A tropical freshwater wetland: II. Production, decomposition, and peat formation. Wetl Ecol Manag 13:671–684. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark DA, Brown S (2001) Net primary production in tropical forests: an evaluation and synthesis of existing field data. Ecol Appl 11:371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewi S, Khasanah N, Rahayu S, et al (2010) Carbon footprint of Indonesian palm oil production: I . A pilot study.
  17. Girardin CAJ, Malhi Y, Aragão LEOC et al (2010) Net primary productivity allocation and cycling of carbon along a tropical forest elevational transect in the Peruvian Andes. Glob Chang Biol 16:3176–3192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golley F, Odum HT, Wilson RF (1962) The structure and metabolism of a Puerto Rican red mangrove forest in May. Ecology 43:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R et al (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 134:2011–2014Google Scholar
  20. Henson IE, Dolmat MT (2003) Physiological analysis of an oil palm density trial on a peat soil. J Oil Palm Res 15:1–27Google Scholar
  21. Hergoualc’h K, Verchot L V (2011) Stocks and fluxes of carbon associated with land use change in southeast Asian tropical peatlands: a review. Global Biogeochem Cycles 25:1–13. doi: Gb2001
  22. Hirano T, Segah H, Harada T et al (2007) Carbon dioxide balance of a tropical peat swamp forest in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Glob Chang Biol 13:412–425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoscilo A (2009) Fire regime, vegetation dynamics and land cover change in tropical peatland, Indonesia. University of LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  24. IBM Corp. Release (2011) IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. IBM Corp., Armonk, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. IPCC (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC, Hayama, KanagawaGoogle Scholar
  26. Kamnalrut A (2015) NPP grassland: Klong Hoi Khong, Thailand, 1984–1990 , R1. Data set
  27. Kauffman JB, Arifanti VB, Basuki I, et al (2016) Protocols for the measurement, monitoring, and reporting of structure, biomass, carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peat swamp forests. CIFOR, BogorGoogle Scholar
  28. Kauffman JB, Hughes RF, Heider C (2009) Carbon pool and biomass dynamics associated with deforestation, land use, and agricultural abandonment in the neotropics. Ecol Appl 19:1211–1222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koh LP, Miettinen J, Liew SC, Ghazoul J (2011) Remotely sensed evidence of tropical peatland conversion to oil palm. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:5127–5132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Komiyama A, Ong JE, Poungparn S (2008) Allometry, biomass, and productivity of mangrove forests: a review. Aquat Bot 89:128–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lamade E, Bouillet J (2005) Carbon storage and global change: the role of oil palm. Oléagineux, corps gras, lipides 7:154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Long SP, Garcia Moya E, Imbamba SK et al (1989) Primary productivity of natural grass ecosystems of the tropics: a reappraisal. Plant Soil 115:155–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malhi Y (2012) The productivity, metabolism and carbon cycle of tropical forest vegetation. J Ecol 100:65–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manuri S, Brack C, Nugroho NP et al (2014) Tree biomass equations for tropical peat swamp forest ecosystems in Indonesia. For Ecol Manag 334:241–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Margono BA, Potapov PV, Turubanova S et al (2014) Primary forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nat Clim Chang 4:1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Melling L, Goh KJ, Beauvais C, Hatano R (2008) Carbon flow and budget in a young mature oil palm agroecosystem on deep tropical peat. Plant 84:21–25Google Scholar
  37. Menaut JC, Cesar J, Suiperieure EN (1979) Structure and primary productivity of Lamto savannas, Ivory Coast. Ecology 60:1197–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC (2016) Land cover distribution in the peatlands of peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Glob Ecol Conserv 6:67–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miettinen J, Hooijer A, Vernimmen R, Liew SC, Page SE (2017) From carbon sink to carbon source: extensive peat oxidation in insular Southeast Asia since 1990. Environ Res Lett 12(2):024014. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miyamoto K, Kohyama TS, Rahajoe JS et al (2016) Forest structure and productivity of tropical heath and peatland forests. In: Miyamoto K, Noboyuki T (eds) Tropical peatland ecosystems, Springer, pp. 151–166Google Scholar
  41. Mokany K, Raison R, Prokushkin A (2006) Critical analysis of root: shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Glob Chang Biol 12:84–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moser G, Schuldt B, Hertel D et al (2014) Replicated throughfall exclusion experiment in an Indonesian perhumid rainforest: wood production, litter fall and fine root growth under simulated drought. Glob Chang Biol 20:1481–1497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murdiyarso D, Donato D, Kauffman JB, et al (2009) Carbon storage in mangrove and peatland ecosystems. A preliminary account from plots in Indonesia. CIFOR, BogorGoogle Scholar
  44. Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2010) Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:19655–19660. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Novita N (2016) Carbon stocks and soil greenhouse gas emissions associated with Forest conversion to oil palm plantations in Tanjung Puting tropical peatlands, Indonesia. Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  46. Page S, Hosciło A, Wösten H et al (2009) Restoration ecology of lowland tropical peatlands in Southeast Asia: current knowledge and future research directions. Ecosystems 12:888–905. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Page SE, Morrison R, Malins C, et al (2011) Review of peat surface greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia. International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  48. Page SE, Rieley JO, Shotyk W, Weiss D (1999) Interdependence of peat and vegetation in a tropical peat swamp forest. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 354:1885–1897. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Proctor J (2013) NPP tropical forest: Gunung Mulu, Malaysia, 1977–1978, R1. Data set. Oak Ridge Natl Lab Distrib Act Arch Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. doi:
  50. Ritung S, Wahyunto, Nugroho K, Sukarman, Hikmatullah, Suparto, Tafakresnanto C (2011) Peta Lahan Gambut Indonesia. Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian (Ministry of Agriculture), IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  51. Rocha AV, Goulden ML (2009) Why is marsh productivity so high? New insights from eddy covariance and biomass measurements in a Typha marsh. Agric For Meteorol 149:159–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rusli N, Majid MR, Din AHM (2016) A comparative accuracy of Google Earth height with MyGeoid, EGM96 and MSL. In: IOP Conference Series: earth and environmental science. IOP Conference Series, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  53. Saragi-Sasmito M F, Murdiyarso D, June T, Sasmito SD (2018). Carbon stocks, emissions, and aboveground productivity in restored secondary tropical peat swamp forests. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1–13Google Scholar
  54. Scurlock J, Olson R (2012) NPP multi-biome: grassland, boreal forest, and tropical forest sites, 1939–1996, R[evision] 1. Data set. Available on-line [] from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A. doi:10.333
  55. Verwer C, Meer P Van Der (2010) Carbon pools in tropical peat forest—towards a reference value for forest biomass carbon in relatively undisturbed peat swamp forests in Southeast Asia. Alterra Wageningen, UR, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  56. Waring RH, Law B, Bond B (2013) NPP temperate forest: OTTER Project Sites, Oregon, USA , 1989–1991 , R1. Data set.
  57. Wijedasa LS, Jauhiainen J, Könönen M et al (2016) Denial of long-term issues with agriculture on tropical peatlands will have devastating consequences. Glob Chang Biol.
  58. Woodwell GM, Whittaker RH (1968) Primary production in terrestrial ecosystems. Am Zool 8(1):19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhao M, Running S (2010) Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009. Science (80- ) 329:940Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityOregonUSA
  2. 2.Center for International Forestry ResearchBogorIndonesia
  3. 3.Winrock InternationalJakartaIndonesia
  4. 4.Department of Soil Science, and Magister of EnvironmentTanjungpura UniversityPontianakIndonesia
  5. 5.Bogor Agricultural UniversityBogorIndonesia

Personalised recommendations