land Article
Assessment of Suitability of Tree Species for Bioenergy Production on Burned and Degraded Peatlands in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia Siti Maimunah 1 , Syed Ajijur Rahman 2, *, Yusuf B. Samsudin 2 , Yustina Artati 2 , Trifosa Iin Simamora 2 , Sarah Andini 2 , Soo Min Lee 3 and Himlal Baral 2 1 2
3
*
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University Muhammadiyah Palangkaraya (UMP), Central Kalimantan 73111, Indonesia;
[email protected] Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor (Barat) 16115, Indonesia;
[email protected] (Y.B.S.);
[email protected] (Y.A.);
[email protected] (T.I.S.);
[email protected] (S.A.);
[email protected] (H.B.) National Institute of Forest Science, Seoul 02455, Korea;
[email protected] Correspondence:
[email protected]; Tel.: +62-251-8622-622
Received: 6 September 2018; Accepted: 29 September 2018; Published: 7 October 2018
Abstract: Large areas of deforested and degraded land, particularly degraded peatlands, need a viable long-term solution for restoration, ideally one that ensures energy security without compromising food security or biodiversity conversation. To address a knowledge gap on the most adaptive bioenergy crop(s) for degraded lands, this research project assessed the survival and growth performance of potential bioenergy crops to restore burned and degraded peatlands. Our methodology compared the bioenergy species with the potential to survive in extreme environments, i.e., gamal [Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Walp.], kaliandra (Calliandra calothyrsus Meissner), kemiri sunan [Reutealis trisperma (Blanco) Airy Shaw], and nyamplung (Calophyllum inophyllum L.). Observed parameters are plant survival rates, tree height, and circular stem growth. The experiment was conducted between March 2016 to February 2017 in a two-hectare demonstration plot on burned and degraded peatland in Buntoi village, Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan province. Using a split plot design, two treatments were given to each species, i.e., monoculture plantation and agroforestry (intercropped with Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.); with each treatment, the species were replicated on two separate plots. Results indicate that nyamplung is the most adoptable species followed by kemiri sunan, however both species performed very well under agroforestry treatment when compared with monoculture. Further study is needed to assess the productivity and associate biofuel yield. Keywords: land restoration; nyamplung; kemiri sunan; agroforestry; policy
1. Introduction Indonesian energy demand has significantly increased, primarily due to population growth, urbanization, and economic development [1]. At the same time, sources of fossil fuel have depleted and they are unable to fulfill the increasing energy demands of the future [2]. Whilst responding to interests in renewable energy and degraded land restoration, bioenergy can provide a potential alternative to meet growing energy demands. The Indonesian government has mandated for increases in renewable energy production, including bioenergy from plant sources (e.g., Calophyllum inophyllum L., Elaeis guineensis Jack.), with the aim of it meeting 23% of total energy use by 2025 [3]. However, such expansion of plantations for energy production could trigger competition with other land uses,
Land 2018, 7, 115; doi:10.3390/land7040115
www.mdpi.com/journal/land
Land 2018, 7, 115
2 of 14
such as food production and biodiversity conservation1 . To avoid such competition, and to diversify bioenergy production, degraded and underutilized land has been identified as a potential target area for bioenergy production [4–7]. Central Kalimantan province has one of the largest amounts of degraded land in Indonesia, estimated at approximately 7.2 million hectares (ha) [8]. Forest conversion to other types of land use, e.g., agriculture and open mining, is one of the key driving factors land degradation [9–11]. The frequent occurrence of forest fires, particularly in recent years, has driven an escalation in degraded land, including peatland [11,12]. The occurrence of fire has also affected agricultural land that is managed by local farmers and declined its productivity. Most of the burned land, including peatland, has been abandoned due to its declining fertility [13]. The Central Kalimantan province is also facing energy deficits, with large number of households (42%) in the province having no access to electricity [14]. Consumption of traditional biomass for cooking purposes is also relatively high [15]. To increase community access to energy, the central government, through the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) in collaboration with district and provincial governments, initiated a bioenergy program, called Bioenergi Lestari. The program aims to establish bioenergy plantations on approximately 62,500 ha of degraded and abandoned lands in two districts, i.e., Pulang Pisau and Katingan, with the expectation of increasing bioenergy production [16]. However, the progress so far is slow due to very few studies providing useful information on bioenergy crops that are suitable for growing on degraded lands, particularly in Central Kalimantan. To fill this scientific knowledge gap, this research project aimed to identify the most promising bioenergy crop(s) for degraded lands. 2. Materials and Methods This study was conducted in Buntoi village (located between 102◦ 480 59.400 S and 114◦ 100 47.300 E) in the district of Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia (Figure 1). Buntoi, with a total land area of 16,261.595 ha, is dominated by forest and agricultural land (Figure 2). The soil domination is mainly peat and alluvial. Buntoi has a tropical and humid climate with a temperature ranging from 26.5 to 27.5 ◦ C. It has two distinct seasons, dry (April–October) and rainy (November–March). The village was selected as one of the locations for bioenergy crop plantation initiated by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) and the local government, under the Bioenergi Lestari project. The total population of Buntoi is 2729; this population is mainly dependent on rubber plantation and other subsistence agriculture [17]. In late 2015, Buntoi village was affected by forest and peatland fires that destroyed large areas of farmers’ productive land, including approximately 461 ha of rubber plantation. The burned land has since been abandoned, and the farmers are now looking for alternative land uses to meet their livelihood needs.
1
As an example, oil palm has been the main source of bioenergy in Indonesia, however, expansion of oil palm production has raised concerns about compromising food production and destroying forests and consequent biodiversity [18–20].
Land 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
3 of 14
Land 2018, 7, 115
3 of 14
Land 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
3 of 14
Figure 1. Location of study site (Buntoi village) in Pulang Pisau discticet, Central Kalimantan, Figure 1.1.Location Locationofof study (Buntoi village) in Pulang discticet, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Figure study sitesite (Buntoi village) in Pulang PisauPisau discticet, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Indonesia.
1%
1%
30%
30%
43% 43%
26% 26%
Forest Forest
Rubber Rubberplantation plantation
Other agriculture Other agriculture Settlement Settlement
Figure 2. Land uses in Buntoi village [16]. Figure 2. Land uses in Buntoi village [16].
Figure Land usesMarch in Buntoi village The experiment was carried out2.between 2016 and [16]. February 2017 on two hectares of degraded peatland. Having a total of 16 sub plots, a split plot design was to test The experiment was carried out between March 2016 and February 2017 on applied two hectares of the The experiment was carried out between March 2016 and February 2017 on two hectares of performance of four biofuel crop species with two different treatments, i.e., under monoculture degraded peatland. Having a total of 16 sub plots, a split plot design was applied to test the degraded peatland. Having a total of 16 sub plots, a split plot design was applied to test the and agroforestry conditions; with agroforestry involving i.e., intercropping with pineapple. performance of four biofuel crop species with twoconditions different treatments, under monoculture and performance of four biofuel crop species with two different treatments, i.e., under monoculture and
Land 2018, 7, 115
4 of 14
Each species under each treatment was replicated twice on two separate plots, i.e., A and B2 (Figure 3). As the total experimental plot area was two hectares, this limited the number of possible replications to two.
Kaliandra Monoculture
Nyamplung Agroforestry
Kaliandra Agroforestry
Nyamplung Monoculture
Kemiri sunan Agroforestry
Gamal Monoculture
Kemiri sunan Monoculture
Gamal Agroforestry
Plot A
Gamal Agroforestry
Kemiri sunan Monoculture
Gamal Monoculture
Kemiri sunan Agroforestry
Nyamplung Monoculture
Kaliandra Monoculture
Nyamplung Agroforestry
Kaliandra Agroforestry
4m break from road
6m break from natural vegetation
6m break between treatments
4m break from rubber trees
Plot B
4m break from rubber trees vegetation Figure 3. Split plot design for the treatment of four biofuel species in Buntoi research site in Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan.
Four species, i.e., gamal [Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Walp.], kaliandra (Calliandra calothyrsus Meissner), kemiri sunan [Reutealis trisperma (Blanco) Airy Shaw], and nyamplung (Calophyllum inophyllum L.), were selected to test their adaptive capability in extreme environmental conditions, i.e., degraded peatlands3 . Gamal and kaliandra are well known for biomass production, and kemiri sunan and nyamplung are promising for oil seed production. Previous studies suggested that nyamplung is adaptive to waterlogged areas [21–23], kaliandra is tolerant to acidic soil (PH 4–5) [24,25], and kemiri sunan is adaptive to marginal land [26]. Gamal is also tolerant to acidic soil [27,28] (Table 1).
2 3
For a similar split plot design method, please see [29–31]. Gamal and kaliandra are native species to Central America, while kemiri sunan is known native to the Philippines, and nyamplung to Indonesia [32]. These species require mean annual temperatures 18 to 33 ◦ C with rainfall ranging 60 to 5000 mm, to grow (see Table A1 in Appendix A). The tested species were naturally distributed, and cultivated in Indonesia [32,33]. However, for these tested species, we did not find any literature that can explain commercial scale cultivation in the peatlands. Gamal and kaliandra are utilized to produce energy from its woody biomass [33,34]. Meanwhile, nyamplung and kemiri sunan are utilized for its seeds to be converted to biofuel [35,36].
Land 2018, 7, 115
5 of 14
Table 1. Review of adaptability of selected bioenergy crops to different type of soils. No
Species
Type of Biomass
Adaptation Capability
Reference
1 2 3 4 5
Kaliandra Nyamplung Malapari [Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre] Kemiri sunan Gamal
wood seed seed seed wood
Acidic soil (pH 4.9–5.3) and drought Saline soil and waterlogged areas Saline soil and waterlogged areas Marginal land, slope areas (15–40%) Acidic soil (pH < 5.5)
[24,25] [21–23] [37,38] [26,39,40] [27,28]
Observed parameters in our study included plant height (in cm) and circular stem growth (in mm), measured from 10 cm above the ground. Survival rate was also observed by counting the total number of survived saplings in each plot. Data was recorded every month using above parameters. As the research site is a fire prone area, for the safety of the experimental plot, we used a six-meter firebreak from natural vegetation, and four-meter firebreaks from rubber trees and the road. We also used a six-meter break between different treatments (Figure 3). In terms of plant spacing, species were spaced as follows: kaliandra and gamal (2 m × 1 m), kemiri sunan and nyamplung (8 m × 8 m), and pineapple (Ananas comosus) (1 m × 1 m). Fertilizer, i.e., NPK using slow release method, was used in all of the plots. The peatland depth profile and pH value were also measured from four sample locations of our study plots by measuring their distance from the river, i.e., two samples 50 m from river and two samples 200 m from the river. Besides descriptive statistics, a nonparametric test, i.e., kruskal-wallis and post-hoc test results of a wilcoxon rank sum test in R software (version 3.4.4), were used to analyze the data. 3. Results and Discussion Peatland depth and pH in the study plot ranged from 56 cm to 87 cm and 2.88 to 3.19, respectively (Table 2); which, showing that with the medium acidity level peatland depth is relatively higher when in proximity to the river. Table 2. Peatland depth profile and pH value of the study plots in Buntoi research site in Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan. Sample No
Distance from the River (in m)
pH Value
Peatland Depth (in cm)
1 2 3 4
50 50 200 200
2.88 2.95 2.81 3.19
85.00 87.00 77.00 56.00
The survival rate of the bioenergy crops is shown in Figure 4. Results indicate that nyamplung and kemiri sunan are adaptable to degraded peatland, with respective survival rates of 88% and 48%. However, kaliandra and gamal did not survive in our experimental plot. Therefore, nyamplung and kemiri sunan are useful for planting in burned and degraded peatlands.
Land 2018, 7, 115
6 of 14 6 of 14
Land 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 100
6 of 14
Percent Percent
Land 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
90 100 80 90 70 80 60 70 50 60 40 50 30 40 20 30 10 20 0 10
88 88
48 48
Nyamplung
Kemiri sunan
0
0
Caliandra 0
Gamal 0
0 Figure 4. Survival rate of the four selected bioenergy in Buntoi research site in Pulang Pisau, Nyamplung Kemiri sunan species Figure 4. Survival rate of the four selected bioenergy speciesCaliandra in Buntoi researchGamal site in Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan. Central Kalimantan. Figure 4. Survival rate of the four selected bioenergy species in Buntoi research site in Pulang Pisau,
Cm
Cm
Figures 5 and 6 show the growth rate on degraded peatland of nyamplung and kemiri sunan, Central Kalimantan. Figures 5 and 6 show the growth rate on degraded peatland of nyamplung and kemiri sunan, the two adaptable trialed species. For nyamplung, the growth rate is steady in all conditions, except the two adaptable trialed species. where For nyamplung, the growth rate5 is steady in all conditions, except agroforestry rate from monthof to 6 is comparatively high, and Figures (plot 5 andB)6 conditions show the growth the rategrowth on degraded peatland nyamplung and kemiri sunan, agroforestry (plot B) conditions where the growth rate from month 5 to 6 is comparatively high, after thatadaptable becomestrialed steadyspecies. again. For nyamplung, kemiri sunan, all rate conditions, growth rate remains the two theunder growth is steadythe in all conditions, except and after that becomes steady again. For kemiri sunan, under all conditions, the growth rate remains steady, except monoculture B)the where growth ratemonth during and last month is agroforestry (plot B) conditions(plot where growth rate from 5 tothe 6 isfirst comparatively high, and steady, except (plot B) where growth rate under during first and last as month is comparatively comparatively high.steady Higher growth in asunan, specific month for both species, mentioned above, after that monoculture becomes again. Forrates kemiri allthe conditions, the growth rate remains beexcept due tomonoculture external i.e.,B) fertilizer and weather rainfall high.might Higher growth rates ininputs, a specific month forapplication both species, as mentioned might be or due steady, (plot where growth rate during theconditions, first above, and e.g., last month is to sunlight. The figures also indicate that with bothfor species see better thanThe under comparatively high. Higher growth rates a specificconditions, month both as mentioned above, external inputs, i.e., fertilizer application andinintercropping, weather e.g., species, rainfall orgrowth sunlight. figures monoculture. However, further is application needed to examine the external factors that affected might bethat duewith to external inputs,investigation i.e., and weather conditions, e.g., rainfall or also indicate intercropping, bothfertilizer species see better growth than under monoculture. However, growth. Our data also illustrated thatwith the intercropping, circular stem growth of nyamplung and kemiri sunan sunlight. The figures also indicate that both species see better growth than under further investigation is needed to examine the external factors that affected growth. Our data also steadily increased both under intercropping monoculture systems and 8).that affected monoculture. further investigationand is needed to examine the(Figures external7factors illustrated that theHowever, circular stem growth of nyamplung and kemiri sunan steadily increased both under growth. Our data also illustrated that the circular stem growth of nyamplung and kemiri sunan intercropping and monoculture systems (Figures 7 and 8). steadily increased both under intercropping and monoculture systems (Figures 7 and 8). 200 180 160 200 140 180 120 160 100 140 80 120 60 100 40 80 20 60 0 40
20 0 0 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
12
14
Number of observation (month) 2
4 6 8 10 Agroforestry (plot A) Monoculture (plot Number of observation (month) A) Monoculture (plot B) Agroforestry (plot A)
Agroforestry (plot B) Monoculture (plot A)
Figure 5. Height growth of nyamplung in monoculture vs. agroforestry Monoculture (plot B) Agroforestry (plotplots B) in Buntoi research site in Central Kalimantan. Figure 5. Height growth of nyamplung monoculturevs. vs.agroforestry agroforestry plots site Figure 5. Height growth of nyamplung in in monoculture plotsin inBuntoi Buntoiresearch research site in in Central Kalimantan. Central Kalimantan.
Land 2018, 7, 115
7 of 14
Land Land 2018, 2018, 7, 7, xx FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW
77 of of 14 14
160 160 140 140 120 120
Cm Cm
100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 --
00
22
44
66
88
10 10
12 12
14 14
Number Number of of observation observation (month) (month) Agroforestry Agroforestry (plot (plot A) A) Monoculture (plot Monoculture (plot B) B)
Monoculture Monoculture (plot (plot A) A) Agroforestry (plot B) Agroforestry (plot B)
Figure 6. of kemiri vs. agroforestry plots in in Buntoi Buntoi reseaech site Figure Height growth growth kemiri sunan sunan in in monoculture monoculture vs. agroforestry reseaech Figure 6. 6. Height growth of agroforestry plots reseaech site site in Central Kalimantan. in in Central Central Kalimantan. Kalimantan. 18 18 16 16
Cm Cm
14 14 12 12 10 10 88 66 44
22 --
00
22
44
66
88
10 10
12 12
14 14
Number Number of of observation observation (month) (month)
Agroforestry Agroforestry (plot (plot A) A) Monoculture (plot Monoculture (plot B) B)
Monoculture Monoculture (plot (plot A) A) Agroforestry (plot B) Agroforestry (plot B)
Figure Circular stem growth of in vs. plots in Buntoi Figure 7.7. 7.Circular Circularstem stem growth of nyamplung nyamplung in monoculture monoculture vs. agroforestry agroforestry Buntoi Figure growth of nyamplung in monoculture vs. agroforestry plots in plots Buntoiinreseaech reseaech site in Central Kalimantan. reseaech site inKalimantan. Central Kalimantan. site in Central
Land 2018, 7, 115
8 of 14
Land 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW Land 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
16
14 12
Cm Cm
10 8 6 4 2 -
8 of 14 8 of 14
16
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
0
2
2
4
4
6
6
8
8
10
10
Number of observation (month) Number of observation (month)
Agroforestry (plot A) Agroforestry (plot A) Monoculture (plot B) Monoculture (plot B)
12
12
14
14
Monoculture (plot A) Monoculture (plot A) Agroforestry (plot B) Agroforestry (plot B)
Figure 8. Circularstem stemgrowth growthofofkemiri kemirisunan sunan in in monoculture monoculture vs. Figure 8. Circular vs. agroforestry agroforestryplots plotsininBuntoi Buntoi Figure 8. Circular stem growth of kemiri sunan in monoculture vs. agroforestry plots in Buntoi reseaech site in Central Kalimantan. reseaech site in Central Kalimantan. reseaech site in Central Kalimantan.
Our wilcoxon rank sumtest testfurther furthershows showsthat that nyamplung nyamplung performs better for tree height Our wilcoxon rank sum performs better forboth both tree height Our wilcoxon rank sum test further shows that nyamplung performs better for both tree height and circular stem growth as compared to kemiri sunan (Figures 9 and 10). Looking at the two and to to kemiri sunan (Figures 9 and 10). 10). Looking at the andcircular circularstem stemgrowth growthasascompared compared kemiri sunan (Figures 9 and Looking at two the different two different treatments (i.e., agroforestry and monoculture), both species performed better for tree treatments (i.e., agroforestry and monoculture), both species performed better for tree height growth different treatments (i.e., agroforestry and 11), monoculture), both species performed forcircular tree height growth under agroforestry (Figure however, only nyamplung performedbetter well for under agroforestry (Figure 11), however, only nyamplung performed well for circular stem growth height stemgrowth growthunder underagroforestry agroforestry(Figure (Figure11), 12).however, only nyamplung performed well for circular under agroforestry 12). (Figure 12). stem growth under (Figure agroforestry
Figure 9. Results of Wilcoxon rank sum test on tree height for nyamplung and kemiri sunan Figure 9. ResultsofofWilcoxon Wilcoxonrank ranksum sum test on tree height nyamplung kemiri sunan Figure 9. Results test tree height for for nyamplung andand kemiri sunan (BAK—agroforestry kemiri sunan plot on B; BAN—agroforestry nyamplung plot B; (BAK—agroforestry kemiri sunan plot B;plot BAN—agroforestry nyamplung plot B; BMK—monoculture (BAK—agroforestry kemiri sunan B; BAN—agroforestry nyamplung plot B; BMK—monoculture kemiri sunan plot B; BMN—monoculture nyamplung plot B; kemiri sunan plot B; kemiri BMN—monoculture plot B; FAK—agroforestry sunan BMK—monoculture sunan plot nyamplung B; BMN—monoculture nyamplung kemiri plot B; FAK—agroforestry kemiri sunan plot A; FAN—agroforestry nyamplung plot A; and, plot A; FAN—agroforestry nyamplung and, FMK—monoculture FAK—agroforestry kemiri plotA;plot A; A; FAN—agroforestry nyamplung A; and, FMK—monoculture kemiri sunan sunan plot FMN—monoculture nyamplung plot kemiri A).plot The sunan letters a,plot b, c,A; FMK—monoculture kemiri sunan plot A; FMN—monoculture nyamplung plot A). The letters a, b, c, FMN—monoculture nyamplung plot A). The letters a, b, c, and d on the figure show different and d on the figure show different performance levels of height. and d on the figure different performance levels of height. performance levels show of height.
Land 2018, 7, 115 Land 2018, 2018, 7, 7, xx FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW Land
9 of 14 of 14 14 99 of
Figure 10. 10. Results Results of Wilcoxon rank sum test onon tree diameter forfor nyamplung andand kemiri sunan Figure Resultsof ofWilcoxon Wilcoxonrank ranksum sumtest test tree diameter nyamplung kemiri sunan Figure on tree diameter for nyamplung and kemiri sunan (BAK—agroforestry kemiri sunan plot B; BAN—agroforestry nyamplung plot B; (BAK—agroforestry sunan plot B;plot BAN—agroforestry nyamplung plot B; BMK—monoculture (BAK—agroforestry kemiri kemiri sunan B; BAN—agroforestry nyamplung plot B; BMK—monoculture kemiri sunan plot plot nyamplung B; BMN—monoculture BMN—monoculture nyamplung kemiri plot B; B; kemiri sunan plot B; kemiri BMN—monoculture plot B; FAK—agroforestry sunan BMK—monoculture sunan B; nyamplung plot FAK—agroforestry kemiri sunan sunan plot A; A; FAN—agroforestry FAN—agroforestry nyamplung plot plotkemiri A; FMK—monoculture FMK—monoculture plot A; FAN—agroforestry nyamplung plot A; FMK—monoculture sunan plot A; and, FAK—agroforestry kemiri plot nyamplung A; kemiri sunan sunan plot plot A; A;nyamplung and, FMN—monoculture FMN—monoculture nyamplung plot A). The letters letters a,different b, and and ccperformance on the the kemiri and, nyamplung The b, on FMN—monoculture plot A). The letters a, b, andplot c on A). the figure showa, figure show different performance levels of diameter. figure show different performance levels of diameter. levels of diameter.
Figure Results Wilcoxon testtree on height tree height two different treatments, Figure 11. 11. Results Results of of Wilcoxon rankrank sumsum test on on tree height under under two different different treatments, i.e., Figure of Wilcoxon rank sum test under two treatments, i.e., i.e., agroforestry and monoculture, for nyamplung and kemiri sunan (AN—agroforestry nyamplung; agroforestry and monoculture, for nyamplung and kemiri sunan (AN—agroforestry nyamplung; agroforestry and monoculture, for nyamplung and kemiri sunan (AN—agroforestry nyamplung; KA—agroforestry kemiri sunan; sunan; KM—monoculture KM—monoculturekemiri kemirisunan; sunan;and, and, MN—monoculture KA—agroforestry kemiri kemiri sunan; KM—monoculture kemiri sunan; and, MN—monoculture KA—agroforestry MN—monoculture nyamplung). The letters a and b on the figure show the different performance levels of height. nyamplung). The letters a and b on the figure show the different performance levels of height. nyamplung). The letters a and b on the figure show the different performance levels of height.
Land 2018, 7, 115 Land 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
10 of 14 10 of 14
Figure 12. Results Resultsof of Wilcoxon rank testtree on diameter tree diameter two different treatments, Figure 12. Wilcoxon rank sumsum test on under under two different treatments, i.e., i.e., agroforestry monoculture, for nyamplung kemiri sunan (AN—agroforestry nyamplung; agroforestry and and monoculture, for nyamplung and and kemiri sunan (AN—agroforestry nyamplung; KA—agroforestry kemiri sunan; sunan; KM—monoculture KM—monoculturekemiri kemirisunan; sunan;and,and, MN—monoculture KA—agroforestry kemiri MN—monoculture nyamplung). Theletters lettersaaand andbbon onthe thefigure figure show different performance levels of diameter. nyamplung). The show different performance levels of diameter.
Our showsthat thatout outofoffour fourtested testedspecies, species, nyamplung is the most adoptable species, Our research research shows nyamplung is the most adoptable species, followed by kemiri sunan, when grown on burned and degraded peatland in Central Kalimantan. followed kemiri sunan, when grown on burned and degraded peatland in Central Kalimantan. However, both species species performed performedvery verywell wellunder underagroforestry agroforestry treatment when compared However, both treatment when compared to to monoculture. This growing biofuel using an an agroforestry system can be monoculture. Thisisisaawin-win win-winsolution, solution,asas growing biofuel using agroforestry system cana be a better land land use strategy, toto enhance farm production andand income, protect better strategy, considering consideringitsitspotential potential enhance farm production income, protect biodiversity, and support sustainable development [37,41–45]. If the target is also to motivate local biodiversity, support sustainable development [37,41–45]. If the target is also to motivate local farmers to touse usetheir theirdegraded degradedland land biofuel production, is important to consider tree farmers forfor biofuel production, it isitimportant to consider that that tree growing growing by farmers is often associated with multiple objectives influenced by livelihood necessities by farmers is often associated with multiple objectives influenced by livelihood necessities and local and local cultures [46–49]. Currentemphasizes literature emphasizes thatcapacity farmers’to capacity to planting adopt tree cultures [46–49]. Current literature that farmers’ adopt tree is also planting is also dependent on production technology, adequate physical infrastructure, dependent on production technology, adequate physical infrastructure, and developed marketsand for tree developed markets for tree products [47,49,50]. Improved understanding of these circumstances is products [47,49,50]. Improved understanding of these circumstances is crucial for policy improvements crucial for policy improvements to succeed in making tree planting feasible, acceptable, and to succeed in making tree planting feasible, acceptable, and ultimately profitable for local people and ultimately profitable for local people and related stockholders [51]. related stockholders [51]. Planting millions of square miles of biofuel could store between 1.2 and 6.3 billion tons of Planting millions of square miles of biofuel could store between 1.2 and 6.3 billion tons of carbon/year; enough to make a very large dent in global greenhouse gas emissions [52], while also carbon/year; enough to make a very large dent in global greenhouse gas emissions [52], while also providing sufficient energy stock [53]. However, there is a risk that doing so could lead to forest providing sufficient energy stock [53]. However, there is a riskpressure that doing so could lead forest clearance, compete with agricultural production and put additional on biodiversity [52].toAs clearance, compete with agricultural production and put additional pressure on biodiversity [52]. a solution, producing biofuel on degraded land can avoid compromising agricultural production As a solution, producing biofuel on degraded land can avoid compromising agricultural production and and the related negative environmental consequences. the related negative environmental consequences. 4. Conclusions 4. Conclusions This study demonstrated that among four trial species, nyamplung is the most adaptive (88%) This study demonstrated thatdegraded among four trial species, nyamplung is the most adaptive bioenergy species for growth on peatland in Central Kalimantan, followed by kemiri(88%) bioenergy species for growth on degraded peatland Central Kalimantan, by kemiri sunan sunan (48%). Growth performance indicators showedinthat nyamplung grew followed better in agroforestry (48%). Growth showed that nyamplung grewofbetter in agroforestry sub-plots whenperformance compared toindicators monoculture sub-plots both in terms height and circular sub-plots stem when compared to monoculture sub-plots both in terms of height and circular stem growth; likewise, growth; likewise, kemiri sunan performed better in terms of height growth in agroforestry sub-plots. kemiri sunan performed better in terms of height growth in agroforestry sub-plots.
Land 2018, 7, 115
11 of 14
This awareness of nyamplung and kemiri sunan’s survivability in degraded peatland, as well as their improved performance using agroforestry, can promote the benefits of agroforestry and enhance farmers’ livelihoods, as well as supporting sustainable development. However, further study on the productivity and associate biofuel yields of both species is needed. Further studies are also needed for these four selected, and different trial species on different peat and degraded land areas, including more accurate extended measurement variables, e.g., soil nutrients, peat water table, and peat depth, with more controlled environment. That may help to get additional data, such as in our study it was not clear why there are significant differences between the same species and the same treatment (e.g., Figure 9). Selecting tree species with multiple benefits in terms of livelihoods, local culture familiarity, and strong market value, might be beneficial to improve farmers’ motivation to utilize degraded land for biofuel production. Author Contributions: S.M., H.B., Y.A. and S.M.L. designed the study. S.M. and Y.B.S. collected the data. S.A.R., Y.A. and T.I.S. prepared, analyzed and interpreted the data. Y.B.S. and S.A.R. collected the data and reviewed the literature. S.M., S.A.R., Y.A. and H.B. prepared and reviewed the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding: The funding partners that have supported this research include the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA) with financial support from the donors that support the CGIAR Fund, and the National Institute Forest Sciences, Korea. Acknowledgments: Authors are grateful to the field assistants, graduate students and researchers from the Natural Universitas Muhammadiyah Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, as well as to colleagues at CIFOR who provided their assistance, time and thoughtful scientific support for this research. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Appendix A Table A1. Environmental requirements for four tested bioenergy species. Species Gamal Kaliandra Kemiri sunan
Mean Annual Temperature (◦ C)
Mean Annual Rainfall (mm)
Min
Max
Min
Max
20 22 18
27 28 30
600 700 700
3500 4000 2500
Source 53 54 55
References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
IEA (International Energy Agency). Indonesia 2015—Energy Policies beyond IEA Countries; IEA: Paris, France, 2015. Firdaus, Y.; Mukhtasor; Suroso, A. Analysis of an effect of oscillating part transformation in vortex energy conversion using a numerical model. J. Kelaut. Nas. 2011, 6, 1–12. GOI (Government of Indonesia). PP No. 79 Thn 2014; GOI: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014. Nijsen, M.; Edward, S.; Elke, S.; Detlef, P.V. An evaluation of the global potential of bioenergy production on degraded lands. GCB Bioenergy 2012, 4, 130–147. [CrossRef] Campbell, J.E.; David, B.L.; Robert, C.G.; Christopher, B.F. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agricultural lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5791–5794. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Fargione, J.; Hill, J.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008, 319, 1235–1238. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Borchard, N.; Bulusu, M.; Hartwig, A.M.; Ulrich, M.; Lee, S.M.; Baral, H. Screening potential bioenergy production of tree species in degraded and marginal land in the tropics. Forest. 2018, 9, 594. [CrossRef] ICCC (Indonesia Climate Change Center). Crop to Energy on Degarded Land as a Step toward Energy Independence, Carbon Sink, Agriculture and Protection of REDD+ Designated Areas; ICCC: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014.
Land 2018, 7, 115
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
15. 16. 17. 18.
19.
20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
26.
27. 28. 29.
30. 31.
12 of 14
Suwarno, A. Optimising Land Use in Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia: Modeling Ecosystem Benefits and Land Use Dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016. Abood, S.A.; Lee, J.S.H.; Burivalova, Z.; Garcia-Ulloa, J.; Koh, L.P. Relative contributions of the logging, fiber, oil palm, and mining industries to forest loss in Indonesia. Conserv. Lett. 2015, 8, 58–67. [CrossRef] Medrilzam, M.; Dargusch, P.; Herbohn, J.; Smith, C. The socio-ecological drivers of forest degradation in part of the tropical peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forestry 2014, 87, 335–345. [CrossRef] Page, S.E.; Siegert, F.; Rieley, J.O.; VanBoehm, H.D.; Jaya, A.; Limin, S. The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature 2002, 420, 61–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Carlson, K.M.; Curran, L.M.; Asner, G.P.; Pittman, A.M.; Trigg, S.N.; Adeney, J.M. Carbon emissions from forest conversion by Kalimantan oil palm plantations. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 283–287. [CrossRef] GGGI (Global Green Growth Institute). Renewable Energy Options in Kalimantan: A Green Growth Assessment. 2015. Available online: http://gggi.org/site/assets/uploads/2017/12/GGGI%E2%80%99sTechnical-Guidelines-on-Green-Energy-Development_dereje-senshaw2017.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2018). IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Renewable Energy Prospects: Indonesia, a REmap Analysis; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2017. Rony. Kabupaten Di Kalteng Jadi Percontohan Bioenergi. 2015. Available online: https://kalteng.antaranews. com/berita/245678/2-kabupaten-di-kalteng-jadi-percontohan-bioenergi (accessed on 27 March 2018). Buntoi Village Administration. Buntoi Village, Pulang Pisau District, Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia; Government of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2017. Abram, N.K.; Meijaard, E.; Wilson, K.A.; Davis, J.T.; Wells, J.A.; Ancrenaz, M.; Budiharta, S.; Durrant, A.; Fakhruzzi, A.; et al. Oil palm-community conflict mapping in Indonesia: A case for better community liaison in planning for development initiatives. Appl. Geol. 2017, 78, 33–44. [CrossRef] Gaveau, D.L.A.; Sheil, D.; Husnayaen; Salim, M.A.; Arjasakusuma, S.; Ancrenaz, M.; Pacheco, P.; Meijaard, E. Rapid conversions and avoided deforestation: Examining four decades of industrial plantation expansion in Borneo. Sci. Rep. 2016. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Vijay, V.; Pimm, S.L.; Jenkins, C.N.; Smith, S.J. The Impacts of oil palm on recent deforestation and biodiversity loss. PLoS ONE 2016. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Leksono, B.; Windyarini, E.; Hasnah, T.M. Budidaya Tanaman Nyamplung (Calophyllum Inophyllum) Untuk Bioenergi Dan Prospek Pemanfaatan Lainnya; IPB Press: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014. Agoramoorthy, G.; Sarnaik, J.; Mungikar, R.; Punde, S.; Hsu, M.J. Non-edible oil seed producing Calophyllum inophyllum ideal for India’s future biofuel development. GCB Bioenergy 2012, 4, 708–712. [CrossRef] Ong, H.C.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Masjuki, H.H.; Norhasyima, R.S. Comparison of palm oil, Jatropha curcas and Calophyllum inophyllum for biodiesel: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3501–3515. [CrossRef] Orwa, C.; Mutua, A.; Kindt, R.; Jamnadass, R.; Anthony, S. Calliandra Calothyrsus. Agroforestry Database 4.0; ICRAF: Nairobi, Kenya, 2009. Palmer, B.; Macqueen, D.; Gutteridge, R. Calliandra calothyrsus—A multipurpose tree legume for humid locations. In Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture; Gutteridge, R., Shelton, M., Eds.; CAB Interactional: Wallingford, UK, 1994; pp. 1–9. Hamim, H.; Hilmi, M.; Pranowo, D.; Saprudin, D.; Setyaningsih, L. Morpho-physiological changes of biodiesel producer plants reutealis trisperma (Blanco) in response to gold-mining wastewater. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 20, 423–435. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Bhattacharya, S.; Salam, P.A.; Pham, H.; Ravindranath, N. Sustainable biomass production for energy in selected Asian countries. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 25, 471–482. [CrossRef] Mainoo, A.A.; Ulzen-Appiah, F. Growth, wood yield and energy characteristics of Leucaena Leucocephala, Gliricidia Sepium and Senna Siamea at age four years. Ghana J. For. 1996, 3, 54–76. Arun, V.V.; Saharan, N.; Ramasubramanian, V.; Rani, A.M.B.; Salin, K.R.; Sontakke, R.; Haridas, H.; Pazhayamadom, D.G. Multi-response optimization of artemia hatching process using split-split-plot design based response surface methodology. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40394. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Perry, M.B.; Gary, R.M.; James, R.S. On the analysis of balanced two-level factorial whole-plot saturated split-plot designs. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2013, 29, 327–343. [CrossRef] Zi, X.M.; Runchu, Z.; Min, Q.L. On optimal two-level nonregular factorial split-plot designs. J. Complex. 2012, 28, 459–467. [CrossRef]
Land 2018, 7, 115
32.
33. 34.
35. 36. 37.
38. 39.
40. 41.
42.
43.
44.
45. 46. 47.
48.
49.
13 of 14
Orwa, C.; Mutua, A.; Kindt, R.; Jamnadass, R.; Anthony, S. Agroforestree Database: A Tree Reference and Selection Guide Version 4.0. 2009. Available online: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/publication/ agroforestree-database-tree-species-reference-and-selection-guide-version-40 (accessed on 3 November 2018). Hendrati, R.L.; Hidayati, N. Budidaya Kaliandra (Calliandra Calothyrsus) Untuk Bahan Baku Sumber Energi; Na’iem, M., Mahfudz, Prabawa, S.B., Eds.; IPB Press: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014. Hudaedi, D.; Studi, P.; Sumberdaya, P. Potensi Gamal (Gliricidia sepium) Sebagai Bahan Baku Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Biomassa Studi Kasus: Kabupaten Manggarai Timur (NTT). J. Environ. Eng. Waste Manag. 2018, 3, 13–20. Leksono, B.; Hendrati, R.L.; Windyarini, E.; Hasnah, T. Variation in Biofuel Potential of Twelve Calophyllum Inophyllum Populations in Indonesia. Indones. J. For. Res. 2014, 1, 127–138. [CrossRef] Pranowo, D.; Herman, M. Syafaruddin Potensi Pengembangan Kemiri Sunan (Reutealis trisperma (Blanco) Airy Shaw) Di Lahan Terdegredasi. Perspektif 2015, 14, 87–102. [CrossRef] Dagar, J.C.; Singh, A.K.; Arunachalam, A. Introduction. In Agroforestry Systems in India: Livelihood Security & Ecosystem Services; Advances in Agroforestry Series; Dagar, J.C., Singh, A.K., Arunachalam, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 10, pp. 1–19. Scott, P.T.; Pregelj, L.; Chen, N.; Hadler, J.S.; Djordjevic, M.A.; Gresshoff, P.M. Pongamia pinnata: An untapped resource for the biofuels industry of the future. Bioenergy Res. 2014, 1, 2–11. [CrossRef] Restuaji, I.M.; Santoso, E. Pengaruh penambahan karbon aktif terhadap reaksi transesterifikasi minyak kemiri sunan (aleurites trisperma) yang sudah diperlakukan dengan kitosan. J. Sains Dan Seni Pomits 2014, 1, 1–12. Herman, M.; Syakir, M.; Pranowo, D.; Saefudin, S. Kemiri Sunan (Reutealis trisperma (Blanco) Airy Shaw) Tanaman Penghasil Minyak Nabati Dan Konservasi Lahan; IAARD Pr: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2013. Rahman, S.A.; Rahman, M.F.; Sunderland, T. Increasing tree cover in degrading landscapes: ‘Integration’ and ‘intensification’ of smallholder forest culture in the Alutilla valley, Matiranga, Bangladesh. Small-Scale For. 2014, 13, 237–249. [CrossRef] Idol, T.; Haggar, J.; Cox, L. Ecosystem services from smallholder forestry and agroforestry in the tropics. In Integrating Agriculture, Conservation and Ecotourism: Examples from the Field, Issues in Agroecology—Present Status and Future Prospectus; Campbell, W.B., Ortiz, S.L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 209–270. Leakey, R.R.B. Agroforestry: A delivery mechanism for multi-functional agriculture. In Handbook on Agroforestry: Management Practices and Environmental Impact, Environmental Science, Engineering and Technology Series; Kellimore, L.R., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 461–471. Roshetko, J.M.; Snelder, D.J.; Lasco, R.D.; van Noordwijk, M. Future challenge: A paradigm shift in the forestry sector. In Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services: Lessons from Asia. Advances in Agroforestry Series; Snelder, D.J., Lasco, R.D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 5, pp. 453–485. Garrity, D.P. Agroforestry and the achievement of millennium development goals. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 61, 5–17. [CrossRef] Rahman, S.A.; Rahman, M.F.; Sunderland, T. Causes and consequences of shifting cultivation and its alternative in the hill tracts of eastern Bangladesh. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 84, 141–155. [CrossRef] Rahman, S.A.; de Groot, W.; Snelder, D.J. Exploring the agroforestry adoption gap: Financial and socioeconomics of litchi-based agroforestry by smallholders in Rajshahi (Bangladesh). In Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services: Lessons from Asia. Advances in Agroforestry Series; Snelder, D.J., Lasco, R.D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 5, pp. 227–244. Schuren, S.H.G.; Snelder, D.J. Tree growing on farms in Northeast Luzon (The Philippines): Smallholders’ motivations and other determinants for adopting agroforestry systems. In Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services: Lessons from Asia. Advances in Agroforestry Series; Snelder, D.J., Lasco, R.D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 5, pp. 75–97. van Noordwijk, M.; Roshetko, J.M.; Murniati Angeles, M.D.; Suyanto Fay, C.; Tomich, T.P. Farmer tree planting barriers to sustainable forest management. In Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services: Lessons from Asia. Advances in Agroforestry Series; Snelder, D.J., Lasco, R.D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 5, pp. 429–451.
Land 2018, 7, 115
50.
51. 52.
53. 54. 55. 56. 57.
14 of 14
Snelder, D.J.; Lasco, R.D. Smallholder tree growing in South and Southeast Asia. In Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services: Lessons from Asia. Advances in Agroforestry Series; Snelder, D.J., Lasco, R.D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 5, pp. 3–33. Franzel, S.; Scherr, S.J. Introduction. In Trees on the Farm: Assessing the Adoption Potential of Agroforestry Practices in Africa; Franzel, S., Scherr, S.J., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2002; pp. 1–11. Mooney, C. It’s the Big New Idea for Stopping Climate Change, But It Has Huge Environmental Problems of Its Own. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/ 01/22/a-technology-many-hoped-would-fight-climate-change-would-cause-even-bigger-environmentalproblems-scientists-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0defcd729713 (accessed on 31 May 2018). Baral, H.; Lee, S.M. Sustainable Bioenergy Systems to Restore and Valorize Degraded Land; CIFOR Brief No. 37. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2016. CABI. Invasive Species Compendium. 2018. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/25380 (accessed on 24 September 2018). CABI. Invasive Species Compendium. 2018. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/ISC/datasheet/14011 (accessed on 24 September 2018). CABI. Invasive Species Compendium. 2018. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/ISC/datasheet/4125 (accessed on 24 September 2018). CABI. Invasive Species Compendium. 2018. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/ISC/datasheet/14124 (accessed on 24 September 2018). © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
