Advertisement

Forest Structure and Productivity of Tropical Heath and Peatland Forests

  • Kazuki Miyamoto
  • Takashi S. Kohyama
  • Joeni Setijo Rahajoe
  • Edi Mirmanto
  • Herwint Simbolon

Abstract

Allometric relationships between tree dimensions, aboveground forest structure and productivity were examined in tropical heath (kerangas) forest and peatland forest in Central Kalimantan, to determine the stand level properties of these forest types growing under stressful conditions, by comparing with those in mixed dipterocarp forests. In the peatland forest, tree density, trunk diameter-height relationships and aboveground biomass differed between sites, partly due to differences in disturbance history such as the intensity of selective logging in the past. The heath and peatland forests shared common characteristics such as high leaf mass per area and long leaf residence time at the stand level. Both forest types had high wood mass increment rates (maximum of 8.2 Mg ha−1 year−1 in the heath forest and 10.9 Mg ha−1 year−1 in the peatland forest), which fluctuated greatly during and after the severe 1997–1998 drought. The results here suggest that the heath and peatland forests maintain moderately high productivity under stressful conditions, probably owing to the adaptive leaf properties. The results also suggest that the aboveground forest structure of these forest types as well as peat deposit has the potential to play a significant role in the carbon balance in an area. To be able to properly conserve these forest ecosystems, more attention must be paid to elucidating the mechanisms maintaining primary productivity of heath and peatland forests.

Keywords

Tropical heath forest Kerangas Peat swamp forest Allometry Biomass Productivity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) for granting the permission to conduct the research here. We thank Suwido H. Limin, Sulmin Gumili, and Sehat Jaya Tuah for their kind support in administrative arrangements, staff of LIPI and students of University of Palangka Raya for their support in the fieldwork. Our thanks are also due to Eizi Suzuki, Tatsuyuki Seino and Takashi B. Nishimura for their support in the fieldwork and for helpful suggestions on our research. This study was carried out as a part of SATREPS (Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development) project entitled as “Wild fire and carbon management in peat-forest in Indonesia” founded by JST (Japan Science and Technology Agency) and JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency).

References

  1. Brady MA (1997) Organic matter dynamics of coastal peat deposits in Sumatra, Indonesia. PhD thesis. The University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  2. Brünig EF (1973) Species richness and stand diversity in relation to site and succession of forests in Sarawak and Brunei (Borneo). Amazoniana 4:293–320Google Scholar
  3. Brünig EF (1974) Ecological studies in the kerangas forests of Sarawak and Brunei. Borneo Literature Bureau for Sarawak Forest Department, KuchingGoogle Scholar
  4. Burghouts TBA, van Straalen NM, Bruijnzeel LA (1998) Spatial heterogeneity of element and litter turnover in a Bornean rain forest. J Trop Ecol 14:477–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin FS (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coomes DA (1997) Nutrient status of Amazonian caatinga forests in a seasonally dry area: nutrient fluxes in litter fall and analyses of soils. Can J For Res 27:831–839Google Scholar
  7. Dent D, Bagchi R, Robinson D, Majalap-Lee N, Burslem DFRP (2006) Nutrient fluxes via litterfall and leaf litter decomposition vary across a gradient of soil nutrient supply in a lowland tropical rain forest. Plant Soil 288:197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hozumi K, Yoda K, Kokawa S, Kira T (1969) Production ecology of tropical rain forests in southwestern Cambodia. I. Plant biomass. Nat Life SE Asia 6:1–51Google Scholar
  9. Janzen DH (1974) Tropical blackwater rivers, animals, and mast fruiting by the Dipterocarpaceae. Biotropica 6:69–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jordan CF (1989) An Amazonian rain forest: the structure and function of a nutrient-stressed ecosystem and the impact of slash-and-burn agriculture. UNESCO/The Parthenon Publishing Group, Paris/CarnforthGoogle Scholar
  11. Jordan CF, Uhl C (1978) Biomass of a “tierra firme” forest of the Amazon Basin. Oecol Plant 13:387–400Google Scholar
  12. Kellman MC (1970) Secondary plant succession in tropical montane Mindanao. Publication BG/2, Research School of Pacific Studies. Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  13. Kira T (1978) Community architecture and organic matter dynamics in tropical lowland rain forests of Southeast Asia with special reference to Pasoh Forest, west Malaysia. In: Tomlinson PB, Zimmermann MH (eds) Tropical trees as living systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Kohyama T, Suzuki E, Partomihardjo T, Yamada T (2001) Dynamic steady state of patch-mosaic tree size structure of a mixed dipterocarp forest regulated by local crowding. Ecol Res 16:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kohyama T, Suzuki E, Partomihardjo T, Yamada T, Kubo T (2003) Tree species differentiation in growth, recruitment and allometry in relation to maximum height in a Bornean mixed dipterocarp forest. J Ecol 91:797–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luizao FJ, Juizao RCC, Proctor J (2007) Soil acidity and nutrient deficiency in central Amazonian heath forest soils. Plant Ecol 192:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacKinnon K, Hatta G, Halim H, Mangalik A (1996) The ecology of Kalimantan. Periplus Editions, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  18. Medina E, Garcia V, Cuevas E (1990) Sclerophylly and oligotrophic environments: relationships between leaf structure, mineral nutrient content, and drought resistance in tropical rain forests of the upper Rio Negro region. Biotropica 22:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mirmanto E, Tsuyuzaki S, Kohyama T (2003) Investigation of the effects of distance from river and peat depth on tropical wetland forest communities. Tropics 12:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miyamoto K, Suzuki E, Kohyama T, Seino T, Mirmanto E, Simbolon H (2003) Habitat differentiation among tree species with small-scale variation of humus depth and topography in a tropical heath forest of central Kalimantan, Indonesia. J Trop Ecol 19:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miyamoto K, Rahajoe JS, Kohyama T, Mirmanto E (2007) Forest structure and primary productivity in a Bornean heath forest. Biotropica 39:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moran JA, Barker MG, Moran AJ, Becker P, Ross SM (2000) A comparison of the soil water, nutrient status, and litterfall characteristics of tropical heath and mixed-dipterocarp forest sites in Brunei. Biotropica 32:2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nishimura TB, Suzuki E (2001) Allometric differentiation among tropical tree seedlings in heath and peat swamp forests. J Trop Ecol 17:667–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nishimura TB, Suzuki E, Kohyama T, Tsuyuzaki S (2007) Mortality and growth of trees in peat-swamp and heath forests in Central Kalimantan after severe drought. Plant Ecol 188:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ogawa H (1969) An attempt at classifying forest types based on the relationship between tree height and d.b.h. In: Kira T (ed) Comparative study of primary productivity in forest ecosystems, JIBP-PT-F Progress Reports for 1968 (in Japanese). Osaka City University, OsakaGoogle Scholar
  26. Page SE, Rieley JO, Shotyk OW, Weiss D (1999) Interdependence of peat and vegetation in a tropical peat swamp forest. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 354:1885–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Page SE, Siegert F, Rieley JO, Boehm HDV, Jaya A, Limin S (2002) The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature 420:61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Proctor J (1984) Tropical forest litterfall II: the data set. In: Chadwick AC, Sutton SL (eds) Tropical rainforest: the Leeds symposium. Philosophical Natural History Society, LeedsGoogle Scholar
  29. Proctor J, Anderson JM, Chai P, Vallack HW (1983a) Ecological studies in four contrasting lowland rain forests in Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak. I. Forest environment, structure and floristics. J Ecol 71:237–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Proctor J, Anderson JM, Fogden SCL, Vallack HW (1983b) Ecological studies in four contrasting lowland rain forests in Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak. II. Litterfall, litter standing crop and preliminary observation on herbivory. J Ecol 71:261–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rahajoe JS, Kohyama T (2003) The relationship between N, P returned via litter production and nutrient use efficiency of heath and peat swamp forests in central Kalimantan. Tropics 13:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1992) Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecol Monogr 62:365–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Riswan S, Kartawinata K (1991) Species strategy in early stage of secondary succession associated with soil properties status in a lowland mixed dipterocarp forest and kerangas forest in East Kalimantan. Tropics 13:13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shimamura T, Momose K (2005) Organic matter dynamics control plant species coexistence in a tropical peat swamp forest. Proc R Soc B 272:1503–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simbolon H, Mirmanto E (2000) Checklist of plant species in the peat swamp forests of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Iwakuma T, Inoue T, Kohyama T, Osaki M, Simbolon H, Tachibana H, Tanaka N, Yabe K (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on Tropical peatlands. Hokkaido University, Sapporo and Indonesian Institute of Sciences, BogorGoogle Scholar
  36. Snowdon P (1991) A ratio estimator for bias correction in logarithmic regressions. Can J For Res 21:720–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sprugel DG (1983) Correcting for bias in log-transformed allometric equations. Ecology 64:209–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suzuki E (1999) Diversity in specific gravity and water content of wood among Bornean tropical rainforest trees. Ecol Res 14:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suzuki E, Kohyama H, Simbolon H, Haraguchi A, Tsuyuzaki S, Nishimura T (1998) Vegetation of kerangas and forests in Lahei, Central Kalimantan. In: Environmental conservation and land use management of wetland ecosystem in Southeast Asia. Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  40. Takahashi H, Kayama M, Limin SH (2000) The effects of environmental factors on diurnal changes of ground water table in a tropical peat swamp forest. In: Iwakuma T, Inoue T, Kohyama T, Osaki M, Simbolon H, Tachibana H, Tanaka N, Yabe K (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on Tropical peatlands. Hokkaido University, Sapporo and Indonesian Institute of Sciences, BogorGoogle Scholar
  41. Vernimmen RRE, Bruijnzeel LA, Proctor J, Verhoef HA, Klomp NS (2013) Does water stress, nutrient limitation, or H-toxicity explain the differential stature among heath forest types in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia? Biogeochemistry 113:385–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitmore TC (1975) Tropical rain forests of the Far East. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Yamakura T, Hagihara A, Sukardjo S, Ogawa H (1986a) Tree size in a mature dipterocarp forest stand in Sebulu, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Southeast Asian Studies 23:452–478Google Scholar
  44. Yamakura T, Hagihara A, Sukardjo S, Ogawa H (1986b) Aboveground biomass of tropical rain forest stands in Indonesian Borneo. Vegetation 68:71–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuki Miyamoto
    • 1
  • Takashi S. Kohyama
    • 2
  • Joeni Setijo Rahajoe
    • 3
  • Edi Mirmanto
    • 3
  • Herwint Simbolon
    • 3
  1. 1.Shikoku Research CenterForestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)KochiJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Environmental Earth ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  3. 3.Research Center for BiologyThe Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)BogorIndonesia

Personalised recommendations