The Influence of Stand Density and Species Diversity Into Timber Production and Carbon Stock in Community Forest

Abstract

Stand density and species diversity are two indicators that are highly related to forest productivity. However, the effect of those variables on the productivity of community forest is rarely documented. This study evaluates the influence of stand density and species diversity on timber production and carbon stock in the community forest. The study area was located in Madiun District. A field survey was conducted in four different community forest sites, i.e. Morang, Kuwiran, Randualas, and Kare. The sampling technique was by quadrat method using a sample plot size of 25 m x 25 m. The number of sample plots used in this study was 64 units, which were evenly distributed in every site. Comparison of stand attributes among sites was examined by Kruskal-Wallis test and followed by Kruskal-Nemenyi test on the effects of stand density and species diversity on timber production and carbon stock were assessed separately for each parameter using the generalized least square regression test. The process of statistical analysis was applied using a significance level of 5%. Results show a significant difference in stand volume, aboveground biomass, and carbon stock among sites (P<0.05). This study also recorded a meaningful effect of stand density and species diversity on timber production and carbon stock of community forest, wherein stand density provided a higher effect (R2 = 0.68; P<0.05) than species diversity (R2 = 0.26; P<0.05).

Vegetation structure, aboveground biomass, and carbon storage of wono¸ a local forest management in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, across three geomorphological zones

“…As a result, the wono has higher AGB and AGC than the Pekarangan and Tegal. This was consistent with the findings of Wirabuana et al (2021), who discovered that the density of stands influences the production of biomass and carbon storage. On the other hand, Purwanto et al (2012) investigated the community forest, which included not only wono but also Pekarangan and Tegal.…”

“…The previously obtained AGC of 36.72 ton C ha -1 was calculated using a conversion factor of 0.5, which was 0.03 higher than the AGC obtained in this study with a conversion factor of 0.47. In addition, this zone's figure was lower in comparison to the Ledok Wonosari zone above due to differences in species density, which resulted in variations in biomass production as well as carbon storage potential (Weigel et al 2018;Wirabuana et al 2021).…”

“…Then, the finding of this study calculated the ABG and AGC only in woody plants with a diameter greater than 10 cm, ignoring other AGB and AGC sources. In comparison to the Batur Agung zone above, this zone's figure was about a third because of differences in the number of identified species and species density, resulting in variations in biomass production as well as carbon storage potential (Weigel et al 2018;Wirabuana et al 2021). Moreover, the dimensions of the constituent species in the Batur Agung zone were in general larger in stem diameter and higher in total tree height.…”

“…The plant density of S. macrophylla was the highest, followed by P. falcataria, D. latifolia, other trees, T. grandis, and A. auriculiformis with 613 stems ha -1 , 64 stems ha -1 , 58 stems ha -1 , 46 stems ha -1 , 38 stems ha -1 , and 33 stems ha -1 , respectively (Table 8). Because it had the highest wood stem density, S. macrophylla was the most important species, accounting for 71.94 percent of the total (Weigel et al 2018;Wirabuana et al 2021). This species was also identified as one of the major contributors to aboveground biomass and carbon storage in community forests in Sambak Village, Magelang District, Central Java Province (Zulkarnaen 2020).…”

Influence of land cover types on soil quality and carbon storage in Moramo Education Estate, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia

“…This scheme is only possible to implement when land managers know the influence of land cover on soil quality and carbon storage. The statement is also supported by previous studies that recorded the soil quality and carbon storage principally varying in every land cover due to the interaction between soil and the vegetation above it (Sugihara et al 2014;Chandra et al 2016;Puspanti et al 2021;Sadono et al 2021). For example, higher plant biomass is commonly found in good soil than in poor soil because nutrients are more available in good soil to support plant growth (Bhandari and Zhang 2019).…”