Structure and Composition of Vegetation in Six Land Use Types Different in Use Intensity in the Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi Indonesia. PhD Thesis, Bogor Agricultural

STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OFVEGETATION IN SIX LAND USE TYPES

IN THE LORE LINDU NATIONAL PARK,

CENTRAL SULAWESI, INDONESIA

OLEH:

RAMADHANIL

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

2006

ABSTRACT

RAMADHANIL, Structure and Composition of Vegetation in Six Land Use Types inthe Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, under the Supervision ofProf. Dr. Ir. H. Edi Guhardja, MSc, Dr. Ir. H. Dede Setiadi, MS, Dr. Johanis PalarMogea, and Prof. Dr. Christoph Leuschner.

Sulawesi is the largest island in the Wallacea region, a unique region in the world.The island possesses many endemic plant and animal species, not occurring in otherparts of the world. Nevertheless, the scientific knowledge of Sulawesi’s flora bothtaxonomically and ecologically is still limited due to lack of botanical research andpublications on this subject.

This research aimed to study the structure and composition of vegetation in sixland use types. It was carried out in the vicinity of Toro village which is located at thewestern margin of the Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, The area is locatedat an altitude between 800 and 1100 m asl. It was conducted from April 2004 to August2005. The six land use type consist of three forest types namely "Wana” (A; undisturbedforest), “Pangale type 1” (B; low use intensity), “Pangale type 2” (C; moderate useintensity), and three types of cacao plantation (D: “Pahawa pongko type 1;” E: “Pahawapongko type 2;” and F: “Huma”). Trees (dbh > 10 cm), were sampled in twenty fourplots of 0.25 ha in all six land use types (4 replicates each), Additionally, sapling (dbh 2-9.9 cm) and understory layer plants were also collected in all land use types.Identification of vouchers and additional herbarium specimens was done in the field aswell as at Herbarium Celebense (CEB), Tadulako University, and HerbariumBogoriense (BO), Bogor and National Herbarium of Netherland (L), Leiden . Theobjectives of the research were 1) to determine the impact of different land use practiceson the composition of the vegetation, 2) to assess the forest structure, composition andits ecology based on quantitative data for better conservation management decisions 3)and to support in completing the database of Lore Lindu National Park’s flora.

The results showed totally the number of woody plant 292 recorded from twentyfour plots consisting of 248 tree species (dbh>10 cm) belong to 143 genera, 58 familiesincluding 52 species with economic importance as timber trees, 66 species is element ofEastern Malesia (incl. 27 endemic to Sulawesi), and 23 cultivated species. The sapling(dbh 2-9.9 cm) has 194 species belong to 118 genera and 65 families.

Moderately use intensity of forest by rattan and selected timber extraction(Pangale 2) did not result in significant decreases of tree biodiversity. However, whennative and cultivated tree species were considered separately, significant differenceswere detected among plantation types in terms of tree diversity. Endemism in forestplots totaled ca. 10% and was in good accordance with endemism in woody plants ofSulawesi. The number of endemic species was strongly reduced in cacao systems,although percentage endemism did not decline significantly in cacao forest gardens.Roughly one third of tree species in the forest plots were of economic importance ascommercial timber trees; timber diversity was little affected by moderate human use ofthe forest but was significantly reduced in cacao forest gardens and dropped to near zeroin other plantation types. The mean basal area of 56.7 m² (36-80 m²) per ha in naturalforest was lower than the previously recorded value from the study area but is stillalmost as high as the mean value typical for tropical forests in Southeast Asia. The

results of this study support the notion that tree diversity in the submontane forests ofCentral Sulawesi is unusually high and rich in large-sized timber trees, although treesize varies locally. Moderate human use of the forest ecosystems does not significantlyaffect tree diversity.

The understory plant species (378 species recorded in all land use types) consistedof 151 species of seedlings, 146 herbs and shrubs, 30 terrestrial ferns and 51 climbers.The means species number of herbs did not differ among three forest types but wassignificantly higher at cacao plantation type F. This value was ca. three times higherthan in undisturbed rain forest and lightly disturbed rain forest. Urticaceae, Araceae,Hypoxidaceae and Acanthaceae were predominant in the forests, Asteraceae andPoaceae in the cacao plantations. The mean highest species number of tree seedlingswas found in moderately disturbed forest (type C) and the lowest in land use type F(cacao cultivated under monospecific shade trees). Arecaceae, Sapotaceae and Oleaceaewere the dominant family of seedling in the forests and Piperaceae and Euphorbiaceaein cacao plantations. The number species of ferns and climbers did not differ betweenforests and plantations. There were some invasive plant species recorded from the landuse type D, E and F such as Piper aduncum L, Biden pilosa L, Ageratum conyzoides L,Sclerea pruriens Steund, Paspalum conyugatum Berg. etc.

It is concluded that conservation of tropical plants diversity especially in researcharea is close relate to indigenous knowledge of local people in using and managing thenatural resources, especially in the term of tree diversity. To implement the result of thisresearch for future conservation policies of natural resources especially in the LoreLindu National Park should be integrated with other research finding dealing withenvironmental factor and social-economic and culture. Special consideration should begiven to the involvement of indigenous and local communities as partner of localgovernment and the Park Authority (BTNLL) in management of natural resources inthe park. In addition, promotion of sustainable use of biological resources by humanactivities may thus help to stabilize tropical rainforest margins in LLNP.

ABSTRAK

RAMADHANIL, Struktur dan Komposisi Vegetasi 6 Tipe Pemanfaatan Lahan diTaman Nasional Lore Lindu, Sulawesi Tengah. Dibawah bimbingan Prof. Dr. Ir. H. EdiGuhardja MSc, Dr. Ir. H. Dede Setiadi MSi, Dr. Johanis Palar Mogea, and Prof. Dr.Christoph Leuschner

Sulawesi adalah pulau terbesar di Wallacea, sebuah kawasan yang unik di duniadimana pulau Sulawesi memiliki banyak jenis flora dan fauna endemik yang tidakdidapatkan di tempat lainnya di dunia. Meskipun demikian, pengetahuan tentang floraSulawesi baik secara ekologi ataupun taksonomi masih sangat kurang karena kurangnyapenelitian botani dan publikasi mengenai flora Sulawesi.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mempelajari struktur dan komposisi vegetasi di 6tipe tata guna lahan yang berbeda intensitas penggunaannya. Penelitian bertempat disekitar desa Toro yang berlokasi sebelah barat pinggir Taman Nasional Lore Lindu(TNLL) propinsi Sulawesi Tengah yang terletak pada ketinggian 800-1100 m dpl.Penelitian berlangsung dari bulan April 2004 sampai dengan Agustus 2005. Enam tipetata guna lahan yang dipelajari adalah mencakup tiga berupa hutan alam (“wana”,pangale 1” dan “pangale 2”) dan 3 lagi berupa kebun coklat yaitu “pahawa pongko 1”,“pahawa pongko 2” dan “ huma” . Setiap tipe tata guna lahan terdapat 4 ulangan. Plotberbentuk bujur sangkar, berukuran 50 X 50 m. Di dalamnya terdapat 25 subplot yangberukuran 10 X 10 m untuk pengamatan pohon (dbh > 10 cm), 5 X 5 m untukpengamatan sapling (dbh 2-9.9 cm) dan 2 X 2 m untuk pengamatan tumbuhan bawah(anakan, paku-pakuan, herba dan liana). Spesimen herbarium dan voucher dikoleksiuntuk proses identifikasi. Selanjutnya proses identifikasi dan determinasi specimendilakukan di lapangan, Herbarium Celebense (CEB) Universitas Tadulako Palu,Herbarium Bogoriense (BO) Bogor, dan National Herbarium of Netherland (L), LeidenNetherland.

Hasil penelitian menunjukan secara total dari 24 plot tercatat 292 tumbuhanberkayu yang terdiri dari 248 jenis pohon (dbh >10 cm) tersusun atas 143 genus dan 59famili. Pepohonannya terdiri atas 52 jenis pohon merupakan “timber species”, 66 jenisadalah elemen Malesia Timur (termasuk 26 jenis merupakan pohon endemik Sulawesi).Saplingnya tercatat 194 jenis yang terdiri atas 118 genus dan 65 famili. Secara statistikkeanekaragaman jenis pohon pada “wana” dan pangale 1 tidak berbeda dengan pangale2 akan tetapi berbeda secara signifikan dengan 3 tipe kebun kakao. Hal yang sama jugaterjadi untuk jenis pohon yang asli (“native species”), sedangkan untuk jenis pohonyang dibudidayakan (“cultivated species”) tidak didapatkan pada “wana”, “pangale 1”dan “pangale 2” akan tetapi jumlahnya cukup tinggi pada kebun kakao (“pahawapongko 1”, “pahawa pongko 2” dan “huma” ). Pada “wana”, “pangale 1” dan “pangale2” ditemukan beberapa jenis pohon yang bersifat endemik, jumlah ini menurun secaradrastis pada kebun kakao (“pahawa pongko 1 dan 2, “huma”). Sepertiga jumlah jenispohon pada “wana”, “pangale 1 dan “pangale 2” merupakan kayu komersil. Rata-ratabasal area pepohonan di wana 56.7 m2 (36-80 m2) per ha, jika dibandingkan denganpenelitian sebelumnya yang berlokasi di Gunung potong di bagian timur laut TNLLpada elevasi 1000 m, nilai ini agak rendah, akan tetapi masih hampir sama dengan nilaibasal area hutan-hutan di Asia Tenggara.

Dari 24 plot tercatat ada 378 jenis tumbuhan bawah yang terdiri dari 151 jenisanakan, 146 jenis herba, 30 jenis paku teresterial, dan 51 jenis tumbuhan pemanjat. Nilai

rata-rata jumlah jenis tumbuhan herba tidak berbeda antara 3 tipe hutan akan tetapijumlahnya berbeda sangat siginifikan dengan yang terdapat pada kebun kakao terutamapada “huma” jumlahnya 3 kali lebih besar dari pada “wana”. Pada tata guna lahan hutanherbanya didominasi oleh suku Urticaceae, Araceae, Hypoxidaceae dan Acanthaceae,sedangkan pada kebun kakao didominasi oleh Asteraceae, Poaceae dan Piperaceae.Rata-rata jumlah jenis anakan pohon tertinggi didapatkan pada “pangale 2”. Anakanpohon pada lahan tipe A, B dan C umumnya disusun oleh Arecaceae, Sapotaceae, danOleaceae sedangkan pada kebun kakao umumnya didominasi oleh Piperaceae,Euphorbiaceae. Jumlah jenis paku-pakuan dan liana tidak berbeda antara hutan dankebun kakao.

Disimpulkan bahwa konservasi keanekaragaman tumbuhan khususnya di lokasipenelitian sangat berhubungan erat dengan pengetahuan asli masyarakat lokal dalammemanfaatkan dan pengelolaan sumberdaya alam disekitarnya. Untuk dapatmengimplementasikan hasil penelitian ini dalam pengambilan kebijakan konservasiTNLL di masa mendatang perlu diintegrasikan dengan hasil-hasil penelitian yang terkaitdengan faktor lingkungan lain dan sosial ekonomi masyarakat. Perhatian khusussejogyanya diberikan pada keterlibatan masyarakat lokal sebagai mitra pemerintahdaerah dan Balai Taman Nasional Lore Lindu (BTNLL) dalam pengelolaansumberdaya alam Taman Nasional Lore Lindu. Selanjutnya, promosi tentangpemanfaatan sumberdaya biologi yang berkelanjutan oleh masyarakat akan dapatmembantu stabilitas pinggiran hutan kawasan TNLL.

I, Ramadhanil, certified that this PhD dissertation is my own original work and has not

been submitted in a previous application for a higher degree.

Bogor, June 2006

Ramadhanil

Reg.Numb. G361 020 101

All Right Reserved

©2006 Bogor Agricultural University

No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,recording or by any information storage and retrieval, without permission from the

copyright owner.

STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION

OF VEGETATION IN SIX LAND USE TYPES

IN THE LORE LINDU NATIONAL PARK,

CENTRAL SULAWESI, INDONESIA

RAMADHANIL

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School ,

Bogor Agricultural University,

in partial requirements fulfillment for the Doctorate Degree in Biology

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

2006

Title of Dissertation : Structure and Composition of Vegetation in Six Land UseTypes in the Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi,Indonesia.

Name of Student : RamadhanilNumber of Student : G361 020 101Program of Study : Biology

Approved by:

1. Advisory Committee

Prof. Dr. Ir. H. Edi Guhardja MSc(Chairman)

Dr. Johanis Palar Mogea, APU Dr. Ir. H. Dede Setiadi, MS(Member) (Member)

Prof. Dr. Christoph Leuschner(Member)

2. The Biology Study Programme 3. School of Post Graduate

Dr. Ir. Dedy Duryadi Solichin, DEA Dr. Ir. Khairil Anwar Notodipuro, MS(Head) (Dean)

Date of Examination: 20thJune, 2006

CURRICULUM VITAE

RAMADHANIL was born on 13 September, 1964 in Payakumbuh (WestSumatera), a seventh son from ten children from father Maumir Sutan Batuah andmother Rosni Pitopang. He finished SD Negeri 3 Sicincin Payakumbuh 1976(Elementary School), SMP PGRI Payakumbuh in 1981 (Junior High School), SMANegeri 1 Payakumbuh in 1983 (Senior High School).

The Department of Biology, the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences,Andalas University in Padang, was the institution he had chosen for study, he became astudent in 1983 and graduated in 1988. During the study he received a “TID(Tunjangan Ikatan Dinas)” scholarship from the Indonesian Government.

Since 1990 he has been working at Tadulako University Palu, Central Sulawesi,The Department of National Education, as a staff lecturer. In September 1992, he beganto study in the Environmental Biology, Post Graduate Program at BandungTechnological Institute. He graduated in Master of Sciences (MSi) in 1994.

He attended an Internship Program “Herbarium Collection Management” in theHerbarium Bogoriense, Bogor sponsored by Global Environmental Facility (GEF) forsix months in 1999. Since that time he has intensively collected plant specimensespecially from Sulawesi island and the Wallacea region. Since 2000, he is involved inthe STORMA project (“Stability of Rainforest Margin in Indonesia”) a joint researchproject of Indonesian and German (Göttingen, Kassel). Together with his colleaguesfrom IPB, Herbarium Bogoriense, and University of Gottingen he built a newHerbarium in Central Sulawesi the “Herbarium Celebense (CEB)”. In 2000, he waspromoted to the Curator for the Herbarium Celebense (CEB), Tadulako University Palu.

In 2002, he enrolled at the Bogor Agricultural University at the biology programstudies for his doctorate degree, which is funded by BPPS Scholarships from TheIndonesian Government through The Directorate General of Higher Education,Department of National Education, Republic of Indonesia.

He has actively participated in several International and National symposiumsdealing with plant biodiversity and conservation, such as Sixth Flora MalesianaSymposium in Los Banos, Phillipines (2004). From September to November 2005, hehad the opportunity to attend a short training in “Plant taxonomy and herbariummanagement” at the National Herbarium of The Netherlands, Leiden, supervised of Dr.Paul J.A Keβler. This project was funded by “Technological and Professional SkillsDevelopment Sector Project (TPSDP) ADB No.1792-INO, Biology DepartmentUniversitas Tadulako, granted by Department of National Education, DirectorateGeneral of Higher Education, Republic of Indonesia.

He is a member of several scientific societies both in Indonesia and overseas,including Penggalang Taksonomi Tumbuhan Indonesia (PTTI), “Persatuan BiologiIndonesia (PBI)”, the Association of Bryologists and the International Society ofTropical Forestry.

He is married with Sufrida Eliani Binti H. Muhamad Yusuf and has 3 children

namely Pandji Anom Ramawangsa, Rangga Duo Ramadhan and Puti Andalusia Sari

Gando Banilai.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to Allah SWT for blessing me to finish this doctoral dissertation “Structure and Composition of Vegetation in Six land use types in the Lore LinduNational Park, Central Sulawesi Indonesia”.

I wishes to acknowledge my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Prof. Dr. Ir.Edi Guhardja, M.Sc, as my promoter and Chairman of the advisory committee, fordirecting, advising and reading critically the manuscript. To Dr. Johanis Palar MogeaAPU and Dr. Ir. H. Dede Setiadi, MS for their continued encouragement, support andadvise during doing research and writing up of the manuscript. Profound gratitude andthanks to Prof. Dr. Stephan Robbert Gradstein and Prof. Dr. Christoph Leuschner bothfrom the University of Göttingen (Germany) through whose conscientious, worthy andfriendly advice, encouragement, positive spirit, guidance and fruitful discussion, trustand support for this research until this study was completed.

Profound thanks and appreciation to the many generous and kindly people, andorganizations that have made this study possible. Great appreciation and gratitude toProf. Dr. Sjafrida Manuwoto, M.Sc (Dean of the Graduate Schools, IPB), Dr. DediDuriadi Solichin, DEA (Head of Biological Program) and Prof. Dr. Mien A. Rifai forthe opportunity given to me to undertake this study. I also grateful to DirectorateGeneral of Higher Education, Department of National Education Republic of Indonesiaon providing a BPPS Scholarship during study at IPB. I would also like to thank allmembers of the management board of the STORMA project and its coordinator team.The former and the present German coordinator Prof. Gerhard Gerold and Prof. TejaTscharnke respectively, Drs. H. Arifuddin Bidin (Tadulako University), Prof. Dr. Ir.Anshory Matjik, Prof. Dr. Ir. H. Edi Guhardja, M.Sc and Dr. Ir. Sri SudarmiyatiTjitrosoedirdjo for allowing me to be involved in the STORMA project as a researcher.To Dr. Ir. H. Ibnul Qayim, Prof. Dr. H. Hadi Sukadi Alikodra and Dr. M. Bismarck,APU for reading critically the manuscript.

I expresses my gratitude and appreciation to Universitas Tadulako through theformer and present rector, Drs. H. Mohamad Rasyid, MS and Drs. H. SyahabuddinMustapa, MSi respectively, for allowing me to carry out this study. Thanks also due toIr. H Abdullah Nasser, MP, Dean of Faculty of Agriculture and Ir. H. Akhbar Zain, MT(Chairman of Department of Forest Management Tadulako University) for theirgenerous support.

I owe my sincere gratitude to Dr. Eko Baroto Waluyo, Drs. Uway WarsitaMahyar, M.Sc, Dr. Herwin Simbolon, Dr. Elizabeth Widjaya, Dr. Nanda Utami, Mrs.Julisasi, Dra.Yuzami, MSc, Arief Hidayat SSi, Agus Sudjadi, Deden Girmansyah SSi,Zainal Fanani, Hamzah, Ismail Rahman, Rina Munazar, “Abah” Sutyono and otherlibrarians of Herbarium Bogoriense for supporting this research in various ways.“Akang” Apandi (LIPI) is thanked for assistance in drawing profile diagram of forests.Thanks are also due to the Herbarium Celebense (CEB) staff members, Sahar Sabir,Hardianto Mangopo, Awaluddin, Fachruddin Lasadam and Achmadi Supa, for theiruncompromising support under all field conditions, their energy and humor duringcollecting of all data, and a pleasant working atmosphere in the field.

I would like to thank the PITA group of National Herbarium of NetherlandsLeiden, especially to Dr. P.J.A. Kessler, Dr. Marco Roos, Dr. Max van Balgooy, Dr.Pieter van Welzen, Dr. W. de Wilde, Dr. F. Adema, Dr. Luc P.M. Willemse, Dr. J.F.Velkamp, Dr. Ding Hou, Stan Koffman, for their expertise in updating theidentification of my plant collections. To the former and present director of NationalHerbarium of Netherlands, Prof. Pieter Baas and Prof. Eric Smets respectively, forallowing me to attend the short course and use their herbarium facilities. To Mr.Arbainsyah (WAN), Muhammad Iqbal (L), Dr. Michael Kessler, Dr. Jorche Joachim,Simone Goda Sporn MSc (GAUG), Nunik Aryanti MSi (IPB), the big family of“HIMPAST (Himpunan Mahasiswa Pascasarjana Sulawesi Tengah), the member of“GHOST HOUSE“ Ir. Muh. Nur Sangadji DEA, Ir. Abd Wahid, Ir. IskandarLapandjang MP and Ir. Irwan Lakani MSi. To the MINANGKABAU society: Drs.Roni Kuneri MSi (UNSRAT), Drs. Fitmawati MSi (UNRI), Drs. Medi Hendra MSi(UNMUL), Ir. Hasmiandi Hamid, MSi (UNIV. ANDALAS) and other colleagues forconstructive discussions.

I would also like to thanks the people of Ngata Toro especially Pak Naftali BA,Said Tolai, Iskandar, Berwin, Fandi, Arnold, and Umar for their hospitality and kindhelps in the field. Thanks also to Radjab for comfortable accommodation and deliciouscountry cuisine during fieldwork.

Finally, I indebted to “Ayahanda” Prof. Dr. Saidi Syech. H. Kadirun Yahya,MSc, “Buya” Drs. Saidi Syech. H. Iskandar Zulkarnain SH who passed away and “Abu”Drs. Saidi Syech. H. Abdul Khalik Fadjduani, SH for the spiritual support. To myfather Maumir Sutan Batuah, mother Rosni Pitopang, grandmother, brothers, sisters andnephews who encouraged and supported me during conducting the studies and aboveall I wishes to express my deep gratitude to my dearest wife; Sufrida Eliani Binti H.Muhamad Yusuf as well as to my children Pandji Anom Ramawangsa, Rangga DuoRamadhan and Puti Andalusia Sari Gando Banilai for their inspiration, sincereunderstanding, patience, spirit and love especially while I was away from home.

Bogor, July2006

Ramadhanil

TABLE OF CONTENS

ABSTRACT ii

ABSTRAK iv

PERNYATAAN vi

ALL RIGHT RESERVED vii

CURRICULUM VITAE x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii

LIST OF TABLES xvi

LIST OF FIGURES xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES xxiii

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Research background 1

1.2. Objectives 3

1.3. Hypotheses 3

1.4. Expected results 4

References 5

Chapter II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Botanical knowledge of Sulawesi and its plant diversity 8

2.2. Human impact on rainforest biodiversity 13

2.3. Lore Lindu National Park 14

2.3.1. Biological component 16

2.3.1.1. Flora 16

2.3.1.2. Fauna 18

References 21

Chapter III. STUDY AREA AND STUDY SITES 25

3.1. Study area 25

3.2. General description of Toro village 2

3.2.1. Geology 26

3.2.2. Climate 26

3.2.3. People and social economic component 28

3.2.4. Property Right of Toro communities 30

3.3. Study sites 31

References 38

Chapter IV. TREE DIVERSITY IN SIX LAND USE TYPES 39IN CENTRAL SULAWESI, INDONESIA

Summary 39

4.1. Introduction 40

4.2. Material and Methods 41

4.3. Results 43

4.4. Discussions 47

4.5. Conclusions 48

References 49

Chapter V. CHANGE OF FOREST STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION 62FROM NATURAL FOREST TO CACAO PLANTATIONSIN SUB MONTANE FOREST OF THE LORE LINDU NATIONALPARK (LLNP), CENTRAL SULAWESI INDONESIA

Summary 62



5.2.1. Study sites 64

5.2.2. Sampling protocol 65

5.3. Data analyses 66

5.4. Results 68

5.4.1. Established plots 68

5.4.2. Species diversity 68

5.4.3. Taxonomic composition 71

5.4.4. Forest structure and diagram profile 78

5.4.5. Diversity, Similarity and Dissimilarity Indices 89

5.5. Discussions 92

5.5. Conclusions 95

References 96

Chapter VI. STRUCTURE OF UNDERSTORY PLANT ASSEMBLAGES 99OF SIX LAND USE TYPES IN LORE LINDU NATIONAL PARK

Summary 99



6.3. Data analyses 102

6.4. Results 103

6.4.1. Diversity and species number 103

6.4.2. Taxonomic composition 106

6.4.3. Similarity and dissimilarity 112

6.5. Discussions 115

6.5. Conclusions 116

References 118

Chapter VII. GENERAL DISCUSSION 120

7.1. Sulawesi and its Floristic Composition 121

7.2. Forest Modification and transformation and its implication on 121

Biological diversity

7.3. Future conservation of natural resources in the research area 124

References 127

Chapter VIII. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 129

Recommendations 131

List of Related Publication 132

APPENDICES 133

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

3.1. Types of Customary Community Land Right in Toro 31

3.2. Analyses of structural plant diversity, geographic position (measured 34by using GPS Garmin 12), altitude and descriptions of each plot

4.1. List of tree species collected from research sites 52

4.2. Number of tree species per hectare in selected tropical rain forest plots 47of Southeast Asia and Australia. NP = National Park

5.1 Summary statistics of tree species richness and structural characteristics 70

in plots of 0.25 ha each in six land use types with four replicates each.A= Undisturbed natural forest; B= Natural forest subject to rattanextraction; C = Selectively logged forest; D = Cacao forest garden;E = Cacao cultivated under a mixed canopy of planted shade trees;F = Cacao cultivated under a monospecific canopy of plantedshade trees. Different lower case letters designate significantlydifferent values (post hoc Tukey tests)

5.2 The ten top important tree species > 10 cm dbh of six land use types 72

differing in use intensity in the Lore Lindu National Park, CentralSulawesi. BA = basal area; RD = relative density; RF = relativefrequency; RDo = relative dominance and IV = important value (%)

5.3 The ten most important tree families > 10 cm dbh in six land use type 76

differing in use intensity at the Lore Lindu National Park, CentralSulawesi. RD = relative density; RDiv = relative diversity; RDo =relative dominance and FIV = family important value. Value are meansfor all plots of the respective land use types

5.4. Matrix of Sorensen similarity and dissimilarity index (1-Sorensen) 89of tree community in six land use types differing in use intensity inLore Lindu National Park

6.1. Summary statistics of understory plants species richness and structural 105characteristics in plots of 40 m2 each in six land use types with fourreplicates each. A= Undisturbed natural forest; B= Natural forest subjectto rattan extraction; C = Selectively logged forest; D = Cacao forestgarden; E = Cacao cultivated under a mixed canopy of planted shadetrees; F = Cacao cultivated under a monospecific canopy of plantedshade trees. Different lower case letters designate significantly

different values (post hoc Tukey tests)

6.2. The ten main understory plant families based on their important 110family Index (%) in natural forest and all other land use types.Left column: tree seedlings, right column: herbs

6.3. Matrix of Sorensen similarity and dissimilarity indices of understory 113plant assemblages in six land use types differing in use intensity.

7.1. Dominant family from tropical rain forest sites worldwide 123

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

2.1 The Indonesian archipelago and its biogeographical zone 10

2.2 Sulawesi island and its some protected areas 10

2.3 Reconstruction of Southeast Asia since 50 millions years ago 12

2.4 Map of Lore Lindu National Park 15

2.5 Some endemic flora and fauna of Sulawesi which were occurred 20at the Lore Lindu National Park. Above; left to right, Phalaenopsiscelebensis Sweet (Orchidaceae), Pigafetta elata Becc. (Arecaceae),Coelogyne celebica Sweet (Orchidaceae). Bottom; left to right ,Macrocephalon maleo Muller,Tarsius dianae and Intestudo forstenii.

3.1 Map of research location, Ngata Toro at the Lore Lindu National 25Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

3.2. The average monthly value of air temperature, relative humidity 27at the Toro village from 2002 to 2004 (Gravenhorst 2005)

3.2. The average monthly value of global radiation, and wind speed at 28the Toro village from 2002 to 2004 (Gravenhorst 2005)

3.3. Study sites at Toro, Lore Lindu National Park. 33

3.4. Six land use types differing in use intensity studied at Toro village 37LLNP. Above; left to right, land use type A (“wana”), B (“pangale 1”),C (“pangale 2”). Bottom; land use type D (“pahawa pongko”1), E(“pahawa pongko 2”) and F (“huma”)

4.1 Cumulative number of species encountered in primary forest in Toro 44village Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi.

4.2 The number of tree species, genera and family in 6 land use types 44differing in use intensity at studied area

5.1. The ten top tree families in three forest types differing in use 74Intensity at studied area. Above; land use type A, middle ; land usetype B and bottom ; land use type C

5.2. The ten top tree families in three type of cacao plantations at studied 75area. Above; land use type D, middle ; land use type E and bottom; land use type F

5.3. Profile diagram vertical and horizontal of land use type A (presented 79by column 5A to 5E of plot A2)

5.4. Profile diagram vertical and horizontal of land use type B (presented 80by column 5A to 5E of plot B1)

5.5. Profile diagram vertical and horizontal of land use type C (presented 81by column 2A to 2E of plot C4)

5.6. Profile diagram vertical and horizontal of land use type D (presented 82by column 1A to 1E of plot D4)

5.7. Profile diagram vertical and horizontal of land use type E (presented 83by column 2A to 2E of plot E3)

5.8. Profile diagram vertical and horizontal of land use type F (presented 84by column 2A to 2E of plot F3)

5.9. Basal area (left) and volume of timber (right) of six land use types 86

5.10. Relative distribution of height class among trees >10 cm in the six 87

studied Land use types. Error bars indicated + standard error . Notes:> 30 m = Top canopy species 20.1-30 m = midlle canopy species,10.1- 20 m = lower canopy species, <10 m = undergrowth species

5.11. Relative distribution of diameter class among trees dbh > 10 cm in 88the six studied land use types. Error bars indicated + standard error.

5.12. Shanon diversity index and Eveness index of tree (above) and 90sapling community (bottom) in six land use types differing in useintensity in Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi

5.13. Cladistic analyses of tree diversity based on their Sorensen similarity 91indices among twenty four sites

5.14. Two dimensional scaling of tree similarity based on Sorensen indices 91for tree communities in the six land use types. Sites belonging to thesame habitat type are connected by lines.

6.1. Composition of understory plant (above). Number of species 104Understory plant (herbs, tree seedlings, ferns and climbers) in six landTypes at the Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia

6.2. The ten dominant families of tree seedling based on heir importance 108value index. Above; three type of natural forests. Bottom; three typeof cacao plantations

6.3. The ten dominant families of herbs based on heir importance value 109index. Above; three type of natural forests. Bottom; three type of cacaoplantations

6.4. Cladistic analyses of understory plants assemblages diversity based 114on dissimilarity index (1-Sorensen similarity indices) among six landuse types differing in use intensity

6.5. Two dimensional scaling of understory plants assemblages similarity 114based on Sorensen indices for understory plants assemblages in thesix land use types. Sites belonging to the same habitat type areconnected by lines.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Number Page

1. Number of species genera, family, basal area, Shanon whiener index, 134volume standing tree, volume log, endemic, and evenness index oftree community (dbh >10 cm) in six land use types differing inuse intensity.

2. Number of species, genera, family, basal area of sapling (dbh 2-9.9) 135Shanon diversity index and evenness index of sapling communityIn six land use types differing in use intensity.

3. Distribution of height class among tree in six land use types 136

4. Distribution of diameter class among tree in six land use types 137differing in use intensity in Lore Lindu National Park

5. Number of species, genus, family, biomassa and shanon diversity 139Indices of understory plant assemblages in six land use intensity

6. Topography plot of Land Use Type A (“wana”) 140

7. Topography plot of Land Use Type B (“pangale 1”) 141

8. Topography plot of Land Use Type C (“pangale 2”) 142

9. Topography plot of Land Use Type D (“pahawa pongko 1”) 143

10. Topography plot of Land Use Type E (“pahawa pongko 2”) 144

11. Topography plot of Land Use Type A (“huma”) 145

12. Tree diversity (dbh >10 cm) and their important value in Land Use 146Type A, BA = Basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relativefrequency, RDo= relative dominance, IV= Important Value (%)

13. Tree diversity (dbh >10 cm) and their important value in Land Use 149

Type B, BA = Basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relativefrequency, RDo= relative dominance, IV= Important Value (%)

14. Tree diversity (dbh >10 cm) and their important value in Land Use 152Type C, BA = Basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relativefrequency, RDo= relative dominance, IV= Important Value (%)

15. Tree diversity (dbh >10 cm) and their important value in Land Use 155

Type D, BA = Basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relativefrequency, RDo= relative dominance, IV= Important Value (%)

16. Tree diversity (dbh >10 cm) and their important value in Land Use 157Type E, BA = Basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relativefrequency, RDo= relative dominance, IV= Important Value (%)

17. Tree diversity (dbh >10 cm) and their important value in Land Use 158Type F, BA = Basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relativefrequency, RDo= relative dominance, IV= Important Value (%)

18. Sapling diversity (dbh 2-9.9 cm) of land use type A and their 159BA = basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relative frequency,RDo= relative dominance, IV= important value (%)

19. Sapling diversity (dbh 2-9.9 cm) of land use type B and their 161BA = basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relative frequency,RDo= relative dominance, IV= important value (%)

20. Sapling diversity (dbh 2-9.9 cm) of land use type C and their 164BA = basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relative frequency,RDo= relative dominance, IV= important value (%)

21. Sapling diversity (dbh 2-9.9 cm) of land use type D and their 166BA = basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relative frequency,RDo= relative dominance, IV= important value (%)

22. Sapling diversity (dbh 2-9.9 cm) of land use type E and their 166BA = basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relative frequency,RDo= relative dominance, IV= important value (%)

23. Sapling diversity (dbh 2-9.9 cm) of land use type F and their 167BA = basal area, RD= relative density, RF = relative frequency,RDo= relative dominance, IV= important value (%)

24. Understory plants assemblages (herbs, seedlings, ferns, climbers) of 168land use types A and their IV (important value(%), RD = relativeDensity (%), RF = relative frequency (%), RBio= relative Biomassa (%),H’= Shanon index. Value are means for all plots of the respectiveLand use types.

25. Understory plants assemblages (herbs, seedlings, ferns, climbers) of 171land use types B and their IV (important value(%), RD = relativeDensity (%), RF = relative frequency (%), RBio= relative Biomassa (%),H’= Shanon index. Value are means for all plots of the respectiveLand use types.

26. Understory plants assemblages (herbs, seedlings, ferns, climbers) of 173land use types C and their IV (important value(%), RD = relativeDensity (%), RF = relative frequency (%), RBio= relative Biomassa (%),H’= Shanon index. Value are means for all plots of the respective

Land use types.27. Understory plants assemblages (herbs, seedlings, ferns, climbers) of 176

land use types D and their IV (important value(%), RD = relativeDensity (%), RF = relative frequency (%), RBio= relative Biomassa (%),H’= Shanon index. Value are means for all plots of the respectiveLand use types.

28. Understory plants assemblages (herbs, seedlings, ferns, climbers) of 179land use types E and F and their IV (important value(%), RD = relativeDensity (%), RF = relative frequency (%), RBio= relative Biomassa (%),H’= Shanon index. Value are means for all plots of the respectiveLand use types.

29. The important tree families> 10 cm dbh in six land use types differing 184In use intensity at the Lore Lindu National Park, Central SulawesiIndonesia. RD = Rel.density, RDiv = Rel. diversity, Rdo = rel. dominance,FIV= Family importance values. Values are means for all plots of theof the respective land use types

30. List of herbs, climbers and teresterial ferns which were collected from 190research sites

Chapter IINTRODUCTION

1.1 Research background

With about 40,000 vascular plant species the Malesian region ranges among the

most diverse worldwide (Baas et al. 1990; Roos 1993). One of the most striking features

of the region is the strong floristic differentiation of the islands, caused by their distinct

geological and palaeoecological histories. Sulawesi, lying between Wallace’s and

Weber’s biogeographic lines and taking a central position in the Malesia, has been

isolated from the mainland of Southeast Asia since the end of the Miocene (Audley-

Charles 1983; Whitten et al. 1987; Hall 2005). The long-term isolation of Sulawesi has

allowed the development of a characteristic flora with a unique composition.

Approximately, Sulawesi has 5000 species of flowering plants, of which ca. 15% are

endemic (Whitten et al. 1987; Roos et al. 2004). So far, there is no checklist of all

vascular plants of the island, let alone a complete Flora (Pitopang and Gradstein 2003;

Newman et al. 2004), although there are recent checklists of woody plants (Whitmore et

al. 1989; Keßler et al. 2002) and orchids (Thomas and Schuiteman 2002). A checklist of

the Catalogue of bryophytes of Sulawesi was just published (Gradstein et al. 2005). In

2002, Bogor Botanical Garden released an attractive publication on the unique endemic

flora of Sulawesi, being the result of botanical expeditions to selected protected areas

(Yuzami and Hidayat 2002).

Biological diversity has become a major focus of attention in nature conservation

and environment management since the late 20th century. The concept of biological

diversity arose out of the observation that exponentially increasing numbers of species

are threatened with extinction as a result of human activity (Wilson 1988; Pimm et al.

1995). Current extinction rates are at least a thousand times higher than was typical

during the geological history of our planet (Eken et al. 2004; Coon 1994). The

extinction is caused by many kinds of pressure, including commercial or illegal logging,

hunting, land conversion and habitat destruction, especially of the biologically rich

environments of tropical rain forest that are converted into pastures, cropland, or

secondary forest at an alarming pace (Riswan 1995; Partomihardjo 1997; Kartawinata

2001). It is generally considered that human impact causes major changes in the

biological diversity of these forests, even though research on this subject has been

limited and results often controversial (e.g., Whitmore and Sayer 1992 ; Kessler et al.

2005). Some studies reveal conspicuously reduced tree species richness in secondary

(developed after clear-felling) or degraded (affected by logging) rainforests

(Parthasarathy 1999 ; Keßler et al. 2002) also on bird diversity (Waltert et al. 2004)

while in other studies on plant diversity is increased (Kappelle et al. 1995 ; Fujisaka et

al. 1998) whereas studies on Lepidoptera taxa showed butterfly richness did not differ

between natural forest and old secondary forest (Schultze et al. 2004). Comparisons

with epiphytic bryophytes and lichens are in preparation (Sporn et al. 2005; Ariyanti et

al. 2005).

Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia was chosen as the focus

of this study for a number of reasons. It is one the most important protected areas in

Indonesia and was declared a “Biosphere Reserve” in 1977. Biosphere reserves were

conceived as “experimental sites for sustainable development, research and monitoring

on ecosystems and conservation of biodiversity”, and are at the same time meant to

“promote well being of local people who live in and around the reserve” (UNESCO

1995). Lore Lindu National Park has also been nominated as a “World Heritage Site” by

the Indonesian Government because of its magnificent cultural, archaeological, and

ecological importance. The area has considerable conservation value and provides

watershed protection for a number of major river catchments systems in Central

Sulawesi. With 225 species of birds (78 endemic to Sulawesi), 77 species of mammals,

and 26 endemic reptilians the area is a local hotspot of biodiversity (TNC/BTNLL

2002). Generally, habitats in the interior of Lore Lindu National Park are still relatively

undisturbed, but some areas of the park have been converted to agricultural land and in

several locations plantations of coffee and cacao have transgressed the park boundary

and now extend several kilometers into the Park.

Lore Lindu National Park is inhabited by several different kind of ethnic and

subethnic groups, such as “Pakerahua” is occupying at Napu plateau (Wuasa,

Tamadue, Wanga and Alitupu), “To Bes(h)oa kakau” and “To Besoa ngamba” are

mostly living in Besoa valley, “Kaili-uma”, “Kaili-Ledo”, “Kaili-Muma”, “Kaili-

Daa”, and “Tado” are mainly living in the northern and western part of the park. Other

communities are immigrant such as Bugis, Jawa, Makassar, Toradja, Sunda, Bali, and

Sangir-Minahasa.

The Toro community is one of the indigenous groups (“Ind. masyarakat adat”)

living around Lore Lindu National Park. As an indigenous group (“masyarakat adat”)

the local people of Toro have a traditional classification system of their environment,

including classification of the forest or habitat types. Impact of the human activity in

this area is still poorly known. As mentioned above, this research focused on the

structure and composition of six land use types differing use intensity in Lore Lindu

National Park.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of the research are:

1. To study the structure and composition of the vegetation of six different land

use systems.

2. To verify the human impact on plant species in the LLNP particularly based on

quantitative data for better conservation management decisions.

1.3 Hypotheses

The central hypothesis of the research is that human influence and use of natural

resources may cause major changes in the plant diversity of tropical rainforest margin

zones.

Leading research questions are the following:

1. How does plant diversity change from natural forest to agroforestry systems

under conditions of different land-use intensities?

2. Does condition of different land use intensities affect on forest structure and

species composition?

1.4 Expected results

The result of research should be comprehensive and detailed information about

the structure and composition of forests and plantations differing in use intensity in the

Lore Lindu National Park area, which is can be used to provide data for better

conservation management decisions.

REFERENCES

Ariyanti N, Tjitrosoedirdjo S and Gradstein SR. 2005. Diversity and abundance ofepiphytic bryophytes on trunk bases in relation to use intensity of natural forest inLore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Abstract, STORMASymposium Gottingen, Germany, 20-23 September 2005.

Audley-Charles MG. 1983. Reconstruction of eastern Gondwanaland. Nature 306: 48-50

Baas P. Kalkman K. and Geesink R. (eds) 1990. The Plant Diversity of Malesia.Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Coon B. 1994. Documentation of The Flora of New Guinea. Journal Biodiversity andTerresterial Ecosystem ( Peng CI and Chou CH, eds.) Institute of Botany,Academica Sinica Monograph No.14,pp.123-156

Eken G, Bennun L and Boyd C. 2004. Protected Areas Design and Systems Planning;Key requirements for successful Planning, Site Selection and Establishment ofProtected Area. In; CBD Technical Series No.15. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Fujisaka S, Escobar G and Veneklaas GE. 1998. Plant community diversity relative tohuman land uses in an Amazon forest colony. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 41–57.

Gradstein SR, Tan B, King C, Zhu RL, Drubert C & Pitopang R. 2005. Catalogue ofthe Bryophytes of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Hattori Botanical Laboratory 98:213-257

Hall R. 1995. The plate tectonics of Cenozoic SE Asia and the distribution of land andsea. Pages 99- 131 in Biogeography and geological evolution of SE Asia (R. Hall,and J. D. Holloway, eds.). Backhuys,Leiden.

Kappelle M, Kennis PAF, de Vries RAJ 1995. Changes in diversity along asuccessional gradient in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest. Biodiversityand Conservation 4: 10–34.

Kartawinata K, Riswan S, Ginting N and Puspitojati T. 2001. An Overview of Post-Extraction Secondary Forest in Indonesia. J.Tropical Forest Sciences 13(4): 621-638

Keßler PJA, Bos MM, Sierra Daza SEC, Willemse LPM, Pitopang R and Gradstein SR.2002. A checklist of the woody plants of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Blumea, Supplement14: 1-160.

Kessler M, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR, Bach K, Schmull M & Pitopang R. 2005. Treediversity in primary forest and different land use systems in Central Sulawesi,Indonesia. Biodiversity and conservation 14: 547-560.

Newman M, Hendrian, Steve S, Nazre M. 2004. Botanical Expedition Report.. ThirdExpedition to Sulawesi, Propinsi Sulawesi Tengah (Central Sulawesi).Coorporation between Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh and Kebun Raya Bogor.Indonesia

Parthasarathy N. 1999. Tree diversity and distribution in undisturbed and human-impacted sites of tropical wet evergreen forest in the southern Wastern Ghats, India.Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1365–1381.

Partomihardjo T, Prawiroatmodjo S and Darnaedi D. 1997. Biodiversity andConservation Activities in Indonesia. Proceedings of International Conference onTaxonomy and Biodiersity Conservation in East Asia. Edited by: Lee et al. KoreanBiodiversity Council (KOBIC) and Korean Institute for Biodiversity Research ofChonbuk National University (KIBIO), Seoul. Korea

Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittelman JL, Brooks T. 1995. The future of biodiversity.Science 269:347–350.

Pitopang R, Gradstein SR, Guhardja E, Keßler PJA, Wiriadinata H. 2002. TreeComposition in Secondary forest of Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi,Indonesia. In: Land use, Nature Conservation and the Stability of RainforestMargins in Southeast Asia. Eds: Gerold G, Fremery M, Guhardja E. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Pitopang R, Gradstein SR. 2003. Herbarium Celebense (CEB) and its role in supportingresearch on plant diversity of Sulawesi. Biodiversitas 5: 36-41.

Riswan S and Hartanti L 1995. Human Impacts on Tropical Forest Dynamics. In:Global change and terrestrial ecosystems in Monsoon Asia. Eds : Hirose, T and B.H.Walker. Vegetatio 121: 41-52 . Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Belgium

Roos MC. 1993. State of affairs regarding Flora Malesiana: Progress in revision andpublication schedule. Flora Malesiana Bulletin 11 : 133-142

Roos MC, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR & Baas P. 2004. Species diversity andendemism of 5 major Malesian islands: diversity-area relationships. J. Biogeogr. 31:1893-1908.

Schulze C, Waltert M, Kessler PJA, Pitopang R, Shahabuddin, Veddeler D,Mühlenberg M, Gradstein SR, Leuschner C, Steffan-Dewenter I & Tscharntke T.2004. Biodiversity indicator taxa of tropical land-use systems: comparing plants,birds and insects. Ecological Applications 14: 1321-1333.

Sporn S and Gradstein SR. 2005. Diversity of cryptogamic epiphytic bryophytes incacao plantations in Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.Abstract, STORMA Symposium Gottingen, Germany, 20-23 September 2005.

Thomas S and Schuiteman A. 2002. Orchids of Sulawesi and Maluku, a preliminarycatalogue. Lindleyana 17: 1-72.

TNC/BTNLL. 2002. Lore Lindu National Park. Draft Management Plan 2002-2007.Directorat Jenderal Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam and The NatureConservancy, Palu (Indonesia).

UNESCO. 1995. Co-operative Scientific study of East Asian Biosphere Reserves.United Nations

Waltert M, Mardiastuti A, Muhlenberg M. 2004. Effects of Land Use on Bird SpeciesRichness in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Conservation Biology. 18 (5) 1339–1346

Whitmore TC, Tantra, Sutisna U. 1989. Tree flora checklist of Sulawesi. ForestResearch and Development Center, Bogor.

Whitten AJ, Mustafa M, Henderson CG. 1987. The Ecology of Sulawesi, 777 p. GadjahMada Univ. Press, Yogyakarta.

Whitmore TC and Sayer JA. (eds) 1992. Tropical Deforestation and Species extinction.Chapman & Hall, London.

Wilson EO (ed.). 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C

Wirawan N, 1981. Ecological survey of the proposed Lore Lindu National Park, CentralSulawesi. The World Wildlife Fund, Ujung Pandang.

Yuzami and Hidayat S. 2003. The Unique Endemics and Rare Species Flora ofSulawesi. Bogor Botanical Garden, Bogor, Indonesia.

Chapter II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Botanical Knowledge of Sulawesi and its Plant Diversity

Sulawesi, formerly known as Celebes, is one of the large islands of Indonesia. It

is the most important island in the “Wallacea subregion”, situated in the centre of the

Indonesian archipelago, between Borneo (Kalimantan) and the Moluccan islands. The

subregion of Wallacea is an area delimited by Wallace’s line in the west and

Lydekker’s line in the east (Fig. 2.1). Knowledge of Indonesia’s flora especially

Sulawesi island is poorly known due to lack of study or botanical exploration in this

area (Baas et al. 1990). For example the amount of botanical collecting in Sumatera is

20 times higher than in Sulawesi ( Veldkamp et al. 1997), even though Sulawesi has

recently been identified as one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, especially rich in

species found nowhere else in the world and under major threat from widespread

deforestation (Pitopang and Gradstein 2003). The island‘s position directly to the east

of the modern version of Wallace’s line, the biogeographical division between

Laurasian and Gondwana elements of the flora and fauna, makes it a key for the

understanding both the biogeography of Southeast Asia and the evolution of many

Southeast Asian plant groups (Moss and Wilson, 1998)

Sulawesi is comprised of about 182,870 km2 of land surface and has more forest

per inhabitant than most other islands of Indonesia due to its rugged topography

(Newman et al. 2004; Keßler et al. 2002). The “spider shape” of the island of Sulawesi

results from a very complex geological history, as yet not fully elucidated (Whitten et

al. 1987). The central part of Sulawesi is an area of mountainous landscape with rising

over 3000 m, and huge tracts of rolling forest. The southern arms of Sulawesi have had

an active agricultural population since early times and little forest area is left. From

Tana Toradja southward the land is given over to grazing and rice production. Just

North of Makassar are peculiar-shaped limestone cliffs and spectacular karst scenery, a

wonderful setting for the Bantimurung butterfly sanctuary. Near Kendari is the large

Rawa Aopa swamp with rather dry and seasonal climate (MacKinnon 1992).

There are several protected areas in Sulawesi (Fig. 2.2) including Dumoga Bone

National Park, Bunaken National Park, Lore Lindu National Park, Togian Island

National Park, Morowali Nature Reserve, Tinombala Nature Reserve, Pangi-Binangga

Nature reserve, Bakiriang Wildlife Reserve, Palu Grand Forest Park, Rawa Aowa

National Park, Tanjung Api Nature Reserve, Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve,

Tangkoko Dua Saudara National Park, Manembo-nembo, Peruhampesi Nature Reserve,

Lompobatang, Bantimurung, Lambusango, Buton Utara, Matano/Mahalano, and Togian

Island National Park, the last one just established as National Park in 2005. These

protected areas offer suitable habitats for the rich flora and fauna of Sulawesi. However,

even within these parks the flora and fauna is now threatened by human activities such

as illegal logging, hunting, land conversion, etc. (Pitopang et al. 2004a)

Total species richness and endemism of Sulawesi are comparable to those of

Sumatra, Java, Borneo and New Guinea, in spite of the very different geological history

of Sulawesi and the greater distance of the island to the mainland (Roos et al. 2004).

Whereas the islands of Borneo, Sumatra and Java had terrestrial connections to

mainland Asia in the past, Sulawesi was always isolated from these islands as well as

from New Guinea by deep maritime straits as shown by Hall (1995) and Moss and

Wilson (1998) through the reconstruction of the Malay archipelago since 50 million ago

(Fig.2.3). Approximately 15% of the known flowering plant species of Sulawesi are

endemic (Whitten et al. 1987). Van Balgooy et al. (1996) recognized 933 indigenous

plant species on Sulawesi and of these 112 were endemic to the island. Endemism

varies among groups, however, and is very high in orchids and palms which total 817

orchid species (128 genera) including 493 endemic ones (Thomas and Schuiteman

2002). Critical study of the endemic taxa is urgently needed. Yuzami and Hidayat

(2002) discussed 134 endemic species from Sulawesi, half of them being orchids, e.g.,

Phalaenopsis celebensis Sweet, Vanda celebica J.J.Smith, Coelogyne celebica,

Abdominiea miniflora. Goodyera reticulata, Goodyera celebica, Orophea celebica,

Eucalyptus deglupta, Diospyros celebica Bakh., Polyalthia celebica Miq. Agathis

celebica, Allocasia suhirmaniana Yuzammi and A. Hay, etc.

Figure 2.1. The Indonesian archipelago and its biogeographical zones (Whitten et al.1987)

Figure 2.2. Sulawesi island and its some protected areas (after Yuzami et al. 2002)

According to Keßler et al. (2002) approximately there are 5000 species of

vascular plants (including more than 2100 woody one) in Sulawesi. Compared to other

main islands of Indonesia (Sumatera, Java, Borneo, New Guinea) the composition of

the flora of Sulawesi is unique even though being less rich in species. Van Steenis

(1950) recorded 59 endemic genera in Borneo but only seven (7) in Sulawesi. Striking

biogeographically features of Sulawesi are the almost total absence of Dipterocarpaceae

(the dominant trees in the rain forest of Borneo, Sumatera, and the Malaysian

Peninsula), only 6 species of this family occurring in Sulawesi. Fagaceae show an

almost similar pattern, with only six species of Lithocarpus and Castanopsis being

known from Sulawesi, compared to 60 and 21 respectively recorded from Borneo

(Keßler 2002).

Publication dealing specifically with the bryophytes of Sulawesi are very few,

and records are very scattered and often mentioned casually in literature with the

bryoflora of Java and other islands. Gradstein et al. (2005) reported about 476 are found

in Sulawesi so far, including 340 of moss (in 145 genera), 134 of liverwort (in 46

genera), and 2 of hornwort (in 2 genera). One liverwort and four moss species are only

known from Sulawesi and two names, Calyptrochaeta perlimbata (Dixon) B.C. Tan &

B.C.Ho, comb.nov and Macromitrium novorecurvulum B.C. Tan & B.C. Ho, nom.nov,

are newly proposed. As compared with other Indonesian islands, the flora of Sulawesi is

very poor in bryophyte species, which is most likely due to lack of collecting activities.

In comparison, about 4-5 times as many bryophyte species are known from Borneo and

New Guinea.

The incomplete knowledge of the flora of Sulawesi is also shown by recent

botanical explorations, which yielded many new species, e.g., Alocasia megawatii

(Yuzami et al. 2000), Impatien punaensis (Utami and Wiriadinata 2002), Calamus sp

nov. 1 (ahlidurii), Caryota sp. nov.1 (angustifolia), Caryota sp.nov.2 (pumila), Pinanga

sp.nov.2 (rubiginosa), Pinanga sp.nov.3 (tenuirachis), Pinanga sp.nov. 4 (longipes),

Pinanga sp.nov.5 (soroakoensis), Pinanga sp.nov.6 (dentata), Pinanga sp.no.7

(mogeana) (Mogea 2002), Eltingeria sp. (no.937) (Newman et al. 2004).

50 40

Figure 2.3A. Southeast Asia 50 millions years ago Figure 2.3B. Southeast Asia 40 millions years ago

30 20

Figure 2.3 C.Southeast Asia 30 millions years ago Figure 2.3D. Southeast Asia 20 millions years ago

10 0

Figure 2.3E. Southeast Asia 10 millions years ago Figure 2.3F. Southeast Asia 0 million year (present)

Figure 2.3. Reconstruction of Southeast Asia since 50 millions years ago (Hall 1995;Whitten et al. 1987)

2.2 Human Impact on Rainforest Biodiversity

Tropical rain forest (“Tropischer Regenwald”) is a term coined by A.F.W.

Schimper in his work “Plant geography” and has been generally used ever since

(Whitmore 1975). It describes the forest of the ever-wet tropics where there are three

blocks of tropical rain forest in the world. The most extensive is the American rain

forest, centered on the Amazon basin, the second block is the African rain forest,

centered in the Congo basin and extending along the north coast of the Gulf of Guinea

and with outliers in Uganda and the third most extensive block is the Indo-Malayan rain

forest and is estimated to cover about 250 X 106 ha. This extent is less than that of the

American block, but has been more extensively disturbed or destroyed by timber

extraction. (Whitmore 1975).

Tropical deforestation has become a major concern for the world community.

Between 1990 and 1997, 5.8 +/- 1.4 million hectare (0.5%) of tropical rain forest were

lost each year (Achard et al. 2002). Whole regions in South and Central America, Africa

and Southeast Asia already completely lost their forest or are expected to become

deforested in the near future (Laurence et al. 2001; Jepson et al. 2001). Apart from the

economical, political, social and climatologic problems arising from tropical

deforestation, we are also facing the severe ecological consequences. Deforestation

primarily leads to fragmentation and produce landscape-level changes in forest

characteristics and structure, including area, distribution and forest habitat types (Skole

and Tucker 1993)

Human activity is one of the most direct causes of wild biodiversity loss

(WCMC (World Conservation and Monitoring Center) 1992). Introduction of exotic

species, overexploitation of biological resources, habitat reduction by land use change,

pastoral overgrazing, expansion of cultivation, and other human activities are common

factors and primary agents contributing to the vast endangerments and extinctions

occurring in the past and in the foreseeable future (Kerr and Currie 1995; Pimm et al.

1995; Tilman 1999; Raffaello 2001; Palomares 2001).

Human exploitation also causes major changes in the biodiversity of these

forests, even though research on this subject has been limited and results were often

controversial (Whitmore & Sayer 1992; Turner 1996). Some studies reveal

conspicuously reduced species richness in secondary or degraded rainforests

(Parthasaryathy 1999; Pitopang et al. 2004), even in over 100 years old regrown forest

(Turner et al. 1997), local extinction of plants (Benitez-Melvido and Martinez-Ramos

2003) in other studies it is increased (Kappelle 1996 ; Fujisaka et al. 1998). The impact

of human activities on plant diversity thus must be interpreted with caution

(e.g.,Mooney et al. 1995). Area size is a crucial factor determining the changes in

biodiversity due to human impact. Loss of diversity generally decreases when larger

areas are considered (Mooney et al. 1995). Of critical importance is the range size of

individual species, which varies regionally and for each group of organisms. In view of

this, implementation of data on biodiversity in conservation or land use plans, in spite of

being of crucial importance . Furthermore, the majority of plant ecological studies in the

tropics have been limited to the economically important trees (Turner 2001). Herbs,

shrubs, lianas, and epiphytes, many of which are prominent in disturbed habitats, are

usually neglected (Whitmore & Sayer 1992; Laska 1997; Svenning 2000; Gradstein et

al. 2005).

2.3 Lore Lindu National Park

There are some protected areas to conserve the biological diversity in Sulawesi,

but the important one is the Lore Lindu National Park (Figure. 2.4). Lore Lindu

officially declared as National Park (NP) on October 5, 1993, its area amalgamated three

existing reserves: the Lore Kalamanta Nature Reserve, which was set aside for the

protection of Sulawesi’s unique endemic fauna; the Lake Lindu Recreation and

Protection Forest, established to protect the catchment area of the Palu Valley’s

Gumbasa River irrigation scheme, and to develop tourism; and Lore Lindu Wildlife

Reserve (Departemen Kehutanan 2002). This protected area lies between 119° 90’ -

120° 16’ east and 1° 8’ - 1° 3’ south. When compared to other national parks in

Indonesia, it is of medium size, it officially covers an area of 217,991.18 ha (around

1.2% of Sulawesi’s 182,870 km² or 2.4% of Sulawesi’s remaining 90,000 km² of forest).

It is comprised largely of montane and submontane forest (+90 %) with some lowland

forest (+10%). The lowest point in the Park is located near the northwestern tip and is

around 200 m above sea level (asl). The highest points are Mt. Nokilalaki (2355 m asl)

and Mt. Rorekatimbu (2610 m asl). (TNC/BTNLL 2001)

Figure 2.4. Map of Lore Lindu National Park (after Erasmi et al. 2004)

2.3.1 Biological Component

2.3.1.1 Flora

The rich and endemic flora of Sulawesi remains one of the least explored of the

major Indonesian islands, both in terms of its taxonomic composition and ecological

characteristics. No comprehensive source of information exists, other than brief

accounts in the Ecology of Sulawesi (Whitten et al. 1987) and individual species

descriptions from the Flora Malesiana series. These descriptions are buried in the

Malesiana-wide monographs and must be found in reference to the most recent checklist

(Whitmore et al. 1989). In the introduction to the Flora, van Steenis placed Sulawesi in

its own minor phytogeographic region and noted the importance of Wallace’s Line,

which separates Sulawesi from the major Sunda Shelf islands, in the distribution of

many plant groups (van Steenis 1950a).

There are seven endemic genera on Sulawesi such as; Mahawoa, Oreospharte,

Kallapia, Wallaceodendron, Bracisepalum etc. (van Steenis 1950b). This phenomenon

is close related to its small landmass and isolation from continental Asia, suggests an

ancient and sustained flora. The potential for significant discovery and contribution

provides a major opportunity for tropical botanists interested in floristic exploration and

biogeography studies. Lore Lindu, given its central location on the island, large land

area, accessibility of its core region, and critical conservation status, has the potential to

become an important centre for research. Historically, few major collecting programs

have been performed (van Steenis, 1950; van Balgooy and Tantra 1986; Wirawan 1981;

Wiriadinata 2000; Yuzami and Hidayat 2001; Mogea 2002 and 2005; Pitopang et al.

2002 and 2004b ; Brown 2003; Kessler et al. 2005; Arianti et al. 2005; Sporn and

Gradstein 2005; Gradstein et al. 2005). The most comprehensive vegetation survey was

performed more than twenty years ago by Wirawan (1981). Using aerial photography,

Wirawan (1981) created a preliminary vegetation map of the Park and recognized four

major vegetation zones:

1. Lowland

Almost 90% of the Park is above 900 m asl, therefore lowland forest will contribute

little to the vegetation types found in the Park. As the lower elevations are found along

the boundaries of the Park, this forest type will only be found in narrow strips near the

rivers that form the boundaries. These strips of lowland forest are often found on steep

slopes and are strongly affected by human activity in these marginal areas. Few floristic

surveys have been performed, and little information exists about its original taxonomic

composition. Several of them are Artocarpus vriesianus (Moraceae), Pterospermum

celebicum (Sterculiaceae), Duabanga mollucana (Soneratiaceae), Alstonia scholaris

(Apocynaceae), Artocarpus elaticus (Moraceae), Elmerilla ovalis (Magnoliaceae),,

Dracontamelon dao (Anacardiaceae), etc. (Wirawan 1981; Keβler 2002, unpub. ;

Pitopang et al. 2004)

2. Lowmontane/ Submontane forest

There are a large number of tree species which can be found in this zone and it is

generally dominated by families Meliaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Lauraceae, Urticaceae,

Sabiaceae, Moraceae, Elaeocarpaceae, Anacardiaceae, Ulmaceae and Rubiaceae

(Kessler et al. 2005). The tree species is growing in the submontane forest such as;

Cryptocarya crassinerviopsis, Deehasia spp, Litsea spp (Lauraceae), Aglaia argentea,

Chisocheton spp (Meliaceae), Bischofia javanica (Euphorbiaceae), Dendrochnide spp

(Urticaceae), Meliosma sumatrana (Sabiaceae), Ficus spp (Moraceae), Elaeocarpus spp

(Elaeocarpaceae), Semecarpus forstenii (Anacardiaceae), Girronierria subaqualis

(Ulmaceae), Nauclea spp, Neonauclea spp (Rubiaceae), Orophea celebica

(Annonaceae), Palaquium quercifollium (Sapotaceae), Dracontamelon dao

(Anacardiaceae) etc. (Wirawan 1981; Kessler et al. 2005). Some species of erect palms

(Pigaffeta, Pinanga, Areca, and Arenga ) and climber palms ( Calamus , Korthalsia,,

Daemonorops ) also common in this zone ( Mogea 2002). The understory is usually

quite lush with numerous species of Elatostema (Urticaceae), Piper (Piperaceae), and

Impatiens (Balsaminaceae) creating a nearly continuous herbaceous layer (Wirawan

1981; Wiriadinata 2000).

3. Montane forest

Generally, species diversity in montane forest is lower than in the lower montane

forests. A clear indicator of this forest type is the appearance of Castanopsis

accuminatissima (Fagaceae). Locally known as “kaha” or “haleka”, these trees can form

almost 60-70% of the stand and are easily recognized by the numerous trunks and

slender stems that arise from the base of a single individual as well as the rather golden

hue of the underside of their leaves. Several other species are commonly associated with

kaha, particularly “lihu” or “tawako” Tristania whiteana (Myrtaceae) and “betau”

Calophyllum sp. (Clusiaceae). Occasionally, different species, like Podocarpus

neriifolius (Podocarpaceae), and Dacrydium imbricatus (Podocarpaceae), can obtain

comparable levels of dominance, in the absence of kaha (TNC/ BTNLL 2001)

4. Upper montane forest

This forest type is mainly found above 2000 m asl, this forest type is rather

limited in area (also <10%) but represents a surprisingly diverse community. The easiest

indicators for this forest are the large erect Dawsonia (spiky and Christmas tree-like,

these mosses are often 10 cm tall). Small herbs, such as Begonia spp. (Begoniaceae),

Elatostema spp. (Urticaceae) and Cyrtandra spp. (Gesneriaceae) are quite diverse and

frequent in the undergrowth under wet conditions. Scattered individuals of Agathis cf.

celebica (Araucariaceae), Ternstroemia spp. (Theaceae), Lithocarpus spp. (Fagaceae),

and Phyllocladus hypophyllus (Podocarpaceae) replace the “kaha” and “lihu” found at

lower elevations. The families Lauraceae and Myrtaceae are also quite frequent and

diverse here. Tree ferns, Cyathea spp. (Cyatheaceae), several species of pandan,

Pandanus spp. (Pandanaceae), and pinang palms (Arenga spp, and Pinanga spp) are

common in the understory (TNC/BTNLL 2001)

2.3.1.2 Fauna

Sulawesi is well known as a biogeographical wonder. Its location, to the east of

Wallace’s line but close to the Sunda plate, and its formation from several separate

islands has resulted in a mix of Oriental and Australasian fauna. Additionally the long

isolation of the island and its constituent parts has resulted in a higher rate of endemic

taxa than any other Indonesian island. Most of these endemics are dependent on forest,

often with an altitude related distribution. Although some groups, notably mammals and

birds are better known than others, Lore Lindu NP with its wide range of vegetation

types, is representative of the unique fauna of Sulawesi ( TNC/BTNLL 2001)

Birds

The avifauna of Sulawesi is highly indicative of the unique biodiversity of the

island. As the largest island in Wallacea, Sulawesi has the richest avifauna in the region,

with 224 resident species recorded (MacKinnon et al. 1996) and large number of them

are endemic to this island (Coates and Bishop 1997). In accordance with the Avifauna at

the Lore Lindu, almost 225 species of birds have been recorded in the Park, including 78

Sulawesi endemics, and 46 restricted-range species. The Park, therefore, is home to 80%

and 82% of Sulawesi’s endemic and restricted range species respectively. These include

such well-known species as the Maleo (Macrocephalon maleo) and Red-knobbed

Hornbill (Rhyticeros cassidix), a species that is featured in the logo of the Park, but also

includes some more enigmatic species such as the Sulawesi Woodcock (Scolopax

celebenis), Geomalia (Geomalia heinrichi) and Satanic Nightjar (Eurostopodus

diabolicus) (TNC/BTNLL 2001)

Mammals and Reptiles

Approximately there are 127 species of mammals in Sulawesi and 60% of these

127 species are endemic to Sulawesi (Ministry of State for Population and

Environmental Republic Indonesia 1992) whereas the comprehensive knowledge of the

mammals in the LLNP is still lacking. Although the presence or absence of mammals

has been documented such as; Anoa (Bubalus spp.), Babirusa (Babyrousa babirusa),

the Tonkean macaque (Macaca tonkeana), two species of tarsier (Tarsius spp.), both

species of marsupials ; Bear cuscus (Ailurops ursinus) and Dwarf Sulawesi cuscus

(Stigocusus celebensis), Sulawesi palm civet (Macrogalidia musschenbroekii) etc.(

BTNLL and TNC 2001). Some number of reptiles also found at the Lore Lindu

National Park for instance; Phyton reticulatus, Racer erythrura, Elaphe (Gonyosoma)

janseni, Psammodynastes pulverulentus and Xenopeltis unicolor. King Cobra

(Ophiophagus hannan) is often occurred in this park especially at the river side.

Photos by Ramadhanil Pitopang

Photo by TNC Photo by Stefan Merker Photo by Peter Erskine

Figure 2.5. Some Sulawesi’s endemic flora and fauna which were occurred at the LoreLindu National Park. Above: left to right, Phalaenopis celebensis Sweet (Orchidaceae),Pigafetta elata Becc (Arecaceae) and Coelogyne celebica (Orchidaceae). Bottom: left toright, Macrocephalon maleo Mull, Tarsius dianae and Intestudo forstenii.

REFERENCES

Achard F, Eva HD, Stibig HJ, Mayaux, Gallego J. 2002. Determination of deforestationrates of the world’s humid tropical forest. Science 297, 999-1002.

Ariyanti N, Tjitrosoedirdjo SS, Gradstein, SR. 2005. Diversity and abundance ofepiphytic bryophytes on trunk bases in relation to use intensity of natural forest inLore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Abstract, STORMASymposium Gottingen, Germany, 20-23 September 2005.

Baas P, Kalkman K. and Geesink R. (eds) 1990. The Plant Diversity of Malesia.Kluwer, Dordrecht, The netherlands.

Benitez-Malvido J & Martinez-Ramos M. 2003. Impact of forest fragmentation onunderstorey plant species richness in Amazonia. Cons. Biol. 17-2, 389-400

Brown G. 2003. Vireya rhododendrons. The Systematist.Newsletter of the syatematicsAssoc. Winter 2003. no. 22. www.systass.org

Coates BJ, Bishop KD and Gardener D. 1997. A guide to the birds of Wallacea.Sulawesi, the Moluccas and the Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia. Dove Publications

Erasmi, S, Twele A, Ardiansyah M, Malik A and Kappas M. 2004. MappingDeforstation and Land Cover Conversion at the Rainforest Margin in CentralSulawesi, Indonesia. EARSeL eProceedings 3, 3/2004

Fujisaka S, Escobar G and Veneklaas GE. 1998. Plant community diversity relative tohuman land uses in an Amazon forest colony. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 41–57.



Jepson P, Jarvie JK, MacKinnon K and Monk KA. 2001. The end for Indonesia’slowland rainforest? Science 292, 859-861

Kappelle M, Kennis PAF, de Vries RAJ 1995. Changes in diversity along asuccessional gradient in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest. Biodiversityand Conservation 4: 10–34.

Keßler PJA, Bos MM, Sierra Daza SEC, Willemse LPM, Pitopang R and Gradstein SR.2002. A checklist of the woody plants of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Blumea, Supplement14: 1-160.

Keβler PJA. 2002. Tree Flora of Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia(Unpublished)

Kerr JT and Currie DJ. 1995.Effects of human activity on global extinction risk.Conservation Biology 9: 1528–1538.

Kessler M, Keßler PJA, Gradstein SR, Bach K, Schmull M & Pitopang R. 2005. Treediversity in primary forest and different land use systems in Central Sulawesi,Indonesia. Biodiversity and conservation 14: 547-560.

Laurence WF, Cochrane MA, Bergen S, Fearnside PM, Delamonica P. 2001. Thefuture of the Brazillian Amazon. Science 291, 438-836

MacKinnon K. 1992. Nature’s Treasurehouse. The Wildlife of Indonesia. PT GramediaPustaka Utama. Jakarta, Indonesia.

MacKinnon K, Hatta G, Halim H, Mangalik A. 1996. The Ecology of Kalimantan.Periplus

Ministry of State for Population and Environmental Republic Indonesia. 1992.Indonesia Country Study on Biological Diversity. Prepared for the UNEP under theWork Programme for Environmental Cooperation between The Republic ofIndonesia and The Kingdom of Norway. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Mogea JP. 2002. Preliminary study on the Palm Flora of the Lore Lindu National Park,Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biotropia 18 : 1-20

Mogea JP. 2005. Diversity and Density Palms and Rattans in Primary Forest, OldSecondary Forest, and Recent Established Traditional Cacao and Coffee Garden inCentral Sulawesi, Indonesia. Abstract : Proceedings International Symposium “TheStability of Tropical Rainforest Margins: Linking Ecological, Economic and SocialConstrains of Land Use and Conservation” Georg-August-University of Goettingen.September 19-23. 2005.

Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Dirzo R, Sala OE. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystemfunctioning: basic principles. In: Heywood VH and Watson RT (eds) GlobalBiodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 275–325.

Moss SJ, Wilson EJ. 1998. Biogeographic implication of the Tertiary paleogeographicevolution of Sulawesi and Borneo. Biogeoraphic and Geological Evolution ofSE.Asia.pp. 133-163. Edited by R. Hall and J.D. Holloway. Backhuys Publishers,Leiden. The Netherlands


Palomares F. 2001.Vegetation structure and prey abundance requirements of the Iberianlynx: implications for the design of reserves and corridors. Journal of AppliedEcology 38: 9–18.




Pitopang R, Gradstein SR. 2003. Herbarium Celebense (CEB) and its role in supportingresearch on plant diversity of Sulawesi [in Indonesian]. Biodiversitas 5: 36-41.

Pitopang R, Gradstein SR, Kessler PJA & Guhardja E. 2004a. 4 Years HerbariumCelebense. Sixth International Flora Malesiana Symposium, Los Banos, Philippines,20-24 Sept. 2004.

Pitopang R, Kessler M, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR. 2004b. Tree Diversity in PrimaryForest, Secondary Forest and Forest Garden in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.Abstract, Sixth International Flora Malesiana Symposium, Los Banos, Philippines,20-24 Sept. 2004.

Raffaello C. 2001. Biodiversity in the Balance: Land Use, National Development andGlobal Welfare. The World Bank, Washington, DC, and University College,London.

Roos M, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR & Baas P. 2004. Species diversity and endemismof 5 major Malesian islands: diversity-area relationships. J. Biogeogr. 31: 1893-1908.

Skole D, Tucker C. 1993. Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in theAmazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 260, 1905-1910

Sporn SG, Gradstein SR. 2005. Diversity of cryptogamic epiphytic bryophytes in cacaoplantations in Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Abstract,STORMA Symposium Gottingen, Germany, 20-23 September 2005.

Svenning JC. 2000. Small caopy gaps influence plant distribution in the rain forestunderstory. Biotropica 32 (2); 252-261

Thomas S, Schuiteman A. 2002. Orchids of Sulawesi and Maluku, a preliminarycatalogue. Lindleyana 17: 1-72.

Tilman D. 1999. Diversity by default. Science 283: 495–496.TNC/BTNLL. 2002. Lore Lindu National Park. Draft Management Plan 2002-2007.

Directorat Jenderal Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam and The NatureConservancy, Palu (Indonesia).

Turner IM. 2001. The Ecology the Tropical Rainforest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.Whitmore TC, Sayer JA (eds) 1992. Tropical Deforestation andSpecies Extinction. Chapman & Hall, London.

Turner IM. 1996. Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forests: a review of theevidence. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 200-209

Turner IM, Wong YK, Chew PT, bin Ibrahim A 1997. Tree species richness in primaryand old secondary tropical forest in Singapore. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:237-543

Utami N, Wiriadinata H. 2002. A new species of Impatiens (Balsaminaceae) fromCentral Sulawesi. Blumea 47 : 391-393.

Veldkamp JFMC, Rifai MA. 1977. Flora Malesiana Bulletin, 12 (1-2). Leiden;Rijkherbarium

Van Balgooy MMJ, Hovenkamp PH, Welzen PC. 1996. Phytogeography of the Pasific-Floristic and historical distribution pattern in plant. In The origin and evolution ofPasific island biotas. New Guinea to eastern Polynesia ; pattern and process. Pp.191-213. edited by Keast A, Miller SA. SPB academic Publishing bv. Amsterdam.

Van Balgooy MMJ, Tantra IGM. 1986. The vegetation in two areas of Sulawesi,Indonesia. Bulletin Penelitian Hutan. 1986: 1-61

Van Steenis CGGJ. 1950a. The delimitation of Malaysia and its main plant geographicaldivisionsin Flora Malesiana (van Steenis CGGJ ed.) Noordhoff-Kolff N.V.,Djakarta.

Van Steenis CGGJ. 1950b. Introduction in Flora Malesiana (van Steenis CGGJ. ed.)Noordhoff- Kolff N.V., Djakarta.

Whitten AJ, Mustafa M, Henderson CG. 1987. The Ecology of Sulawesi, 777 p. GadjahMada Univ. Press, Yogyakarta.

Whitmore TC. 1975. Tropical Rain Forest of The Far East. Oxford University PressLondon


Whitmore TC, Sayer JA. (eds) 1992. Tropical Deforestation and Species extinction.Chapman & Hall, London.

Wirawan N. 1981. Ecological survey of the proposed Lore Lindu National Park, CentralSulawesi. The World Wildlife Fund, Ujung Pandang.

Wiriadinata H. 2001. Panduan Pengenalan Flora Taman Nasional Lore Lindu. SulawesiTengah. Kerjasama TNC dan Herbarium Bogoriense, Puslitbang Biologi LIPI.Bogor (unpublished)

WCMC (World Conservation and Monitoring Center) 1992. Global Biodiversity: Statusof the Earth’s Living Resources. Chapman & Hall, London, 594 pp.

Yuzami, Hidayat S. 2003. The Unique Endemics and Rare Species Flora of Sulawesi.Bogor Botanical Garden, Bogor, Indonesia.

Chapter III

STUDY AREA AND STUDY SITES

3.1 Study Area

This research was carried out in Central Sulawesi at the western margin of the

Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP), close to Palu, the Capital of Central Sulawesi (Fig.

3.1). Administratively, this protected area is belong to Donggala regency and Poso

regency. The majority area of Lore Lindu NP lies within seven districts namely Palolo,

Kulawi, Sigi Biromaru, Dolo Lore Utara, Lore Tengah and Lore Selatan,

Figure 3.1. Map of study area, Ngata Toro at the western margin of the Lore LinduNational Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.

The general condition of habitat within the Park is still good but some areas of

the Park have been converted to agricultural land and in several locations, plantations of

coffee and chocolate have transgressed the Park boundary and now extend several

kilometers inside the Park. On the whole, forest canopy is still intact but lower lying

areas of forest are at greatest risk (TNC and BTNLL 2002)

Study site were selected in Kulawi valley in the vicinity of village “Ngata” Toro

which is located about 100 km away of Palu, the Capital of Central Sulawesi and it

situated at Western part of the margin Lore Lindu National Park

3.2 General Description of Toro village

3.2.1 Geology

The detail geological data of research site is still not complete, but TNC and

BTNLL (2001) described the land system in around these sites belong to TWI system,

and its characterized by precipitous, granite mountain ridge in topography, whereas the

type of soil is Tropudults and Tropept associated with Dystropepts and Fluvant.

Whereas, the description of soil profile from each plot is presented in appendix.

3.2.2 Climate

Based on the comprehensive data collected by Automatic Weather Station which

was installed since 2001 at Toro village by Gravenhorst et al. (2005) that the averages

of relative humidity in Toro village is 85.17 %, whereas ANZDEC (1997) reported that

RH values are generally in the range 77 to 85% around the Lore Lindu National Park

with substantially lower values, 70 to 75%, in the Palu Valley. Whereas, local wind

regimes are more complex, due to the undulating mountainous terrain. At a local level,

variable tree height, and the surface roughness of the forest canopy can be expected to

disrupt movements of the air. The averages of wind speed at the research location is

0.396 m/s.

Any variations in temperature in areas so close to the equator, are largely a result

of cloud cover and altitude. The maximum daily temperature in Palu, near sea level is

32-33ºC, with lows of around 22 to 23ºC. Higher elevations are, as to be expected,

significantly cooler - ambient air temperature dropping around 0.5ºC for every 100 m

rise in altitude. At the Toro village where research took place the monthly mean

temperature is 23.40° C, whereas the average annual global radiation is 17.57 MJ/M2.

(Gravenhorst 2005).

ANZDEC (1997) reported that the majority of areas in the Park experience

their greatest rainfall in the months of April, May, June and July, prior to, and at the

start of, the South Monsoon. But several places around the Park receive their highest

rainfall around April and May. At Toro village particularly, the annual rainfall is

between 2,000 and 3,000 mm (Gravenhorst 2005).

20212223242526

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Month

Air t

empe

ratu

re (C

)

2002 2003 2004

70.00

75.00

80.00

85.00

90.00

95.00

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ober

Nov

emb

er

Dec

emb

er

Month

air h

umid

ity (%

)

2002 2003 2004

Figure 3.2. The averages monthly value of air temperature and relative humidity in thevillage of Toro since 2002-2004 (Gravenhorst et al. 2005)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Month

Glob

al ra

diat

ion

(MJ/

M2)

2002 2003 2004

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.40

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ober

Nov

emb

er

Dec

emb

erM o n t h

Win

d sp

eed

(m/s

)

2002 2003 2004

Figure 3.3. The averages monthly value of global radiation, and wind speed in thevillage of Toro since 2002-2004 (Gravenhorst et al. 2005)

3.2.3 People and Social economic component

Until 2003 the total population of Toro is 2.057, consisting of 1.402 (50.7%)

males and 1.015 (49.3%) females and belong to 507 households (Pemerintah Desa

2003). Toro community is one of indigenous group (“Ind. Masyarakat adat”) that living

around the Lore Lindu National Park. Ngata Toro village being an enclave in Lore

Lindu National Park (UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and nominated by government of

Indonesia for World Heritage Site status) in Central Sulawesi. As indigenous group

(‘Masyarakat adat”) represented by their Institute for Indigenous People of Ngata Toro

village, and organization for the Indigenous Women of Ngata Toro Village

(www.UNDP.org.) . Since 1993, the community of Toro has been carrying out

initiatives aimed, in their words, at “strengthening their traditions, customary laws,

culture and local institutions for sustainable use of our forest, land and water for the

benefit of all their community members and their environment”.

The objectives of the initiatives are:

1. To preserve the tropical forest ecosystem, particularly Lore Lindu National Park,

through revitalizing indigenous knowledge and traditional laws for access, control

and sustainable use of natural resources, and

2. To obtain maximum benefit from the preservation/conservation of the tropical

forest ecosystem in which they live in order to ensure sustainable natural resource-

based development.

Initiatives are based on Toro philosophy “Mahintuwu mampanimpu katuwua

toiboli Topehoi” which means “To protect and preserve together our life and

environment as bestowed by God”. During the period 1993-June 2000, the indigenous

people of Ngata Toro explored and documented their indigenous knowledge, customary

laws, traditions and traditional lands as a foundation for strengthening the relationship

between the people of Ngata Toro and the natural environment, including natural

resources ( www.UNDP.org. ).

The livelihood of Toro people mainly are: wet rice cultivation, dry land farming

(including maize, soybean, peanuts, fruit trees, coffee, cocoa, spices, palm sugar),

livestock, poultry, fishing, forest products (timber, rattan), seasonal and part-time labor

(agricultural labor, some guiding, assisting scientists), handicrafts (rattan products,

“tikar” mats, bark cloth) and some of them are trader.

Rice is the staple food for people living around Toro village. Two or three crops

can be produced per year depending on the altitude, location, variety of rice, and local

tradition. Tree crops grown in the forest margins are an important part of the local

economy. Many families own forest gardens or cacao plantations (“kebun coklat”) and

coffea. Collection of sap from the ”aren” palm is an important source of income for

some families. The sap is collected in bamboo pole and a single tapped tree can produce

up to 6 liters a day. The sap can be drunk directly but more often is boiled down to make

palm sugar or fermented to produce palm wine (“saguer”). Since the decline of the

Indonesian economy and the crash of the rupiah in 1998 there has been an increase in

farming of perennial cash crops, in particular coffee and cocoa, recently “vanilla”

(Vanillia planifolia) also planted together with cacao.

3.2.4 Property Right of Toro communities

The interaction between local communities and forest resources refers to

traditional forest management, particularly by local communities who are more

dependent on forest, not only for utilizing timber products, but also with regard to non-

timber forest products such as rattan, as a source of income, herbal medicine and as a

basis for social activities (Mappatoba 2004).

In general, the local communities in the vicinity of the Park have long been

practicing traditional cultivation systems in interaction with the forest, which indicates

their ability in managing nature forest resources. It is a custom for the local community,

particularly the indigenous people, to open forest in certain sites, which are controlled

by the customary leaders according to their recognition of ethnic land rights (Mappatoba

et al. 1999).

Toro community, for example is one of local community which have a

customary property rights in the vicinity of Lore Lindu National Park. Based on a

participatory land use mapping exercise facilitated by the NGO “Yayasan Tanah

Merdeka”, this customary property was documented. The customary community in

Toro village was identified as a strong keeper of traditional costumes. The local people

have claimed their customary land rights inside the LLNP for them manage. The area of

22,950 ha has been categorized according to their customary land status as follow: (1) a

core zone (nuclear zone), which they called Wanangkiki, (2) a primary forest area,

called Wana, where agriculture activities are forbidden but wood and non wood

products may selectively be harvested for daily use and consumtion upon permission of

the customary institution, (3) secondary forest, which once has been used for shifting

cultivation and now is reserved for various kinds of non-agricultural activities according

to traditional customary regulations- this area is called Pangale, and (4) a plantation

area, which was divided into three different types based on the age of the forest, which

is allocated for dry land farming (seasonal and perennial crops) and subject to certain

protective conditions as summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 : Types of Customary Community Land Rights in Toro Village

No Traditional terms Zone types Size (ha)

1 Wanangkiki Core Zone 2,300

2 Wana Primary forest 11,300

3 Pangale Secondary forest 3,950

4 Pahawa Pongko and Huma Plantation area 5,400

T o t a l 22,950

Source : Participatory Mapping of Toro Customary Community , 2000

3.3 Study sites

As our study area, the village of village Toro (fig.3.4) is characterized in many

parts by a mosaic of primary forest, primary less disturbed forest, primary more

disturbed forest, secondary forests, and several land-use systems with cacao, coffee,

maize, and paddy (rice) as the dominating crops Gerold et al. 2002). The elevation of

the selected sites is between 800 m and 1100 m, therefore covering an altitudinal range

that belongs to the submontane forest zone (Whitten et al. 1987; Kessler et al. 2005).

Structure and composition was studied in six land use types including three types

of rain forest and three of agroforest system namely: undisturbed natural forest

(“huma”), lightly disturbed natural forest (“pahawa 1”), moderately disturbed natural

forest (“pangale 2”), cacao forest garden (“pahawa pongko 1”), cacao cultivated under

mixed canopy tree (“pahawa pongko 2”) and cacao cultivated under monospecific

canopy tree or “huma” ( see Fig. 3.5). The detailed of each land use types and as

follows:

1. Land use types A-C: Rain Forest.

Land use type A (“Wana”): low use intensity of forest/undisturbed rain forest. Naturalforest with traditional use only; human activities restricted to collecting of medicinalplants and extensive hunting; rattan palms abundantly present.

Land use type B (“Pangale 1”): medium use intensity of forest / lightly disturbed rainforest. Natural forest with rattan extraction, rattan palm removed.

Land use type C (“Pangale 2”): moderate use intensity of forest/ moderately disturbedrain forest. Selectively logged forest, containing small to medium sized gaps,disturbance of ground vegetation, and increased abundance of lianas following theselective removal of canopy trees and rattan.

2. Land use types D-F: Agroforestry Systems.

Land use type D( “Pahawa pongko 1”): Cacao forest garden (= land use type D).Cacao cultivated under natural shade trees (= remaining forest cover) in the forestmargin.

Land use type E (“Pahawa pongko 2”): Cacao cultivated under mixed canopy plantedshade trees at the forest margin.

Land use type F (“Huma”): Cacao cultivated under canopy of monospecific plantedshade trees with shade trees more distant the forest margin.

Figure 3.4. Study sites at Toro, Lore Lindu National Park (after Erasmi et al. 2004)

Table 3.1. Analyses of structural plant diversity; geographic position (measured by GPS Garmin 12), altitude and descriptions of each plotPlot Plot Coordinates Altitude Exposition Inclination Canopy Cover Description & Remarks

Code Locality Longitute (S) Latitude (E) m deg deg Upper % Total %

Land Use Type A ( "Wana")A1 Bulu Kalabui 010 30’. 589 1200 02'. 730 950 SE 30 80 80 Many large trees; on eastern slope of Bulu Kalabui

but close to ridge; very sparse understorey andvariable exposition

A2 Bulu Lonca 010 29’. 518 1200 01'. 596 1080 ESE 25 75 75 Many large trees are reaching a height ofapproximately 35m, rattan dominating understory,bamboo on lower edge

A3 Buku Kalabui 010 30’. 714 1200 02'. 750 950 W 20 80 80 Understorey rotan dominated; fairly gentle slope;more slender and lower trees than other plots, evencanopy structure; very close to ridge

A4 Kawumbu 010 29’. 486 1200 03'. 054 1010 280 < 25 75 80 Single large trees are reaching a height ofapproximately 35m. Probably colluvium due tovariable slope and micro relief. Large rocks on thesoil surface. Spring inside plot, canopy veryheterogeneous with some extremely large figs,understorey relatively dense

Land Use Type B ( "Pangale 1")B1 Bulu Kuku 010 30’. 053 1200 01'. 653 1050 90 30-40 60-70 85 One of the highest plots. Very dense understorey

with much Pandanus; steep and large treefall gap onlower edge; some smaller gaps already detectable

B2 Bulu Kalabui 010 30’. 558 1200 02'. 967 840 ESE 25 80 60-70 Natural forest with very sparse understorey, close toopen plantation for precipitation gauge

B3 Bulu Kuku North 010 29’. 400 1200 01'. 607 1080 30 30 60-70 80 Highest and tallest B type. Variable understorey withobvious timber and rotan extraction

B4 Kolewuri 010 29’. 202 1200 02'. 821 1000 270 35 80 80 Steep with light understorey. Fairly moist with talland slender trees but only little rotan

Land Use Type C ( "Pangale 2")C1 Bulu Lonca 010 29’. 490 1200 01'.738 1000 200 30 40 60 One large older treefall gap and smaller gaps from

extracted timber. Variable relief and understorey

C2 Kolewuri 010 29’. 721 1200 02'.802 990 30 20-40 30 60 There are some big tree such as Anthocephalus sp,Pterospermum sp, variable in relief, denseunderstory with also treefall gaps and moist soil

C3 Above Dusun Tujuh 010 30’. 441 1200 01'.373 1000 SSW 30-40 50 60 Soil very rocky and dry. On upper slope belowclearcut (precipitation gauge?); Understorey dense,extremely steep and far from Toro core area

C4 Bulu Kamonua 010 22’. 525 1200 02'.170 1040 E 25 40 60 Evenly spaced gaps from timber extraction,understorey not too dense, little rattan

Land Use Type D ( "Pahawa Pongko 1")D1 Foot of Lonca 010 29’. 649 1200 02'.134 840 NE 25-40 10 30 Owned by Pak Berwin; worst plot, large gap on lower

side without cocoa; steep slope beneath plottowards creek with secondary vegetation. Sparselyspread cocoa, high degree of grass cover, fewshade trees, very steep. Northern border transitioninto E-type plantation.

D2 Kaha 010 30’. 072 1200 01'.761 920 E 0-20 15 50 Owned by Pak Abia; flattest type at highestelevation; one large gap of shade trees in center,trees very tall and at upper boundary; variableground cover

D3 Kauboga 010 29’. 900 1200 01'.821 840 10 30-35 35-40 65 Owned by Pak Penga; evenly spaced cocoa treeswith few gaps and partly dense herbal undergrowthon even slope. Situated on lower edge of forest.Nearby opening as chance for precipitation gauge

D4 Foot of Bulu Kalabui 010 31. 047’ 1200 01'.986 815 200 30-40 50-60 75 Owned by Pak Ambi; steep with thick leaf litter layerand very little herbal undergrowth, highest shadetree cover with small gaps (some shade treesalready ringed, some planted or secondary?) cocoadensely planted (< 80 %) especially on lower slope

Land Use Type E ( "Pahawa Pongko2 ")E1 Jalan Produksi 010 30’. 820 1200 02'.488 825 20 25 25 Owned by Pak Iskandar; Cocoa trees of different

age (max. 6 yrs.); single coffee scrubs; shade trees:papaya, clove, Rambutan, Piper aduncum,Tabernaemontana tree (fruits not used) and 3additional naturally grown tree species (including

manioc tree with edible fruits) ; pineapple and vanillain understorey

E2 Haloda 010 30’. 199 1200 02'.199 815 W 5 30 30 Owned by Pak Samuel; Age of cocoa trees: 3-4 yrs.;shade trees: trees used as fire wood, timber trees forbuilding houses, Arenga palm, Papaya, Erythrina,banana and some additional species.; dense herblayer; chilli and coffee in understorey; beside JalanProduksi; bordered by bamboo fence towards JalanProduksi; size: ca. 1.5ha

E3 Bulu (Dusun Dua) 010 30’. 176 1200 02'.062 820 W 20 30 30 Owned by Pak Ace; Cocoa plantation with plantedshade trees; single coffee scrubs in understorey;size: ca. 1ha; close to western margin of DusunBulu; age of cacao trees: 4 yrs.; shade trees:Erythrina, Arenga, Durian, Jackfruit, Langsat, someadditional fruit trees; diverse layer of naturally grown(after logging) shade trees (ca. 10 spp.); age ofcacao trees: <3 yrs.; dense herb layer; size: < 1ha;diverse and dense herb layer with plantedornamental plants

E4 Foot of Bulu Kamonua 010 29’. 519 1200 02'.026 845 270 35 25 55 Owned by Pak Abdullah; fairly steep with cocoa andherbal understorey; some bananas

Land Use Type E ( "Huma")F1 Powawua 010 31’.049 1200 02'.161 810 10 40 40 Owned by Pak Henox; Shade tree: Erythrina; age of

cocoa trees: 3yrs; height of cacao trees: 1.5-2 m; nocoffee; size of agroforestry system: > 1 ha

F2 Baloli 010 29’.567 1200 02'.351 835 10 20-30 40 Owned by Pak Teodoris; Mixture of 4- 5 yrs and 9yrs. old cocoa trees; shade tree layer dominated byErythrina; single Gliricidia trees, one Ficus andbananas

F3 Watu Bohe 010 29’.753 1200 01'.906 860 10 20 30 Owned by Pak Dada; Shade trees: Erythrina; singlecoffee scrubs; height of cocoa trees: ca. 2.5 m; ageof cocoa trees: 3-5 yrs.

F4 Dusun Tujuh 010 30’.702 1200 01'.436 815 SE 25 15 30 Owned by Pak Andreas; along road out of Toro withlittle herbal undergrowth; height of cocoa treesapprox. 3 m

Data Inclination, exposition and canopy cover received from Dietz et al. (2004)

Figure 3.5. Six land use types differing in use intensity studied at Toro village, LLNP. Above: left to right, Land use type A (“wana”),B (“pangale 1”), C (“pangale 2”). Bottom : Land use type D (“pahawa pongko 1”), E (“pahawa pongko 2”), F (“huma”).

A B C

D E F

62

REFERENCES

ANZDEC, 1997. Indonesia: Central Sulawesi Integrated Area Development andConservation Project TA No 2518-INO Draft Final Report Volume 2. WorkingPapers. ANZDEC Limited Consultants.

Erasmi S, Twele A, Ardiansyah M, Malik A and Kappas M. 2004. MappingDeforstation and Land Cover Conversion at the Rainforest Margin in CentralSulawesi, Indonesia. EARSeL eProceedings 3, 3/2004

Gerold G, Fremerey M. and Guhardja E (eds) 2004. Land use, nature conservation,and the stability of rainforest margins in Southeast Asia. Springer-Verlag BerlinHeildelberg

Gravenhorst G, Ibroms A, Rauf A, June T. 2003.Climatological parameters in theresearch area – supporting measurements and regionalization. STORMA research(Stability of Rain Forest Margin in Indonesia). Indonesia- German join research.

Mappatoba M. 2004. Co-Management of Protected Areas. The case of communityagreements on conservation in the Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi-Indonesia. Institute of Rural Development, Georg-August University ofGottingen. Cuvillier Verlag Gottingen.

Mappatoba M, Somba E, Saleh MS. 1999. Survey System Pertanian I di 7 DesaTertinggal Kecamatan Kulawi, Kabupaten Donggala, CSIAD-CP and DinasTanaman Pangan Propinsi Sulawesi Tengah.

Pemerintah Desa Toro (2001) Monograp Desa Toro


UNDP. 2004. Ngata Toro community/village, Nomination Form for the EquatorPrize. www. UNDP. Com

Whitten AJ, Mustafa M, Henderson GS. 1987. The Ecology of Sulawesi, 777 p.Gadjah Mada Univ. Press, Yogyakarta.

63

Chapter IVTREE DIVERSITY IN SIX LAND USE TYPES

IN CENTRAL SULAWESI, INDONESIA –a case study of Toro village, Lore Lindu National Park

Summary

I studied tree diversity in six different land use types differing in use intensity:

“ Wana” (A; undisturbed rain forest), “Pangale type 1” (B; lightly disturbed rain

forest), “Pangale type 2” (C; moderately disturbed rain forest), and three types of

agroforest systems of cacao (D: “Pahawa pongko type 1; ” E: “Pahawa pongko 2; ”

and F: “Huma”). Trees (dbh > 10 cm) were sampled in twenty four plots of 0.25 ha in

all six land use types (4 replicates each). The data support the notion that tree

diversity in the submontane rain forests of Central Sulawesi is unusually high and

gradually decreases with increased disturbance. In total, 248 tree species (143 genera,

59 families) were recorded including 52 species with economic importance as timber

trees, 66 species is element East Malesia (inc.27 endemic to Sulawesi), and 23

cultivated species. Sapling (dbh 2-9.9 cm) recorded 194 species comprising 118

genera and 65 families whereas seedling consisting 151 species. Number of tree

species was 51-63 per 0.25 ha in primary forest and gradually decreased from land

use types B to F. Tree abundance, however, was greatest in slightly disturbed forest.

Tree species composition differed significantly between forests and agroforest

systems, with Palaquium quercifolium, Palaquium obovatum, Chionanthus laxiflorus,

Castanopsis acuminatissima, Lithocarpus celebicus, Ficus trachypison, Neonauclea

intercontinentalis, Pandanus sarasinorums, Antidesma montanum, Oreochnide

rubescens, Canarium hirsutum, Eonymus acuminifolius and Sarcosperma paniculata

being predominant in the forests and Coffea robusta, Theobroma cacao, Cocos

nucifera, Erythrina subumbrans, Glyricidia sepium, Arenga pinnata, Nephelium

lappaceum and Syzygium aromaticum in the agroforest systems. At the family level,

undisturbed natural forest was dominated by Fagaceae, Sapotaceae, Meliaceae and

Lauraceae, disturbed forest by Moraceae, Sapotaceae, Rubiaceae, and agroforestry

64

systems by Sterculiaceae and Fabaceae. The rain forests of Central Sulawesi are rich

in large-sized timber trees although tree size may vary locally.

Keywords: human impact, land use type, Lore Lindu National Park, Sulawesi,Indonesia, tree diversity, tropical rain forest.

4. 1. Introduction

Sulawesi is the largest island in Wallacea region, is part of the biogeographic

region of Malesia which covers Indonesia, North Borneo, New Guinea, Malaysia,

South Thailand and the Philippines (van Steenis 1950). Floristically, Sulawesi

belongs to the Eastern Malesia, together with Moluccas and New Guinea (Jacobs

1981). Sulawesi’s forest, are characterized by the almost absence of

Dipterocarpaceae, a dominant plant family in western Malesian forest. In Borneo

there are 267 of Dipterocarp species of which 60% are endemic, Sumatra has 106

species with 10% endemic, and The Phillipines 45, of which 50% are or were

endemic but Philippines dipterocarp forests have been almost entirely logged (Jacobs

1981). In whole Sulawesi only six are recorded, two of them (Vatica rassak (Korth.)

Blume and Sunaptera flavovirens (Slooten) Kosterm) found in the whole island, the

other four have a restricted distribution (Keßler et al 2002). The Fagaceae also show

almost the same phenomenon : Only six species of Lithocarpus oaks and two of

Castanopsis chestnuts are known from Sulawesi, compared with c.60 and 21

respectively recorded from Borneo (Keßler 2002, unpublished).

Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia was chosen as the

focus of this study for a number reasons. It is one the important protected areas in

Indonesia which was declared as a “biosphere reserve” in 1977. Biosphere reserves

were conceived as “experimental sites for sustainable development, research and

monitoring on ecosystems and conservation of biodiversity”, and at the same time

meant to “promote well being of local people who live in and around the reserve”

(UNESCO 1995). Lore Lindu National Park has also been nominated as a “World

Heritage Site” by the Indonesian Government because of its magnificent cultural,

archaeological, and ecological importance. The area has considerable conservation

value and provides watershed protection for a number of major river catchments

system in Central Sulawesi. With 225 species of birds (78 endemic to Sulawesi), 77

65

species of mammals, and 26 endemic reptiles the area is determined as a local hotspot

of biodiversity (TNC/ BTNLL 2002). Generally, habitats in the interior of Lore

Lindu National Park are still relatively undisturbed, but some areas of the park have

been converted to agricultural land and in several locations plantations of coffee and

cacao have transgressed the park boundary and now extend several kilometers into the

Park.

In the framework of the interdisciplinary research project STORMA of the

German Research Foundation (Gerold et al. 2004) tree diversity in different habitat

types in the region of Lore Lindu National Park has been studied. Sulawesi has a very

rich flora with more than 5000 plant species reported, including more than 2000

woody species and several hundred species of mosses and liverworts (Whitten et al.

1987; Keßler et al. 2002; Gradstein et al. 2005). Preliminary results showed that tree

diversity in the park is unusually high, reaching to 150 tree species (10 cm dbh) per

hectare at 900-1200 m elevation (Pitopang et al. 2004; Kessler et al. 2005). We also

found that basal area in primary forest was 140 m² ha-1, one of the highest values ever

recorded in tropical forests worldwide. Species richness declined from primary forest

to forest gardens, secondary forests, and cacao plantations, with species of Lauraceae,

Meliaceae, and Euphorbiaceae being predominant in primary forests, Euphorbiaceae,

Rubiaceae and Myristicaeae in forest gardens, and Euphorbiaceae, Urticaceae, and

Ulmaceae in young secondary forests. Cacao plantations were composed almost

exclusively of cacao trees and two species of legume shade trees (Kessler et al. 2005).

Comparative studies of birds and butterflies demonstrated parallel declines of species

richness (Schultze et al. 2004). Comparisons with epiphytic bryophytes and lichens

are in preparation (Sporn and Gradstein 2005; Ariyanti et al. 2005).

New data on tree diversity in different land use types in previously unstudied

part of Lore Lindu National Park are presented. The main objective was to determine

the impact of human use intensity on the taxonomic composition of the tree diversity

of these forests.

4.2. Material and Methods

4.2.1. Study Site

66

The study area was located in the surroundings of Toro, a village at the

western margin of Lore Lindu NP about 100 km south of Palu, the Capital of Central

Sulawesi. Research was carried out from April 2004 to August 2005. Detailed

informations on the climate and soil conditions of this part of Central Sulawesi are not

yet available (see Whitten et al. 1987). Gravenhorst (2005) reported that mean annual

rainfall in the study area is varied from 1,500 and 3,000 mm, mean relative humidity

is 85.17 %, monthly mean temperature is 23.40° C. Administratively, this village

belong to Kulawi district, Donggala Regency. This village is accessible by car, truck,

motorbike and public car from Palu. As our study area, the margin of the National

Park is characterized in many parts by a mosaic of primary forest, primary less

disturbed forest, primary more disturbed forest, secondary forests, and several land-

use systems with cacao, coffee, maize, and paddy (rice) as the dominating crops

(Gerold et al. 2004) The elevation of the selected sites is between 800 m and 1100 m,

therefore covering an altitudinal range that belongs to the submontane forest zone

(Whitten et al. 1987).

Tree diversity was studied in six different land use types differing in use

intensity, including three types of rain forest and three of agroforest system, as

follows:


Land use type A (“Wana”): low use intensity/undisturbed rain forest. Naturalforest with traditional use only; human activities restricted to collecting ofmedicinal plants and extensive hunting; rattan palms abundantly present.

Land use type B (“Pangale 1”): medium use intensity / lightly disturbed rainforest. Natural forest with rattan extraction, rattan palm removed.

Land use type C (“Pangale 2”): moderate use intensity / moderately disturbed rainforest. Selectively logged forest, containing small to medium sized gaps,disturbance of ground vegetation, and increased abundance of lianas following theselective removal of canopy trees and rattan.

67



Land use type E (“Pahawa pongko 2”): Cacao cultivated under planted shade treesat the forest margin.

Land use type F (“Huma”): Cacao cultivated under planted shade trees with shadetrees more distant the forest margin.

Each land use type was sampled in plots with 4 independent replicates. Plots

were selected as much as possible at similar elevation to avoid macroclimate-induced

differences in plant composition, but unavoidably plots of land use types A-C were

located at slightly higher elevation (hill tops) than land use types D-F (lower slopes)

(Table 1). Plot size was determined by the minimum area curve and was 50 x 50 m.

Each plot was subdivided into 25 subplots of 10 x 10 m² each and all trees dbh > 10

cm were recorded. Individually numbered with aluminum tags, their position in the

plot mapped, their dbh measured, and trunk as well as total height estimated.

All recognizable morphospecies of trees were collected in sets of at least seven

duplicates. Plant collecting was according to the “Schweinfurth method” (Bridson and

Forman 1999). Additional voucher specimens of plant material with flowers or fruits

were collected for identification purposes. Processing of the specimens was conducted

at Herbarium Celebense (CEB), Universitas of Tadulako, Palu. Identification was

done in the field, in CEB, and the Herbarium Bogoriense (BO), Bogor. Vouchers

were deposited in CEB, with duplicates in BO, GOET, L and BIOT.

4.3. Results

All species of tree, sapling and seedling recorded in the plot listed in Table

4.1. Total number of tree species (dbh > 10 cm) recorded was 248 comprising 143

genera, 58 families including 52 species with economic importance as timber trees, 66

species is Eastern Malesia element (inc. 27 endemic to Sulawesi), and 23 cultivated

68

species. Sapling (dbh 2-9.9 cm) recorded 194 species comprising 118 genera and 65

families whereas seedling consisting 151 species. The gradient of the species – area

curve (Figure 4.1) suggest that increasing plot size have resulted further number

species and after that at the point 0.3 ha, there was not increasing of number species,

it therefore concluded that the minimum plot size was 0.25 ha (50 m X 50 m). The

number of species, genera, and families per plot are shown in Figure 4.2. The number

of tree species per 0.25 ha was highest in undisturbed forest (land use type A; 51-63

spp.) and gradually decreased from land use types B to F.

The number of tree species and its composition differ significantly between

forests and agroforest systems, with Palaquium quercifolium, Palaquium obovatum,

Chionanthus laxiflorus, Castanopsis acuminatissima, Lithocarpus celebicus, Ficus

trachypison, Neonauclea intercontinentalis, Pandanus sarasinorum, Antidesma

montanum, Oreochnide rubescens, Canarium hirsutum, Eonymus acuminifolius, and

Sarcosperma paniculata being dominant and common in the forest (land use types A-

C), and Coffea robusta, Theobroma cacao, Cocos nucifera, Erythrina subumbrans,

Gliricidia sepium, Arenga pinnata, Nephelium lappaceum, and Syzygium aromaticum

in the agroforestry systems (D-F). At the family level undisturbed forest (A) was

dominated by Fagaceae, Sapotaceae, Meliaceae, and Lauraceae, disturbed forest (B-

C) by Moraceae, Rubiaceae, Myristicaceae, and agroforest system (D-F) by

Sterculiaceae and Leguminosae. Artocarpus elasticus, A. vrieseanus, Turpinia

sphaerocarpa, Horsfieldia costulata, and Astronia macrophylla were the most

important forest species used as shade trees in cacao forest gardens.

69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Cumulative area (ha)

Spec

ies

num

ber

Figure 4.1. Cumulative number of species encountered in undisturbed forest of Torovillage Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B C D E F

Land Use System

The

Mea

n of

num

ber

Species Genera Family

Figure 4.2. The number of tree species, genera and families in 6 land use typesdiffering in use intensity at the studied area.

70

The analyses revealed greatest tree abundance (= individuals per plot) in slightly

disturbed forest and highest basal area in undisturbed forest, which had more large-

sized trees than other land use types. The relatively low basal areas in moderately

disturbed forest (33.7 m²/ha) and cacao forest gardens (20.5 m²/ha) indicated that

many large trees were selectively extracted. Cacao plantations contained mostly

small-sized planted trees and had low basal area values.

Land use types A-C: rain forest

In the undisturbed forest (type A) 51-63 tree species >10 cm dbh, belonging to

20-29 families, were recorded per 0.25 ha plot. The number of tree species in this land

use type was higher than in other types. The predominant tree species were

Palaquium quercifolium (Sapotaceae) followed by Chionanthus laxiflorus (Oleaceae)

and Dysoxyllum densiflorum (Meliaceae) in plot A1 and Castanopsis acuminatissima

and Lithocarpus celebicus (both Fagaceae), and Ficus trachypiton (Moraceae) in

plots A2-4, respectively. At the family level the forest was dominated by Fagaceae,

Sapotaceae, Meliaceae and Lauraceae. The abundance of tree species varied from

592-616 stems per ha and basal area from 36.4-80.2 m²; average basal area in the

undisturbed forest was 56.2 m² ha-¹.

The number of tree species in lightly disturbed forest (type B) was 46-62 spp.

per 0.25 ha, or almost as high as in undisturbed forest. The predominant tree species

were different from those in undisturbed forest, however, and included Pandanus

sarasinorum (Pandanaceae), Palaquium obovatum (Sapotaceae), Neonauclea

intercontinentalis ( Rubiceae), and Meliosma sumatrana (Sabiaceae). Tree species

abundance varied from 484-724 stems per ha and basal area from 49.2-52.6 m² ha-¹..

In moderately disturbed forest (type C) 44-53 tree species were recorded per

0.25 ha. The predominant species were Neonuclea intercontinentalis and Pandanus

sarasinorum in plot C1 and Oreochnide rubescens (Urticaceae) Canarium hirsutum

(Burseraceae), and Castanopsis acuminatissima in C2-4 . Abundance of tree species

varied from 458-560 stems per plot and basal area from 23.8-43.2 m² ha-¹ .

71

Land use type D-F: agroforest system

In cacao forest garden (type D) 15-32 tree species were found per 0.25 ha. The

predominant tree species were Theobroma cacao L. (Sterculiaceae) , Coffea robusta

(Rubiaceae), Erythrina subumbrans (Fabaceae), Artocarpus elasticus (Moraceae),

Turpinia sphaerocarpa (Staphyliaceae), Bischofia javanica Blume (Euphorbiaceae)

and Astronia macrophylla (Melastomataceae). The highest tree abundance was 428

and the lowest 228. Basal area was 11.6-31.5 m² ha-¹.

In cacao plantations near the forest margin (type E) we recorded 13-30 tree

species per plot. The predominant tree species were Syzygium aromaticum

(Myrtaceae), Horsfieldia costulata (Myristicaceae), Erythrina subumbrans, Bischoffia

javanica (Euphorbiaceae), Arenga pinnata (Arecaceae), Durio zibethinus

(Bombacaceae), Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae) and

Theobroma cacao. Tree abundance was 226-412 stems per ha and the highest basal

area 27.6 m² ha-¹.

In cacao plantations away from the forest margin (type F), finally, 3-14 tree

species were recorded per plot. Theobroma cacao, Erythrina subumbran,

Cinnamomum burmanii (Lauraceae), Arenga pinnata, Glyricidia sepium (Fabaceae)

and Cocos nucifera were the dominant species in this land use type. Tree abundance

was 140-604 stems per plot and the highest basal area 19.1 m².

We recorded 66 tree species belong to Eastern Malesia element including 27

endemic species to Sulawesi. Some endemic tree species were founded in the plots

namely Horsfieldia costulata, Myristica kjelbergii, Knema celebica (Myristicaceae),

Ardisia celebica Scheff (Myrsinaceae), Mitrephora celebica, Orophea celebica.,

Polyalthia celebica Blume (Annonaceae), Deehasia celebica (Lauraceae),

Mussaendopsis celebica, Neonauclea ventricosa (Rubiaceae), Beilschmidia

gigantocarpa (Lauraceae), Timonius minahassae (Rubiaceae), Ficus decipiens, Ficus

geocarpa, Pandanus lauterbrachii, Pandanus sarasinorum (Pandanaceae),

Macadamia hildebrandii (Proteaceae), Pigafetta elata. (Arecaceae) etc. Most of these

endemic species was founded in the three type of natural forest, nevertheless at the

cacao forest garden (plot D3) we also recorded at least two endemic trees such as;

Horsfieldia costulata and Mussaendopsis beccariana

72

4.4. Discussion

The investigated undisturbed rain forests around Toro, on the southwestern

side of Lore Lindu National Park, appear to be slightly less rich in tree species than

those on the eastern and northeastern sides of Lore Lindu Park investigated by Kessler

et al. (2005). The latter authors recorded 76 tree species per 0.25 ha (dbh > 10 cm)

from undisturbed forest near Wuasa and 148 per ha near Kamarora. In the present

study, 51-63 species per 0.25 ha were found in undisturbed forest. The species

numbers recorded in this study from undisturbed forest are higher, however, than

those from Lore Lindu Park reported by Brodbeck et al. (2004) (Table 4.2) and

Mansyur (2003). The latter author reported 81 tree species per 0.5 ha at Salua and 45

per 0.5 ha at Kaduwaa. The lower figures obtained in the latter studies may be due to

the different field methodologies applied and environmental factor in these studies as

compared with those of Kessler et al. (2005) and the present study.

A comparison of with natural forests elsewhere in Southeast Asia and in

Australia shows that tree species numbers vary considerably among sites (Table 4.1).

Although number of tree species per hectare was not recorded in the present study, the

data obtained seem to support the notion that tree diversity in the submontane rain

forests of Central Sulawesi is unusually high (Kessler et al. 2005).

Table 4.2 Number of tree species per hectare in selected tropical rain forest plots ofSoutheast Asia and Australia. NP.= National Park

Sites Number of speciesper ha

Elevation(m)

Literature

Melinau, East KalimantanBatu Apoi NP, BruneiGunung Mulu NP,Sarawak, MalaysiaPasoh, MalaysiaBukit Tiga Puluh NP, Riau, SumatraBatang Gadis NP, North SumatraQueensland, AustraliaCMBRS, Papua New GuineaGunung Halimun NP, West JavaNegro island, PhillipinesLore Lindu NP, Central SulawesiLore Lindu NP, Central SulawesiToraut, North SulawesiGede Pangrango NP, West Java

22527821421021618210822811692

14889

10957

100100200200297660730900

1000100011001100200

1600

Kartawinata et al. (in prep)Small et al. (2004)Proctor et al.(1983)Kochummen et al. (1990)Polosokan et al. (2001)Kartawinata et al. (2004)Phillips et al. (1994)Wright et al. (1997)Simbolon et al. (1997)Hamann et al (1999)Kessler et al. (2005)Brodbeck et al. (2004)Whitmore & Sidiyasa (1986)Yamada (1975)

73

Tree species number in the different land use types analyzed near Toro

gradually decreased with increased forest disturbance, and again towards forest

gardens and was lowest in plantations. A similar decrease species diversity along the

disturbance gradient was recorded from the eastern and northeastern side of Lore

Lindu Park by Kessler et al. (2005), who recorded highest species diversity in primary

forests, followed by forest garden and cacao plantation. Data on disturbed forest were

not retrieved in the latter study and are presented here for the first time.

Cacao forest gardens near Toro had 15-32 tree species per 0.25 ha and are

almost as species as those near Wuasa in the Lore Lindu Park area , which have 19-35

tree species per 0.25 ha (Kessler et al. 2005). Much lower values (32-40 spp. per

hectare) whereas reported from Rompo and Kulawi in the Lore Lindu Park area by

Brodbeck et al. (2004), presumably due to different field methodologies applied (see

above). These results document a considerable variability of tree species richness

with the relatively compact area Lore Lindu National Park. The cause for this

variability are unknown but may be due to geological and edaphic differences.

At the forests near Toro recorded 66 tree species which was belong to Eastern

Malesia element, including 27 endemic to Sulawesi. Floristically, Sulawesi belongs to

the the Eastern Malesia, together with Moluccas and New Guinea (Jacobs 1981; Van

Steenis 1950), whereas Roos et al (2004) pointed out that approximately 15-20% of

Sulawesi’s flora are endemic to Sulawesi.

4.5. Conclusions

Total number of tree species (dbh > 10 cm) recorded was 248 comprising

143 genera, 58 families including 52 species with economic importance as timber

trees, 66 species is element East Malesia (inc.27 endemic to Sulawesi), and 23

cultivated species.

Number of tree species per 0.25 ha was 51-63 in primary forest and gradually

decreased towards the studied cacao systems. However, when native and cultivated

tree species were considered separately, significant differences were detected among

plantation types in terms of tree diversity.

74

Basically, tree species composition differed significantly between forests and

agroforest systems with Palaquium quercifolium, Palaquium obovatum, Castanopsis

acuminatissima, Lithocarpus celebicus, Chionanthus laxiflorus, Ficus sp,

Neonauclea intercontinentalis, Pandanus sarasinorum, Meliosma sumatrana,,

Oreochnide rubescens, Canarium hirsutum, Horsfieldia costulata, and Michelia

champaca L. var.champaca being dominant and common in the forest (land use types

A-C), and Theobroma cacao, Cocos nucifera, Erythrina subumbrans, Glyricidia

sepium, Arenga pinnata, Nephelium lappaceum, Coffea robusta, and Syzygium

aromaticum in the agroforestry systems (D-F).

75

REFERENCES

Ariyanti N, Tjitrosoedirdjo SS and Gradstein SR. 2005. Diversity and abundance ofepiphytic bryophytes on trunk bases in relation to use intensity of natural forest inLore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Abstract, STORMASymposium Gottingen, Germany, 20-23 September 2005.

Bridson D and Forman L. 1999. The Herbarium Handbook. Third edition. RoyalBotanic Gardens. KEW

Brodbeck F, Weidelt HJ and Mitlohner R. 2004. Traditional Forest Gardens in CentralSulawesi: A Sustainable Land Use System? In; Land use, Nature Conservationand the Stability of Rainforest Margins in Southeast Asia. Eds: Gerold, G., M.Fremery, and E. Guhardja. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Gerold G, Fremerey M and Guhardja E (eds) 2004. Land use, nature conservation,and the stability of rainforest margins in Southeast Asia. Springer-Verlag BerlinHeildelberg

Gradstein SR, Tan B, King C, Zhu RL, Drubert C & Pitopang R. 2005. Catalogue ofthe Bryophytes of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of the Hattori BotanicalLaboratory 98. 213-257

Hamann A, Barbon EB, Curio E and Madulid DA 1999. A botanical inventory of asubmontane tropical rainforest on Negros Island, Philippines. Biodiversity andConservation 8: 1017–1031.

Jacobs M. 1981. The Tropical Rain Forest. A First encounter. Springer-Verlag. BerlinHeidelberg, Tokyo.

Kartawinata K, Riswan S, Gintings AN and Puspitojati T. 2001. An Overview ofPost-Extraction Secondary Forest in Indonesia. J.Tropical Forest Sciences 13(4):621-638

Kartawinata K, Samsoedin I, Heriyanti M and Afriastini JJ. 2004. A tree speciesinventory in a hectare plot at the Batang Gadis National Park. North Sumatra.Indonesia. Reinwardtia 12 : 145-157

Kartawinata K et al. (in preparation). Floristic composition and Structure of a one-hectare plot of a dipterocarp forest at Malinau, East Kalimnatan, Indonesia

Keßler PJA, Bos MM, Sierra Daza SEC, Willemse LPM, Pitopang R & GradsteinSR. 2002. A checklist of the woody plants of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Blumea,Supplement 14: 1-160.

Keßler PJA. 2002 Tree Flora of Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi,Indonesia (unpublished).

Kessler M, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR, Bach K, Schmull M & Pitopang R. 2005.Tree diversity in primary forest and different land use systems in CentralSulawesi, Indonesia. Biodiversity and conservation 14: 547-560.

Kochummen KM, Lafrankie Jr LV, and Manokaran N. 1990. Floristic Composition ofPasoh Forest Reserve, a Lowland rain forest in Peninsular Malaysia.J.Trop.For.Sci.3: 1-13

76

Mansyur M. 2003. Analisis Vegetasi Hutan Di Desa Salua dan Kaduwaa. TamanNasional Lore Lindu. Sulawesi Tengah. Proseding Workshop dan Promosi FloraKawasan Timur Indonesia. Denpasar

Polosokan R. 2001. Komposisi jenis pohon di hutan kawasan Taman Nasional BukitTigapuluh, Propinsi Riau. In Sunaryo et al. (eds), Laporan Teknik 2001; ProyekInventarisasi dan Karakterisasi Sumberdaya Hayati, Pusat Penelitian Biologi,LIPI, Bogor.

Phillips OL, Hall P, Gentry AH, Sawyer SA, and Vasquez R. 1994. Dynamic andspecies richness of tropical rain forest. Proc.Natl.Acad. Sci.U.S.A.91: 2805-2809

Proctor JJ, Anderson M, Chai P and Vallack HW1983. Ecological studies in fourcontrasting lowland rain forest in Gunung Mulu National Park, Serawak.J. Ecol.71: 237-260

Pemerintah Desa Toro, 2001. Monograp Desa Toro

Pitopang R. & Gradstein SR 2004. Herbarium Celebense (CEB) and its role insupporting research on plant diversity of Sulawesi. Biodiversitas 5: 36-41.

Pitopang R, Gradstein SR, Kessler PJA & Guhardja E. 2004. 4 Years HerbariumCelebense. Sixth International Flora Malesiana Symposium, Los Banos,Philippines, 20-24 Sept. 2004.

Pitopang R, Kessler M, Kessler PJA & Gradstein SR. 2004. Tree Diversity inPrimary Forest, Secondary Forest and Forest Garden in Central Sulawesi,Indonesia. Abstract, Sixth International Flora Malesiana Symposium, Los Banos,Philippines, 20-24 Sept. 2004.

Roos MC, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR & Baas P. 2004. Species diversity andendemism of 5 major Malesian islands: diversity-area relationships. J. Biogeogr.31: 1893-1908.


Simbolon H, Suzuki E and Yoneda M. 1997. Study on the biodiversity and dynamicof forest ecosystem in Gunung Halimun National Park, West Java, Indonesia.Paper presented on the International Workshop on Biodiversity and Dynamic ofForest Ecosystem in Western Pacific and Asia.Kyoto, Japan: 10-11 November1997

Small A, Martin TG, Kitching RL, Wong KM. 2004. Contribution of tree species tohe biodiversity of a ha old world rainforest in Brunei, Borneo. Biodiversity andConservation 13: 2067-2088

Sporn SG and Gradstein SR. 2005. Diversity of cryptogamic epiphytic bryophytes incacao plantations in Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.Abstract, STORMA Symposium Gottingen, Germany, 20-23 September 2005.


77

UNESCO. 1995. Co-operative Scientific study of East Asian Biosphere Reserves.United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Jakarta.

Turner IM. 2001. The Ecology the Tropical Rainforest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

Van Steenis CGGJ. 1950. The delimitation of Malaysia and its main plantgeographical divisions in Flora Malesiana (van Steenis CGGJ ed.) Noordhoff-Kolff N.V., Djakarta.

Whitmore TC and Sidiyasa K. 1986. Composition and structure of a lowland rainforest at Toraut, Northern Sulawesi. Kew Bulletin 41 ; 747-756

Whitmore TC and Sayer JA (eds) 1992. Tropical Deforestation and SpeciesExtinction. Chapman & Hall, London.

Whitten AJ, Mustafa M. and Henderson GS. 1987. The Ecology of Sulawesi, 777 p.Gadjah Mada Univ. Press, Yogyakarta.

Wright DD, Jessen JH, Burke P and de Silva Garza HG. 1997. Tree and LianaEnumeration and Diversity on a One-Hectare plot in Papua New Guinea.J.Biotropica 29(3): 250-260

Yamada I. 1975. Forest ecological studies of the montane forest of Mt.Pangrango,West Java. I. Stratification and floristic composition of the montane rain forestnear Cibodas. The Southeast Asian Studies 13; 402-426

78

Table 4.1 List of Tree (dbh > 10 cm) collected from research sites.No Family Scientific name Site Distr. Origin or Distribution

1 Aceraceae Acer laurinum Hassk. A, B, C East Malesia to Phillipines and Timor2 Anacardiaceae Buchanania arborescens (Blume) Blume A, E Andamans, Indochines, Taiwan, Throughout Malesia to Solomons and Australia3 Anacardiaceae Dracontamelon dao (Blume) Merr.& Rolfe A, B, C, D, E India to Salomon4 Anacardiaceae Koordersiodendron pinnatum (Blume) Merr. A, B Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea5 Anacardiaceae Mangifera foetida Lour B, C Thailand, Indochine, Malaya, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi6 Anacardiaceae Semecarpus forstenii Blume A, B, C Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea, Solomons7 Anacardiaceae Spondias pinnata (L.f.) Kurz. E India, Burma, Thailand, Malesia to Salomon islands, at several places cultivated8 Annonaceae Alphonsea javanica Scheff. A, B Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas9 Annonaceae Cananga odorata Hook.f &Thomson B, C, D, E, F India to N. Queensland, Fiji

10 Annonaceae Goniothalamus brevicuspis Miq. A, B, C Malesia11 Annonaceae Goniothalamus macrophylla (Bl) Hook&Thomson C Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi12 Annonaceae Goniothalamus majestatis Kessler A Unknown13 Annonaceae Mitrephora celebica Miq. A, B, C Endemic to Sulawesi14 Annonaceae Orophea celebica Miq. B, C Endemic to Sulawesi15 Annonaceae Polyalthia glauca Boerl. B, C, D Andaman, Thailand, Indonesia (except Less.Sunda)16 Annonaceae Polyalthia lateriflora (Hook) & Thoms. B Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia17 Annonaceae Polyathia celebica Miq. A, B, C Endemic to Sulawesi18 Apocynaceae Alstonia scholaris R.Br. F From, S. China to Queensland and Solomons

19 Apocynaceae Alstonia spectabilis R.Br. AJava, Borneo,Less. Sunda, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea, N.Australia

20 Aquifoliaceae Ilex cymosa Blume D Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi21 Araliaceae Polyscias nodosa (Blume) Seem. A, B, C, D, E Java, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea, Solomons22 Arecaceae Areca cathecu L. E Pantropical23 Arecaceae Areca vestiaria Giseke A, B Sulawesi, Moluccas24 Arecaceae Arenga pinnata Merr. A, B, C, D, E, F Malesia25 Arecaceae Arenga undulatifolia Merr. A, B Borneo, Sulawesi26 Arecaceae Caryota mitis Lour A, B, C Malesia27 Arecaceae Cocos nucifera L E, F Pantropical

79

28 Arecaceae Metroxylon sagu Merr. E Sulawesi, Moluccas29 Arecaceae Pigafetta elata Becc. B Endemic to Sulawesi30 Arecaceae Pinanga aurantiaca Mogea A, B, C Endemic to Sulawesi31 Arecaceae Pinanga caesea Blume A, B, C Sulawesi, Moluccas33 Bombacaceae Bombax ceiba L. E Srilanka, Indochina, Malesia, Australia34 Bombacaceae Durio zibethinus Murr. E wild in Sumatra and Borneo but very extensively cultivated35 Boraginaceae Cordia mixa G. Forster E, F Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Moluccas36 Burseraceae Canarium balsaminiferum Will A, B Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea37 Burseraceae Canarium hirsutum Willd A, B, C, D Malesia, Pasific38 Burseraceae Santiria laevigata Blume A, C, E Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi.39 Caricaceae Carica papaya L. E Tropical Africa40 Celasteraceae Euonymous acuminifolius Blakelock B, C Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi41 Celasteraceae Euonymous javanicus Blume C Andamans, Nicobars, Indochina, Malesia east to Irian Jaya42 Celasteraceae Lopopethalum javanicum (Zoll.) Thunb A Unknown43 Celasteraceae Siphonodon celastrineus Griff. A, B, C India to Malesia44 Clusiaceae Callophyllum soulattri Burm.f. A, B, C Vietnam to Australia45 Clusiaceae Cratoxylon celebicum A, B Endemic to Sulawesi46 Clusiaceae Garcinia dulcis (Roxb.) Kurtz A, B, C Native to Indonesia and Phillipines47 Clusiaceae Garcinia lateriflora Blume A, B, C Malesia48 Clusiaceae Garcinia parviflora (Miq.) Miq. A, B, C Malaya, Singapore, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi49 Clusiaceae Garcinia sp A, B Unknown50 Cunoniaceae Weinmannia celebica Koord. A, B Sulawesi, Moluccas51 Cyatheaceae Cyathea amboinensis (Aldrew.) Merr. A, B, C Sulawesi, Moluccas52 Datiscaceae Octomeles sumatrana Miq. A Malesia except Malaya, Java, Less.Sunda53 Dilleniaceae Dillenia ochreata (Miq.) Teijsm.& Binn.ex Mart A, B Endemic to Sulawesi54 Ebenaceae Diospyros macrophylla Blume C, D Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines55 Ebenaceae Diospyros minahassae Bakh A, D India, Indochina, Thailand, Malesia56 Elaeocarpaceae Aporosa diocea (Roxb.) Muell. Arg A India, China to Sulawesi57 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus musseri Coode A, B Endemic to Sulawesi58 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus angustifolius Blume A, B, C, D India to Australia59 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus dolichostylus Schltr. A, B Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea, Bismarck60 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus minahassensis Knuth A Endemic to Sulawesi

80

61 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus takolensis Coode B, C Sulawesi, Moluccas62 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus tejsmanii Koord.&Valeton A, C Sulawesi, Moluccas63 Euphorbiaceae Acalypha catturus Blume A Malesia64 Euphorbiaceae Aleurites mollucana (L.) Willd. D, E Extensively planted, originally from Malesia65 Euphorbiaceae Antidesma celebica Miq. C Endemic to Sulawesi66 Euphorbiaceae Antidesma montanum Blume A, B Malaya, Borneo, Sumatra, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi67 Euphorbiaceae Antidesma stipulare Blume B, C, D, E Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas68 Euphorbiaceae Baccaurea tetandra (Baill.) Mull.Arg. A Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea69 Euphorbiaceae Bischofia javanica Blume A, B, C, D, E USSR, India, Indochina, Malesia and Polynesia70 Euphorbiaceae Breynia cernua (Poir.) Mull.Arg D, E Unknown71 Euphorbiaceae Breynia microphylla (Kurz ex .Teijsm.) Mull.Arg. D, F Unknown72 Euphorbiaceae Drypetes celebica (Boerl & Koord) Pax & Hoffm. A Sulawesi, New Guinea73 Euphorbiaceae Gloichidion insignis J.J.Smith C Malesia to Pasific island74 Euphorbiaceae Gloichidion rubrum phillippicum (Cav.) C.B.Rob. D Sulawesi, Moluccas75 Euphorbiaceae Homalium celebicum Koorder A, B Endemic to Sulawesi76 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga hispida (Blume) Mull. Arg C, D Sulawesi, Philippines, Moluccas77 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga tanarius (L.) Mull.Arg. A, B, C Andamans, Malesia to Australia and Melanesia78 Euphorbiaceae Mallotus moritzianus M.A. A, B, C Indochina, throughtout the Malesia79 Euphorbiaceae Mallotus paniculatus (Lam.) Mull.Arg C. E India, Burma, Indochina, Taiwan, Thailand throughtout Malesia80 Euphorbiaceae Microdesmis casearifolius Koorder B Unknown81 Euphorbiaceae Omalanthus populneus (Geiseler) Pax E Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Less. Sunda, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi82 Fagaceae Castanopsis accuminatisima (Blume) Rehder A, B, C, D India, S.China, Malesia to New Guinea83 Fabaceae Erythrina subumbran (Hassk.) Merr D, E, F India, Indochina, Malaya, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, Fiji, Samoa84 Fabaceae Glyricidia sepium (Jack.) Kunth ex Walp. E, F Central America, widely cultivated in Indonesia85 Fagaceae Lithocarpus celebicus (Miq.) Rehder A, B. Sulawesi, Moluccas86 Fabaceae Paraserianthes falcataria (L.) Nielsen E Mainly cultivated87 Flacortiaceae Pangium edule Reinw. A, C Malesia, Melanesia88 Gnetaceae Gnetum gnemon L. A, C Cult.ind Sumatra and Java, wild Assam to Fiji89 Hernandiaceae Hernandia sp C Malesia90 Juglandaceae Engelhardtia rigida Blume A, C Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, Philiphines, New Guinea91 Lauraceae Actynodaphne intermedia (Elmer) Kosterm. B Malesia92 Lauraceae Beilschmidia gigantocarpa Kosterm A, B, C Endemic to Sulawesi

81

93 Lauraceae Cinnamomum burmanii Nees ex Blume F Malesia, cultivated in Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi94 Lauraceae Cinnamomum porrectum (Roxb.) Kosterm A, C, E India, Burma, Thailand, Penin Malay, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi95 Lauraceae Cryptocarya crassinerviopsis Kosterm. A, B, C India, Burma, Indochina, Thailand, Malay Peninsula, Java, Sulawesi, Phillipines96 Lauraceae Cryptocarya laevigata Blume A, C Unknown97 Lauraceae Deehasia celebica Kosterm A, B Endemic to Sulawesi98 Lauraceae Litsea albayana Kosterm A, B, C Malesia99 Lauraceae Litsea densiflora (Teschner) Kosterm. B, C Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi and Phillipines

100 Lauraceae Litsea diversifollia Blume A Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi101 Lauraceae Litsea erectinervia Kosterm. A, B, C Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi102 Lauraceae Litsea firma (Blume) Hook.f. A Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi and Phillipines103 Lauraceae Litsea formanii Kosterm A, B, C Unknown104 Lauraceae Litsea noronhae Blume B Unknown105 Lauraceae Litsea oppositifolia Gibbs. A, B, C Unknown106 Lauraceae Litsea timoriana Span A, B, C Sumatra, Java, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea, Salomon107 Lauraceae Litsea tomentosa Blume Malaya, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, New Guinea108 Lauraceae Peersea americana Mill. E Tropical America109 Lauraceae Phobe grandis (Nees) Merr. E Malaya, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi110 Liliaceae Dracaena angustifolia Roxb A, B, C, D India, Burma, Indochina, Malesia to North Australia111 Liliaceae Dracaena arborea Roxb. A, B, D Sulawesi, Moluccas112 Loganiaceae Fagraea racemosa Wall. A, B Indochina, Thailand, Andamans, Malesia113 Loganiaceae Strichnos axilaris Colebr. B Unknown114 Magnoliaceae Elmerrillia ovalis (Miq.) Dandy A, B, D Sulawesi, Moluccas115 Magnoliaceae Magnolia candolii (Blume) H.Keng var. candolii B Sulawesi, Moluccas116 Magnoliaceae Michelia champaca L. B Malesia117 Melastomataceae Astronia macrophylla Blume B, C, D Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas118 Meliaceae Aglaia argentea Blume A, B, C Thailand, Malesia119 Meliaceae Aglaia eximia Miq. A, D Thailand, Malaya, Java, Sumatra, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas120 Meliaceae Aglaia lawii (Wight) Saldanha ex Ramamoorty A, C India, Bhutan, Burma, Vietnam, Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines121 Meliaceae Aglaia palembanica Miq. A Sumatra, Malaya, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi

122 Meliaceae Aglaia silvetris Miq. A, B, CNicobar, Indochina, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas,N.Guinea

123 Meliaceae Aglaia squamulosa King. B Malaya, Borneo, Sulawesi

82

124 Meliaceae Aphanamixis polystachia (Wall.) R. Parker D Indonesia to Solomon125 Meliaceae Chisocheton ceramicus (Miq.) DC A, B SE Asia to Bismarck126 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum alliaceum (Blume) Blume A, B, C Andamans to Queensland127 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum densiflorum Miq. A, B, C, D S.Burma &Thailand to Malesia128 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum exelsum Blume B, C Nepal, China to Salomon (incl.Indonesia) and Australia129 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum gaudichaudianum (A.Juss) Miq B Java, Less. Sunda, Phillipines, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea, Salomons isl.130 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum macrocarpum Blume A Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi131 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum nutans (Blume) Miq. A, B, C Java, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Moluccas132 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum parasiticum (Osbeck) Kosterm A, B Taiwan, Malesia to Solomon133 Meliaceae Koordersiodendron pinnatum (Blume) Merr. C Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillphines, Moluccas, New Guinea134 Meliaceae Lansium domesticum Jack E, F Thailand and Malesia (wild and cultivated)135 Monimiaceae Kibara coreacea (Blume) Tull. A, B, C Malesia136 Moraceae Artocarpus elasticus Reinw. A, B, D, E, F Burma, Thailand, Malaya, Java, Borneo, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Phillipines137 Moraceae Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam. F Western Ghats, India, Cultivated in Southeast Asia138 Moraceae Artocarpus integer (Thunb.) Merr. A, B, C Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea139 Moraceae Artocarpus teysmanii Miq. B, D, E Malaya, Nicobars, Sumatra, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea140 Moraceae Artocarpus vrieseanus Miq. A, D Sulawesi, Moluccas, Philiphines141 Moraceae Broussonetia papyrifera Vent. B, D India, Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, Indonesia, Japan, Laos142 Moraceae Ficus ampelas Burm.f. C Malesia, Riukiu, Formosa143 Moraceae Ficus annulata Bl. B, C Burma, Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines144 Moraceae Ficus aurita Bl B, C Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, Philliphines, New Guinea145 Moraceae Ficus benyamina L B, C India, China, Malesia to Salomon146 Moraceae Ficus congesta Roxb. B Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea147 Moraceae Ficus decipiens Reinw.ex Blume C Endemic to Sulawesi148 Moraceae Ficus drupacea Thunb. A, B Srilanka to Salomon and Queensland149 Moraceae Ficus geocarpa Tejs ex.Miq. C Endemic to Sulawesi150 Moraceae Ficus gul K. Schum & Lauterb. C Borneo, Sulawesi, Philippines, Moluccas, New Guinea151 Moraceae Ficus minahassae Miq. A, B, C, D Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines152 Moraceae Ficus obscura Blume B Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Talaud, Phillipines153 Moraceae Ficus parvibracteata Corner B Endemic to Sulawesi154 Moraceae Ficus pungens Reinw. Ex. Blume A, B, C, D, E Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea155 Moraceae Ficus racemosa L. A, D India, Pakistan, Srilanka, Indochina, Malesia to North Australia

83

156 Moraceae Ficus septica Rumph.ex.Burm.f. E, F Ryukyu, Formosa, Phillipines, Malesia to Queensland and Melanesia157 Moraceae Ficus sp 1 A, B, C Unknown158 Moraceae Ficus sp 2 B, C Unknown159 Moraceae Ficus sp 3 A, B, C Unknown160 Moraceae Ficus sp 4, (Bunitu) A, B, C Unknown161 Moraceae Ficus trachypison K. Schum. A, B, C Sulawesi, Moluccas162 Moraceae Ficus variegata Blume A, B, C, D S.China, Andaman, Malesia to Salomon163 Moraceae Ficus virgata Reinw.ex.Blume C Ryukyu, Taiwan, Phillipines, Sulawesi, Less. Sunda, Moluccas, New Guinea, Solomon164 Myristicaceae Gymnacrantera sp A, B, C Unknown165 Myristicaceae Horsfieldia costulata (Miq.) Warb. A, B, C, D, E Endemic to Sulawesi166 Myristicaceae Knema celebica de Wilde A, B, C Endemic to Sulawesi167 Myristicaceae Knema cinerea (Poir.) Warb. A, B, C Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Moluccas, Phillipines168 Myristicaceae Myristica fatua Sinclair. B, C Endemic to Sulawesi169 Myristicaceae Myristica impressinervia Sinclair. B Endemic to Sulawesi170 Myristicaceae Myristica kjelbergii W.J. de Wilde A Endemic to Sulawesi171 Myrsinaceae Ardisia celebica Scheff. A, B Endemic to Sulawesi172 Myrtaceae Leptospermum javanicum Blume E Burma, Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Phillipines and Sulawesi173 Myrtaceae Psidium guajava L. E Originally from South America174 Myrtaceae Syzigium aromaticum L. E Moluccas175 Myrtaceae Syzigium celebica E Endemic to Sulawesi176 Myrtaceae Syzigium polycephaloides C.B. Rob. A, B, D Phillipines, Sulawesi.177 Myrtaceae Syzigium sp A, B Unknown178 Myrtaceae Syzygium mallacense (L.) Merr.& Perry D Malesia179 Myrtaceae Tristaniopsis decorticata (Merr.) Wilson A, B Sulawesi, Phillipines,180 Nygtaginaceae Pisonia umbellifera (G.Forst.) Seem A, B, C Africa to Australia and Pasific isl.181 Oleaceae Chionanthus laxiflorus Blume A, B, C Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, New Guinea182 Oleaceae Chionanthus nitens Koord. Valeton A, B, C Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea183 Oleaceae Chionanthus ramiflorus Miq. B Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea184 Pandanaceae Pandanus lauterbrachii Martelli A, B, C, D Endemic to Sulawesi185 Pandanaceae Pandanus sarasinorum Warb. A, B, C Endemic to Sulawesi186 Piperaceae Piper aduncum L E, F South America187 Polygalaceae Xanthophyllum tenuipetalum v.d. Meijden A, E Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea

84

188 Proteaceae Macadamia hildebrandii Steenis A, C Endemic to Sulawesi189 Rhamnaceae Zizipus angustifolius (Miq.) ex.v.Steenis A, B India, Burma, Thailand, Throughout Malesia and Solomon island190 Rosaceae Prunus arboreus (Blume) Kalkman B Sulawesi, Phillipines191 Rubiaceae Anthocephalus macrophyllus (Roxb.) Havil. C Sulawesi, Moluccas192 Rubiaceae Coffea canephora L E Cultivated193 Rubiaceae Coffea robusta Linden ex de Wilde D, E, F Tropical Africa194 Rubiaceae Lasianthus clementis Merr. A, B, C, D Unknown195 Rubiaceae Lasianthus rhinocerotis Blume A, B Unknown196 Rubiaceae Mussaendopsis celebica Bremeck A, B, C, D Endemic to Sulawesi197 Rubiaceae Nauclea subdita (Korth.) Steud. B, C India, Malesia (except New Guinea, Salomon)

198 Rubiaceae Neonauclea calycina (Bartl.ex DC) Merr. BBurma, Indochina, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi, Less.Sunda

199 Rubiaceae Neonauclea intercontinentalis Ridsdale A, B, C, D Endemic to Sulawesi

200 Rubiaceae Neonauclea lanceolata (Blume) Merr. A, B, C, DMalaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, L. Sunda, Moluccas, NewGuinea

201 Rubiaceae Neonauclea ventricosa Ridsdale A Endemic to Sulawesi202 Rubiaceae Rothmania forstenianum (Miq.) B Unknown203 Rubiaceae Timonius minahassae Koord. A, B Endemic to Sulawesi204 Rubiaceae Timonius subsessilis Valeton A, B, C Unknown205 Rubiaceae Urophyllum macrophyllum (Blume) Korth B Unknown206 Rubiaceae Wendlandia densiflora Blume B, C Unknown207 Rutaceae Citrus maxima (Burm.f.) Merr. E Malesia208 Rutaceae Clausena excavata Burm.f C India, Indochina, Thailand, Java, Malaya, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Ne Guinea209 Rutaceae Cleistanthus myrianthes (Hassk.) Kurz. B India, Burma, Malesia to Solomon & N.Australia210 Rutaceae Melicope cf. confusa (Merr.) Liu A, D, E Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillphines, Moluccas211 Rutaceae Melicope latifolia (DC) T.G. Hartley B, D Malay peninsula, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, New Guinea, Samoa, Vanuatu212 Sabiaceae Meliosma sumaterana (Jack) Walp. A, B, C, D Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi and Phillipines213 Sapindaceae Arytera litoralis Blume A Malesia to Bougainvillea214 Sapindaceae Gouia sp F Unknown215 Sapindaceae Harpulia arborea (Blanco) Radlk. B, C Srilanka and India, to Australia throughout Malesia216 Sapindaceae Lepidopetallum sp A, B Unknown217 Sapindaceae Lepisanthes falcata (Radlk.) Leenh. A, C Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillphines

85

218 Sapindaceae Lepisanthes rubiginosa (Roxb.) Leenh. A, C S.E.Asia to Australia219 Sapindaceae Nephelium lappaceum L D, E SE.Asia, commonly cultivated220 Sapindaceae Pometia pinnata J.R.Forst & G. Forst. A, C SE.Asia to Fiji, Samoa through Malesia221 Sapotaceae Palaquium obovatum (Giff.) Engler A, B, C, D India, Burma, Indochina and Most malesia222 Sapotaceae Palaquium quercifolium (de vriese) Burck A, B, C, D Sulawesi, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas223 Sapotaceae Planchonella firma (Miq.) Dubard A, B, C Malesia, Solomons224 Sapotaceae Pouteria sp (celebica?) C Endemic to Sulawesi225 Sarcospermaceae Sarcosperma paniculatum (King) Stapf &King B, C Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, Mindanao, Less.Sunda226 Simaroubaceae Picrasma javanica Blume A, B, C Sikkim, Assam, Tonkin to Malesia227 Staphyliaceae Turpinia sphaerocarpa Hassk. A, B, C, D, Malesia (except New Guinea)228 Sterculiaceae Melochia umbellata (Houtt.) Stapf D, E, F Malesia229 Sterculiaceae Pterospermum celebicum Miq. A, B, C, D, F Sulawesi, Moluccas, Phillipines230 Sterculiaceae Pterospermum subpeltatum C.B. Rob. B, C Sulawesi, Moluccas, Phillipines231 Sterculiaceae Sterculia longifolia Tanra A Java, Borneo, Sulawesi232 Sterculiaceae Sterculia oblongata R. Br. A, B, C, D Malesia except New Guinea233 Sterculiaceae Sterculia stipulata Korth C Malaya, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines234 Sterculiaceae Theobroma cacao L D, E, F S.America, mostly Cultivated235 Tiliaceae Grewia accuminata Juss. C, F Malesia236 Ulmaceae Celtis philippensis Blanco A, B, C Africa, Madagaskar, India to China throughout Malesia to Australia237 Ulmaceae Celtis rigescens (Miq.) Planch. A, C Malesia238 Ulmaceae Gironniera subaequalis Planch C Andaman, Burma, China to Malesia239 Ulmaceae Trema orientalis (L.) Blume B, C, D Africa to Australia and Polynesia240 Urticaceae Dendrochnide oblanceolata (Merr.) Chew C Sulawesi, Moluccas241 Urticaceae Dendrochnide stimulans (L.f. ) Chev. A, B South China, Indochina,Thailand, Malesia (except New Guinea), Taiwan242 Urticaceae Oreochnide rubescens (Blume) Miq. C, D, F Malesia243 Urticaceae Villebrunea rubescen (Blume) Miq. B, C Unknown244 Verbenaceae Geunsia sp A, B, C, D, F Unknown245 Verbenaceae Vitex coffassus Reinw ex Blume B, C, D, E Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea, Bismarck arch., Solomon island246 Unidentified Unidentified A Unknown247 Unidentified Unidentified A, B Unknown248 Unidentified Unidentified A Unknown

86

Table 4.1 List of tree collected from research sites. T= Tree, S= Sapling, Seedling

No Family Scientific name Site Distr. Category Origin or Distribution1 Aceraceae Acer laurinum Hassk. A, B, C T, S, Se East Malesia to Phillipines and Timor2 Actinidiaceae Sauraia sp C S, Se Unknown3 Anacardiaceae Buchanania arborescens (Blume) Blume A, E T, S, Andamans, Indochines, Taiwan, Throughout Malesia to Solomons and Australia4 Anacardiaceae Dracontamelon dao (Blume) Merr.& Rolfe A, B, C, D, E T, S, India to Salomon5 Anacardiaceae Koordersiodendron pinnatum (Blume) Merr. A, B T Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea6 Anacardiaceae Mangifera foetida Lour B, C T Thailand, Indochine, Malaya, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi7 Anacardiaceae Semecarpus forstenii Blume A, B, C T, S, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea, Solomons8 Anacardiaceae Spondias pinnata (L.f.) Kurz. E T, S, India, Burma, Thailand, Malesia to Salomon islands, at several places cultivated9 Annonaceae Alphonsea javanica Scheff. A, B T Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas

10 Annonaceae Cananga odorata Hook.f &Thomson B, C, D, E, F T, S, Se India to N. Queensland, Fiji11 Annonaceae Goniothalamus brevicuspis Miq. A, B, C T, S, Se Malesia12 Annonaceae Goniothalamus macrophylla (Bl) Hook&Thomson C T, S, Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi13 Annonaceae Goniothalamus majestatis Kessler A T Unknown14 Annonaceae Mitrephora celebica Miq. A, B, C T, S, Se Endemic15 Annonaceae Orophea celebica Miq. B, C T, S, Endemic16 Annonaceae Polyalthia glauca Boerl. B, C, D T, S, Andaman, Thailand, Indonesia (except Less.Sunda)17 Annonaceae Polyalthia lateriflora (Hook) & Thoms. B T Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia18 Annonaceae Polyathia celebica Miq. A, B, C T, S, Se Endemic19 Apocynaceae Alstonia scholaris R.Br. F T From, S. China to Queensland and Solomons

20 Apocynaceae Alstonia spectabilis R.Br. A T, S,Java, Borneo,Less. Sunda, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea, N.Australia

21 Apocynaceae Tabernaemontana sphaerocarpa Blume A S, Se Java, Sulawesi, Lesser Sunda, Timor22 Apocynaceae Voacanga grandifolia (Miq.) Rolfe A, B S, Widely Distributed in Malesia23 Aquifoliaceae Ilex cymosa Blume D T Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi24 Araliaceae Arthrophyllum sp A, B S, Malesia25 Araliaceae Boelagiodendron celebicum Lamk. A,B, C T, S, Se Endemic26 Araliaceae Osmoxyllon massarangense Miq. A, D Se Endemic27 Araliaceae Polyscias nodosa (Blume) Seem. A, B, C, D, E T Java, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea, Solomons

87

28 Arecaceae Areca cathecu L. E T Pantropical29 Arecaceae Areca vestiaria Giseke A, B T, S, Se Sulawesi, Moluccas30 Arecaceae Arenga pinnata Merr. E, F T, S, Se Malesia31 Arecaceae Arenga undulatifolia Merr. A, B T, Se Borneo, Sulawesi32 Arecaceae Caryota mitis Lour A, B, C T, S, Se Malesia33 Arecaceae Cocos nucifera L E, F T Pantropical34 Arecaceae Metroxylon sagu Merr. E T, S, Sulawesi, Moluccas35 Arecaceae Pigafetta elata Becc. B T Endemic36 Arecaceae Pinanga aurantiaca Mogea A, B, C T, S, Se Endemic37 Arecaceae Pinanga caesea Blume A, B, C T, S, Se Sulawesi, Moluccas38 Asteraceae Vernonia arborea Buch. Ham A, C T, S, India to South and Indochina and Malesia39 Bombacaceae Bombax ceiba L. E T Srilanka, Indochina, Malesia, Australia40 Bombacaceae Durio zibethinus Murr. E T wild in Sumatra and Borneo but very extensively cultivated41 Boraginaceae Cordia mixa G. Forster E, F T Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Moluccas42 Burseraceae Canarium balsaminiferum Will A, B T, Se Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea43 Burseraceae Canarium hirsutum Willd A, B, C, D T, S, Se Malesia, Pasific44 Burseraceae Santiria laevigata Blume A, C, E T, S, Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi.45 Caparidaceae Capparis pubiflora DC A T, Se Thailand, Indochina, Indonesia, Phillipines46 Caprifoliaceae Viburnum sambusinum Reinw. A, C T, S, Indochina, Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Sulawesi, Moluccas47 Caricaceae Carica papaya L. E T, S, Tropical Africa48 Celasteraceae Euonymous acuminifolius Blakelock B, C T, S, Se Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi49 Celasteraceae Euonymous javanicus Blume C T, S, Se Andamans, Nicobars, Indochina, Malesia east to Irian Jaya50 Celasteraceae Lopopethalum javanicum (Zoll.) Thunb A T Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, NG51 Celasteraceae Siphonodon celastrineus Griff. A, B, C T, S India to Malesia52 Clusiaceae Callophyllum soulattri Burm.f. A, B, C T, Se Vietnam to Australia53 Clusiaceae Cratoxylon celebicum Miq. A, B T, S Endemic54 Clusiaceae Garcinia dulcis (Roxb.) Kurtz A, B, C T, S Native to Indonesia and Phillipines55 Clusiaceae Garcinia lateriflora Blume A, B, C T, S Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi56 Clusiaceae Garcinia parviflora (Miq.) Miq. A, B, C T, Se Malaya, Singapore, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi57 Clusiaceae Garcinia sp A, B T, Se Unknown58 Cunoniaceae Viburnum sambusinum A, E S Sulawesi, Moluccas59 Cunoniaceae Weindmannia celebica Koord. A, B T, Se Sulawesi, Moluccas

88

60 Cyatheaceae Cyathea celebica (Aldrew.) Merr. A, B, C T, S Sulawesi, Moluccas61 Datiscaceae Octomeles sumatrana Miq. A T, S Malesia except Malaya, Java, Less.Sunda62 Dichapetalaceae Dichapetallum steenisii Leenh.subsp. celebicum B S Unknown63 Dilleniaceae Dillenia ochreata (Miq.) Teijsm.& Binn.ex Mart A, B T, S Endemic64 Ebenaceae Diospyros macrophylla Blume C, D T Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines65 Ebenaceae Diospyros minahassae Bakh A, D T, Se India, Indochina, Thailand, Malesia66 Euphorbiaceae Aporosa diocea (Roxb.) Muell. Arg A T India, China to Sulawesi67 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus musseri Coode A, B T Endemic68 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus angustifolius Blume A, B, C, D T India to Australia69 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus dolichostylus Schltr. A, B T Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea, Bismarck70 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus minahassensis Knuth A T Endemic71 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus musseri Coode B S Endemic72 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus takolensis Coode B, C T, S Sulawesi, Moluccas73 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus tejsmanii Koord.&Valeton A, C T, S Sulawesi, Moluccas74 Euphorbiaceae Acalypha catturus Blume A T, S Malesia75 Euphorbiaceae Aleurites mollucana (L.) Willd. D, E T, S Extensively planted, originally from Malesia76 Euphorbiaceae Antidesma celebica Miq. C T, S, Se Endemic77 Euphorbiaceae Antidesma montanum Blume A, B T, Se Malaya, Borneo, Sumatra, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi78 Euphorbiaceae Antidesma stipulare Blume B, C, D, E T, S, Se Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas79 Euphorbiaceae Aporosa diocea (Roxb.) Muell. Arg B S India, China to Sulawesi80 Euphorbiaceae Baccaurea racemosa (Reinw.ex. Blume) Mull.Arg B S Java, Borneo, Sulawesi81 Euphorbiaceae Baccaurea tetandra (Baill.) Mull.Arg. A T, S, Se Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea82 Euphorbiaceae Bischofia javanica Blume A, B, C, D, E T, S, Se USSR, India, Indochina, Malesia and Polynesia83 Euphorbiaceae Breynia cernua (Poir.) Mull.Arg D, E T Unknown84 Euphorbiaceae Breynia microphylla (Teijsm.& Binn.) Mull.Arg. D, F T Unknown85 Euphorbiaceae Breynia racemosa (Blume) M.A. E S, Se Unknown86 Euphorbiaceae Bridelia glauca Blume B S India, Burma, Taiwan, Thailand, Malesia (except Lesser Sunda), Bismarck island87 Euphorbiaceae Cleistanthus myrianthes (Hassk.) Kurz. C Se India, Burma, Malesia to Solomon & N. Australia88 Euphorbiaceae Drypetes celebica (Boerl & Koord) Pax & Hoffm. A T, S Sulawesi, New Guinea89 Euphorbiaceae Gloichidion insignis J.J.Smith C T, S Malesia to Pasific island90 Euphorbiaceae Gloichidion rubrum phillippicum (Cav.) C.B.Rob. D T Sulawesi, Moluccas91 Euphorbiaceae Homalium celebicum Koorder A, B T Endemic

89

92 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga hispida (Blume) Mull. Arg C, D T, S, Se Sulawesi, Philippines, Moluccas93 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga tanarius (L.) Mull.Arg. A, B, C T, S Andamans, Malesia to Australia and Melanesia94 Euphorbiaceae Mallotus moritzianus M.A. A, B, C T, S, Se Indochina, throughtout the Malesia95 Euphorbiaceae Mallotus paniculatus (Lam.) Mull.Arg C. E T India, Burma, Indochina, Taiwan, Thailand throughtout Malesia96 Euphorbiaceae Manihot esculenta Crantz. E T, S, Se Originally South America, very extesively cultivated97 Euphorbiaceae Microdesmis casearifolius Koorder B T, S Unknown98 Euphorbiaceae Omalanthus populneus (Geiseler) Pax E T Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Less. Sunda, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi99 Fabaceae Archidendron sp E S Unknown

100 Fagaceae Castanopsis accuminatisima (Blume) Rehder A, B, C, D T, S, Se India, S.China, Malesia to New Guinea101 Fabaceae Erythrina subumbran (Hassk.) Merr D, E, F T, S, Se India, Indochina, Malaya, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, and Fiji102 Fabaceae Glyricidia sepium (Jack.) Kunth ex Walp. E, F T, S, Se Central America103 Fagaceae Lithocarpus celebicus (Miq.) Rehder A, B T Sulawesi, Moluccas104 Fabaceae Paraserianthes falcataria (L.) Nielsen E T, S, Se Mainly cultivated105 Fagaceae Lithocarpus celebicus (Miq.) Rehder A, B T, S, Se Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea106 Fagaceae Lithocarpus havilandii (Stapf) Barnett B S Borneo, Sulawesi107 Flacortiaceae Pangium edule Reinw. A, C T, S, Se Malesia, Melanesia108 Gnetaceae Gnetum gnemon L. A, C T, S Cult.ind Sumatra and Java, wild Assam to Fiji109 Hernandiaceae Hernandia sp B T Malesia110 Juglandaceae Engelhardtia rigida Blume A, C T Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, Philiphines, New Guinea111 Juglandaceae Engelhardtia serrata L. B, C T Burma, Indonchina, Malesia except New Guinea112 Lauraceae Actynodaphne intermedia (Elmer) Kosterm. B T Malesia113 Lauraceae Beilschmidia gigantocarpa Kosterm A, B, C T, S, Se Endemic114 Lauraceae Cinnamomum burmanii Nees ex Blume F T Malesia, cultivated in Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi115 Lauraceae Cinnamomum porrectum (Roxb.) Kosterm A, C, E T, Se India, Burma, Thailand, Penin Malay, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi116 Lauraceae Cryptocarya crassinerviopsis Kosterm. A, B, C T, S, Se India, Burma, Indochina, Thailand, Malay Peninsula, Java, Sulawesi, Phillipines117 Lauraceae Cryptocarya laevigata Blume A, C T, Se Unknown118 Lauraceae Deehasia celebica Kosterm A, B T, S Endemic119 Lauraceae Litsea albayana Kosterm A, B, C T, S Malesia120 Lauraceae Litsea densiflora (Teschner) Kosterm. B, C T, S, Se Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi and Phillipines121 Lauraceae Litsea diversifollia Blume A T, S, Se Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi122 Lauraceae Litsea erectinervia Kosterm. A, B, C T, S Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi123 Lauraceae Litsea firma (Blume) Hook.f. A T, Se Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi and Phillipines

90

124 Lauraceae Litsea formanii Kosterm A, B, C T, S, Se Malesia125 Lauraceae Litsea mappacea (Bloem.) Boerl. B Se Malesia126 Lauraceae Litsea noronhae Blume B T, S, Se Malesia127 Lauraceae Litsea oppositifolia Gibbs. A, B, C T, S, Se Malesia128 Lauraceae Litsea timoriana Span A, B, C T, S, Se Sumatra, Java, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea, Salomon129 Lauraceae Litsea tomentosa Blume T, Se Malaya, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, New Guinea130 Lauraceae Peersea americana Mill. E T Tropical America131 Lauraceae Phobe grandis (Nees) Merr. E T, S, Se Malaya, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi132 Leeaceae Leea indica (Burf.) Merr. B, C Se Ceylon, India, Thailand, Andaman, Malesia to Bismarck and North Australia133 Liliaceae Dracaena angustifolia Roxb A, B, C, D T, S, Se India, Burma, Indochina, Malesia to North Australia134 Liliaceae Dracaena arborea Roxb. A, B, D T, S, Se Sulawesi, Moluccas135 Loganiaceae Fagraea racemosa Wall. A, B T, S, Se Indochina, Thailand, Andamans, Malesia136 Loganiaceae Strichnos axilaris Colebr. B T Unknown137 Magnoliaceae Elmerrillia ovalis (Miq.) Dandy A, B, D T, S Sulawesi, Moluccas138 Juglandaceae Engelhardtia serrata L. C S Burma, Indonchina, Malesia except New Guinea139 Magnoliaceae Magnolia candolii (Blume) H.Keng var. candolii B T, S, Se Sulawesi, Moluccas140 Magnoliaceae Michelia champaca L. B T Malesia141 Melastomataceae Astronia macrophylla Blume B, C, D T, Se Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas142 Meliaceae Aglaia argentea Blume A, B, C T, S, Se Thailand, Malesia

143 Meliaceae Aglaia edulis (Roxb.) Wallich A, C SWestern India, Southchina, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malesia (except New Guinea),Phillipines

144 Meliaceae Aglaia eximia Miq. A, D T Thailand, Malaya, Java, Sumatra, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas145 Meliaceae Aglaia lawii (Wight) Saldanha ex Ramamoorty A, C T, S, Se India, Bhutan, Burma, Vietnam, Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines146 Meliaceae Aglaia palembanica Miq. A T Sumatra, Malaya, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi

147 Meliaceae Aglaia silvetris Miq. A, B, C T, S, SeNicobar, Indochina, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines,Moluccas, NG

148 Meliaceae Aglaia smithii Koord. B Se Phillipines, Sulawesi, Lesser Sunda, Moluccas, New Guinea149 Meliaceae Aglaia squamulosa King. B T, S, Se Malaya, Borneo, Sulawesi150 Meliaceae Aphanamixis polystachia (Wall.) R. Parker D T, Se Indonesia to Solomon151 Meliaceae Chisocheton ceramicus (Miq.) DC A, B T, S SE Asia to Bismarck152 Meliaceae Dysoxillum sp1 A T Unknown153 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum alliaceum (Blume) Blume A, B, C T, S, Se Andamans to Queensland

91

154 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum densiflorum Miq. A, B, C, D T, Se, S S.Burma &Thailand to Malesia155 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum exelsum Blume B, C T, S, Se Nepal, China to Salomon (incl.Indonesia) and Australia156 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum gaudichaudianum (A.Juss) Miq B T, S Java, Less. Sunda, Phillipines, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea, Salomons isl.157 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum macrocarpum Blume A T Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi158 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum nutans (Blume) Miq. A, B, C T, S, Se Java, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Moluccas159 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum parasiticum (Osbeck) Kosterm A, B T, S, Se Taiwan, Malesia to Solomon160 Meliaceae Dysoxyllum sp2 C S Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillphines, Moluccas, New Guinea161 Meliaceae Lansium domesticum Jack E, F T, S Thailand and Malesia (wild and cultivated)162 Monimiaceae Kibara coreacea (Blume) Tull. A, B, C T, S, Se Malesia163 Monimiaceae Mathaea sancta Blume A, B S, Se Malaya, Singapore, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, New Guinea164 Moraceae Artocarpus elasticus Reinw. A, B, D, E, F T, S Burma, Thailand, Malaya, Java, Borneo, Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Phillipines165 Moraceae Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam. F T Western Ghats, India, Cultivated in Southeast Asia166 Moraceae Artocarpus integer (Thunb.) Merr. A, B, C T, S, Se Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea167 Moraceae Artocarpus teysmanii Miq. B, D, E T, S Malaya, Nicobars, Sumatra, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea168 Moraceae Artocarpus vrieseanus Miq. A, D T, S, Se Sulawesi, Moluccas, Philiphines169 Moraceae Arytera litoralis Blume A S Malesia to Bougainvillea170 Moraceae Broussonetia papyrifera Vent. B, D T India, Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, Indonesia, Japan, Laos171 Moraceae Ficus ampelas Burm.f. C T, S, Se Malesia, Riukiu, Formosa172 Moraceae Ficus aurita Bl B, C T, Se Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, Philliphines, New Guinea173 Moraceae Ficus benyamina L B, C T India, China, Malesia to Salomon174 Moraceae Ficus congesta Roxb. B T, S Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea175 Moraceae Ficus decipiens Reinw.ex Blume C T Endemic to Sulawesi176 Moraceae Ficus drupacea Thunb. A, B T, S Srilanka to Salomon and Queensland177 Moraceae Ficus geocarpa Tejs ex.Miq. C T, S, Se Endemic to Sulawesi178 Moraceae Ficus gul K. Schum& Lauterb. C T, S Borneo, Sulawesi, Philippines, Moluccas, New Guinea179 Moraceae Ficus heteropleura Blume B, C T Assam, Bengal, Burma, Indochina, Malesia180 Moraceae Ficus minahassae Miq. A, B, C, D T, S, Se Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines181 Moraceae Ficus obscura Blume B T, Se Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Talaud, Phillipines182 Moraceae Ficus parvibracteata Corner B T Endemic to Sulawesi183 Moraceae Ficus pungens Reinw. Ex. Blume A, B, C, D, E T, S Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea184 Moraceae Ficus racemosa L. A, D T, S India, Pakistan, Srilanka, Indochina, Malesia to North Australia185 Moraceae Ficus septica Rumph.ex.Burm.f. E, F T, S, Se Ryukyu, Formosa, Phillipines, Malesia to Queensland and Melanesia

92

186 Moraceae Ficus subulata Bl A, D Se Sikkim and S.China througout Malesia to Solomon

187 Moraceae Ficus tinctoria Forst.f. C SeChina, Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Less Sunda, Sulawesi,Moluccas

188 Moraceae Ficus trachypison K. Schum. A, B, C T Sulawesi, Moluccas189 Moraceae Ficus variegata Blume A, B, C, D T, S, Se S.China, Andaman, Malesia to Salomon190 Moraceae Ficus virens Aiton A Se India, S.China, Malesia to North Australia

191 Moraceae Ficus virgata Reinw.ex.Blume C TRyukyu, Taiwan, Phillipines, Sulawesi, Less. Sunda, Moluccas, New Guinea,Solomon

192 Moraceae Ficus sp 1 A, B, C T Unknown193 Moraceae Ficus sp 2 B, C T Unknown194 Moraceae Ficus sp 3 A, B, C T, S Unknown195 Moraceae Ficus sp 4, (Bunitu) A, B, C T, S Unknown196 Moraceae Maclura amboinensis Blume A, B Se Andamans, Malesia to Australia and Melanesia197 Myristicaceae Ardisia celebica Scheff. A, C S Endemic to Sulawesi198 Myristicaceae Gymnacrantera sp A, B, C T, S Unknown199 Myristicaceae Horsfieldia costulata (Miq.) Warb. A, B, C, D, E T, S, Se Endemic to Sulawesi200 Myristicaceae Knema celebica de Wilde A, B, C T, S Endemic to Sulawesi201 Myristicaceae Knema cinerea (Poir.) Warb. A, B, C T, Se Less.Sunda, Sulawesi, Moluccas, Phillipines202 Myristicaceae Myristica fatua Sinclair. B, C T, S Endemic to Sulawesi203 Myristicaceae Myristica impressinervia Sinclair. B T, S, Se Endemic to Sulawesi204 Myristicaceae Myristica kjelbergii W.J. de Wilde A T Endemic to Sulawesi205 Myrsinaceae Ardisia celebica Scheff. A, B T, Se Endemic to Sulawesi206 Myrsinaceae Ardisia forbesii S. Moore A, C Se Borneo, Sulawesi, New Guinea207 Myrsinaceae Ardisia ternatensis Scheff. B Se Sulawesi, Moluccas208 Myrsinaceae Climacandra sp A Se Unknown209 Myrtaceae Leptospermum javanicum Blume E T, S Burma, Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Phillipines and Sulawesi210 Myrtaceae Psidium guajava L. E T Originally from South America211 Myrtaceae Syzigium aromaticum L. E T, S Moluccas212 Myrtaceae Syzigium celebica E T, S Endemic to Sulawesi213 Myrtaceae Syzigium polycephaloides C.B. Rob. A, B, D T, Se Phillipines, Sulawesi.214 Myrtaceae Syzigium sp A, B T, S, Se Unknown215 Myrtaceae Syzygium mallacense (L.) Merr.& Perry D T, S Malesia

93

216 Myrtaceae Tristaniopsis decorticata (Merr.) Wilson A, B T, S Sulawesi, Phillipines,217 Nygtaginaceae Pisonia umbellifera (G.Forst.) Seem A, B, C T, S Africa to Australia and Pasific isl.218 Ochnaceae Schurmansia elegans Blume C Se Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Moluccas, New Guinea219 Oleaceae Chionanthus laxiflorus Blume A, B, C T, S, Se Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, New Guinea220 Oleaceae Chionanthus nitens Koord. Valeton A, B, C T, S Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea221 Oleaceae Chionanthus ramiflorus Miq. B T Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea222 Pandanaceae Pandanus lauterbrachii Martelli A, B, C, D T, S Endemic to Sulawesi223 Pandanaceae Pandanus sarasinorum Warb. A, B, C T, S Endemic to Sulawesi224 Piperaceae Piper aduncum L E, F T, S, Se South America225 Polygalaceae Xanthophyllum tenuipetalum v.d. Meijden A, E T, S, Se Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea226 Proteaceae Macadamia hildebrandii Steenis A, C T, Se Endemic to Sulawesi227 Rhamnaceae Zizipus angustifolius (Miq.) ex.v.Steenis A, B T, Se India, Burma, Thailand, Throughout Malesia and Solomon island228 Rosaceae Prunus arboreus (Blume) Kalkman B S, Se Sulawesi, Phillipines229 Rubiaceae Anthocephalus macrophyllus (Roxb.) Havil. C T Sulawesi, Moluccas230 Rubiaceae Coffea canephora L E T, S Cultivated231 Rubiaceae Coffea robusta Linden ex de Wilde D, E, F T, S, Se Tropical Africa232 Rubiaceae Lasianthus clementis Merr. A, B, C, D T, S, Se Unknown233 Rubiaceae Lasianthus rhinocerotis Blume A, B T, S Unknown234 Rubiaceae Mussaendopsis celebica Bremeck A, B, C, D T, S, Se Endemic to Sulawesi235 Rubiaceae Nauclea subdita (Korth.) Steud. B, C T, Se India, Malesia (except New Guinea, Salomon)

236 Rubiaceae Neonauclea calycina (Bartl.ex DC) Merr. B TBurma, Indochina, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi, Less.Sunda

237 Rubiaceae Neonauclea intercontinentalis Ridsdale A, B, C, D T, S Endemic to Sulawesi

238 Rubiaceae Neonauclea lanceolata (Blume) Merr. A, B, C, D T, S, SeMalaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, L. Sunda, Moluccas, NewGuinea

239 Rubiaceae Neonauclea ventricosa Ridsdale A T Endemic to Sulawesi240 Rubiaceae Psichotria sp C Se Unknown241 Rubiaceae Rothmania forstenianum (Miq.) B T Unknown242 Rubiaceae Timonius minahassae Koord. A, B T, S, Se Endemic to Sulawesi243 Rubiaceae Timonius subsessilis Valeton A, B, C T, S Unknown244 Rubiaceae Urophyllum arboreum Korth. C S Unknown245 Rubiaceae Urophyllum macrophyllum (Blume) Korth B T, S, Se Unknown

94

246 Rubiaceae Weindmannia descombesiana Bernadi C Se Unknown247 Rubiaceae Wendlandia densiflora Blume B, C T Unknown248 Rutaceae Citrus aurantifolia (Chistm.) Swingle E Se Malesia, widely cultivated249 Rutaceae Citrus maxima (Burm.f.) Merr. E T, S Malesia250 Rutaceae Citrus sinensis L E Se Malesia251 Rutaceae Clausena excavata Burm.f C T, Se India, Indochina, Thailand, Java, Malaya, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, Ne Guinea252 Rutaceae Cleistanthus myrianthes (Hassk.) Kurz. B T India, Burma, Malesia to Solomon & N.Australia253 Rutaceae Melicope cf. confusa (Merr.) Liu A, D, E T, S Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillphines, Moluccas

254 Rutaceae Melicope latifolia (DC) T.G. Hartley B, D T, S, SeMalay peninsula, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines, New Guinea, Samoa,Vanuatu

255 Rutaceae Micromelum minutum G. Frost) Wight & Arn. D Se Burma, Andaman throughout Malesia256 Sabiaceae Meliosma sumaterana (Jack) Walp. A, B, C, D T, S, Se Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi and Phillipines257 Sabiaceae Picrasma javanica Blume B, C, D S, Se Sikkim, Assam, Tonkin to Malesia258 Sapindaceae Arytera litoralis Blume A, B, T Malesia to Bougainvillea259 Sapindaceae Gouia sp F T, Se Unknown260 Sapindaceae Harpulia arborea (Blanco) Radlk. B, C T Srilanka and India, to Australia throughout Malesia261 Sapindaceae Lepidopetallum sp A, B T Unknown262 Sapindaceae Lepisanthes falcata (Radlk.) Leenh. A, C T, S Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillphines263 Sapindaceae Lepisanthes rubiginosa (Roxb.) Leenh. A, C T, S, Se S.E.Asia to Australia264 Sapindaceae Nephelium lappaceum L D, E T, S, Se SE.Asia, commonly cultivated265 Sapindaceae Pometia pinnata J.R.Forst & G. Forst. A, C T SE.Asia to Fiji, Samoa through Malesia266 Sapotaceae Palaquium obovatum (Giff.) Engler A, B, C, D T, S, Se India, Burma, Indochina and Most malesia267 Sapotaceae Palaquium quercifolium (de vriese) Burck A, B, C, D T, S, Se Sulawesi, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas268 Sapotaceae Planchonella firma (Miq.) Dubard A, B, C T, S Malesia, Solomons269 Sapotaceae Pouteria sp (celebica?) C T Endemic to Sulawesi270 Sarcospermaceae Sarcosperma paniculatum (King) Stapf &King B, C T, S, Se Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, Mindanao, Less.Sunda271 Simaroubaceae Picrasma javanica Blume A, B, C T Sikkim, Assam, Tonkin to Malesia272 Staphyliaceae Turpinia sphaerocarpa Hassk. E, F T, S, Se Malesia (except New Guinea)273 Sterculiaceae Melochia umbellata (Houtt.) Stapf D, E, F T, S, Se Malesia274 Sterculiaceae Pterospermum celebicum Miq. A, B, C, D, F T, S, Se Sulawesi, Moluccas, Phillipines275 Sterculiaceae Pterospermum subpeltatum C.B. Rob. B, C T Sulawesi, Moluccas, Phillipines276 Sterculiaceae Sterculia longifolia Tanra A T, S Java, Borneo, Sulawesi

95

277 Sterculiaceae Sterculia oblongata R. Br. A, B, C, D T, S, Se Malesia except New Guinea278 Sterculiaceae Sterculia stipulata Korth C T Malaya, Borneo, Sulawesi, Phillipines279 Sterculiaceae Theobroma cacao L D, E, F T, S, Se S.America, mostly Cultivated280 Theaceae Eurya accuminata DC A, B S, Se Unknown281 Thymelacaceae Phaleria coccinea (Gaurlich.) F.Muell. B, C S, Se Unknown282 Tiliaceae Grewia accuminata Juss. C, F T, S, Se Malesia283 Ulmaceae Celtis philippensis Blanco A, B, C T, S, Se Africa, Madagaskar, India to China throughout Malesia to Australia284 Ulmaceae Celtis rigescens (Miq.) Planch. A, C T, S Malesia285 Ulmaceae Gironniera subaequalis Planch C T, Se Andaman, Burma, China to Malesia286 Ulmaceae Trema orientalis (L.) Blume B, C, D T, S, Se Africa to Australia and Polynesia287 Urticaceae Boehmeria sp B Se Unknown288 Urticaceae Dendrochnide oblanceolata (Merr.) Chew C T, S Sulawesi, Moluccas289 Urticaceae Dendrochnide stimulans (L.f. ) Chev. A, B T, S, Se South China, Indochina,Thailand, Malesia (except New Guinea), Taiwan290 Urticaceae Leucosyke capitelata (Poir.)Wedd. C Se Thailand, Myanmar, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Phillipines, Sulawesi291 Urticaceae Oreochnide rubescens (Blume) Miq. C, D, F T, S, Se Malesia292 Urticaceae Pilea sp A, B, C S Unknown293 Urticaceae Villebrunea rubescen (Blume) Miq. B, C T, S Malesia294 Verbenaceae Geunsia sp A, B, C, D, F T, S, Se Unknown295 Verbenaceae Vitex coffassus Reinw ex Blume B, C, D, E T, S Sulawesi, Moluccas, New Guinea, Bismarck arch., Solomon island296 Unidentified Unidentified 2 A S Unknown297 Unidentified Unidentified 3 B S Unknown

62

Chapter VCHANGE OF FOREST STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITIONFROM NATURAL FORESTS TO CACAO PLANTATIONS

IN SUBMONTANE FOREST OF THE LORE LINDUNATIONAL PARK (LLNP), CENTRAL SULAWESI- INDONESIA

Summary

Sulawesi is the largest island in wallacea region, a unique region in the world. Theisland possess many endemic flora and fauna species, which is not available in other partof the world. Nevertheless, the scientific knowledge of Sulawesi’s flora bothtaxonomically and ecologically is still limited due to a lack botanical research andpublication on this subject. This research was aimed to study structure and composition ofsix land use types differing in use intensity at LLNP. The research was took place in theToro village at the southern margin of the Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi,and conducted from April 2004 to April 2005. Six land use types consist of three types ofnatural forest namely; Wana” (A; undisturbed forest), “Pangale type 1” (B; medium useintensity of forest), “Pangale type 2” (C; moderate use of forest), and three types of cacaoplantations (D: “Pahawa pongko type 1;” E: “Pahawa pongko type 2;” and F: “Huma”).Trees (dbh > 10 cm), were sampled in twenty four plots of 0.25 ha in all six land use types(4 replicates each), Additionally, overstorey plants (dbh 2- 9.9 cm) were also collected inall land use types. Identification of vouchers and additional herbarium specimens wasdone in the field as well as at Herbarium Celebense (CEB), Tadulako University,Herbarium Bogoriense (BO), Bogor and Nationaal Herbarium of Netherland (L) Leidenbranch, Netherland. The objectives of the research were ; 1) to determine the impact ofdifferent land use practices on the taxonomic composition of the vegetation of differentland use systems in differing use intensity, 2) to verify human impact on the foreststructure, composition and its ecology based on quantitative data for better conservationmanagement decisions 3) and to support in completing the database of Lore LinduNational Park’s flora

The results showed that moderate human use of the forest ecosystems by rattan andselected timber extraction did not result in significant decreases of tree biodiversity, butthe forest structure and its composition were differ between forest and cacao plantations.Endemism in forest plots totalled ca. 10% and was in good accordance with endemism inwoody plants of Sulawesi. The number of endemic species was strongly reduced in cacaosystems, although percentage endemism did not decline significantly in cacao forestgardens. Roughly one third of tree species in the forest plots were of economic importanceas commercial timber trees; timber diversity was little affected by moderate human use ofthe forest but was significantly reduced in cacao forest gardens and dropped to near zero inother plantation types. The mean basal area of 56.7 m² (36-80 m²) per ha in natural forestwas lower than the previously recorded value from the study area but is still almost as highas the mean value typical for tropical lowland forests in Southeast Asia. Fagaceae,Sapotaceae, Meliaceae and Lauraceae being predominant in undisturbed natural forest.However, when native and cultivated tree species were considered separately, significantdifferences were detected among plantation types in terms of tree diversity.

63

Keyword : Tropical rain forest, structure and composition, human impact, Land use typeLore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

5.1 Introduction

Sulawesi which was formerly known as Celebes, is one of the big island in

Indonesia. The island is the most important island in the “Wallacea subregion”, situated

in the centre of the Indonesian archipelago, between Borneo (Kalimantan) and the

Moluccan islands. Van Steenis (1979) revealed that phytogeography of Sulawesi is part of

the Malesian floristic unit; its flora is reportedly related to the Philippines, New Guenea,

and Borneo and belongs to the Eastern Malesian. The Scientific knowledge of Sulawesi’s

flora both taxonomically and ecologically is still limited due to lack botanical research

and publication on this subject (Bass et al. 1990; Keßler 2002), for example the amount of

botanical expedition in Sumatra 20 times than Sulawesi (Veldkamp et al. 1997) but

Sulawesi has recently been identified as one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots,

especially rich in species found nowhere else in the world and under major threat from

widespread deforestation (Pitopang and Gradstein 2003).

Tropical deforestation has become a major concern for the world community.

Between 1990 and 1997, 5.8 +/- 1.4 million hectare (0.5%) of tropical rain forest were lost

each year (Achard et al. 2002). Whole regions in South and Central America, Africa and

Southeast Asia already completely lost their forest or are expected to become deforested in

the near future (Laurence et al. 2001; Jepson et al. 2001). Based on recent mapping of the

forest cover in Indonesia, Ministry of Forestry (MOF) has revealed that the rate of the

deforestation in Indonesia approximately doubled between 1985 and 1997, from less than

1.0 million ha to at least 1.7 million ha each year; whereas Sulawesi lost 20% of its forest

cover in this period (Holmes 2002).

Many studies document the loss of biodiversity caused by modification or clearing

of tropical rain forest where Human activity is one of the most direct causes of wild

biodiversity loss {WCMC (World Conservation and Monitoring Center) 1992} and may

also negatively affect biotic interactions and ecosystem stability (Steffan-Dewenter and

Tscharntke 1999). Introduction of exotic species, overexploitation of biological resources,

habitat reduction by land use change, pastoral overgrazing, expansion of cultivation, and

other human activities are common factors and primary agents contributing to the vast

64

endangerments and extinctions occurring in the past and in the foreseeable future (Kerr

and Currie 1995; Pimm et al. 1995; Tilman 1999; Raffaello 2001; Palomares 2001).

Human exploitation also causes major changes in the biodiversity of these forests,

even though research on this subject has been limited and results were often controversial

(Whitmore & Sayer 1992; Turner 1996; Kessler 2005). Some studies reveal conspicuously

reduced species richness in secondary or degraded rainforests (Parthasaryathy 1999;

Pitopang 2002), even in over 100 years old regrown forest (Turner et al. 1997), local

extinction of plants (Benitez-Melvido & Martinez-Ramos 2003) in other studies is

increased (Kappelle 1996 ; Fujisaka et al. 1998). Area size is a crucial factor determining

the changes in biodiversity due to human impact. Loss of diversity generally decreases

when larger areas are considered, therefore the impact of human activities on plant

diversity thus must be interpreted with caution (Mooney et al. 1995).

This research focused on the structure and composition of six land use types

differing use intensity at the Lore Lindu National Park. The main objectives were to

determine the taxonomic composition and forest structure of of both three forest types

and three plantations of cacao.

5.2. Methods

5.2.1. Study Site

The study area was located in the surroundings of Toro, a village at the western

margin of Lore Lindu NP about 100 km south of Palu, the Capital of Central Sulawesi.

Research was carried out from April 2004 to August 2005. Detailed informations on the

climate and soil conditions of this part of Central Sulawesi are not yet available (see

Whitten et al. 1987). Gravenhorst (2005) reported that mean annual rainfall in the study

area is varied from 1,500 and 3,000 mm, mean relative humidity is 85.17 %, monthly

mean temperature is 23.40° C. Administratively, this village belong to Kulawi district,

Donggala Regency. This village is accessible by car, truck, motorbike and public car from

Palu. As our study area, the margin of the National Park is characterized in many parts by

a mosaic of primary forest, primary less disturbed forest, primary more disturbed forest,

secondary forests, and several land-use systems with cacao, coffee, maize, and paddy

(rice) as the dominating crops (Gerold et al. 2004) The elevation of the selected sites is

65

between 800 m and 1100 m, therefore covering an altitudinal range that belongs to the

submontane forest zone (Whitten et al. 1987).

Tree diversity was studied in six different land use types differing in use intensity,

including three types of rain forest and three of agroforest system, as follows:


Land use type A (“Wana”): low use intensity/undisturbed rain forest. Natural forest withtraditional use only; human activities restricted to collecting of medicinal plants andextensive hunting; rattan palms abundantly present.

Land use type B (“Pangale 1”): medium use intensity / lightly disturbed rain forest.Natural forest with rattan extraction, rattan palm removed.

Land use type C (“Pangale 2”): medium use intensity / moderately disturbed rain forest.Selectively logged forest, containing small to medium sized gaps, disturbance of groundvegetation, and increased abundance of lianas following the selective removal of canopytrees and rattan.


Land use type D( “Pahawa pongko 1”): Cacao forest garden (= land use type D). Cacaocultivated under natural shade trees (= remaining forest cover) in the forest margin.



5.2.2. Sampling Protocol

Plots size and sampling designed according to standardised protocols (Wright et al.

1997; Milliken 1998; Srinivas & Parthasarathy 2000; Kessler et al. 2005; Small et al.

2004). Each land use type was sampled in plots with four (4) independent replicates. Plots

were selected as much as possible at similar elevation to avoid macroclimate-induced

66

differences in plant composition, but unavoidably plots of land use types A-C were located

at slightly higher elevation (hill tops) than land use types D-F (lower slopes) (Table 4.1).

Plot size was determined by the minimum area curve (Suryanegara and Wirawan, 1986)

and was 50 x 50 m. Each plot was subdivided into 25 subplots of 10 x 10 m² each and all

trees dbh > 10 cm were recorded. In these subplots (recording units), Individually all big

trees (dbh > 10 cm) was numbered with aluminum tags and their position in the plot

mapped, crown base crown diameter and dbh measured, and trunk as well as total height

estimated. Furthermore, profile diagram of forest both vertical and horizontal was made by

using “Hand drawing methods” (Laumonier 1997)

All recognizable morphospecies of trees were collected in sets of at least seven

duplicates. Plant collecting was according to the “Schweinfurth method” (Bridson and

Forman 1999). Additional voucher specimens of plant material with flowers or fruits were

collected for identification purposes. Processing of the specimens was conducted at

Herbarium Celebense (CEB), Universitas of Tadulako, Palu. Identification was done in the

field, in CEB, and the Herbarium Bogoriense (BO), Bogor. Vouchers were deposited in

CEB, with duplicates in BO, GOET, L and BIOT.

5.3. Data analyses

Basal area (BA) , relative density (RD), relative frequency (RF), relative

dominance (RDo.), and importance value indices (IVI) were calculated and analyzed

according to the formulae Dumbois-Muller and Ellenberg (Soerianegara and Indrawan

1998 ; Setiadi et al. 2002) by using Microsft window excel program.

Basal area (m²) is the area occupied by a cross-section of stem at breast height (1.3 m) = [

3.14 x (dbh/2)² ]

Frequency is the number of sampling units in which a species is found.

Diversity is the number of species of a family encountered in the sample.

Absolute values so obtained may be transcribed to relative values:

No. of individuals of a species

67

Relative density (%) = --------------------------------------------------- X 100Total no. of individuals in sample

Basal area of a speciesRelative dominance (%) = ---------------------------------------------------- X 100

Total basal area in sample

Sampling units containing a speciesRelative frequency (%) = ----------------------------------------------------- X 100

Sum of all frequencies

Importance Value Index (IVI) for a species is the sum of its relative density, relative

dominance, and relative frequency (Setiadi et al. 2002; Soerianegara and Indrawan 1998)

Family relative density, relative diversity, relative dominance, and family importance

values were calculated according to the formulae of Mori et al. (1983), where:

Family relative diversity = number of species in a family / total number of species.

Family relative density = number of trees in a family/ total numbers of trees.

Family relative dominance = total basal area for all trees in a family/ total basal area of all

families.

Family Importance Value (FIV) = sum of (family relative diversity, relative density, and

relative dominance).

Species diversity was calculated by the Shannon-Whiener index (H’) defined as

H’ = - Σ [ ni/ N] ln [ ni/ N]

Where n, is the important value index of plant species I, and N is the total number of

important value indices (Shannon & Whiener 1963 in Michael 1986). Index of similarity

was calculated after Ludwig and Reynolds (1988) as

S = 2 C ( A +B) -1

where A is the number of IV (important value) in Stage 1, B is the number of IV

(important value) in Stage 2, and C is the number IV common to both stages.

68

Percent of similarities among those plots where then clustered by using Biodiv 97,

Ecological Statistical Programme (Crab, 2002) and the Program Statistica 5.5 (StatSoft

1999). The program SYSTAT version 7.0 (SPSS INC 1997) was used to perform

statistical analyses. Arithmetic means are given + one standar deviation (SD). ANOVA

was of a one-way type. Tukey’s Honest Significant Different-Test was used for multiple

comparisons of means. Sorensen dissimilarity index was used to calculate a two-

dimensional ordination of all samples using multidimensional scaling (see Schultze and

Fiedler 2003). Economic value and rarity of species was determined by using Prosea

(Soerianegara and Lemmens 1994; Lemmens et al. 1995; Hong 2004), Flora Malesiana

Series and information from specialists.

5.4. Results

5.4.1 Established Plots

Those 24 plots were established in each forest type with parallel direction, where

axis X (in numerical order: from 1 to 6) and abscise Y (in alphabetical order: A to F).

Topographical conditions of established plots are illustrated in the Appendix 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

and 11. Generally, the topographic condition among land use types is very different,

where plots of land use type A, B, C and D are relatively very steep, with their average

slope value is more than 40º but unavoidable these plots of land use types A-C were

located at slightly higher elevation (hill tops). On the contrary plots of land use types D, E

and F (cacao plantation) are located at the lower elevation and the topography of these

plots more flat.

5.4.2 Species Diversity

The summary statistics of species richness and structural characteristics of tree,

sapling and seedling in the plot listed in Table 5.1. The detail data of plant diversity are

presented in appendix 1, 2 and 5. Whereas the distribution of height class and diameter

class data are available in appendix 3 and 4. The ten most important species with their

important values is provided in Table 5. 2.

69

Statistically, the mean of some parameters such as number of species, genera,

families, Shanon diversity index (H’), native species, timber tree, stem and basal area of

tree did not differ among three forest types but was significantly different with cacao

plantation. The mean species number of tree was highest in land use type B (58.0 ± 8),

followed by land use type A (55.8 ± 5.5) and type C (48.3 ± 4.0). Cacao plantations,

however, had significantly lower species numbers, with 20.8 ± 7.8 tree species in cacao

forest gardens, 19 ± 7.5 in cacao plantations with a mixed canopy of shade trees, and 9.0 ±

4.5 in cacao plantations with a monospecific shade canopy.

Thus, the number of native tree species per 0.25 ha was highest in natural forest

and gradually decreased from land use types A to F. Unsurprisingly, this decrease was

partly offset by the cultivated trees, which were most speciose in the cacao plantations

with a mixed canopy of shade trees with 7-10 species per plot, significantly less diverse in

cacao plantations with a monospecific shade canopy (2-4 species) and in cacao forest

gardens (1-3 species), and lacking in the three forest types.

In contrast, endemic trees were best represented in the three forest types with 6-12

species per plot, and declined strongly in the three cacao agroforestry systems with 0-6

species per plot. This pattern was partly a result of the lower overall native tree diversity in

the cacao agroforestry systems. When the percentage of endemic species was considered,

then the cacao forest gardens did not differ significantly (0-20% endemic species) from the

three forest types (10-20%), and only the two cacao systems with planted trees had

significantly reduced percentages of endemic trees (0-13%).

Roughly one third of the tree species in the forest plots (15-20 spp.) were of

economic importance as commercial timber trees; of these, 4-5 were major timber species

and the rest minor ones. Timber diversity was little affected by moderate human use of the

forest but was significantly reduced in cacao forest gardens and dropped to near zero in

cacao plantations.

70

Table 5. 1. Summary statistics of tree, sapling and understory plants species richness and structural characteristics in plots of 0.25 ha each for tree, 625 m2

for sapling and 40 m2 for understory plant assemblages in six land use types with four replicates each. A = Natural forest; B = Natural forest subject to rattanextraction; C = Selectively logged forest; D = Cacao forest garden; E = Cacao cultivated under a mixed canopy of planted shade trees; F = Cacao cultivatedunder a monospecific canopy of planted shade trees. Different lower case letters designate significantly different values (post hoc Tukey tests)

No. CategoryLand Use Types ANOVA

A B C D E FMean±SD Mean±SD Mean±SD Mean±SD Mean±SD Mean±SD F P

TREE (dbh >10)1 Species 55.8 ± 5.5 a 58.0 ± 8.0 a 48.3 ± 4.0 a 20.8 ± 7.8 b 19 ± 7.5 b 9.0 ± 4.5 b 43.7 <0.012 Genera 43.0 ± 7.3 a 44.0 ± 6.1 a 39.5 ± 5.9 a 19.5 ± 5.5 b 18.0 ± 6.2 b 8.8 ± 4.2 c 26.3 <0.013 Families 27.0 ± 3.4 a 27.0 ± 4.5 a 24.8 ± 3.8 a 14.3 ± 3.6 b 13.5 ± 4.5 b 6.8 ± 3.3 b 19.3 <0.014 Shanon-Whiener Index (H’) 3.4 ± 0.1 a 3.7 ± 0.2 a 3.4 ± 0.16 a 2.6 ± 0.5 b 2.4 ± 0.6 b 1.5 ± 0.6 c 15.07 <0.015 Native species 55.8 ± 5.5 a 58.0 ± 8.0 a 48.3 ± 4.0 a 18.5 ± 7.9 b 10.3 ± 8.8 bc 5.5 ± 3.7 c 51.8 <0.016 Endemic species 7.8 ± 1.9 a 7.8 ± 1.9 a 7.3 ± 1.5 a 2.0 ± 2.7 b 0.8 ± 1.5 b 0 b 20.3 <0.017 Cultivated species 0 a 0 a 0 a 2.3 ± 1.0 b 8.8 ± 1.3 c 3.5 ± 1.0 b 80.7 <0.018 Major timber tree 5.0 ± 1.2 a 4.0 ± 4.5 a 4.8 ± 1.5 a 0.8 ± 0.5 b 0 b 0 b 28.3 <0.019 Minor timber tree 14.8 ± 2.6 a 13.3 ± 4.3 a 10.5 ± 3.1 a 4.5 ± 2.4 b 1.8 ± 2.2 bc 0.3 ± 0.5 c 19.9 <0.0110 Timber volume (m3/ha) 798.7 ± 568.9 a 342 ± 59.2 a 77.2 ± 8.5 b 128.6 ± 72.3 b 31.3 ± 32.3 b 35.9 ± 0.6 b 6.35 <0.0111 Stem (per ha) 558 ± 89.9 a 580± 102.6 a 515± 39.8 a 315± 83.0 ab 280± 88.2 b 324±216.1 ab 5.36 <0.0512 % endemic 14.0 ± 4.1 a 13.6 ± 3.0 a 15.2 ± 4.4 a 7.9 ± 7.8 ab 2.5 ± 5 b 0 c 6.6 <0.0113 Basal area (m2/ha) 56.7 ± 18.2 a 51.0 ± 1.8 a 33.7 ± 9.3 ab 20.5 ± 8.4 bc 14.9 ± 9.7 c 11.9 ± 6.3 c 13.8 <0.01

SAPLING (2-9.9 cm)1 Species 35.5 ± 9.3 a 38.75 ± 8.9 a 30.5 ± 6.6 b 7.25 ± 3.8 c 8.25 ± 1.7 c 4.25 ± 1.2 d 23.59 <0.012 Genera 20.5± 1.9 a 22.75 ± 2.9 b 22 ± 4.1 a 5.75 ± 2.8 c 7 ± 1.8 d 3.75 ± 0.9 f 46.46 <0.013 Families 31.5 ± 7.5 a 34 ± 7.3 a 28 ± 4.9 b 7.25 ± 3.8 c 8.25 ± 1.7 c 4.25 ± 1.2 d 29.01 <0.014 Basal area (m2/ha) 0.18±0.56 a 0.20±0.08 ab 0.20±0.04 ab 0.95±0.58 c 0.37±0.22 d 0.33±0.25 bc 4.38 <0.015 Shanon-Whiener Index (H’) 3.33 ± 0.3 a 3.36 ± 0.09 a 3.08 ± 0.3 c 1.19 ± 0.31 d 1.33 ± 0.36 d 0.96 ± 0.3 e 3.31 <0.05

UNDERSTORY PLANT1 Species number of seedling 25.3 + 5.3 a 25.5 + 3.4 ab 36.5 + 3 c 17.5 + 6.2 a 5.8 + 1.9 d 4.5 + 3.7 d 35.39 <0.012 Species number of herbs 12.8 + 5.9 a 12.5 + 2.7 a 16.5 + 4.0 ab 33.5 + 9.7 b 33.3 + 5.3 b 35.3 + 5.8 b 15.72 <0.013 Species number of climbers 5.3 + 4.2 a 4.8 + 2.5 a 8.3 + 2.1 a 5.5 + 2.4 a 3.8 + 2.1 a 2.3 + 1.5 a 2.39 >0.054 Species number of ferns 3.8 + 1.5 a 4.5 + 2.6 a 3.0 + 0.8 a 5.8 + 1.7a 4.0 + 1.8 a 3.8 + 0.5 a 1.27 >0.05

71

5.4.3 Taxonomic Composition

The ten top tree species of six land use type is presented in Table 5.2. Tree

species at land use type A are mainly dominated by Palaquium quercifolium

(Sapotaceae) and followed by Castanopsis acuminatissima and Lithocarpus celebicus

(both Fagaceae), Ficus trachypiton, Chionanthus laxiflorus (Oleaceae) and Dysoxyllum

densiflorum (Meliaceae), Aglaia argentea (Meliaceae), Horsfieldia costulata

(Myristicaceae), Meliosma sumatrana (Sabiaceae), and Dysoxyllum alliaceum

(Meliaceae). Sapling species are presented by Capparis pubiflora (Capparidaceae),

Castanopsis accuminatisima, Horsfieldia costulata, Ardisia celebica etc (Appendix 18).

At the family level the forest was dominated by Fagaceae, Sapotaceae, Meliaceae and

Lauraceae. At the land use type B tree species mostly dominated by Neonauclea

intercontinentalis, Palaquium quercifollium, P. obovatum, Pandanus sarasinorum,

Meliosma sumatrana etc. Whereas sapling species is dominated by Pandanus

sarasinorum, Pinanga aurantiaca, Horsfiledia costulata, Areca vestiaria etc (Appendix

19). The predominant species in moderately disturbed forest (type C) were Oreochnide

rubescens (Urticaceae), Castanopsis accuminatisima, Lithocarpus celebicus, Pandanus

sarasinorum, Neonuclea intercontinentalis and Canarium hirsutum (Burseraceae).

Sapling species are Lithocarpus celebicus, Oreochnide rubescens, Castanopsis

accuminatisima Dysoxyllum nutans, Dysoxyllum alliaceum etc. (Appendix 20)

Tree species in cacao forest garden (type D) mainly represented by Theobroma

cacao (Sterculiaceae), Coffea robusta (Rubiaceae.), Turpinia sphaerocarpa

(Staphyliaceae), Horsfieldia costulata (Myristicaceae), Arenga pinnata (Arecaceae),

Meliosma sumatrana, Melicope cf.confusa (Rutaceae) and Oreochnide rubescens. The

predominant tree species in land use type E and F were Theobroma cacao, Erythrina

subumbrans (Fabaceae), Syzygium aromaticum (Myrtaceae), Arenga pinnata

(Arecaceae), Bischoffia javanica (Euphorbiaceae), Nephelium lappaceum (Sapindaceae),

Aleurites mollucana, Durio zibethinus (Bombacaceae), Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), and

Persea americana (Lauraceae).

72

Table 5.2. The ten top tree species (dbh>10 cm) of six land use types differing in use intensity in Lore LinduNational Park Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. BA = Basal area (m2/ha), RD= rel.density (%), RF= rel.frequency(%), Rdo= rel.dominance (%) and IV= Important Value (%). Values are means for all plots of the respective landuse typesNo Scientific name Family BA RD RF Rdo IV

LAND USE TYPE A ("WANA")1 Palaquium quercifolium (de Vriese) Burck Sapotaceae 8.44 5.24 4.81 15.35 25.402 Castanopsis accuminatisima (Blume) Rehder Fagaceae 5.88 5.55 3.63 12.73 21.913 Ficus trachypison K. Schum Moraceae 11.83 1.19 1.32 14.87 17.394 Lithocarpus celebicus (Miq.) Rehder Fagaceae 4.17 1.64 2.21 10.26 14.115 Chionanthus laxiflorus Blume Oleaceae 1.80 6.09 4.67 2.90 13.676 Dysoxyllum densiflorum Miq. Meliaceae 3.98 1.92 1.62 6.26 9.817 Aglaia argentea Blume Meliaceae 0.68 2.52 2.37 1.00 5.898 Horsfieldia costulata (Miq.) Warb. Myristicaceae 0.53 2.30 2.41 1.10 5.819 Meliosma sumaterana (Jack) Walp. Sabiaceae 0.37 2.47 2.00 0.90 5.38

10 Dysoxillum alliaceum (Blume) Blume Meliaceae 0.43 2.25 2.16 0.76 5.17Remaining species 18.92 68.82 72.80 33.87 175.48Sum 57.02 100 100 100 300

LAND USE TYPE B ("PANGALE” 1)1 Neonauclea intercontinentalis Ridsdale Rubiaceae 4.55 4.99 4.32 8.77 18.082 Palaquium quercifoillium (de Vriese) Burck Sapotaceae 5.32 3.06 3.40 10.43 16.893 Palaquium obovatum (Giff.) Engler Sapotaceae 3.65 3.53 3.26 7.21 14.004 Pandanus sarasinorum Warb. Pandanaceae 0.58 6.96 4.00 1.10 12.055 Meliosma sumatrana (Jack.) Walb. Sabiaceae 0.98 4.38 4.75 1.92 11.056 Goniothalamus brevicuspis Miq. Annonaceae 1.33 4.31 3.26 2.57 10.147 Michelia champaca L. var. Champaca Magnoliaceae 2.60 1.86 2.33 4.95 9.148 Horsfieldia costulata (Miq.) Warb. Myristicaceae 0.59 2.74 3.15 1.15 7.049 Ficus variegata Blume Moraceae 0.69 2.61 2.77 1.36 6.73

10 Baccaurea tetrandra (Baill) Muel. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 0.32 2.51 1.90 0.64 5.05Remaining species 30.12 63.06 66.87 59.89 189.82Sum

50.72 100 100 100 300LAND USE TYPE C ("PANGALE” 2)

1 Oreochnide rubescens (Bl.) Miq. Urticaceae 1.02 8.33 4.78 4.28 17.392 Castanopsis accuminatisima (Blume) Rehder Fagaceae 1.77 4.38 2.95 6.10 13.433 Lithocarpus celebicus (Miq.) Rehder Fagaceae 1.86 1.74 2.10 6.31 10.154 Pandanus sarasinorum Warb. Pandanaceae 0.38 4.69 3.41 1.01 9.115 Neonuclea intercontinentalis Ridsdale Rubiaceae 1.16 3.54 2.05 2.92 8.506 Canarium hirsutum Willd. Burseraceae 1.04 2.07 2.08 2.49 6.647 Trema orientalis (L.) Blume Ulmaceae 1.15 1.15 1.40 3.78 6.338 Ficus trachypison K. Schum. Moraceae 1.19 0.50 0.62 3.11 6.169 Dendrochnide oblanceolata (Merr.) Chew Urticaceae 1.00 1.07 0.84 4.21 6.12

10 Mitrephora celebica Miq. Annonaceae 1.38 1.34 1.41 3.32 6.08Remaining species 20.46 71.19 78.36 62.47 210.09Sum 32.42 100 100 100 300

73

LAND USE TYPE D (“PAHAWA PONGKO” 1)1 Theobroma cacao L Sterculiaceae 1.11 29.29 22.25 6.79 582 Coffea robusta L Rubiaceae 0.25 6.33 4.69 2.16 133 Artocarpus vrieseanus Miq. Moraceae 1.08 3.62 3.59 4.56 124 Turpinia sphaerocarpa Hassk. Staphyliaceae 2.39 5.62 3.37 10.42 195 Horsfieldia costulata (Miq.) Warb. Myristicaceae 0.86 4.06 2.96 3.53 116 Arenga pinnata Merr. Arecaceae 0.93 1.97 1.81 2.96 77 Meliosma sumatrana (Jack) Walp Sabiaceae 0.52 2.41 2.60 2.27 78 Melicope cf. confusa (Merr.) Liu Rutaceae 0.40 1.32 1.88 1.88 59 Oreochnide rubescens (Bl.) Miq. Urticaceae 0.27 1.90 1.57 2.16 6

10 Elaeocarpus tejsmanii Koord. & Valeton Elaeocarpaceae 0.26 1.00 1.04 2.27 4Remaining species 12.42 42.48 54.24 61.02 157.74Sum 20.50 100 100 100 300

LAND USE TYPE E ("PAHAWA PONGKO 2")1 Theobroma cacao L Sterculiaceae 1.24 32.67 22.48 12.99 68.142 Erythrina subumbrans (Hassk.) Merr. Fabaceae 2.36 6.32 6.89 10.28 23.493 Syzigium aromaticum L. Myrtaceae 0.28 6.39 8.14 3.70 18.234 Arenga pinnata Merr. Arecaceae 1.35 3.81 3.90 8.38 16.105 Bischofia javanica Blume Euphorbiaceae 2.77 1.32 1.74 10.02 13.086 Nephelium lappaceum L. Sapindaceae 0.32 4.40 4.49 2.56 11.467 Cananga odorata Hook.f & Thomson Annonaceae 0.76 2.12 2.80 5.46 10.398 Ficus septica Rumph.ex.Burm Moraceae 0.19 4.63 4.03 0.77 9.439 Aleurites mollucana (L.) willd. Euphorbiaceae 0.42 1.49 2.18 4.60 8.27

10 Cordia mixa Boraginaceae 1.54 0.44 0.58 5.57 6.59Remaining species 3.62 36.41 42.75 35.66 114.82Sum 14.86 100 100 100 300

LAND USE TYPE F ("HUMA")1 Erythrina subumbran (Hassk.) Merr. Fabaceae 5.12 38.22 34.78 49.57 122.57

2 Theobroma cacao L Sterculiaceae 0.95 19.55 22.74 7.41 49.70

3 Glyricidia sepium (Jack) Warb Fabaceae 1.76 17.22 7.14 13.41 37.77

4 Mellochia umbellata (Houtt.) Stapf. Sterculiaceae 0.12 3.14 5.45 2.10 10.69

5 Piper aduncum L Piperaceae 0.29 3.48 4.02 2.18 9.67

6 Breynia cernua (Poir.) Mull.Arg Euphorbiaceae 0.22 2.86 3.57 1.17 7.60

7 Ficus variegata Blume Moraceae 0.79 0.71 0.89 4.11 5.72

8 Lansium domesticum Jack. Meliaceae 0.17 2.86 1.79 0.89 5.54

9 Coffea robusta L Rubiaceae 0.04 1.95 2.90 0.29 5.14

10 Cananga odorata Hook.f & Thomson Annonaceae 0.28 0.97 1.45 2.33 4.75Remaining species 2.10 9.04 15.28 16.53 40.85

Sum 11.84 100 100 100 300

74

a

RemainingFamily, 90.3

Fagaceae, 38.6

Sapotaceae,32.4

Meliaceae,25.4

Lauraceae,24.6

Myrtaceae,24.1

Moraceae, 11.2

Euphorbiaceae, 10.7 Rubiaceae,

10.9

Oleaceae, 9.1

Arecaceae, 9.1

b

Sapotaceae,32.99

Rubiaceae,27.95

Remainingfamilies, 89.67

Sabiaceae,10.06

Meliaceae,12.21

Lauraceae,13.96

Pandanaceae,14.30 Annonaceae,

16.07

Magnoliaceae,16.53

Euphorbiaceae, 16.82

Moraceae,49.42

c

Remainingfamilies,106.39


Fagaceae,22.76

Moraceae,31.40

Rubiaceae,21.81

Urticaceae,20.90

Meliaceae,18.81

Lauraceae,18.07

Annonaceae,9.80

Ulmaceae,9.77

Sapotaceae,15.53

Figure 5.1. The ten top tree families in three forest types differing in use intensity atstudied area. Above; land use type A, middle ; land use type B andbottom; land use type C

75

d.

Sterculiaceae,68.70

Remainingfamily, 75.04

Annonaceae,8.24

Ulmaceae,11.84

Verbenaceae,12.38

Myristicaceae,12.61

Cunoniaceae,14.17 Euphorbiacea

e, 16.18Staphyliaceae,

18.04

Rubiaceae,21.26

Moraceae,40.61

e.

Sterculiaceae,81.70


Arecaceae,27.65

Moraceae,24.96

Myrtaceae,24.07

Fabaceae,23.47

Lauraceae,15.52

Bombacaceae,9.55

Remainingfamilies, 45.57

Myristicaceae,7.74

Sapindaceae,9.92

f.

Rubiaceae,0.33

Moraceae,3.43

Urticaceae,0.62

Tiliaceae, 0.62Piperaceae,

0.27

Apocynaceae,2.54

Remainingfamily, 0.00

Arecaceae,5.60

Lauraceae,2.40

Sterculiaceae,10.95

Fabaceae,66.72

Figure 5.2. The ten top tree families in three type of cacao plantations at studiedarea. Above; land use type D, middle ; land use type E and bottom ; landuse type F

76

Table 5.3. The Ten most important tree families > 10 cm dbh in 6 land use type differingin use intensity at the Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi. RD = rel.density,RDiv = rel. diversity, RDo = rel.dominance and FIV= family important value. Values aremeans for all plots of the respective land use types.

No Family RD(%) RDiv(%) Rdo(%) FIV(%)Land Use Type A (“Wana”)

1 Fagaceae 8.21 5.88 24.51 38.602 Sapotaceae 6.96 7.17 18.23 32.363 Meliaceae 10.83 6.47 8.08 25.384 Lauraceae 9.14 10.27 5.18 24.595 Myrtaceae 8.86 14.02 1.19 24.076 Moraceae 3.36 3.67 4.17 11.207 Rubiaceae 4.25 4.44 2.18 10.878 Euphorbiaceae 5.01 3.62 2.01 10.659 Arecaceae 3.61 3.09 2.45 9.15

10 Oleaceae 3.61 3.09 2.45 9.15Remaining Family 35.63 40.82 13.82 90.27Sum 100 100 100 300

Land Use Type B ("Pangale 1”)1 Moraceae 13.98 12.07 23.37 49.422 Sapotaeae 7.85 7.76 17.38 32.993 Rubiaceae 8.64 8.37 10.94 27.954 Euphorbiaceae 7.51 7.37 1.94 16.825 Magnoliaceae 3.29 4.11 9.12 16.536 Annonaceae 6.49 6.52 3.06 16.077 Pandanaceae 7.47 5.66 1.18 14.308 Lauraceae 5.64 5.69 2.64 13.969 Meliaceae 3.33 3.72 5.17 12.21

10 Sabiaceae 4.20 4.02 1.85 10.06Remaining families 31.62 34.71 23.33 89.67Sum 100 100 100 300

Land Use Type C ("Pangale 2”).1 Moraceae 8.19 8.28 14.93 31.402 Euphorbiaceae 8.69 9.10 6.98 24.773 Fagaceae 6.88 4.73 11.15 22.764 Rubiaceae 7.49 6.29 8.04 21.815 Urticaceae 8.81 5.80 6.29 20.906 Meliaceae 5.64 6.39 6.78 18.817 Lauraceae 8.43 6.90 2.75 18.078 Sapotaceae 3.68 3.61 8.24 15.539 Annonaceae 4.05 4.59 1.17 9.80

10 Ulmaceae 2.10 2.61 5.06 9.77Remaining families 35.83 41.43 29.13 106.39Sum 100 100 100 300

77

Continued

Land Use Type D (“Pahawa Pongko 1”)1 Sterculiaceae 31.85 25.40 11.45 68.702 Moraceae 11.85 13.96 14.80 40.613 Rubiaceae 9.25 8.52 3.49 21.264 Staphyliaceae 4.93 3.52 9.59 18.045 Euphorbiaceae 4.43 4.91 6.83 16.186 Cunoniaceae 3.53 4.70 5.94 14.177 Myristicaceae 4.39 4.59 3.63 12.618 Verbenaceae 3.47 3.90 5.01 12.389 Ulmaceae 1.80 2.82 7.22 11.84

10 Annonaceae 2.59 2.97 2.68 8.24Remaining family 20.97 24.71 29.35 75.04Sum 100 100 100 300

Land Use Type E (“Pahawa Pongko 2”)1 Sterculiaceae 36.89 28.84 15.98 81.702 Euphorbiaceae 6.45 6.81 16.59 29.853 Arecaceae 7.81 7.09 12.75 27.654 Moraceae 7.87 7.47 9.61 24.965 Myrtaceae 7.99 9.69 6.38 24.076 Fabaceae 6.24 8.05 9.18 23.477 Lauraceae 3.21 4.32 7.99 15.528 Sapindaceae 4.04 3.85 2.02 9.929 Bombacaceae 3.42 4.98 1.15 9.55

10 Myristicaceae 2.33 2.63 2.77 7.74Remaining families 13.73 16.26 15.58 45.57Sum 100 100 100 300

Land Use Type F (“Huma”)1 Fabaceae 164.23 53.27 44.23 66.722 Sterculiaceae 63.92 26.59 26.37 10.953 Lauraceae 5.09 0.83 1.86 2.404 Arecaceae 9.87 1.64 2.63 5.605 Moraceae 10.66 2.51 4.73 3.436 Urticaceae 2.21 0.51 1.09 0.627 Apocynaceae 4.76 0.76 1.45 2.548 Rubiaceae 3.98 1.37 2.28 0.339 Tiliaceae 1.41 0.25 0.54 0.62

10 Piperaceae 1.06 0.25 0.54 0.27Remaining family 200.00 300.00 100.00 100.00Sum 300 100 100 100

At the family level, the taxonomic composition of the habitat types showed major

differences (Table 5.3, Figure 5.2 and 5.3). Undisturbed natural forest (land use type A)

was dominated by Sapotaceae, Fagaceae, Meliaceae, Lauraceae, Myrtaceae, Moraceae,

Rubiaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Arecaceae and Oleaceae while Moraceae, Sapotaceae,

78

Rubiaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Meliaceae, Lauraceae and Annonaceae were the most

common tree families in disturbed forest (land use types B and C). In the cacao forest

garden with moderate use intensity (D) was dominated by Sterculiaceae, Moraceae,

Rubiaceae, Staphyliaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Cunoniaceae and Myristicaceae. Whereas

Sterculiaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Arecaceae, Moraceae, Myrtaceae and Fabaceae also

dominant in cacao forest garden with lightly use intensity (type E). At the land use type F

(cacao forest garden with high use intensity) was dominated by Fabaceae/Legumenosae,

Sterculiaceae, Arecaceae, Moraceae and Urticaceae.

5.4.4 Forest Structure and Profile Diagram

The analyses of forest structure revealed considerable differences in canopy

height (Figure 5.10) where tree species with height >30 m (emergent/top canopy species)

was greater at the undisturbed rain forest (11.22 %) and then followed by land use type B

(8.7 %) and C (3.9 %). On the other side only a few tree species > 30 m in height at the

land use type D (0.9 %) and there was no any top canopy species at the land use both E

and F. Similarly, the middle canopy species (height 20.1-30 m) was higher at land use

type B (16.35 %) and C (13.8 %) and followed by A (11.11 %), D (7.4 %) , E (2.2%) and

F(1.2 %) . Contrary to the top canopy species, the undergrowth species (<10 m in

height) was lower at the land use type A (undisturbed rain forest) and gradually increased

from type B to F. The greater tree height in undisturbed rain forest (type A) and type B

reflect that many originally top canopy trees persisted in these land use type.

At the land use type A (undisturbed natural rain forest), we recorded some top

canopy tree species (with >30 m in height) such as Palaquium quercifollium, Palaquium

obovatum, Castanopsis accuminatisima, Lithocarpus celebicus, Bischoffia javanica,

Octomeles sumatrana, Cinnamomum parthenoxylon, Pangium edule, Ptersopermum

celebicum, Aglaia argentea, Dysoxyllum sp, Chionanthus ramiflorus, Ficus sp and

Polyscias nodosa. Palaquium quercifollium is one of tree species widely distributed at the

land use type A, B and C which several individuals of this species can be reach up to 40

m in height.

79

Figure 5.3. Profile diagram of land use type A (presented by column 5A to 5E of plotA2). Goniothalamus brevicuspis (122), Palaquium quercifollium (200, 201, 208),Beilschimidia gigantocarpa (123), Baccaurea tetrandra (124), Meliosma sumatrana(125), Antidesma celebicum (126), Semecarpus forstenii (127, 194, 205, 2012, 2022),Macadamia hildebrandii (128), Myristica kjelbergii (129, 215, 217), Pinanga aurantiaca(130,132, 216), Arythera litoralis (131), Castanopsis accuminatisima (121, 213, 214,2025, 2026), Artocarpus vriseanus (196), Litsea sp (197), Pometia pinnata (198),Dysoxyllum parasiticum (199), Chionanthus laxiflorus (202), Horsfieldia costulata (203,210, 268), Ficus sp (204, 270), Ficus variegata (207), Pandanus lauterbrachii (209),Litsea ferruginea (211), Sterculia longifolia (212), Ardisia celebica (218), Elaeocarpussp (269), Callophyllum soulatrii (271), Litsea formanii (2021), Pisonia umbellifera(2028), Aglaia sp (2024).

80

Figure 5.4. Profile diagram of land use type B (presented by column 5A to 5E of plot B1at Bulu kuku). Elaeocarpus angustifolius ( 454, 577, 663, 670, 671, 674, 680, 685),Garcinia dulcis (455,575), Antidesma stipulare (457), Chionanthus laxiflorus (458),Pterospermum celebicum (459), Macaranga tanarius (460, 461, 462, 682, 683), Sterculiaoblongata (464), Horsfieldia costulata (465, 466, 568, 687), Pandanus sarasinorum (467, 468, 469, 561, 562, 565, 566, 569, 662, 688), Koordersiodendron pinnatum (560),Neonauclea lanceolata (563), Elmerilla ovalis (564), Artocarpus vrieseanus (567), Ficussp (570,676), Meliosma sumatrana (571, 574), Dysoxyllum alliaceum (576, 580, 665,669), Goniothalamus brevicuspis (578), Aglaia silvetris (579), Dracaena angustifolia(581), Litsea formanii (664, 668, 686), Litsea oppositifolia (666), Gouia sp (673),Neonauclea intercontinentalis (677), Picrasma javanica (678), Baccaurea tetrandra(679), Polyalthia glauca (681), Deehasia celebica (689) and Litsea ferruginea (668, 690).

81

Figure 5.5. Profile diagram of land use type C (presented by column 2A to 2E of plot C4).Macadamia hildebrandii (2A-1), Aglaia exelca (2A-2), Cryptocarya crassinerviopsis(2A-3, 2B-2), Mitrephora celebica (2A-4, 478), Aglaia silvetris (2A-5), Lithocarpuscelebicus (2A-6, 2A-9, 2A-12, 2A-13), 491, 492, 493), Litsea albayana (2B-1),Dysoxyllum alliaceum (2B-4, 6, 7, 479), Acer laurinum (2B-5), Castanopsisaccuminatisima (476, 477, 475, 494, 495, 496), Elaeocarpus sp (490), Horsfieldiacostulata (474), Pandanus sarasinorum (441), Sterculia oblongata (432), Pisoniaumbellifera (436), Phaleria costata (487), Picrasma javanica (438).

82

Figure 5.6. Profile diagram of land use type D (“Pahawa pongko 1”) which is presentedby column 1A to 1E of plot D4. Ae = Artocarpus elasticus, Tc = Theobroma cacao, Av =Artocarpus vrieseanus, Ge = Geunsia sp, Cr = Coffea robusta, Ml = Melicope latifolia,To = Trema orientalis, Ap = Aphanamixis polystachia, Da = Dracaena arborea, Hc =Horsfieldia costulata.

83

Figure 5.7. Profile diagram of land use type E (“Pahawa pongko 2”) which is presentedby Column 2A to 2E of plot E3. Tc = Theobroma cacao, Cp = Ceiba petandra, Ap =Arenga pinnata, Es = Erythrina subumbrans.

84

Figure 5.8. Profile diagram of land use type E (“Pahawa pongko 2”) which is presentedby Column 2A to 2E of plot E3 located at Pak Ace’s cacao plantation. Tc = Theobromacacao, Cp = Ceiba petandra, Ap = Arenga pinnata, Es = Erythrina subumbran. Pa =Piper aduncum, Fs = Ficus septica, As = Alstonia scholaris, Gs= Glyricidia sepium

At the land use type B (lightly disturbed forest) recorded the other top canopy

species such as Nuclea intercontinentalis, Artocarpus elasticus, Elmerilla ovalis,

Magnolia champaca, and Ficus variegata. Contrary to two forest types as mentioned

85

before that there was no any emergent/ top canopy tree species founded at the land use

type C (moderate use intensity), but only Palaquium quercifollium, Castanopsis

accuminatissima, Canarium hirsutum, and a strangler Ficus sp with height not more than

30 m.

The middle canopy species (>20 dbh <30 m) which found at the forests (type A,

B and C) are mostly presented by Artocarpus vriescana, Cryptocarya crassinerviopsis,

Knema celebica, Goniothalamus brevicuspis, Aglaia argentea, Horsfieldia costulata,

Chionanthus laxiflorus, Semecarpus forstenii, Sarcosperma paniculata, Litsea formanii,

Castanopsis accuminatisima, Syzigium accuminatisima, Dysoxyllum alliaceum, Pandanus

polycephalus, Litsea densiflora, Trema orientalis, Broussonetia papyrifera and

Mangifera foetida, Gironiera subaqualis, Astronia macrophylla, Ficus miquelly, Nauclea

ventricosa, Acer laurinum, Santiria laevigata, Lithocarpus celebicus and Dracontamelon

mangiferum.

The lower canopy species were mainly composed by Orophea celebica,

Mitrephora celebica, Baccaurea tetrandra, Goniothalamus brevicuspis, Meliosma

sumatrana, Gnetum gnemon, Siphonodon celastereus, Antidesma celebica, Dracaena

arborea, Dracaena angustifolia, Aglaia silvetris, Geunsia sp, Sterculia oblongata,

Macadamia hildebrandii, Goniothalamus macrophyllus, Arenga pinnata, Picrasma

javanica, Calophyllum soulatrii and Macaranga hispida.

The small tree/ treelet or undergrowth species (<10 cm in height) are composed

by Timonius minahassae, Ardisia celebica, Deehasia celebica, Pinanga caesea, Areca

vestiaria, Pinanga aurantifolia, Caryota mytis, Oreochnide rubescen, Dendrochnide

stimulant, Dysoxyllum nutans, Antidesama stipulare, Lasianthus sp, Arenga undulatifolia,

Eurya accuminata, Capparis pubifera, Ficus gul, Garcinia parviflora, Fagraea

racemosa, Tabernaemontana sphaerocarpa, Euonymus javanicus, Homalium javanicum

and one tree fern species is Cyathea amboinensis.

In contrast to the land use type A, We were not found any emergent/ top canopy

species at three cacao plantations. For example, at the land use type D (cacao cultivated

under natural shade trees) there were only some big tree species such as Turpinia

sphaerocarpa, Trema orientalis, Artocarpus teysmanii, Artocarpus vriescana, Bischoffia

javanica, Ficus variegata, Astronia macrophylla and Lithocarpus celebicus but they can

not reach more than 30 m in height. As mentioned previously that generally all these tree

86

species are maintained by farmer as shade tree for cacao cultivation. Whereas at the land

use type E and F, some tree species which were stratified to middle and lower canopy

species are planted and maintained together with cacao by local people. Among of them

is Syzigium aromaticum, Aleurites mollucana, Syzigium mallacense, Cordia sp,

Nephelium lappaceum, Citrus maxima, Peersea americana, Erythrina subumbrans,

Cocos nucifera, Artocarpus heterophylla, Areca cathecu, Durio zibethinus, Bombax

ceiba, Spondias dulcis, Lansium domesticum and Glyricidia sepium. Nevertheless, the

undergrowth species are mostly presented by Mellochia umbellata, Piper aduncum, Ficus

septica, Homalanthus populneus, and two domesticated species namely Theobroma

cacao and Coffea robusta.

When stem diameters (figure 5.11), basal area (figure 5.9) and tree abundance are

compared, undisturbed rain forest (type A), B and C having many more larger size trees

than D, E and F. The highest basal area in undisturbed forest (type A), which had more

large-sized trees than other land use types. Cacao plantations contained mostly small-

sized planted trees and had lower basal area values (average 11.9 m²/ha). On the contrary,

tree species with smaller dbh (2-9.9 cm in diameter) was greater in cacao plantation type

F and followed by E and D namely 65.3 %, 55.7% and 45.1% respectively. The

percentage of tree with dbh 2--9.9 was lower at the lightly disturbed rain forest (type B)

and type A. The timber volume (classify trees of timber value only include commercially

valuable tree with dbh > 30 cm) was highest in undisturbed forest (land use type A; mean

798. 7 m3/ha) and gradually decreased from land use types B to F

Figure 5.9. Basal area (left) and volume of timber (right) of six land use typ

87

Figure 5.10 Relative distribution of height class among trees in the six studiedLand use types. Error bars indicated + standard error . Notes: > 30 m = Top canopyspecies 20.1-30 m = midlle canopy species, 10.1- 20 m = lower canopy species, <10 m= undergrowth species.

88

Figure 5.11. Relative distribution of diameter class among trees in the sixstudied land use types. Error bars indicated + standard error.

89

4.4.5 Diversity, Similarity and Dissimilarity Indices

Shanon-Whiener diversity and Simpson evenness indices are presented in Table

5.4 and figure 5.12. The means of Shanon diversity index of tree community was highest

in land use type B (3.7) and the lowest (1.5) was occurred at the cacao cultivated under

monospesific canopy shade tree (type F). Whereas, Shanon diversity index of sapling was

highest in land use type A1 (3.71) and the lowest was in F2 (0.57). The values of Shanon

diversity index are indicating the stability and complexity of community in these habitat

types. According to Barbour et al. (1987) that the value of Shanon diversity index can be

classified into four categories such as H’= 1 – 2 (low), H’ = 2 – 3 (medium), H’ = 3 – 4

(high) and H > 4 (very high). Based on this statement, so both tree (dbh >10 cm) and

sapling (dbh 2-9.9) diversity in undisturbed forest and lightly disturbed forest higher

than three types of cacao plantations.

Table 5.4. Sorensen similarity and dissimilarity index (1-Sorensen) of of six land usetypes differing in use intensity at the studied area. LUT = Land Use Types

Sorensen similarity indexLUT A B C D E F

A 0.76 0.68 0.35 0.23 0.10B 0.24 0.72 0.39 0.21 0.10C 0.32 0.28 0.38 0.22 0.14D 0.65 0.61 0.62 0.42 0.35E 0.77 0.79 0.78 0.58 0.44F 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.65 0.56

Dissimilarity index (1-Sorensen index)

Based on the result of Sorensen similarity index analyses among 6 land use types

showed that the tree community between land use type A (undisturbed forest) very

similar to land use type B and C. Table 5.4 indicated these values are 0.76 and 0.68

respectively but the similarity of tree species between forests and cacao plantations is

low. Crabs (1978) classified Sorensen similarity index into four categories for instance

>75% (very high), 50-75% (high), 25-50% (medium) and <25% (low). Dendrogram of

Cladystic analyses of six land use types is presented in figure 5.13.

90

A4

A1A2

A3 B1

B2B3

B4

C1

C2

C3C4

D1

D2

D3

D4

E1

E2E3 E4 F1

F2 F3

F4

A1 A2

A3 A4

B1 B2 B3 B4

C1 C2 C3 C4

D1 D2 D3 D4 E1E2

E3 E4F1

F2 F3 F40

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

LAND USE TYPESVA

LUE

OF IN

DEX

Shanon diversity index (H') Simpson Eveness (E')

A1A2 A3 A4

B1B2 B3

B4

C1C2

C3 C4

D1

D2

D3

D4

E1

E2E3

E4F2 F3

F4

A2A1 A3 A4

B1 B2 B3 B4C1

C2 C3 C4

D1 D2D3 D4

E1 E2 E3E4

F1F2

F3F4

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

LAND USE TYPES

VALU

E OF

INDE

X

Shanon diversity index (H') Simpson Eveness (E')

Figure 5.12. Shanon Diversity index (green spot) and Simpson Eveness index (yellow spot) of tree (above)and sapling communities (bottom) in six land use types differing in use intensity in the Lore Lindu NationalPark, Central Sulawesi.

99

Tree Diagram for VariablesUnweighted pair-group average

Euclidean distances

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Linkage Distance

F

E

D

C

B

A

Figure 5.13. Dendrogram of cluster analyses of tree diversity based on dissimilarityindices (1- Sorensen index) among six land use types differing in use intensity..

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1 B2

B3

B4

C1

C2C3

C4

D1

D2

D3

D4

E1

E2

E3

E4

F1

F2

F3

F4

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Dimension 1

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Dim

ensi

on 2

Figure 5.14. Two dimensional scaling of tree similarity based on Sorensen indices fortree communities in the six land use types. Sites belonging to the same habitat type areconnected by lines. Undisturbed natural forest (red line), Lightly disturbed naturalforest (pink line), Moderately disturbed natural forest (purple line), Cacao plantation inmoderate use intensity (yellow line), Cacao plantation in light use intensity (green line),Cacao plantation in high use intensity (black line)

100

Two-dimensional scaling based on Sorensen indices for all pairwise

combinations of tree samples showed a clear separation between communities of three

natural forest types and three plantations of cacao. Land use type F (“huma”) where

cacao planted under canopy monospesific planted tree represented a second relatively

distinct group of sites, while both three natural forest types (A, B and C) and two cacao

plantation types (D and E) showed a high degree of overlap (figure 5.14).

5.5. Disccusions

The analyses of forest structure revealed considerable differences in canopy

height (Figure 4.5) where tree species with height >30 m (emergent/top canopy species)

was greater at the undisturbed rain forest (11.22 %) and then followed by land use type

B (8.7 %) and C (3.9 %). Structure and composition of Sulawesi’s forest is rather

different to other islands (Keßler 2002, unpublished). The investigated undisturbed

rain forests around Toro, the emergent tree species were composed by Palaquium

quercifollium, Palaquium obovatum, Castanopsis accuminatisima, Lithocarpus

celebicus, Bischoffia javanica, Octomeles sumatrana, Pangium edule, Pterospermum

celebicum, Aglaia argentea, Chionanthus ramiflorus, and Polyscias nodosa. Lamonier

(1997) reported the emergent tree species in the lowland forest of Jambi (Sumatra)

mainly represented by fifteen dipterocarp species, three Anacardiac species and one

species of Apocynaceae. Some of them are Anisoptera costata, Anisoptera laevis,

Anisoptera marginata, Dipterocarpus crinitus, Hopea dryobalanoides, Shorea

acuminate, Shorea ovalis, Mangifera rigida, Mangifera torquenda, Pentaspadon

velutinus and Dyera costulata.

The timber volume was highest in land use type A (undisturbed rain forest) and

gradually decreased with increased forest disturbance, and again towards forest gardens

and was lowest in plantations. This result indicated that there were many large tree

species in the land use type A than other land use type. Some of tree species in land

use type A are mainly belong to mayor commercial timber such as Palaquium

quercifollium, Palaquium obovatum (Sapotaceae) known as “Nyatoh” or “Nantu”

(“trade name”), Pterospermum celebicum (Sterculaceae) or “bayur”, Dysoxyllum spp

(Meliaceae) “Tahiti”, Maducha sp (Sapotaceae), Aglaia korthalsii, Alstonia scholaris.

(Apocynaceae) “ pulai”, Callophyllum soulatrii (Clusiaceae), beside that there were

101

tree species as minor timber such as Elmerilla ovalis (Magnoliaceae) or “Cempaka”,

Bischoffia javanica (Euphorbiaceae) “balintunga or pepolo”, Mussaendopsis celebica

(Rubiaceae), Ailanthus sp (Rubiaceae), Alseodaphne sp (Lauraceae), Artocarpus

teysmanii “tea uru”, Artocarpus elasticus “tea” (Moraceae), Artocarpus integer,

(Moraceae), Beilschmiedia gigantocarpa (Lauraceae), Canarium hirsutum

(Burseraceae), Canarium balsaminiferum (Burseraceae), Cinnamomum parthenoxylon

(Lauraceae), Cryptocarya crassinerviopsis . (Lauraceae), Lithocarpus grandifolius

(Fagaceae), Dracontamelon dao (Anacardiaceae), Fragraea racemosa (Loganiaceae),

Gymnacranthera sp (Myristicaceae), Lithocarpus celebicus (Fagaceae), Litsea spp

(Lauraceae), Myristica fatua (Myristicaceae), Octomeles sumatrana (Datiscaceae),

Sterculia oblongata (Sterculiaceae), Santiria laevigata (Burseraceae), etc. Generally,

The timber tree species was found at the research site of Toro, LLNP mainly belong to

the important non Dipterocarp trees (Soerianegara and Lemmens, 1993; Lemmens et al,

1995; Sosef et al, 1998). Besides that, both Neonauclea spp and Musaendopsis celebica

(Rubiaceae) “ pawa”, were two economic tree species with heavy and good in quality

which have been used locally for long time by the local people for contruction,

whereas Cacao, coffea and other fruit trees owned by many families at Toro as their

cash income, besides collection of sap from the Arenga pinnata (“aren palm”) is an

important source of income for some families. The sap is collected in bamboo pole and

a single tapped tree can produce up to 6 liters a day. The sap can be drunk directly but

more often is boiled down to make palm sugar or fermented to produce palm wine

(saguer).

The basal area of 56.72 m² per ha in the undisturbed natural forest is much

lower than the 140 m2 previously recorded in other part of Lore Lindu National Park

(Kessler et al. 2005), and is typical for a forest of this type in Southeast Asia (Dawkins

1959; Turner 2001).

Taxonomically, the investigated forests (types A-C) around Toro were mainly

dominated by Palaquium quercifolium, P. obovatum, Castanopsis acuminatissima,

Lithocarpus celebicus, and Neonauclea intercontinentalis. According to Keβler et al.

(2002) and Keßler (unpubl.) the genus Palaquium is represented by eight species in

Sulawesi. Palaquium obovatum is common and widespread throughout Sulawesi but P.

quercifolium is rare in Sulawesi and was previously only recorded from the southern

province. Both Palaquium species appear to be common in Lore Lindu National Park

102

where they form tall trees up to 40 m high. Castanopsis acuminatissima is common and

widespread in Sulawesi and is one of two chestnut species known from the island, the

other one being Castanopsis buruana. Lithocarpus celebicus is endemic to Sulawesi

and widespread in the island, including Lore Lindu National Park. Neonauclea

intercontinentalis, finally, seems to be common in Sulawesi (Keβler et al. 2002) and is

one of about 20 timber species of the large family Rubiaceae (ca. 600 genera, 10.000

species) in Sulawesi . Other important timber species of Rubiaceae recorded in the

forest near Toro include Anthocephalus macrophyllus and Mussaendopsis celebica.

The latter two are endemic species of Sulawesi and are representatives of the eastern

Malesian element in the island.

The number of endemic species is different among all land use types where

endemic trees were best represented in the three forest types with 6-10 species per plot,

and declined strongly in the three cacao agroforestry systems with 0-6 species per plot.

This pattern was partly a result of the lower overall native tree diversity in the cacao

agroforestry systems. When the percentage of endemic species was considered, then the

cacao forest gardens did not differ significantly (0-20% endemic species) from the three

forest types (10-20%), and only the two cacao systems with planted trees had

significantly reduced percentages of endemic trees (0-13%). Endemic species are of

considerable conservation concern and represent about 15% of the tree flora of

Sulawesi (Keßler et al. 2002). This overall value is in good accordance with the

percentages recorded by us at the plot level, with 10-20% of the native tree species

recorded in the three forest types and the cacao forest gardens being endemic to the

island. The representation of endemic species declined strongly to 0-13% in the two

types of cacao plantations, however, showing that endemic species are more susceptible

to severe habitat disturbances than widespread taxa. This is in accordance with general

hypotheses on the vulnerability of endemic plants to habitat modifications (Kruckeberg

and Rabinovitz 1985).

Secondary forests, regenerating after clear-felling, were not included in the

present study but were treated by Pitopang et al. (2002). These forests stand out by

their total lack of large trees and the abundance of thin-stemmed trees. The high

richness of trees 5 cm in secondary forests showed that this forest type has the

potential to recover a considerable richness, if allowed to mature. In terms of

103

taxonomic composition, the abundance of Meliaceae, Lauraceae, and Moraceae

appeared to be considerably reduced in secondary forests relative to primary forests,

whereas in Euphorbiaceae, Urticaceae and Ulmaceae it was increased. The latter

families are typical fast-growing pioneer taxa of early successional stages throughout

the tropics (Turner 2001; Slik 1998) that are of little economic interest.

5.6. Conclusions

In conclusion, we found that moderate human use of the forest ecosystems by

rattan and selected timber extraction did not result in significant decreases of tree

biodiversity, but the forest structure and its composition were differ among land use

type.

Number of endemism of tree species was higher in forest plots and it was

strongly reduced in cacao systems, although percentage endemism did not decline

significantly in cacao forest gardens. Roughly one third of tree species in the forest

plots were of economic importance as commercial timber trees; timber diversity was

little affected by moderate human use of the forest but was significantly reduced in

cacao forest gardens and dropped to near zero in other plantation types.

The mean basal area of 56.7 m² (36-80 m²) per ha in natural forest was lower

than the previously recorded value from the study area but is still almost as high as the

mean value typical for tropical lowland forests in Southeast Asia.

104

REFERENCES

Achard F, Eva HD, Stibig HJ, P. Mayaux, Gallego J. 2002. Determination ofdeforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forest. Science 297, 999-1002.

Baas P, Kalkman K, Geesink R. (eds) 1990. The Plant Diversity of Malesia. Kluwer,Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Barbour GM, Burk JK, Pitts WD. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. The BenjaminCummings Publishing Inc, New York.

Benitez-Malvido J, Martinez-Ramos M. 2003. Impact of forest fragmentation onunderstorey plant species richness in Amazonia. Cons. Biol. 17-2, 389-400

Bridson D, Forman L. 1999. The Herbarium Handbook. Third edition. Royal BotanicGardends. KEW

Crabs CJ. 1978. Ecology The experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance.Harper & Row Publisher. New York

Dawkins HC. 1959. The volume increment of natural tropical high-forest andlimitations to improvements. Empire Forestry Review 38: 175–180.

Fujisaka S, Escobar G, Veneklaas GE. 1998. Plant community diversity relative tohuman land uses in an Amazon forest colony. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 41–57.

Gerold G, Fremery M, Leuschner C, Guhardja E. 2002. Land use, nature conservation,and the stability of rainforest margins in Southeast Asia. (Storma: Bogor).

Hamann A, Barbon EB, Curio E, Madulid DA. 1999. A botanical inventory of asubmontane tropical rainforest on Negros Island, Philippines. Biodiversity andConservation 8: 1017–1031.

Holmes DA. 2002. Where have all the forest gone? Environment and SocialDevelopment East Asia, Pasific region Disccusion paper. The world Bank.Washington D.C.

Jepson P, Jarvie JK, MacKinnon K, Monk KA. 2001. The end for Indonesia’s lowlandrainforest? Science 292, 859-861

Kappelle M, Kennis PAF, de Vries RAJ. 1995. Changes in diversity along asuccessional gradient in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest. Biodiversityand Conservation 4: 10–34.

Keßler PJA, Bos MM, Sierra Daza SEC, Willemse LPM, Pitopang R, Gradstein SR.2002. A checklist of the woody plants of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Blumea, Supplement14: 1-160.

Keßler PJA. 2002 Tree Flora of Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia(unpublished).

Kerr JT, Currie DJ. 1995. Effects of human activity on global extinction risk.Conservation Biology 9: 1528–1538.

Kessler M, Keßler PJA, Gradstein SR, Bach K, Schmull M, Pitopang R. 2005. Treediversity in primary forest and different land use systems in Central Sulawesi,Indonesia. Biodiversity and conservation 14: 547-560.

105

Kruckeberg AR, Rabinovitz D (1985) Biological aspects of endemism in higher plants.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 447-479

Laumonier Y. 1997. The Vegetation and Physiography of Sumatra. Kluwer AcademicPublishers.Dordrecht. London

Laurence WF, Cochrane MA, Bergen S, Fearnside PM, Delamonica P. 2001. Thefuture of the Brazillian Amazon. Sceince 291, 438-836

Lemmens RHMJ, Soerianegara I, Wong WC. (Edits.) 1995. Plant Resources of SouthEast Asia (PROSEA). Timber trees : Minor commercial timbers. No.5 (2). Publ.Backhuys Publisher, Leiden.

Ludwig JA, Reynolds JE. 1988. Statistical Ecology. A primer on methods andcomputing. John Willey and Sons. New York, Singapore

Marjokorpi A, Ruokolainen K. 2003. The role of traditional forest gardens in theconservation of tree species in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biodiversity andConservation 12: 799–822.

Meßner S. 1996. Untersuchungen zur Biodiversität der Myrmecofauna (Formicidae) imParc National de la Como’e (Elfenbeinküste). Diploma Thesis, University ofWürzburg, Würzburg , Germany

Milliken W. 1998. Structure and Composition of one hectare of Central AmazonianTrre Firma Forest. Biotropica 30 (4); 530-537

Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Dirzo R, Sala OE. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystemfunctioning: basic principles. In: Heywood VH, Watson RT. (eds) GlobalBiodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 275–325.

Mori SA, Boom BM, Carvalino AM Santos D. 1983. The ecological importance ofMyrtaceae in eastern Brazilian wet forest. Biotropica 15 : 68-70

Palomares F. 2001.Vegetation structure and prey abundance requirements of the Iberianlynx: implications for the design of reserves and corridors. Journal of AppliedEcology 38: 9–18.




Phillips OL, Hall P, Gentry AH, Sawyer SA, Vasquez R. 1994. Dynamic and speciesrichness of tropical rain forest. Proc.Natl.Acad. Sci.U.S.A.91: 2805-2809


Pitopang R, Gradstein SR. 2003. Herbarium Celebense (CEB) and its role in supportingresearch on plant diversity of Sulawesi. Biodiversitas 5: 36-41.

Pitopang R, Kessler M, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR. 2004. Tree Diversity in PrimaryForest, Secondary Forest and Forest Garden in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.Abstract, Sixth International Flora Malesiana Symposium, Los Banos, Philippines,20-24 Sept. 2004.

106


Schulze CH, Fiedler K. 2003. Hawkmoth diversity in Nothern Borneo does not reflectthe influence of anthropogenic habitat disturbance. Ecotropica 9: 99-102



Setiadi D, Qoyim I, Muhandiono H. 2001. Penuntun Praktikum Ekologi. LaboratoriumEkologi. Jurusan Biologi. FMIPA. Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Soerianegara I, Indrawan A. 1988. Ekologi Hutan Indonesia. Laboratorium EkologiHutan. Fakultas Kehutanan. Institut Pertanian Bogor

Soerianegara I, Lemmens RHMJ.(Edits.) 1993. Plant Resources of South East Asia(PROSEA). Timber trees : majors commercial timbers. No.5 (1). Prosea Foundation,Bogor, Indonesia. Publ. Pudoc scientific Publishers, Wageningen.

Sosef MSM, Hong LT, Prawirohatmojo S. (Edits.) 1998. Plant Resources of SouthEast Asia (PROSEA). Timber trees : Lesser-known timbers. No.5 (2). Publ.Backhuys Publisher, Leiden.

Srinivas V, Parthasaranthy N. 2000. Comparative analyses of tree diversity anddispersion in the tropical lowland evergreen forest of Agumbe, Central WesternGhats, India. Tropical Biodiversity 7 (1): 45-60

STATSOFT. 1999. Statistica for Window 5.5. StatSoft Inc., Tulsa

Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T. 1999. Effects of habitat isolation on pollinatorcommunities and seed set. Oecologia 121: 432-440.

SYSTAT. 1997. SYSTAT for Windows, Statistics, Version 7.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago.

Tilman D. 1999. Diversity by default. Science 283: 495–496.Turner IM. 1996. Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forests: a review of the

evidence. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 200-209

Turner IM, Wong YK, Chew PT, bin Ibrahim A. 1997. Tree species richness inprimary and old secondary tropical forest in Singapore. Biodiversity andConservation 6:237-543

Turner IM. 2001. The Ecology the Tropical Rainforest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.Whitmore T.C. and Sayer J.A. (eds) 1992. Tropical Deforestationand Species Extinction. Chapman & Hall, London.

Van Steenis CGGJ, 1979. Plant-geography of East Malesia. Bot.J. Linn.Soc.79 : 97-178.

Veldkamp JFMC, Rifai MA, 1977. Flora Malesiana Bulletin, 12 (1-2). Leiden;Rijkherbarium

Whitten AJ, Mustafa M, Henderson GS. 1987. The Ecology of Sulawesi, 777 p.Gadjah Mada Univ. Press, Yogyakarta.

107

Whitmore T C, Tantra, Sutisna U, 1989. Tree flora checklist of Sulawesi. ForestResearch and Development Center, Bogor.

Whitmore TC, Sayer JA (eds) 1992. Tropical Deforestation and Species extinction.Chapman & Hall, London.

Wright DD, Jessen JH, Burke P, de Silva Garza HG. 1997. Tree and LianaEnumeration and Diversity on a One-Hectare plot in Papua New Guinea.J.Biotropica 29(3): 250-260

WCMC (World Conservation and Monitoring Center) 1992. Global Biodiversity:Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. Chapman & Hall, London.

Yamada I. 1975. Forest ecological studies of the montane forest of Mt.Pangrango,West Java. I. Stratification and floristic composition of the montane rain forest nearCibodas. The Southeast Asian Studies 13; 402-426

108

Chapter VISTRUCTURE OF UNDERSTORY PLANT ASSEMBLAGES

OF SIX LAND USE TYPES IN THE LORE LINDUNATIONAL PARK

Summary

Only few studies quantifying richness of understory plant species are availablefrom tropical forests. Data on the effect of habitat modification on such plantassemblages are even more missing, particularly in the island of Sulawesi. In this studythe diversity and species composition of understory plants is examined in thesubmontane forest of Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi by comparing threerain forest types and three types plantations of cacao differing in use intensity. Thisstudy addresses the question how the floristic composition, diversity, richness anddensity of understorey plant communities differ between forests and plantations ofcacao.

This research was carried out from April 2004 to August 2005 in the vicinity ofToro, a village located at the western margin of Lore Lindu National Park, CentralSulawesi. Six land use type differing in use intensity, namely "Wana” (A; undisturbedforest), “Pangale type 1” (B; medium use intensity of forest), “Pangale type 2” (C;moderate use of forest), and three types of cacao plantations (D: “Pahawa pongko type1;” E: “Pahawa pongko type 2;” and F: “Huma”) were studied. For each land use type,four replicates were selected. At all sites understory vascular plants (incl. herb, treeseedling, fern and small liana) less than 1.50 m high were sampled in ten 2x2 msubplots. All recognizable morphospecies of understory plants were collected. Plantcollecting was according to the “Schweinfurth method” (Bridson and Forman 1999).Additional voucher fertile specimens collected for identification purposes. Processingof the specimens was conducted at the Herbarium Celebense (CEB), Universitas ofTadulako, Palu. Identification was done in the field, in CEB, in BO and in L.

The results showed that 378 understory plant species, consist of 151 species ofseedlings, 146 herbs and shrubs, 30 terrestrial ferns and 51 climbers, were collected inall land use types. The means species number of herbs did not differ among three foresttypes but was significantly higher in cacao plantation type F, being ca. three timeshigher than in undisturbed rain forest and lightly disturbed rain forest. Urticaceae,Araceae, Hypoxidaceae and Acanthaceae were predominant in the forests, Asteraceaeand Poaceae in the cacao plantations. The mean highest species number of treeseedlings, however, was found in moderately disturbed forest and the lowest number inland use type F (cacao cultivated under monospecific shade tree). Arecaceae,Sapotaceae and Oleaceae were the dominant family of seedlings in the forests whereasPiperaceae and Euphorbiaceae in cacao plantations. The number species of ferns andclimbers did not differ between forests and plantations. We recorded several invasiveplant species at the cacao plantations such as Piper aduncum, Bidens pilosa, Ageratumconyzoides, Sclerea pruriens and Paspalum conjugatum.

Keywords : Understory plant assemblages, Land Use Type, Lore Lindu National Park.

109

6.1. Introduction

Tropical rain forests are among the most species rich places on earth (Jacobs

1981). Many studies demonstrate the high tree diversity of tropical rain forests (Proctor

et al.1983; Gentry et al. 1988; Kochummen et al. 1990; Phillips et al. 1994; Wright et

al. 1997 Hamann et al. 1999; Kessler et al. 2005) especially economically important

trees (Turner 2001), whereas understory assemblages (Gentry & Dodson 1987), herbs,

shrubs, lianas, and epiphytes ( Laska 1997; Svenning 2000; Gradstein et al. 2005) are

neglected.

Ecologically, understory plant species assemblages play a fundamental role in

diversity, structure, and functional aspects of tropical forests (Svenning 2000). They

may show different patterns of diversity than tree species due to different responses to

light level, nutrient availability, and temperature (Laska 1997; Svenning 2000; Siebert

2002).

Similar to other plant groups, data on understorey plant assemblages of

Sulawesi are still limited and publications on the effect of habitat modification on such

plant assemblages in the island are missing. In this study the diversity and species

composition of understorey plants is examined in submontane forest of Lore Lindu

National Park, Central Sulawesi by comparing three rain forest types and three types of

plantations of cacao differing in use intensity.

This study addresses the question how the floristic composition, diversity,

richness and density of understorey plant communities differ between forests and

plantations of cacao.

6.2. Methods

The study area was located in the surroundings of Toro, a village at the western

margin of Lore Lindu NP about 100 km south of Palu, the Capital of Central Sulawesi.

Research was carried out from April 2004 to August 2005. Detailed informations on the

climate and soil conditions of this part of Central Sulawesi are not yet available (see

Whitten et al. 1987). Gravenhorst (2005) reported that mean annual rainfall in the study

area is varied from 1,500 and 3,000 mm, mean relative humidity is 85.17 %, monthly

mean temperature is 23.40° C. Administratively, this village belong to Kulawi

110

district, Donggala Regency. This village is accessible by car, truck, motorbike and

public car from Palu. As our study area, the margin of the National Park is

characterized in many parts by a mosaic of primary forest, primary less disturbed

forest, primary more disturbed forest, secondary forests, and several land-use systems

with cacao, coffee, maize, and paddy (rice) as the dominating crops (Gerold et al. 2004)

The elevation of the selected sites is between 800 m and 1100 m, therefore covering an

altitudinal range that belongs to the submontane forest zone (Whitten et al. 1987).

Understory plants were sampled in six different land use types differing in use

intensity, including three types of rain forest and three of agroforestry system, as

follows:


Land use type A (“Wana”): low use intensity/undisturbed rain forest. Natural forestwith traditional use only; human activities restricted to collecting of medicinal plantsand extensive hunting; rattan palms abundantly present.

Land use type B (“Pangale 1”): medium use intensity / lightly disturbed rain forest.Natural forest with rattan extraction, rattan palm removed.

Land use type C (“Pangale 2”): moderate use intensity / moderately disturbed rainforest. Selectively logged forest, containing small to medium sized gaps, disturbance ofground vegetation, and increased abundance of lianas following the selective removalof canopy trees and rattan.




111


For each land use type, four replicates were selected. At all sites understory

vascular plants (incl. herbs, tree seedlings, ferns and climbers) less than 1.50 m high

were sampled in ten 2x2 m subplots. Plots were selected similar to plots for tree

diversity study. Plots of land use types A-C were located at slightly higher elevation

(hill tops) than land use types D-F (lower slopes) (Table 3.1).

All recognizable morphospecies of understory plants were collected. Plant

collecting was according to the “Schweinfurth method” (Bridson and Forman 1999).

Additionally, fertile voucher specimens were collected for identification purposes.

Processing of the specimens was conducted at Herbarium Celebense (CEB),

Universitas of Tadulako, Palu. Identification was done in the field, in CEB, in BO, and

in L. Vouchers were deposited in CEB, with duplicates in BO, GOET, L and BIOT.

6.3. Data analyses

Relative density (RD), relative frequency (RF), relative biomass (RBio), and

importance value indices (IVI) were calculated and analyzed according to the formulae

of Dumbois-Muller & Ellenberg (Soerianegara and Indrawan 1998 ; Setiadi et al.

2002) using Microsoft Office Excel.

Absolute values so obtained may be transcribed to relative values:

No. of individuals of a family or speciesRelative density (%) = --------------------------------------------------- X 100

Total no. of individuals in sample

Biomass of a species or familyRelative biomass (%) = ---------------------------------------------------- X 100

Total biomass in sample

Sampling units containing a speciesRelative frequency (%) = ----------------------------------------------------- X 100

Sum of all frequencies

112

Importance Value Index (IVI) for a species is the sum of its relative density, relative

dominance, and relative frequency. Species diversity was calculated by the Shannon-

Whiener index (H’) defined as

H’ = - Σ [ ni/ N] ln [ ni/ N]

Where, n is the importance value index of plant species I, and N is the total

number of importance value indices (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988). The presence and

absence data were used to calculate species similarity among all plots. The formulae of

Sorensen similarity index (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988) is

S = 2 C ( A +B) -1

where A is the number of IV (important value) in Stage 1, B is the number of IV

(important value) in Stage 2, and C is the number IV common to both stages.

Dissimilarity index (1.0 - Sorensen index) among those plots where then clustered by

using Biodiv 97 (Meßner 1996) and the Program Statistica 5.5 (StatSoft 1999).

Dissimilarity values (1-Sörensen indices) was used to calculate a two-dimensional

ordination of all samples using multidimensional scaling.

The program SYSTAT version 7.0 (SPSS INC 1997) was used to perform

statistical analyses. Arithmetic means are given + one standard deviation (SD).

ANOVA was of a one-way type. Tukey’s Honest Significant Different-Test was used

for multiple comparisons of means.

6.4. Results

6.4.1. Diversity and Species number

In total, 378 understory plant species consisting of 151 species of seedlings, 146

herbs and shrubs, 30 terrestrial ferns and 51 climbers were collected in all land use

types. Statistically, the mean species number of herbs did not differ among three forest

types but was significantly higher in cacao plantation type F (moderately use intensity)

compared to all other land use types (Figure 5.1). The mean species number of herbs in

cacao plantation of moderate use intensity (type F; 35.3 + 5.8 species) was ca. three

times higher than in undisturbed and lightly disturbed rain forest and almost the same

as cacao plantation in low use intensity (land use type D) and E. Summary statistics,

113

number of species, genera and families of understory plants and species composition is

presented in Table 6.1

In contrast, the mean number of species of tree seedlings was highest in

moderately disturbed rain forest (Type C; 36.5 + 3 species), followed by rain forest of

light use intensity and undisturbed rain forest, with the mean numbers of species being

25.5+ 3.4 and 25.3 + 5.3 respectively. The lowest number of tree seedling species (4.5

+ 3.7) was at the land use type F (cacao plantation of moderate use intensity).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E F

Nu

mb

er

of

Sp

ec

ies

Herbs Tree seedlings Ferns Lianas

114

Figure 6.1. Top: species richness of understory plants. Bottom: number of species ofunderstory plants (herbs, tree seedlings, ferns and climbers) in six land use types at theLore Lindu National Park, Indonesia.

115

Table 6.1. Summary statistics of understorey plants richness and its composition in plots of 40 m2each in six land use types with fourreplicated each. A = Natural forest; B= Natural forest subject to rattan extraction ; C = Selectively logged forest; D= Cacao forestgarden; E = Cacao cultivated under a mixed canopy of planted shade trees; F = Cacao cultivated under a monospecific canopy ofplanted shade trees. Different lower case letters designate significantly different values (post hoc Tukey tests)

No Category LAND USE TYPES ANOVAA B C D E F F P

1 Herb Means + SD 12.8 + 5.9 a 12.5 + 2.7 a 16.5 + 4.0 ab 33.5 + 9.7 b 33.3 + 5.3 b 35.3 + 5.8 b 15.72 <0.001Species 29 29 27 75 70 85Genera 26 23 23 65 62 64Family 12 13 15 25 28 27

2 Seedling Means + SD 25.3 + 5.3 a 25.5 + 3.4 ab 36.5 + 3 c 17.5 + 6.2 a 5.8 + 1.9 d 4.5 + 3.7 d 35.39 <0.001Species 70 65 88 46 13 11Genera 51 52 69 39 13 11Family 33 33 41 26 9 10

3 Fern Means + SD 3.8 + 1.5 a 4.5 + 2.6 a 3.0 + 0.8 a 5.8 + 1.7a 4.0 + 1.8 a 3.8 + 0.5 a 1.27 <0.001Species 13 12 6 16 11 8Genera 11 11 6 11 9 7Family 11 11 6 9 8 6

4 Climber Means + SD 5.3 + 4.2 a 4.8 + 2.5 a 8.3 + 2.1 a 5.5 + 2.4 a 3.8 + 2.1 a 2.3 + 1.5 a 2.39 <0.001Species 13 16 14 16 8 11Genera 11 9 15 16 7 10Family 10 12 13 13 7 10

5 Biomassa Means + SD 662.9 + 215.9 a 535.6 +103.9 a 615.9 + 60.9 a 667.9 + 344.9 a 460.4 +186.4 a 407.2 + 99.4 a 1.27 <0.001

Means+ SD = Means of number species

116

6.4.2. Taxonomic Composition

The species richness and composition of understory plants was different among

land use types (Appendix 5). In the undisturbed forest (land use type A) the number

species of seedlings, herbs, lianas, and ferns were 70, 29, 14, and 13 respectively

(Table 6.1). Dominating tree seedling species in this land use type were Palaquium

quercifollium (Sapotaceae), Callophylum souletri (Clusiaceae), Syzigium

accuminatisimum (Myrtaceae), Meliosma sumatrana (Sabiaceae), Acer laurinum

(Aceraceae), Aglaia argentea (Meliaceae), Areca vestiaria (Arecaceae), Lasianthus sp

(Rubiaceae) and Ardisia celebica (Myrsinaceae). Herb and shrub species were

presented by Elletaria sp (Zingiberaceae), Costus speciosus (Zingiberaceae), Alpinia

galanga (Zingiberaceae), Pauzolzia zeylanica (Urticaceae), and four unidentified

species of Elatostema (Urticaceae). Ferns were mostly represented by Cyathea sp.

(Cyatheaceae), Diplazium crenatoserratum (Athryum group), Davalia trichomanoides

(Davaliaceae), Christella dentata (Thelypteridaceae), Nephrolevis bisserata and

Sellaginella sp (Sellaginellaceae), whereas liana and vine species were four juvenile

rattans namely Calamus minahassae, Calamus inop, Calamus zollingerii, and Calamus

ornatus var.celebicus (Arecaceae), an endemic scrambler bamboo Dinochloa barbata

(Poaceae), Freycenetia angustifolia (Pandanaceae), Zyziphus angustifolius

(Rhamnaceae), and Stephania japonica (Menispermaceae).

In the lightly disturbed rain forest (land use type B) we recorded 65 tree

seedling species, the most common ones being Areca vestiaria, Meliosma sumatrana,

Pandanus sarasinorum (Pandanaceae), Calophyllum soulatrii, Chionantus laxiflorus

(Oleaceae), Aglaia silvetris (Meliaceae) and Pinanga aurantiaca (Arecaceae). The

codominant herb species were Tacca palmata (Taccaceae), Staurogyne elongate

(Acanthaceae), Curculigo orchimoides (Amarylidaceae), Homalomena humilis

(Araceae), Elatostema cf. macrophylla, Elatostema sp 1, Elatostema sp 2 (Urticaceae),

Spathyphyllum canaefollium (Araceae) and Begonia aptera (Begoniaceae). There were

only 2 juvenil rattans species namely Calamus zollingerii and Calamus minahassae but

the other common lianas species were Zyziphus angustifolius (Rhamnaceae), Alyxia

celebica (Apocynaceae), Medinilla sp (Melastomataceae), Gnetum cuspidatum

(Gnetaceae) and Centrosema sp. (Fabaceae). Christella dentata, Diplazium esculentum,

117

Cyathea sp., Nephrolevis biserrata and Helminthostachys zeylanica (Ophioglossaceae)

were the codominant fern species in this land use type.

The species number of climbers (including juvenile rattan and scrambler

bamboo) was very small. Statistically, the mean number of climber species did not

differ among land use types. Nevertheless, we recorded at least 16 species at the land

use types B and D but only 8 species in the land use type E. Similarly, the mean

number of fern species did not differ among land use types.

Number of tree seedling species (88) was highest in moderate use intensity

forest and was codominated by Oreochnide rubescens (Urticaceae), Callophylum

souletri and Capparis pubiflora (Capparidaceae). Herb species seedlings were mostly

presented by Elatostema sp 2 (Urticaceae), Homalomena humilis (Araceae), Curculigo

orchimoides (Amarylidaceae), Elatostema sp 1, Elatostema sp 3 and Tacca palmata.

There were only six species of ferns in this habitat and again we recorded Lindsaea

lucida, Christella dentata, Cyathea sp and Helmintostachys zeylanica as seedlings. The

dominant liana species seedlings were Stephania japonica, Dinochloa barbata,

Arcangalesia flava (Menispermaceae), Piper miniatum (Piperaceae), Calamus inops

and Korthalsia celebica (both Arecaceae).

The understory plants species composition was signicantly different between

cacao plantations and forests. The number of native species of forest climbers and

herbs was decreased in land use type D, E and F, where they were replaced by the

weedy herb species. Although there were Elatostema sp 1 (Urticaceae), Tacca palmata

(Taccaceae), Elatostema sp 2, Curculigo orchimoides and Impatiens platypetala

(Balsaminaceae), all typical for the herb layer of the forest, we collected a large number

weedy species in land use type D such as Ageratum conyzoides (Asteraceae),

Elephantopus mollis (Asteraceae), Crassocephalum crepidiodes (Asteraceae),

Paspalum conyugatum (Poaceae), Setaria palmifolia (Poaceae), Panicum repens

(Poaceae), Eragrostis sp (Poaceae), Cyathula prostata (Amaranthaceae), Coleus sp.

(Lamiaceae), Hyptis capitata (Lamiaceae), Commelina difusa (Commelinaceae), Pollia

secundifolia (Comelinaceae), Blumea lacera (Asteraceae), Sclerea pruriens

(Cyperaceae), etc. In land use types E and F, the herb species layer was entirely

composed of the weedy species. The same phenomenon also occurred among tree

seedling species, with tree seedlings in the three cacao plantations types being

dominated by pioneer species such as Piper aduncum (Piperaceae), Mellochia

118

umbellate, Ficus septica, and Macaranga hispida. Besides, a number of seedlings of

planted tree species were recorded, such as Arenga pinnata (Arecaceae), Theobroma

cacao (Sterculiaceae), Coffea robusta (Rubiaceae), Erythrina sepium (Fabaceae),

Glyricidia sepium (Fabaceae) and Nephelium lappaceum (Sapindaceae).

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.0

Areca

ceae

Sapota

ceae

Oleace

ae

Rubiac

eae

Clusiac

eae

Myristi

cace

ae

Morac

eae

Stercu

liace

ae

Eupho

rbiac

eae

Pipera

ceae

Impo

rtan

ce v

alue

(%)

Land Use Type A Land Use Type B Land Use Type C

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0

Arecac

eae

Sapota

ceae

Oleace

ae

Rubiac

eae

Clusiac

eae

Myristi

cace

ae

Morace

ae

Stercu

liace

ae

Eupho

rbiac

eae

Piperac

eae

Impo

rtan

t val

ue (%

)

Land Use Type D Land Use Type E Land use Type F

Figure 6.2. The ten dominant families of tree seedlings based on their importance valueindex. Above : Three types of natural forest. Bottom: Three types of cacao plantation.

119

0102030405060708090

100110

Urticaceae

Araceae

Hypoxidaceae

Acanthaceae

Zingiberaceae

Commelinaceae

Taccaceae

Poaceae

Asteraceae

Caryophyllaceae

F a m i l y

Impo

rtanc

e valu

e (%)

Land Use Type A Land Use Type B Land Use Type C

0102030405060708090

100110120

Urticaceae

Araceae

Hypoxidaceae

Acanthaceae

Zingiberaceae

Commelinaceae

Taccaceae

Poaceae

Asteraceae

Caryophyllaceae

F a m i l y

Impo

rtanc

e valu

e (%)

Land Use Type D Land Use Type E Land Use Type F

Figure 6.3. The ten dominant families of herb layer based on their importance valueindex. Above : Three types of natural forest. Bottom: Three types of cacao plantation.

120

In the three cacao plantation types (land use types D, E and F), the dominant

family of tree seedling was Piperaceae followed by Euphorbiaceae, and Arecaceae. The

families of herbs were Asteraceae and Poaceae.

At the family level, tree seedlings in the undisturbed natural forest (type A) and

lightly disturbed natural forest (type B) were dominated by Arecaceae, Sapotaceae,

Oleaceae, Rubiaceae, Clusiaceae, Lauraceae, Myristicaceae, Fagaceae and Moraceae

(Table 6.2) and the herb layer by Urticaceae, Araceae, Hypoxidaceae, Acanthaceae,

Zingiberaceae, Taccaceae, Orchidaceae, Gesneriaceae, Begoniaceae and Araliaceae.

The dominant families of tree seedlings in the moderately disturbed forest (type C)

were Urticaceae, and Arecaceae, whereas, those of herbs were Urticaceae, Araceae,

Hypoxidaceae and Clusiaceae. A comparison of the ten most important tree and herb

seedling families in forests and cacao plantations is presented in Fig. 5.2 and Fig.5.3.

Table 6.2. The ten main understory plant families based on their important family index(%) in natural forest and all other land use types. Left column: tree seedlings, rightcolumn: herbs.

Land use type A (Undisturbed natural forest)Seedling Herb

No Family FIV No Family FIV

1 Arecaceae 34.69 1 Urticaceae 92.82

2 Sapotaceae 25.45 2 Araceae 55.48

3 Oleaceae 25.40 3 Hypoxidaceae 40.04

4 Rubiaceae 20.30 4 Acanthaceae 14.61

5 Clusiaceae 17.82 5 Zingiberaceae 7.48

6 Lauraceae 16.39 6 Gesneriaceae 7.22

7 Myristicaceae 15.01 7 Orchidaceae 5.52

8 Moraceae 13.67 8 Commelinaceae 2.68

9 Meliaceae 12.99 9 Araliaceae 2.30

10 Fagaceae 12.43 10 Taccaceae 2.05

Remaining families 105.85 Remaining families 69.80

Sum 300 300.00

Land Use Type B (Lightly disturbed natural forest)


1 Arecaceae 42.17 1 Taccaceae 24.35

2 Sabiaceae 30.16 2 Acanthaceae 20.96

3 Meliaceae 25.86 3 Urticaceae 17.42

4 Clusiaceae 24.55 4 Araceae 16.16

121

5 Lauraceae 21.54 5 Hypoxidaceae 14.38

6 Sapotaceae 20.36 6 Gesneriaceae 4.83

7 Pandanaceae 20.14 7 Zingiberaceae 2.91

8 Rubiaceae 16.01 8 Orchidaceae 2.75

9 Oleaceae 12.84 9 Begoniaceae 2.35

10 Myristicaceae 10.78 10 Balsaminaceae 1.16


Sum 300 Sum 300

Land Use Type C (Moderately disturbed natural forest)


1 Urticaceae 34.96 1 Urticaceae 106.60

2 Arecaceae 23.68 2 Araceae 62.92

3 Clusiaceae 18.86 3 Hypoxidaceae 35.49

4 Meliaceae 15.95 4 Taccaceae 16.98

5 Sabiaceae 13.23 5 Gesneriaceae 15.26

6 Caparidaceae 13.11 6 Acanthaceae 13.41

7 Sterculiaceae 12.96 7 Zingiberaceae 13.17

8 Rubiaceae 12.55 8 Balsaminaceae 9.54

9 Euphorbiaceae 12.23 9 Maranthaceae 8.39

10 Moraceae 12.15 10 Commelinaceae 6.84


Sum 300 Sum 300

Land Use Type D (Cacao forest garden)


1 Piperaceae 75.75 1 Urticaceae 72.84

2 Moraceae 30.54 2 Poaceae 54.29

3 Rubiaceae 28.06 3 Asteraceae 39.10

4 Sterculiaceae 24.27 4 Araceae 21.60

5 Arecaceae 22.85 5 Taccaceae 18.60

6 Euphorbiaceae 19.77 6 Lamiaceae 17.42

7 Araliaceae 17.57 7 Hypoxidaceae 13.31

8 Meliaceae 11.72 8 Balsaminaceae 10.88

9 Rutaceae 10.19 9 Acanthaceae 8.05

10 Myrtaceae 9.04 10 Comelinaceae 7.73


Sum 300 Sum 300

122

Land Use Type E (Cacao cultivated under mixed canopy of shade tree )


1 Piperaceae 77.12 1 Poaceae 89.84

2 Euphorbiaceae 59.58 2 Asteraceae 56.13

3 Arecaceae 53.69 3 Acanthaceae 29.31

4 Rubiaceae 45.88 4 Lamiaceae 22.00

5 Sterculiaceae 20.88 5 Caryophyllaceae 16.73

6 Fabaceae 15.05 6 Rubiaceae 11.74

7 Moraceae 13.43 7 Cyperaceae 10.24

8 Rutaceae 10.93 8 Urticaceae 9.03

9 Araliaceae 3.43 9 Malvaceae 8.97

Sum 300 10 Verbenaceae 8.10

Remaining families 37.91

Sum 300

Land Use Type F (Cacao under a monospecific canopy of shade tree)

No Family FIV Family FIV

1 Piperaceae 32.95 1 Asteraceae 86.95

2 Euphorbiaceae 18.07 2 Poaceae 80.74

3 Arecaceae 16.37 3 Caryophyllaceae 29.26

4 Rubiaceae 11.11 4 Amaranthaceae 13.33

5 Fabaceae 9.50 5 Lamiaceae 12.53

6 Sterculiaceae 3.00 6 Cyperaceae 11.18

7 Moraceae 1.09 7 Urticaceae 8.07

8 Sapindaceae 0.91 8 Commelinaceae 7.69

9 Rutaceae 0.51 9 Euphorbiaceae 6.62

10 Tiliaceae 0.47 10 Rubiaceae 5.25


Sum 300 Sum 300

6.4.3. Similarity of understory plant assemblages

The result of similarity analyses of understory plant assemblages among the six

land use types showed that there was a high degree of similarity percentage between

land use types A and B or C. While, the similarity percentage between land use type B

and C was still high. Table 6.3 indicated these values are 0.67, 0.63 and 0.67

respectively. On the other hand the taxonomic composition between land use type E

and F also showed a high degree of similarity, with a Sorensen index 0.82. Similarity

percentages of understory plant between forests and cacao plantations showed low

123

values of Sorensen indices. Crabs (1978) classified Sorensen similarity index into four

categories for instance >75% (very high), 50-75% (high), 25-50% (medium) and <25%

(low). The Dendrogram of Cladistic analyses of understory plant in six land use types

is presented in Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11 respectively.

Table 6.3. Sorensen similarity and dissimilarity indices of understory plant assemblagesin six land use types differing in use intensity.

Sorensen Similarity index ( SI )LUT A B C D E F

A 0.67 0.63 0.28 0.09 0.07B 0.33 0.67 0.34 0.14 0.10C 0.37 0.33 0.39 0.14 0.12D 0.72 0.66 0.61 0.48 0.50E 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.52 0.82F 0.93 0.90 0.88 0.50 0.18

Dissimilarity index (1-Sorensen)

The cluster analyses and two dimensional scaling based on Sörensen indices for

all possible pair wise combinations of understory plant species assemblages showed a

clear separation between the three type of forests and all other cacao plantation types.

(Figure 6.4 and 6.5). There is a high degree of overlap between land use types A

(natural forest) and B (lightly undisturbed forest). The cacao forest garden (type D)

represented a relatively distinct group. Both land use types E (cacao cultivated under

mixed canopy of shade tree) and F (cacao cultivated under monospecific canopy of

shade tree) showed a high degree of overlap.

124

Tree Diagram for VariablesUnweighted pair-group average

Euclidean distances

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Linkage Distance

F

E

D

C

B

A

Figure 6.4. Dendrogram of cluster analysis of understory assemblages based ondissimilarity index (1-Sorensen similarity indices) among six (6) land use typesdiffering in use intensity.

Scatterplot 2D

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

B4

C1

C2

C3

C4

D1D2

D3D4 E1

E2E3

E4

F1

F2F3

F4

-1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Dimension 1

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Dim

ensi

on 2

Figure 6.5. Two dimensional scaling of understory species assemblages similaritybased on Sorensen indices in the six land use types. Sites belonging to the same habitattype are connected by lines.

125

6.5. Discussion

The understory plant assemblages sampled in six land use types in Lore Lindu

National Park are clearly composed of a different of set of species and families. In this

study, the number of seedling species was highest in moderately disturbed forest. In

contrast, the understory herb and shrub diversity was greatest in cacao plantations with

a monospecific canopy of planted shaded tree (type F). The number of species of lianas

and ferns did not differ between cacao plantation and forests, but their composition

was significantly different in the six land use types.

Jacobs (1981) pointed out that understory plant diversity in the Tropics differs

among land use types differing in stage of succession. While shrubs and herbaceous

vines are abundant in early secondary and late secondary forest, other groups like

grasses are very scare in the late secondary and primary forest.

The present results clearly indicate that understory plant species groups have

different patterns of diversity than tree species. Presumably, this is due to their different

responses to abiotic and biotic factor such as differential light levels, nutrient

availability, water availability, wind and temperature (Denslow et al. 1990 ; Laska

1997; Marquis et al. 1986; Svenning 2000; Siebert 2002). The abundance and diversity

of understory plants are also influenced by biotic factors. For example, birds, mammals

and bats are known to be important dispersers of pioneer and forest climax tree species,

shrub, herb and epiphyte species (Galindo-Gonzales et al. 2000; Siebert 2002).

A comparison of the herb diversity in the different land use types shows highest

species richness in cacao cultivated under a monospecific canopy of planted shade trees

(land use type F), followed by cacao cultivated under a mixed canopy of shade trees

and cacao forest gardens. This pattern is in accordance with findings of Siebert (2002)

and may be explained by the higher light levels and more open canopy in land use type

F as compared with the other land use types.

In this study, we recorded a mix of native and exotic weed species in the cacao

forest garden (D) such as Ageratum conyzoides (Asteraceae), Elephantopus mollis

(Asteraceae), Crassocephalum crepidiodes (Asteraceae), Paspalum conyugatum

(Poaceae), Setaria palmifolia (Poaceae), Cyathula prostata (Amaranthaceae), and

Hyptis capitata (Lamiaceae). The composition of herbs in this forest type agrees with

126

the results of Siebert (2002) who found that both native and exotic weed species

occurred in traditional forest farming systems.

The cacao forest garden, known as a traditional forest farming system (Siebert

2002), is an important land use type in the margins of Lore Lindu National Park. The

high species diversity and complex structure of traditional forest farming systems

maintains many of the ecosystem functions and processes found in primary forests.

This includes low ground-level light intensities, low transpiration rates of understory

plants, reduced wind speed, diurnal temperature and humidity fluctuations, large and

continuous organic matter inputs, efficient nutrient cycling, and a diverse habitat for

forest flora and fauna (Perfecto et al. 1996; Beer et al. 1998 ; Siebert 2002). Traditional

forest farming system may also provide connectivity between isolated primary forest

fragments (Galindo-Gonzales et al. 2000).

Interestingly, the dominant tree seedling species in three cacao plantation types

was Piper aduncum (Piperaceae), with important value indices more than 75%. Weber

(2003) stated that Piper aduncum is one of invasive alien species (IAS) which is

widely distributed in the tropics including Malesia, Polynesia and Melanesia.

Tjitrosoedirdjo (2005) who has inventoried the invasive alien species in Indonesia

pointed out that this species is originally from South America but it has recently

invaded some islands in Indonesia including Sulawesi. Piper aduncum is also the

dominant species in burnt rain forests areas of Borneo (Eichhorn et al. 2005).

At the family level, Asteraceae and Poaceae are the dominant plant families in

these plantations, indicating that cacao plantation areas are invaded by exotic weedy

species of these two families. Probably, the invasion by species of Asteraceae and

Poaceae is due to the excellent dispersal capacities of species of these two families, by

means of very light, wind-dispersed achenes. Both families have numerous species

(Asteraceae ca. 21.000 spp., Poaceae ca. 8000 spp.) and are cosmopolitan in

distribution (Mabberley 1987).

6.6. Conclusions

Based on the result of the research it can be concluded that there were 378

understory plant species consisting of 151 species of seedlings, 146 herbs and shrubs,

30 terrestrial ferns and 51 climbers in all land use types. The species number of herbs

127

and seedling did not differ among three forest types but was significantly higher in

cacao plantation type F (moderately use intensity) compared to all other land use types.

On the other hand the number of species of lianas and fern relatively did not differ

between cacao plantation and forests, but their composition was significantly different

in the six land use types.

The understory herbs and seedling species composition was significantly

different between cacao plantations and forests. Three rain forest type (A, B and C)

mainly dominated by a low number of native species of such as Elatostema spp, Tacca

palmata, Curculigo orchimoides, Impatiens platypetala whereas in land use type E

(cacao forest garden) several weedy species such as Ageratum conyzoides,

Elephantopus mollis, Paspalum conyugatum, Setaria palmifolia and Blumea lacera

(Asteraceae) and Sclerea pruriens (Cyperaceae) also occurred. In land use types E and

F, the herb species layer was entirely composed of the weedy species. The same

phenomenon also occurred among tree seedling species, with tree seedlings in the three

cacao plantations types being dominated by pioneer species such as Mellochia

umbellata, Ficus septica, Macaranga hispida and Piper aduncum an invasive alien

species.

128

REFERENCES

Beer J, Muschler R, Kass D, Somarriba E. 1998. Shade management in coffee andcacao plantations. Agroforestry Systems 38: 139–164.


Bridson, D and Forman L. 1999. The Herbarium Handbook. Third edition. RoyalBotanic Gardends. KEW

Denslow J S. 1987. Tropical rain forest gaps and tree species diversity. Annu.Rev.Ecol.Syst. 18:431-451

Eicchorn KAO. 2005. Plant diversity after the 1997-98 fires in East Kalimantan,Indonesia. Doctoral dissertation. Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, UniversiteitLeiden branch.

Galindo-Gonzales J, Guevara S, SosaV. 2000. Bat- and bird-generated seed rains atisolated trees in pastures in a tropical rainforest. Conservation Biology 14: 1693–1703.

Gentry AH, Dodson G. 1987. Contribution of nontrees to species richness of a tropicalrain forest. Biotropica 19: 149-156

Gerold G, Fremery M, Leuschner, C Guhardja E. 2002. Land use, nature conservation,and the stability of rainforest margins in Southeast Asia. (Storma: Bogor).




Kessler M, Keßler PJA, Gradstein SR, Bach K, Schmull M Pitopang R. 2005. Treediversity in primary forest and different land use systems in Central Sulawesi,Indonesia. Biodiversity and conservation 14: 547-560.

Kochummen KM, Lafrankie JV, Manokaran N. 1990. Floristic Composition of PasohForest Reserve, a Lowland rain forest in Peninsular Malaysia.J. Trop.For.Sci.3: 1-13

Laska MS. 1997. Structure of understorey shrub assemblages in adjacent secondaryforest and old growth tropical wet forests, Costa Rica. Biotropica 29 (1) ; 29-37


Mabberley D. 1987. The Plant Books. Univ.Press. Cambridge. Page 139-1142

Marquis RJ, Young HJ, Braker HE. 1986. The influence of Understory Vegetationcover on germination and seedling establishment in a tropical lowland wet forest.Biotropica 18 (4); 273-278.

129

Meßner S. 1996. Untersuchungen zur Biodiversität der Myrmecofauna (Formicidae) imParc National de la Como’e (Elfenbeinküste). Diploma Thesis, University ofWürzburg, Würzburg , Germany

Perfecto I, Rice RA, Greenberg RME, van der Vort. 1996. Shade coffee: adisappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46, 598-608.

Phillips OL, Hall P, Gentry AH, Sawyer SA, Vasquez R. 1994. Dynamic and speciesrichness of tropical rain forest. Proc.Natl.Acad. Sci.U.S.A.91: 2805-2809

Pitopang R, Guhardja E, Setiadi D, Mogea JP, Gradstein SR and Kessler M. 2006. Treediversity of six land use differing use intensity in Central Sulawesi. A case study inDesa Toro Lore Lindu National Park. Submitted to Biotropia

Proctor JJ, Anderson M, Chai P, Vallack HW. 1983. Ecological studies in fourcontrasting lowland rain forest in Gunung Mulu National Park, Serawak.J. Ecol. 71:237-260

Setiadi D, Qoyim I, Muhandiono H. 2001. Penuntun Praktikum Ekologi.Laboratorium Ekologi. Jurusan Biologi. FMIPA. Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Siebert S. 2002. From shade- to sun-grown perennial crops in Sulawesi, Indonesia:implications for biodiversity conservation and soil fertility. Biodiversity andConservation 11: 1889–1902, 2002.


Svenning JC. 2000. Small caopy gaps influence plant distribution in the rain forestunderstory. Biotropica 32 (2); 252-261

SYSTAT. 1997. SYSTAT for Windows, Statistics, Version 7.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago.

Tjitrosoedirdjo SS. 2005. Inventory of the Invasive Alien Plant Species in Indonesia.Biotropia No.25, 2005: 60-73

Turner IM. 2001. The Ecology the Tropical Rainforest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK. Whitmore TC, Sayer JA (eds) 1992. Tropical Deforestation andSpecies Extinction. Chapman & Hall, London.

Weber E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the world. A Reference Guide toEnvironmental Weeds. CABI Publishing .CAB International. Wallingford. OxonOX 10 8DE, UK

Whitten AJ, Mustafa M, Henderson GS 1987. The Ecology of Sulawesi, 777 p. GadjahMada Univ. Press, Yogyakarta.


WCMC (World Conservation and Monitoring Center) 1992. Global Biodiversity:Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. Chapman & Hall, London, 594 pp.

130

Chapter VIIGENERAL DISCUSSION

7.1. Sulawesi and its Floristic Composition

It has been mentioned in several literatures that Sulawesi is an interesting island

especially rich in species which are not found elsewhere in the world and it has recently

been identified as one of the wold’s biodiversity hotspot (Keßler et al. 2002, Whitten

et al. 1987; MacKinnon 1992). Floristically, Sulawesi island together with Moluccas

and New Guinea belongs to eastern Malesia subregion (Jacobs 1981, Van Steenis

1950). In this study, total number of tree species (dbh>10 cm) recorded was 248

consisting of 143 genera, 58 families, where 66 species out of them were belong to

eastern Malesia subregion and 27 species were endemic to Sulawesi.

Sulawesi’s forest are characterized by the almost absence of Dipterocarpaceae,

a dominant plant family in western Malesian forest (Keßler et al. 2002). Both this

study and previously research which were done by Pitopang et al. (2004) in Central

Sulawesi (LLNP) there was not found any Dipterocarp species in studied plots.

Meanwhile, in some main islands of western Malesia (Table 7.1) Dipterocarpaceae is

plentiful in all island examined, even in sub montane forest of Negro island, The

Philippines (Hamann et al. 1999). The Dipterocarpaceae is the valuable family of

timber trees in Southeast Asia. In the past time, the lowland forests of Java also harbor

for 18 species of Dipterocarpaceae (Baker & Brink 1963), but at the present it is very

difficult to find Dipterocarpaceae forests in Java due to the very fast forest destruction.

The remaining Dipterocapaceae forest in Java at present are found only in some parts of

Ujung Kulon NP (West Java), Nusa Kambangan island (Central Java) and South

Malang (Simbolon et al. 1998). According to Keßler et al. (2002) that in whole

Sulawesi only six species of Dipterocarpaceae are recorded, two of them are {Vatica

rassak (Korth.) Blume and Sunaptera flavovirens (Slooten) Kosterm } found in the

whole island, the other four have a restricted distribution.

In this study, the vegetation of the sub-montane forest of Lore Lindu National

Park Central Sulawesi was mainly dominated by Fagaceae, Sapotaceae, Meliaceae and

Lauraceae. As a comparison, Simbolon et al. (1998) reported that the family of

Fagaceae was also frequently found in the submontane forest of Gunung Halimun

131

National Park West Java, where eleven out of 23 species of Fagaceae known in Java

were recorded in GHNP, among them the important species were Quercus lineate,

Castanopsis javanica, Castanopsis accuminatisimma, Castanopsis argentea,

Litocarpus javanicus, etc. Besides, some important species like Altingia excelsa

(Hamamelidaceae), Schima wallichii (Theaceae) and Dipterocarpus haseltii

(Dipterocarpaceae) were also recorded. In Sulawesi, only six species of Lithocarpus

oaks and two of Castanopsis chestnuts are known compared with c. 60 and 21

respectively recorded from Borneo (Keßler 2002, unpublished).

7.2. Forest modification and transformation and its implications on biologicaldiversity.

It has been a common issue that large areas of natural forest are modified and

converted , into agriculture land-use. This also counts for Central Sulawesi, particularly

for the Lore Lindu National Park. For many years, parts of natural forest in this

National Park have been transformed into several land use types including cacao

agroforestry systems, annual culture and even secondary forest. Comprehensive studies

covering a wide variety of taxonomic groups clearly documented that generally forest

modification and transformation to land use system have a negative effect on diversity

and species richness (Schulze et al. 2004). But many studies revealed that cacao

agroforestry systems that are managed under diversified systems are capable of

maintaining a high proportion of the local biodiversity (particularly insect diversity;

Rice and Greenberg 2000). Hosang (2004) who has studied about Hymenoptera

(represent by ants) in different land use types in the LLNP found a higher number of

ants as recorded in cacao plantations than at forest sites. Whereas, Bos et al.(2004)

found highest beetle diversity in agroforests shaded by forest remnants than natural

forest. In addition, percent predators was also highest in agroforests shaded by forest

remnants indicating high potential for biological control.

Agroforestry system where cacao cultivated under natural shade trees

(traditional forest farming systems) could maintains many of the ecosystem functions

includes low ground-level light intensities, low transpiration rates of understory plants,

reduced wind speed, diurnal temperature and humidity fluctuations, large and

continuous organic matter inputs, efficient nutrient cycling, and a diverse habitat for

forest flora and fauna (Perfecto et al. 1996; Beer et al. 1998 ; Siebert 2002).

132

Agroforestry system may also provide connectivity between isolated primary forest

fragments (Galindo-Gonzales et al. 2000). Furthermore, agroforestry systems seem to

have much to offer in integrating ecological and socio-economic benefits to stabilize

ecosystem functioning and the conservation of a certain degree of biodiversity (Burger

2004). Basnyat (2004) showed majority of the farmers who live in rural area in Nepal

are unaware of many benefits of agroforestry to meet their demand of forestry

product.

133

Table 7.1. Dominant family from tropical rain forest sites worldwide

Neotropical (100 m)Gentry (1990)

QueenslandConnel et al (1984)

PNG (900 m)Wright et al. (1997)

Philippines (1000 m)Hamman et al (2002)

Sumatera (700 m)Kartawinata (2004)

Kalimantan (100-200m)Kochummen et al (1990)

Sulawesi (1100 m)This study

Fabaceae Sapotaceae Lauraceae Dipterocarpaceae Dipterocarpaceae Dipterocarpaceae FagaceaeMoraceae Lauraceae Myristicaceae Lauraceae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae SapotaceaeAnnonaceae Myrtaceae Moraceae Sapotaceae Burseraceae Myrtaceae MeliaceaeLauraceae Elaeocarpaceae Meliaceae Burseraceae Myrtaceae Lauraceae LauraceaeSapotaceae Meliaceae Myrtaceae Moraceae Fagaceae Myristicaceae Myrtaceae

Clusiaceae Elaeocarpaceae Melastomataceae Lauraceae Verbenaceae MoraceaeRubiaceae Moraceae Sapotaceae Flacourtiaceae RubiaceaeClusiaceae Icacynaceae Moraceae Annonaceae EuphorbiaceaeSapotaceae Rubiaceae Clusiaceae Burseraceae Arecaceae

134

7.3 Future conservation of natural resources in the research area

Protected areas are the cornerstone for biodiversity conservation around the

globe. Their importance has been recognized at multiple levels, from international

bodies, to national and local governments, indigenous and local communities (Rojas

and Cohen 2004). Many of the world’s most biodiverse area are also the most cultural

diverse. Indigenous and local communities around the world have developed complex

cultures and lifestyles in response to the many rich and diverse ecosystems on which

they depend for their livelihoods (Marrie 2004).

It is estimated that perhaps more than 50% of existing protected areas has been

established on the ancestral domains of indigenous and local communities. Millions of

indigenous people live within protected area boundaries. This particularly the case in

the developing world. One review concluded that 86% of protected area in Latin

America, 69% in India, and 70% worldwide are inhabited, and the great majority of

these inhabitants are indigenous or traditional peoples practicing subsistence

economies (Marrie 2004).

Lore Lindu National Park for example, is one of protected area which is

inhabited by several different kind of ethnics groups including some of them are

indigenous ones. Toro community is one of indigenous group which is living at the

western margin of the Lore Lindu National Park. According to Shohibuddin (2004)

that the Toro community had lived in this area since a long time before the Dutch

colonial era. As an indigenous group, the people of Toro is very dependent on the

forest, not only for utilizing timber products, but also with regard to non-timber forest

products such as rattan, as a source of income, medicinal herbals and as a basis for

social activities.

Indigenous knowledge system of Toro people through land use practice has

been examined in this research. The result of research showed that moderate human

use of the forest ecosystems (land use types C) by rattan and selected timber

extraction did not significantly different with type A and B especially in the term of

tree biodiversity. The forest structure particularly the herb understory were differ

between forests and cacao plantations. The diversity of herb understory was

135

increased from natural forest to agroforestry systems. Mogea 2004 reported that the

diversity and density of palms and rattans between primary forest and old secondary

forest are rather similar but are differ very sharply in agroforestry systems.

According Nygren (1999) indigenous knowledge is characterized as a

strongly knowledge based on local tradition of community who living harmonically

with their environment. Therefore, in context of biodiversity conservation and

natural resources management the indigenous knowledge system has been recognized

by the parties of Convention of Biological Diversity (Marrie 2004).

Conservation of natural resources in the Lore Lindu National Park

particularly in Toro village should be influenced by some aspects including abiotic,

biotic, social- economic and cultural aspect. Currently, the total population of Toro

people is still low but the population growth is a fact in the research region, which

has implications for conservation. This trend affects the need for food and shelter, and

hence causes pressure to the National Park. In addition, the arrival of the migrants,

particularly from South Sulawesi will also affect on the natural resources (Mappatoba

2004).

In general, the migrant have become an elite economic through a process of

land accumulation as well as accumulation of the surplus derived from cacao

plantations. According to interviews held for a village survey in one of the STORMA

project, most of the migrant have no interest to talk about conservation of the LLNP,

since they perceive that they have no rights concerning the Park. On the contrary, the

local people had a high interest in the Park based on their customary rights, obtained

from their ancestors had in the past. In general, the interests concerning the Park’s

resources depend on how close the local communities are to the forest resources.

Several indications of interest concerning the Park can be identified: (1) forest as

source of income, and for collecting additional food material and medicinal herbal;

(2) forest as a symbol of belief and inspiration ; (3) forest as a source of sustainable

water, preventing flood, and storage of timber ; (4) forest as a land reserve for the next

generation. The extent to which these different interest prevail has been further

evaluated in the household survey.

The migration process to several places of Lore Lindu National Park was

essential for introducing the cultivation of cacao. Once the migrants, particularly

136

those of the Bugis ethnic group, managed to acquire private land, it commonly known

that there is no change for the members of the other ethnic group to get access to this

land again, since they have a strong conviction to never sell a piece of land. In case

that a Bugis’ household needs money, they pawn land exclusively to other Bugis’

households, in order to have an opportunity to get the pawned land back at the end of

pawning period. Beside holding, on the average, the largest cacao plantations in the

area, this ethnic group also controls the local market of cacao and is deeply involved

in other economic activities. It is clear that under the “cacao boom” in Central

Sulawesi Province, the local people are experiencing lower socioeconomic security,

while the migrants, particularly the Bugis, are experiencing substantial benefits

(Sitorus 2002)

Against this background, the experience in the villages with a high percentage

of migrants shows that the local communities, particularly the indigenous people,

have been influenced in gaining cash by practicing land sales. At the same time, off-

farm activities are not well developed; there is no significant source of income except

agriculture, livestock and the use of forest products. In line with the high market

prices of some export commodities in recent years, especially cacao, export crop

plantations have become an indicator of socioeconomic welfare in this area. This

situation has encouraged the conversion of forests for the establishment of cacao

plantation, even inside the National Park. Such encroachment brought local people

into land disputes with the authority of the Park (Sangadji 2001). Sitorus (2002)

shows that Bugis migrant have illegal cultivation areas inside the Park that they

purchased from local people.

137

References

Baker CA, Brink BVd. 1963-1968. Flora of Java. I, II, III. N.V.P. Noordhorft.Groningen, The Netherlands

Basnyat B. 2004. Contribution of agroforestry in rural livelihoods of people in Nepal.In: Stietenroth D, Lorenz W, Tarigan W and Malik A (Eds.). ProceedingsInternational Symposium. “The Stability of Tropical Rainforest Margins: Linkingecological, economic and social constraints of land use and conservation. Georg-August-University of Goettingen (September 19-23, 2005), UniversitatsdruckeGottingen, Germany.



Bos, MM, Steffan-Dewenter I and Tscharntke T. 2004. Responses of lower canopybeetle communities to the convertion of rainforests to agroforestry systems inIndonesia. In: Stietenroth D, Lorenz W, Tarigan W and Malik A (Eds.).Proceedings International Symposium. “The Stability of Tropical RainforestMargins: Linking ecological, economic and social constraints of land use andconservation. Georg-August-University of Goettingen (September 19-23, 2005),Universitatsdrucke Gottingen, Germany.

Connel JH, Tracey JG, Webb LJ. 1984. Compensatory recruitment, growth, andmortality as factors maintaining rain forest tree diversity. Ecol. Monog. 54:141-164

Galindo-Gonzales J, Guevara S, SosaV. 2000. Bat- and bird-generated seed rains atisolated trees in pastures in a tropical rainforest. Conservation Biology 14: 1693–1703.

Gentry AH. 1990. Floristic similarities and differences between southern CentralAmerica and Upper and Central America and Upper and Central Amazonia. In :Gentry AH (ed.). Four Neotropical rain forests, pp.141-157. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven.

Hamann A, Barbon EB, Curio E and Madulid DA 1999. A botanical inventory of asubmontane tropical rainforest on Negros Island, Philippines. Biodiversity andConservation 8: 1017–1031.

Jacobs M. 1981. The Tropical rain forest. A First encounter. Springer-Verlag. BerlinHeidelberg, Tokyo.


Kartawinata K et al. (in preparation). Floristic composition and structure of a one-hectare plot of a dipterocarp forest at Malinau, East Kalimnatan, Indonesia

Keßler PJA, Bos MM, Sierra Daza SEC, Willemse LPM, Pitopang R & GradsteinSR. 2002. A checklist of the woody plants of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Blumea,Supplement 14: 1-160.

138

MacKinnon K. 1992. Nature’s Treasurehouse. The Wildlife of Indonesia. PTGramedia Pustaka Utama. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Mappatoba M. 2004. Co-Management of protected areas. The case of communityagreements on conservation in the Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi-Indonesia. Institute of Rural Development, Georg-August University ofGottingen. Cuvillier Verlag Gottingen.

Marrie H. 2004. Protected area and indigenous and local communities. CBDTechnical Series No.15. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Printed in Malaysia

Mogea JP. 2004. Diversity and density of palms and rattans in primary forest, oldsecondary forest, and recent established traditional cacao and coffee gardens inCentral Sulawesi, Indonesia. In: Stietenroth D, Lorenz W, Tarigan W and MalikA (Eds.). Proceedings International Symposium. “The Stability of TropicalRainforest Margins: Linking ecological, economic and social constraints of landuse and conservation. Georg-August-University of Goettingen (September 19-23,2005), Universitatsdrucke Gottingen, Germany.

Nygren A. 1999. Local knowledge in the environment-development discourse: fromdichotomies to situated knowledges. Critique of Antropology 19: 3

Perfecto I, Rice RA, Greenberg RME, van der Vort. 1996. Shade coffee:disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46, 598-608.

Pitopang R, Kessler M, Kessler PJA & Gradstein SR. 2004. Tree Diversity inPrimary Forest, Secondary Forest and Forest Garden in Central Sulawesi,Indonesia. Abstract, Sixth International Flora Malesiana Symposium, Los Banos,Philippines, 20-24 Sept. 2004.

Rojas M and Cohen S. 2004. Enabling activities to ensure effectiveness of protectedareas. CBD Technical Series No.15. Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. Printed in Malaysia

Sangaji A. 2001. Konflik agrarian di Taman Nasional Lore Lindu: Tersungkurnyakomunitas-komunitas asli (Agrarian conflict at Lore Lindu National Park:Displacement of the indigenous communities). Paper presented at policy dialoqueon knowledge and rights of the customary community around the LLNP. YTMand NRM/EPIQ, Palu


Simbolon H, Suzuki E and Yoneda M. 1997. Study on the biodiversity and dynamicof forest ecosystem in Gunung Halimun National Park, West Java, Indonesia.Paper presented on the International Workshop on Biodiversity and Dynamic ofForest Ecosystem in Western Pacific and Asia.Kyoto, Japan: 10-11 November1997

Sitorus F MT. 2002. Land, ethnicity and the competing power agrarian dynamics inforest margin communities in central Celebes, Indonesia. STORMA, discussionpaper series on social and economic dynamics in rainforest margins No.5

139

Sohibuddin M. 2003. Artikulasi kearifan tradisional dalam pengelolaan sumberdayaalam sebagai proses reproduksi budaya (Studi komunitas Toro di pinggiran TamanNasional Lore Lindu, Sulawesi Tengah). Tesis Pascasarjana. SekolahPascasarjana. Institut Pertanian Bogor


Whitten AJ, Mustafa M, Henderson GS 1987. The Ecology of Sulawesi, 777 p.Gadjah Mada Univ. Press, Yogyakarta.

Wright DD. 1997. Tree and Liana enumeration and diversity on a one-hectare plot inPapua New Guinea. Biotropica 29(3): 250-260

140

Chapter VIIIGENERAL CONCLUSIONS

There were 292 total number of woody plant recorded from twenty four plots

consisting of 248 tree species (dbh> 10 cm) belong to 143 genera and 59 families

including 52 species with economic importance as timber trees, 66 species (incl. 26

endemic to Sulawesi) are element of East Malesia and 23 cultivated species. Whereas

sapling (dbh 2-9.9 cm) recorded 194 species comprising 118 genera and 65 families.

371 understory plant species consisting of 151 species of seedling, 146 herb and

shrub, 30 terrestrial fern and 51 climber in all land use types.

Traditional knowledge system of Toro people through different land use

intensities is appropriate with conservation of tree diversity where moderate human

use of the forest ecosystems by rattan and selected timber extraction did not result in

significant decreases of tree biodiversity.

Number of endemism in forest plots totaled ca. 10% and was in good

accordance with endemism in woody plants of Sulawesi. The number of endemic

species was strongly reduced in cacao systems, although percentage endemism did not

decline significantly in cacao forest gardens. Roughly one third of tree species in the

forest plots were of economic importance as commercial timber trees; timber diversity

was little affected by moderate human use of the forest but was significantly reduced

in cacao forest gardens and dropped to near zero in other plantation types.

The number species of herbs and seedling did not differ among three forest

types but was significantly higher in cacao plantation type F (moderately use

intensity) compared to all other land use types. On the other hand the number of

species of lianas and fern relatively did not differ between cacao plantation and

forests, but their composition was significantly different in six land use types.

The mean basal area of 56.7 m² (36-80 m²) per ha in natural forest was lower

than the previously recorded value from the study area but is still almost as high as

the mean value typical for tropical lowland forests in Southeast Asia. The results of

this study support the notion that tree diversity in the submontane forests of Central

Sulawesi is unusually high and rich in large-sized timber trees, although tree size

varies locally.

141

At the family level, the vegetation of sub montane forest of Lore Central

Sulawesi was mainly dominated by Fagaceae, Sapotaceae, Meliaceae and Lauraceae,

and there was no any dipterocarp species recorded.

The understory herbs and seedling species composition was significantly

different between cacao plantations and forests. Three rain forest type (A, B and C)

mainly dominated by a few number of native species of such as Elatostema spp,

Tacca palmate, Curculigo orchimoides, Impatien platypetala In land use types E and

F, the herb species layer was entirely composed of the weedy species such as

Ageratum conyzoides, Elephantopus mollis, Paspalum conyugatum, Setaria

palmifolia and Blumea lacera (Asteraceae), Sclerea pruriens (Cyperaceae), etc. The

same phenomenon also occurred among tree seedling species, with tree seedlings in

the three cacao plantations types being dominated by pioneer species such as

Mellochia umbellata, Ficus septica, Macaranga hispida and. Piper aduncum an

invasive alien species.

142

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is concluded that conservation of tropical plants diversity especially in

research area is close related to the indigenous knowledge of local people in using and

managing their natural resources, particularly in the term of tree diversity. For future

conservation policies of natural resources especially in the Lore Lindu National Park

the result of this research should be integrated with other research findings dealing

with environmental factors, social, economic and culture. Special consideration

should be given to the involvement of indigenous people or local communities as

partner of local government or Park Authority (BTNLL) for better management of

natural resources in the park.

There are two steps of conservation effort to obtain maximum benefit from the

preservation/conservation of the natural resources in the research sites namely

a). Preventive step: Traditional knowledge system of Toro people including

their traditions, customary laws, culture and local institution for sustainable

use of their natural resources (forest, land and water) must be strengthened

by the park authority (Balai Taman Nasional Lore Lindu) or government as

recognition on traditional knowledge of indigenous people in article 8 of

Convention Biological Diversity (CBD). Furthermore, an written

understanding between Park authority, and local people considering research

result should be legalized as distinct regulation (PERDA). The content

should include the task and the right of all people in the area.

b). Repressive step: The law must be seriously enforced in accordance with the

regulations and constitutions. It doesn’t need to be all valid in national level.

The general regulation could be adopted for national while local specific

only implemented at the LLNP (Lore Lindu National Park) area.

143

REFERENCES

Achard F, Eva HD, Stibig HJ, Mayaux, Gallego J. 2002. Determination ofdeforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forest. Science 297, 999-1002.

Ariyanti, N., S. Tjitrosoedirdjo and S. R. Gradstein. Diversity and abundance ofepiphytic bryophytes on trunk bases in relation to use intensity of natural forest inLore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Abstract, STORMASymposium Gottingen, Germany, 20-23 September 2005.

ANZDEC, 1997. Indonesia: Central Sulawesi Integrated Area Development andConservation Project TA No 2518-INO Draft Final Report Volume 2. WorkingPapers. ANZDEC Limited Consultants.

Audley-Charles MG. 1983. Reconstruction of eastern Gondwanaland. Nature 306: 48-50

Baas P., Kalkman K. and Geesink R. (eds) 1990. The Plant Diversity of Malesia.Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Barbour GM, Burk JK, Pitts WD. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. The BenjaminCummings Publishing Inc, New York.


Benitez-Malvido J & Martinez-Ramos M. 2003. Impact of forest fragmentation onunderstorey plant species richness in Amazonia. Cons. Biol. 17-2, 389-400

Bridson D, Forman L. 1999. The Herbarium Handbook. Third edition. Royal BotanicGardends. KEW

Brodbeck F, Weidelt HJ, Mitlohner R. 2004. Traditional Forest Gardens in CentralSulawesi: A Sustainable Land Use System? In Land use, Nature Conservation andthe Stability of Rainforest Margins in Southeast Asia. Eds: Gerold, G., M.Fremery, and E. Guhardja. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Brown G. 2003. Vireya rhododendrons. The Systematist Newsletter of thesyatematics Assoc. Winter 2003. no. 22. www.systass.org

Coon, B. 1994. Documentation of The Flora of New Guinea. Journal Biodiversity andTerresterial Ecosystem (C,I Peng and C.H.Chou, eds.) Institute of Botany,Academica Sinica Monograph No.14,pp.123-156

Coates BJ, Bishop KD and Gardener D. 1997. A guide to the birds of Wallacea.Sulawesi, the Moluccas and the Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia. DovePublications

Crabs CJ. 1978. Ecology The experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance.Harper & Row Publisher. New York

Dawkins HC. 1959. The volume increment of natural tropical high-forest andlimitations to improvements. Empire Forestry Review 38: 175–180.

Denslow J S. 1987. Tropical rain forest gaps and tree species diversity. Annu. Rev.Ecol. Syst. 18:431-451

Eicchorn KAO. 2005. Plant diversity after the 1997-98 fires in East Kalimantan,Indonesia. Doctoral dissertation. Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, UniversiteitLeiden branch.

144

Eken G., L. Bennun and C.Boyd. 2004. Protected Areas Design and SystemsPlanning; Key requirements for successful Planning, Site Selection andEstablishment of Protected Area. In; CBD Technical Series No.15. Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.

Erasmi, S, Twele A, Ardiansyah M, Malik A and Kappas M. 2004. MappingDeforstation and Land Cover Conversion at the Rainforest Margin in CentralSulawesi, Indonesia. EARSeL eProceedings 3, 3/2004

Fujisaka S, Escobar G and Veneklaas GE. 1998. Plant community diversity relativeto human land uses in an Amazon forest colony. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:41–57.

Galindo-Gonzales J, Guevara S, Sosa V. 2000. Bat- and bird-generated seed rains atisolated trees in pastures in a tropical rainforest. Conservation Biology 14: 1693–1703.

Gradstein SR, Tan B, King C, Zhu RL, Drubert C & Pitopang R. 2005. Catalogue ofthe Bryophytes of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Hattori Botanical Laboratory98: 213-257

Gravenhorst G. 2003.Climatological parameters in the research area – supportingmeasurements and regionalization. STORMA research (Stability of Rain ForestMargin in Indonesia). Indonesia- German join research.




Jepson P, Jarvie JK, MacKinnon K and Monk KA. 2001. The end for Indonesia’slowland rainforest? Science 292, 859-861

Kappelle M, Kennis PAF, de Vries RAJ 1995. Changes in diversity along asuccessional gradient in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest.Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 10–34.

Kartawinata, K., S. Riswan., A.N. Gintings and T. Puspitojati. 2001. An Overview ofPost-Extraction Secondary Forest in Indonesia. J.Tropical Forest Sciences 13(4):621-638


Kartawinata K et al. (in preparation). Floristic composition and Structure of a one-hectare plot of a dipterocarp forest at Malinau, East Kalimnatan, Indonesia

Keßler PJA, Bos MM, Sierra Daza SEC, Willemse LPM, Pitopang R and GradsteinSR. 2002a. A checklist of the woody plants of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Blumea,Supplement 14: 1-160.

145

Keβler PJA. 2002b. Tree Flora of Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi,Indonesia (Unpublished)

Kerr JT and Currie DJ. 1995.Effects of human activity on global extinction risk.Conservation Biology 9: 1528–1538.

Kessler M, Kessler, PJA, Gradstein SR, Bach K, Schmull M & Pitopang R. 2005.Tree diversity in primary forest and different land use systems in CentralSulawesi, Indonesia. Biodiversity and conservation 14: 547-560.

Kochummen KM, Lafrankie JV, Manokaran N. 1990. Floristic Composition of PasohForest Reserve, a Lowland rain forest in Peninsular Malaysia. J. Trop.For.Sci.3: 1-13

Kruckeberg AR, Rabinovitz D (1985) Biological aspects of endemism in higherplants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 447-479

Laumonier Y. 1997. The Vegetation and Physiography of Sumatra. Kluwer AcademicPublishers.Dordrecht. London

Laska MS. 1997. Structure of understorey shrub assemblages in adjacent secondaryforest and old growth tropical wet forests, Costa Rica. Biotropica 29 (1) ; 29-37

Laurence WF, Cochrane MA, Bergen S, Fearnside PM, Delamonica P. 2001. Thefuture of the Brazillian Amazon. Sceince 291, 438-836


Mabberley D. 1987. The Plant Books. Univ. Press. Cambridge. Page 139-1142

MacKinnon K. 1992. Nature’s Treasurehouse. The Wildlife of Indonesia. PTGramedia Pustaka Utama. Jakarta, Indonesia.

MacKinnon K, Hatta G, Halim H, Mangalik A. 1996. The Ecology of Kalimantan.Periplus

Mansyur M. 2003. Analisis Vegetasi Hutan Di Desa Salua dan Kaduwaa. TamanNasional Lore Lindu. Sulawesi Tengah. Proseding Workshop dan Promosi FloraKawasan Timur Indonesia. Denpasar

Marquis RJ, Young HJ, Braker HE. 1986. The influence of Understory Vegetationcover on germination and seedling establishment in a tropical lowland wet forest.Biotropica 18 (4); 273-278.

Meßner S. 1996. Untersuchungen zur Biodiversität der Myrmecofauna (Formicidae)im Parc National de la Como’e (Elfenbeinküste). Diploma Thesis, University ofWürzburg, Würzburg , Germany

Michael E. 1986. Ecological Methods for Field and Laboratory. Mc Graw Hill BookCompany. New Delhi

Ministry of State for Population and Environmental Republic Indonesia. 1992.Indonesia Country Study on Biological Diversity. Prepared for the UNEP underthe Work Programme for Environmental Cooperation between The Republic ofIndonesia and The Kingdom of Norway. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Milliken W. 1998. Structure and Composition of one hectare of Central AmazonianTrre Firma Forest. Biotropica 30 (4); 530-537

146

Mogea J P. 2002. Preliminary study on the Palm Flora of the Lore Lindu NationalPark, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biotropia 18 : 1-20

Moss SJ, Wilson EJ. 1998. Biogeographic implication of the Tertiarypaleogeographic evolution of Sulawesi and Borneo. Biogeoraphic and GeologicalEvolution of SE.Asia.pp. 133-163. Edited by R. Hall and J.D. Holloway.Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. The Netherlands

Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Dirzo R, Sala OE. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystemfunctioning: basic principles. In: Heywood VH, Watson RT. (eds) GlobalBiodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 275–325.

Mori SA, Boom BM, Carvalino AM Santos D. 1983. The ecological importance ofMyrtaceae in eastern Brazilian wet forest. Biotropica 15 : 68-70


Palomares F. 2001.Vegetation structure and prey abundance requirements of theIberian lynx: implications for the design of reserves and corridors. Journal ofApplied Ecology 38: 9–18.

Parthasarathy N. 1999. Tree diversity and distribution in undisturbed and human-impacted sites of tropical wet evergreen forest in the southern Wastern Ghats,India. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1365–1381.

Partomihardjo, T., S. Prawiroatmodjo and D. Darnaedi. 1997. Biodiversity andConservation Activities in Indonesia. Proceedings of International Conference onTaxonomy and Biodiersity Conservation in East Asia. Edited by: Lee et al.Korean Biodiversity Council (KOBIC) and Korean Institute for BiodiversityResearch of Chonbuk National University (KIBIO), Seoul. Korea


Perfecto I, Rice RA, Greenberg RME, van der Vort. 1996. Shade coffea: adisappearing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience 46, 598 -608



Pitopang R, Gradstein SR. 2003. Herbarium Celebense (CEB) and its role insupporting research on plant diversity of Sulawesi [in Indonesian]. Biodiversitas5: 36-41.

Pitopang R, Kessler M, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR. 2004a. Tree Diversity in PrimaryForest, Secondary Forest and Forest Garden in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.

147

Abstract, Sixth International Flora Malesiana Symposium, Los Banos, Philippines,20-24 Sept. 2004.

Pitopang R, Gradstein SR, Kessler PJA & Guhardja E. 2004b. 4 Years HerbariumCelebense. Sixth International Flora Malesiana Symposium, Los Banos,Philippines, 20-24 Sept. 2004.

Pitopang R, Gradstein SR, Guhardja E, Mogea JP, and Setiadi. 2005. Tree Diversityin six land use types differing in use intensity at Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.Abstract, STORMA Symposium Gottingen, Germany, 20-23 September 2005.

Pitopang R, Guhardja E, Mogea JP, Setiadi D, Gradstein SR, and Kessler M. 2005.Tree Diversity in six land use types differing in use intensity in Central Sulawesi.A case study in Toro village, Lore Lindu National Park. Submitted to Biotropia

Phillips OL, Hall P, Gentry AH, Sawyer SA, Vasquez R. 1994. Dynamic andspecies richness of tropical rain forest. Proc.Natl.Acad. Sci.U.S.A.91: 2805-2809

Polosokan R. 2004. Komposisi jenis pohon di hutan kawasan Taman Nasional BukitTigapuluh, Propinsi Riau. Pp.31-40 In : Sunaryo et al (eds). Laporan Teknik 2001.Proyek Inventarisasi dan Karakterisasi Sumberdaya Hayati, Pusat PenelitianBiologi, LIPI, Bogor

Proctor JJ, Anderson M, Chai P, Vallack HW. 1983. Ecological studies in fourcontrasting lowland rain forest in Gunung Mulu National Park, Serawak.J. Ecol.71: 237-260


Riswan S and Hartanti L 1995. Human Impacts on Tropical Forest Dynamics. In:Global change and terrestrial ecosystems in Monsoon Asia. Eds : Hirose, T andB.H. Walker. Vegetatio 121: 41-52 . Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed inBelgium

Roos MC. 1993. State of affairs regarding Flora Malesiana: progress in revision andpublication schedule. Flora Malesiana Bulletin 11 : 133-142

Roos, M, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR & Baas P. 2004. Species diversity andendemism of 5 major Malesian islands: diversity-area relationships. J. Biogeogr.31: 1893-1908.


Setiadi, D, Qoyim I, Muhandiono H. 2001. Penuntun Praktikum Ekologi.Laboratorium Ekologi. Jurusan Biologi. FMIPA. Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Siebert S. 2002. From shade- to sun-grown perennial crops in Sulawesi, Indonesia:implications for biodiversity conservation and soil fertility. Biodiversity andConservation 11: 1889–1902, 2002.

Simbolon H, Suzuki E Yoneda M. 1997. Study on the biodiversity and dynamic offorest ecosystem in Gunung Halimun National Park, West Java, Indonesia. Paper

148

presented on the International Workshop on Biodiversity and Dynamic of ForestEcosystem in Western Pacific and Asia.Kyoto, Japan: 10-11 November 1997



Soerianegara I, Indrawan A. 1988. Ekologi Hutan Indonesia. Laboratorium EkologiHutan. Fakultas Kehutanan. Institut Pertanian Bogor

Soerianegara I, Lemmens RHMJ.(Edits.) 1993. Plant Resources of South East Asia(PROSEA). Timber trees : majors commercial timbers. No.5 (1). ProseaFoundation ,Bogor, Indonesia. Publ. Pudoc scientific Publishers, Wageningen.

Sosef MSM, Hong LT, Prawirohatmojo S. (Edits.) 1998. Plant Resources of SouthEast Asia (PROSEA). Timber trees : Lesser-known timbers. No.5 (2). Publ.Backhuys Publisher, Leiden.

Sporn S & Gradstein SR. Diversity of cryptogamic epiphytic bryophytes in cacaoplantations in Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Abstract,STORMA Symposium Gottingen, Germany, 20-23 September 2005.

Srinivas V, Parthasaranthy N. 2000. Comparative analyses of tree diversity anddispersion in the tropical lowland evergreen forest of Agumbe, Central WesternGhats, India. Tropical Biodiversity 7 (1): 45-60


Svenning JC. 2000. Small canopy gaps influence plant distribution in the rain forestunderstory. Biotropica 32 (2); 252-261

Thomas S and Schuiteman A. 2002. Orchids of Sulawesi and Maluku, a PreliminaryCatalogue. Lindleyana 17: 1-72.

Tilman D. 1999. Diversity by default. Science 283: 495–496

Tjitrosoedirdjo SS. 2005. Inventory of the Invasive Alien Plant Species in Indonesia.Biotropia No.25, 2005: 60-73


Turner IM. 1996. Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forests: a review of theevidence. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 200-209

Turner IM, Wong YK, Chew PT, bin Ibrahim A 1997. Tree species richness inprimary and old secondary tropical forest in Singapore. Biodiversity andConservation 6:237-543

Turner IM. 2001. The Ecology the Tropical Rainforest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.Whitmore TC, Sayer JA (eds) 1992. Tropical Deforestation andSpecies Extinction. Chapman & Hall, London.

UNDP. 2004. Ngata Toro community/village, Nomination Form for the EquatorPrize. www. UNDP. Com

149

Utami N, Wiriadinata H. 2002. A new species of Impatiens (Balsaminaceae) fromCentral Sulawesi. Blumea 47 : 391-393.

Velkamp JFMC, Rifai MA. 1977. Flora Malesiana Bulletin, 12 (1-2). Leiden;Rijkherbarium

Van Balgooy MMJ, Tantra IGM. 1986. The vegetation in two areas of Sulawesi,Indonesia. Bulletin Penelitian Hutan. 1986: 1-61

Van Balgooy MMJ, Hovenkamp PH, Welzen PC. 1996. Phytogeography of thePasific- Floristic and historical distribution pattern in plant. In The origin andevolution of Pasific island biotas. New Guinea to eastern Polynesia ; pattern andprocess. Pp. 191-213. edited by Keast A, Miller SA. SPB academic Publishingbv. Amsterdam.

Van Steenis CGGJ. 1950a. The delimitation of Malaysia and its main plantgeographical divisions in Flora Malesiana (van Steenis CGGJ ed.) Noordhoff-Kolff N.V., Djakarta.


Waltert M, Mardiastuti A, Muhlenberg M. 2004. Effects of Land Use on BirdSpecies Richness in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Conservation Biology. 18 (5) 1339–1346

WCMC (World Conservation and Monitoring Center) 1992. Global Biodiversity:Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. Chapman & Hall, London, 594 pp.

Weber E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the world. A Reference Guide toEnvironmental Weeds. CABI Publishing .CAB International. Wallingford. OxonOX 10 8DE, UK

Whitmore TC. 1975. Tropical Rain Forest of The Far East. Oxford University PressLondon

Whitmore TC and Sidiyasa K. 1986. Composition and structure of a lowland rainforest at Toraut, Northern Sulawesi. Kew Bulletin 41 ; 747-756

Whitmore TC, Sayer JA. (eds) 1992. Tropical Deforestation and Species extinction.Chapman & Hall, London.


Whitten AJ, Mustafa M, Henderson CG. 1987. The Ecology of Sulawesi, 777 p.Gadjah Mada Univ. Press, Yogyakarta.

Wilson EO (ed.). 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C

Wirawan N, 1981. Ecological survey of the proposed Lore Lindu National Park,Central Sulawesi. The World Wildlife Fund, Ujung Pandang.

Wiriadinata H. 2001. Panduan Pengenalan Flora Taman Nasional Lore Lindu.Sulawesi Tengah. Kerjasama TNC dan Herbarium Bogoriense, Puslitbang BiologiLIPI. Bogor (unpublished)


150

Yamada I. 1975. Forest ecological studies of the montane forest of Mt.Pangrango,West Java. I. Stratification and floristic composition of the montane rain forestnear Cibodas. The Southeast Asian Studies 13; 402-426

Yuzami, Hidayat S. 2003. The Unique Endemics and Rare Species Flora ofSulawesi. Bogor Botanical Garden, Bogor, Indonesia.

151

1

2

Structure and Composition of Vegetation in Six Land Use Types Different in Use Intensity in the Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi Indonesia. PhD Thesis, Bogor Agricultural

Documents