Evaluation of mangrove stand planted for rehabilitation using guludan technique in coastal area of Angke Kapuk, Jakarta

International Symposium on Bioremediation, Biomaterial, Revegetation, and Conservation

生物科学;自然科学（总论）

Ashari, R.^1 ; Kusmana, C.^1 ; Kuncahyo, B.^2

Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University, Kampus IPB Darmaga, Jl. Lingkar Akademik, Bogor, Indonesia^1

Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University, Kampus IPB Darmaga, Jl. Lingkar Akademik, Bogor, Indonesia^2

关键词: Average diameter;    Average height;    Basal area;    Coastal area;    Environmental factors;    Jakarta;    Mangrove rehabilitations;    Soil factors;   

Others  :  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/308/1/012056/pdf
DOI  :  10.1088/1755-1315/308/1/012056

来源: IOP

【 摘 要 】

Guludan technique becomes an alternative for mangrove rehabilitation in the disused fishponds. This technique has been implemented since 2005 on the coast of Jakarta. The wider application of this technique requires several studies in advance to see growth of the mangrove in the already planted guludan. This study aims to measure the growth of mangroves planted by guludan techniques, identify environmental factors that affect their mangrove growth, and analyze their relationship. Measurements were performed on 40 guludan samples which planted by Rhizopora mucronata in 2010 - 2013. R. mucronata can grew in guludans with highest growth percentage in the 2013 group of 56.53%. The 2010 planting group showed highest average height, average diameter and basal average area of 4.59 m; 3.91 cm and; 28.87 m2/ha respectively. S. Caseolaris grew naturally in guludans and become competitor of R. mucronata in obtaining space to grow. The 2012 group was the highest in terms of S. caseolaris density, that is 15 individuals/guludan with average height, average diameter and basal area of 9.38 cm, 5.29 m, and 24.79 m2/ha, respectively. The growth of R. mucronatawas affected by nutrients (N, P, Ca), clay texture, and other soil factors (CEC and pH), whereas S. caseolaris was only affected by nutrients (N, P, and Ca).