Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 103–115 | Cite as

Tree diameter performance in relation to site quality in smallholder timber production systems in Gunungkidul, Indonesia

  • G. E. Sabastian
  • P. Kanowski
  • E. Williams
  • J. M. Roshetko


Smallholder farmers’ choices of tree species in the Gunungkidul region have been limited by lack of management information. This paper describes activities to help inform farmers’ choices of three common timber species—Tectona grandis, Swietenia macrophylla and Acacia auriculiformis—in agroforestry systems in the region through (1) developing models predicting tree diameter growth based on reference growth function and the growth retardation performance and (2) estimating the contributions of site quality variables to the diameter growth retardation of ≤5 and >5-year-old stands. A total of 48 farms were selected, representing three slope ranges and two soil types, with a circular sample plot of 10 m radius established at each farm. A Quadratic model for each timber species indicated that the age of the tree explains a high percentage of the variance in diameter growth. Diameter growth varies with tree age and responds differently in each soil type and slope position. A set of site quality variables were able to predict retarded diameter performances of each tree species in two group ages and two soil types. These results suggest that the models can inform farmers’ choices of tree species and management.


Smallholder farmers Diameter growth retardation Biophysical characteristics Multiple regression 



The research reported in this paper was facilitated through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research project, Improving Economic Outcomes for Smallholders Growing Teak in Agroforestry Systems in Indonesia (FST/2005/177), led by the Center for International Forestry Research and the World Agroforestry Centre. We thank Professor Meine van Noordwijk of the World Agroforestry Centre for his stimulating contributions in defining the “time delay’ concept as being relevant for management decisions in plantation forestry. We also thank the farmers who participated in the research, Amirah Yumn and Suci Anggrayani for statistical data analysis and Robert F. Finlayson for editing the paper.


  1. BAPPEDA Gunungkidul regency (2013) Profil Daerah Kabupaten Gunungkidul 2013Google Scholar
  2. Bertomeu M, Bertomeu M, Gimenez JC (2006) Improving adoptability of farm forestry in the Philippine uplands: a linear programming model. Agrofor Syst 68:81–91. doi: 10.1007/s10457-006-0005-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown K, Lemon J (2014) Cations and cation exchange capacity. Accessed 5 Jan 2015
  4. Camino RVDE, Alfaro MM, Sage LFM (2002) Teak (Tectona grandis) in central. forest plantations working papers, Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO, Rome, Italy, FP/19:3–5Google Scholar
  5. Combalicer MS, Lee DK, Woo SY, Hyun JO, Park YD, Lee YK, Combalicer EA, Tolentino EL (2012) Physiological characteristics of Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. Ex Benth., Acacia mangium Willd. and Pterocarpus indicus Willd. In the La Mesa Watershed and Mt. Makiling, Philippines. J Environ Sci Man 14–28. (special issue 1–2012) Google Scholar
  6. Fernandez-Moya J, Alvarado A, Mata R, Thiele H, Segura JM, Vaides E, Miguel-Ayanz AS, Marchamalo-Sacristan M (2015) Soil fertility characterisation of teak (Tectona grandis) plantations in Central America. Soil Rese 53(4):423–432. doi: 10.1071/SR14256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Filius AM (1997) Factors changing farmers’ willingness to grow trees in Gunungkidul (Java, Indonesia). Neth J Agric Sci 45:329–345Google Scholar
  8. ISRI (2009) Technical guide, analysis for soil chemical, plants, water and fertilizers. Indonesian Soil Research Institute 2nd edn, Bogor, Indonesia, pp 211–212Google Scholar
  9. Kaosa-ard A (1998) Overview of problems in teak plantation establishment, Management of teak plantations. In: Kashio M, White K (eds) Teak for the future. Proceedings of the second regional seminar on teak. RAP Publication: 1998/5Google Scholar
  10. Kolmert A (2001) Teak in Northern Laos. minor field studies No. 175. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  11. Krisnawati H, Kallio M, Kanninen M (2011) Swietenia macrophylla King. ecology, silviculture and productivity. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  12. Kumar BM, Kumar SS, Fisher RF (1998) Intercropping teak with Leucaena increases tree growth and modifies soil characteristics. Agrofor Syst 42:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kushalapa KA (1991) Performance of Acacia auriculiformis in India. pp 189–193. In: Turnbull JW (ed) Advances in Tropical Acacia Research. Proceedings of an international workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand, 11–15 February 1991. ACIAR Proceedings 35Google Scholar
  14. Lusiana B, Van Noordwijk M (2006) Tree-site matching analysis in Indonesia and the Philippines. In: Van Noordwijk M, O’Connor T (eds) Smallholder agroforestry options on degraded soils. World Agrofor Centre, Bogor, pp 17–21Google Scholar
  15. Manson DG, Schmidt S, Bristow M, Erskine PD, Vanclay JK (2013) Species-site matching in mixed species plantations of native trees in tropical Australia. Agrofor Syst 87:233–250. doi: 10.1007/s10457-012-9538-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manurung GES, Roshetko JM, Budidarsono S, Kurniawan I (2008) Dudukuhan tree farming systems in West Java: how to mobilize self-strengthening of community-based forest management? In: Snelder DJ, Lasco RD (eds) Smallholder tree growing for rural development and environmental services, lessons from Asia, Advances in Agroforestry. Springer 5, pp 99–116Google Scholar
  17. Nghia NH 1996. Current methods and future needs for tree growth prediction in Vietnam. p 65. In: Booth TH (ed) Matching trees and sites. Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand 27–30 March 1995. ACIAR Proceedings 63, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  18. Nibbering JW (1999) Tree planting on deforested farmlands, Sewu Hills, Java, Indonesia. Impact of economic and institutional changes. Agrofor Syst 57:173–186Google Scholar
  19. Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, Jamnadass, Simons A (2009) Acacia auriculiformis, Australian wattle. Agroforestry database: a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0, Accessed 6 Jan 2015
  20. Pallant J (2007) SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows Version 15, 3rd edn. Open University Press Milton Keynes, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Peng SL, Liu J, Lu HF (2005) Characteristics and role of Acacia auriculiformis on vegetation restoration in lower subtropics of China. J Trop For Sci 17(4):508–525Google Scholar
  22. Pinyopusarerk K (2001) Acacia auriculiformis: a multipurpose tropical Wattle. pp 11–12. In: Roshetko JM (ed) Agroforestry species and technologies, A compilation of the highlights and factsheets published by NFTA and FACT Net 1985–1999, Winrock International and Taiwan Forestry Research Institute, TFRI Extension Series 138Google Scholar
  23. Rohadi D, Roshetko JM, Perdana A, Blyth M, Nuryartono N, Kusumowardani N, Pramono AA, Widyani N, Fauzi A, Sasono J, Sumardamto P, Manalu P (2011) Improving economic outcomes for smallholder growing teak in agroforestry systems in Indonesia. Final report of project FST.2005/177, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), CanberraGoogle Scholar
  24. Rohner B, Bugmann H, Bigler C (2013) Estimating the age-diameter relationship of oak species in Switzerland using nonlinear mixed-effects models. Euro J of For Rese 132(5):751–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roshetko JM, Evans (1999) Domestication of agroforestry trees in Southeast Asia. Forest, farm, and community tree research reports. World Agroforestry Centre Southeast Asia Regional Research Programme. Bogor, Indonesia, p 242Google Scholar
  26. Roshetko JM, Rohadi D, Perdana A, Sabastian G, Nuryartono N, Pramono AA, Widyani N, Manalu P, Fauzi MA, Sumardamto P, Kusumowardhani N (2013) Teak agroforestry systems for livelihood enhancement, industrial timber production, and environmental rehabilitation. For Trees Liv 22(4):241–256. doi: 10.1080/14728028.2013.855150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sabastian G, Kanowski P, Race D, Williams E, Roshetko J (2014) Household and farm attributes affecting adoption of smallholder timber management practices by tree growers in Gunungkidul region Indonesia. Agrofor Syst 88(1):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10457-014-9673-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. SAFODS (2002) A set of simple indicators for suitable site quality for trees. Deliverable No.3 SAFODS’ WP 2 Report, Brawijaya University Indonesia and UPLB PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  29. Santos-Martin F, Lusiana B, Van Noordwijk M (2010) Tree growth prediction in relation to simple set of site quality indicators for six native tree species in the Philippines. Int J For Rese. doi: 10.1155/2010/507392 Google Scholar
  30. Siradz SA (2004) Identifikasi hara pembatas pertumbuhan pada lahan Karst Gunung Sewu, Gunungkidul. Jurusan Tanah Fakultas Pertanian UGM, YogyakartaGoogle Scholar
  31. Snelder DJ, Lasco RD (2008) Smallholder tree growing in South and Southeast Asia. In: Snelder DJ, Lasco RD (eds) Smallholder tree growing for rural development and environmental services, Lessons from Asia, Advances in Agroforestry. Springer 5, pp 11–12Google Scholar
  32. Soerianegara I, Lemmens RHMJ (1994) Timber trees: major commercial timbers. In: Soerianegara I, Lemmens RHMJ (eds) Plant Resources of South-East Asia 5(1), Bogor, Indonesia, pp 442–454Google Scholar
  33. Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 12th ednGoogle Scholar
  34. Statistics of Gunungkidul Regency (2014) Gunungkidul in Figures 2012 Katalog BPS: 1102001.3403, collaboration between the Regional Development Planning Board of Gunungkidul and Statistics of Gunungkidul regency, Yogyakarta, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  35. Subardja DS, Ritung S, Anda M, Sukarman, Suryani E, Subandiono RE (2014) Petunjuk Teknis Klasifikasi Tanah Nasional. Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian, Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian, Kementerian Pertanian, Bogor. Edisi-1/2014, pp 40–41Google Scholar
  36. Sudiharjo AM, Notohadiprawiro T (2006) Sekuen produktivitas lahan di wilayah karst Karangasem, Kecamatan Ponjong, Kabupaten Gunungkidul. Ilmu Tanah Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), YogyakartaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. E. Sabastian
    • 1
  • P. Kanowski
    • 2
  • E. Williams
    • 3
  • J. M. Roshetko
    • 1
  1. 1.World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)BogorIndonesia
  2. 2.Fenner School of Environment and SocietyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Statistical Consulting UnitAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations