[AJCS] Submission Acknowledgement

(1)

[AJCS] Submission Acknowledgement

The following message is being delivered on behalf of Australian Journal of

Crop Science. For questions contact tony.elders@gmail.com

_________________________________________________________

_______________

Muhardi Hasanuddin:

Thank you for submitting the manuscript, "Research of Cocoa Farming Patterns

in Supporting Sustainability of Lore Lindu National Park Indonesia by Approaching Biomass Potential and Income" to Australian Journal of Crop

Science. With the online journal management system that we are using, you

will be able to track its progress through the editorial process by logging in to the journal web site:

Manuscript URL:

http://www.cropj.com/ri3/ojs3/index.php/AJCS/author/submission/34 Username: muhardi

If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for considering this

journal as a venue for your work.

Tony Elders

Australian Journal of Crop Science

_________________________________________________________

_______________

Australian Journal of Crop Science http://www.cropj.com

http://www.cropj.com/ri3/ojs3/index.php/AJCS

Yahoo Mail - [AJCS] Submission Acknowledgement https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/2?.i...

1 of 1 8/30/2021, 8:51 AM

Dari: Tony Elders (tony@cropj.com) Kepada: muhardi_hasanuddin@yahoo.com Tanggal: Minggu, 12 Maret 2017 15.17 WITA

(2)

AJCS-Hasanuddin-PNE34 [Major revisions required]

Dari: Tony Elders (tony.elders@gmail.com) Kepada: muhardi_hasanuddin@yahoo.com;

effendy_surentu@yahoo.com

Dear Dr. Muhardi Hasanuddin

Experts in the field have carefully reviewed your manuscript, submitted to Australian Journal of Crop Science.

Reference No: AJCS-Hasanuddin-PNE34 [Major revisions required]

Title: Research of Cocoa Farming Patterns in Supporting Sustainability of Lore Lindu National Park Indonesia by Approaching Biomass Potential and Income

The Reviewers' and Editor's comments are available to you following the signature, below. Please also find attachment which is comments (report) inside your manuscript. As you will see, although they found merit in your study, they have raised some concerns that preclude its acceptance in its present form.

I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript. The revised version will be re-evaluated by the

original reviewers. Please be aware that this invitation does not guarantee eventual acceptance of your manuscript.

Please revise your manuscript entirely based on comments (even those annotated on margin of your manuscript) and also respond to comments made by reviewers in a separate MS Word file and then send it directly to me as attachment BY REPLYING TO THIS EMAIL.

Yahoo Mail - AJCS-Hasanuddin-PNE34 [Major ... https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/8?.i...

1 of 5 8/30/2021, 9:01 AM

Tanggal: Selasa, 16 Mei 2017 10.30 WITA

(3)

Please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s)(even those annotated on margin of your manuscript).

Please make sure that your revised manuscript is publication quality because if the manuscript is accepted this is the files that will be transferred to the publisher for production.

You Must place all tables and figures again at the end of manuscript and send just one revised file.

Please also be reminded that if your manuscript accepted you need to pay the publication fee so soon.

Southern Cross Publisher is so stringent about the plagiarism, therefore please make sure that your manuscript has not already been published or under publication, or review in any format by you or other authors.

We expect to hear from you within 45 days, otherwise we will presume you have withdrawn the manuscript from

consideration by Journal. If, however, you feel you need more time to prepare your revised manuscript, please do not

hesitate to contact us to request an extension.

Thank you for submitting your work to Australian Journal of Crop Science.

Yours sincerely, Tony Elders Editorial Office

email: tony.elders@gmail.com Editor's Comments:

Comments to the Author:

1) Prepare a separate "response to reviewers" sheet (MS Word 2003) addressed to suggestions.

Please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s) comments below. Authors should avoid using words like "OK" or "Done" in their response to reviewer,

2 of 5 8/30/2021, 9:01 AM

(4)

instead they must explain in detail what kind of change they have done (addition/deletion) to fix the problem.

2) Revise your manuscript exactly based on AJCS guidelines (and also suggestions belows).

3) Download, sign and send back the copyright form (if you have not done yet).

Now, I draw your attention to the following general suggestions from reviewers:

1) A number of typo and grammatical mistakes have been seen in your manuscript, Please try to improve the readability of your manuscript as possible by consulting with a English language expert (VERY IMPORTANT FOR REVIEWERS). Your revised version must be perfect and publication quality because, no major, further improvements will be accepted beyond the proofreading stage.

2) Reference section must be consistent and prepared based on AJCS format (Check AJCS website).

3) No extra or missing reference must be cited in the

manuscript, therefore please check your references in the text and reference

section and match them one by one.

If you have not used a reference in text it must be deleted from reference section and vice versa (so important).

4) Anonymous and, manuscripts in press, are not allowed to be mentioned in the manuscript.

5) Place all tables and figures consecutively at the end of manuscript after reference section.

6) Some further improvements may be asked later (before publication if required).

7) Journal naming (title) system must be consistent and based on AJCS format. Please use ISI journal titles abbreviation in

3 of 5 8/30/2021, 9:01 AM

(5)

the references section (you can google it-very important).

Check the following link and find them out:

http://images.webofknowledge.com/WOK46/help/WOS /A_abrvjt.html

8) Manuscript needs to be completely re-checked by consulting with and English native or speaker. Although AJCS does not recommend this option but authors necessarily need to improve their manuscript. A list of professional services provided in the following link: http://www.cropj.com /english.html

AJCS does not take responsibility for or endorse these services, and their use has no bearing on acceptance of a manuscript for publication.

9) Materials and methods, Results and discussion section must be divided with appropriate sub-headings. For example for MM section, Plant materials, statistical analysis etc. required.

10) All formulas must be written with MS Word equation facility (if any).

11) Manuscript needs to be completely re-checked by

consulting with and English native or speaker. Although AJCS does not recommend this option but authors necessarily need to improve their manuscript. A list of professional services provided in the following link: http://www.cropj.com /english.html

AJCS does not endorse or take responsibility for or endorse these services, and their use has no bearing on acceptance of a manuscript for publication.

12) Alternatively, AJCS has an English language edition facility but there is a fee of 350 AUD for the service which must be paid on top of publication fee (after scientific acceptance of manuscript).

Authors must request this facility when sending their revised version then their manuscript will only be considered based on scientific facts.

4 of 5 8/30/2021, 9:01 AM

(6)

34-58-1-RV-Report1.doc 387kB

Reviewer 2.docx 12.8kB

Reviewer 3.docx 12.7kB

13) Based on new format of journal, Materials and methods section must be placed after Discussion (or Results and Discussion in the case that combined). Therefore, citations of Tables and figures might be changed accordingly (up to authors decision).

14) All copy-pasted materials from previously published materials (even cited properly in the manuscript) must be accompanied by a permission from copyright holder.

--

--- Kind Regards

Tony Elders

AJCS Managing Editor QLD 4067

AUSTRALIA

5 of 5 8/30/2021, 9:01 AM

(7)

Research of Ccocoa Ffarming Patterns in Supportingfor Sustainability of Indonesian Lore Lindu National Park Indonesia by Approaching Biomass Potential and

Income

Muhardi^1* dan Dan Effendy²

1 Department of Agriculture, Tadulako University, Palu Indonesia 94119

2 Department of Agriculture Economics, Tadulako University, Palu Indonesia 94119

* Corresponding Author: Muhardi, Email: muhardi_hasanuddin@yahoo.com Abstract

Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) in Central Sulawesi is an important conservation area in Indonesia that protects biodiversity in Sulawesi. The area of LLNP equals 229,000 ha and has served as a place of research, including an ecosystem survey and study on biodiversity conservation. However, at the boundaries of the LLNP forest an abrupt shift to agricultural land occurs. This research assesses the effects of different patterns of cocoa farming on the around of the LLNP forest by estimating species richness and density of vegetation, biomass potential, litter production, litter decomposition rates, and farming income. Research was conducted in the LLNP, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Five patterns of farming cocoa were considered: cocoa + mixed wood trees (agroforestry complex), cocoa + fruit trees (agroforestry simple), cocoa + hazelnut trees (agroforestry simple), cocoa + teak trees (agroforestry simple), and cacao + gamal trees (monoculture cocoa). Five sample plots were made in each cocoa-farming pattern, sized 20 x 20 m for tree vegetation sampling. Subplots of 10 x 10 m and 2 x 2 m were used to sample vegetation at earlier growth stages. The results showed that using a pattern of cocoa + mixed wood trees (agroforestry complex) produced the highest biomass. A pattern of cocoa + hazelnut gave the highest average income per year, but the pattern of cocoa + mixed wood trees did differ significantly from that using hazelnut. It is suggested that cocoa farming with mixed wood trees (agroforestry complex) along the perimeter of the LLNP forest will support the sustainability of LLNP.

Keywords: Cocoa farming patterns, biomass potential, income, sustainability, National Parks.

Abbreviations: LLNP_ Lore Lindu National Park; IVI_Importance Value Index; NA _ natural forest; AFC _ agroforestry complex; AFS _ agroforestry simple; MC _ monoculture cocoa; dbh _ diameter at breast height; TC _ total cost; TR _ total revenue; Mg _ Megagram.

Introduction

Increase in the human population size has implications for the space requirements necessary for food production. Forests resources are often used to meet such needs because they provide primary material human needs (lumber), as well as biophysical factors that can support the production of agricultural crops. Deforestation and conversion into agricultural land and plantations has become the biggest cause of forest loss and resultant loss of biodiversity (Beck et al., 2002).

Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia is an important conservation area, has been a designated UNESCO Biosphere Reserve since 1977, and serves to maintain biodiversity in Sulawesi (Wardah, 2008). The area covers 229,000 ha and provides benefits not only to conservation of biodiversity, but also as a place of research and an area for ecosystem surveys. The around of the LLNP protected area includes agricultural land, with the shift from forested to agriculturally land occurring rapidly over a small distance

Commented [AD1]: Do not use uppercase letter in the middle of sentences.

Commented [AD2]: There is no information about this.

Commented [AD3]: The first names must be written as required for DOI.

Commented [AD4]: Is this first name? The first names must be written first in full and then the family names all in Full.

Commented [AD5]: This manuscript needs major English language revisions.

This must be done with help of an English language native or expert.

Commented [AD6]: Authors have not exactly followed the journal guidelines. All Tables and Figs must consecutively be placed at the end of manuscript.

(8)

(Corre et al., 2006). Forest destruction in LLNP was estimated by Laturadja (2009): 4.26% of the forest was classified as severely damaged, and 1.78%, or about 3,800 ha, of this was due to land being used for cocoa crops. Supposedly, the around of the LLNP forest can be used for crops because it has important functions, namely to reduce the population pressure into conservation areas and nature reserves, providing economic activities and an area that allows for benefit interaction are sustainable for people with region conservation (Bismark and Sawitri, 2006).

There are various forms of land usage pattern that have been converted from forest cover by the people who live around the area of the LLNP. The research results of Wardah (2008) revealed that the pattern of land usage around area of LLNP are generally forest garden or mix gardens between cocoa crops with various types of timber, as well as annual crops with slash-and-burn system.

Land biomass is an indicator of environmental quality that is widely used because it contains information about the amount of organic matter and carbon potential. During this time the carbon content becomes indicator in assessing the potential of land fertility, even more extensive, involving economic directly due to environmental services (Kim, 2001).

Conversion of forest to agro-ecosystem degrades organic matter content of the land through the process of increasing decomposition rate, which, in turn, will increase the rate of carbon dioxide release (CO2) into the atmosphere (Barchia et al., 2007).

Land management both agroforestry and non-agroforestry by the community to create the conditions agro-ecosystem that are different so that will have an impact on the sustainability of the cocoa-based farming. This is caused because of the differences in biomass potential that contains on land, as well as differences in physical environmental factors so that have influence on the biogeochemical cycles. Litterfall is one of the important events in the mechanism or the biogeochemical cycles since become an intermediary media of organic and anorganic systems in an ecosystem. Nowadays, litterfall from various ecosystems increasingly becomes a concern by experts because in the process of decomposition is regarded as a key component of the carbon cycles, nutrient cycles and energy transfer. Decomposition provides nutrients that will ultimately affect the growth and production of plants; this, in turn, will affect farm productivity and income. This research assesses the pattern of cocoa farming in the region along the around area of the LLNP forest with approach of biomass potential, litter production, litter decomposition rates and farming income.

Results and Discussion

Species Ccomposition of Vvegetation

The composition of plant species is a floristic list of plant species that exist in a community (Misra, 1973). The results showed the number of species, genera, and families of vegetation present in plots varied by land type, both at the tree level (height >1.5 m) and at the level of low seedlings/plants ( Fig 1).

A 73.5% decrease in species richness of trees (height >1.5 m) occurs when going from natural forest into agroforestry complex; similarly, genera richness is reduced by 57.8% and family numbers decrease by 47.8%. Going from an agroforestry complex site to an agroforestry simple site, leads to an 88.9% decrease in the number of species, an 86.6%

decrease in the number of genera and and an 82.6% in the number of families. Seedlings and low plants showed the decrease only between natural forest,agroforestry sites, and monoculture cocoa land; agroforestry complex and agrofoerstry simple were similar in all abundance measures. This is likely because the emergence of low plants or seedlings is

Commented [AD7]: The novelty and aim of study must be mentioned here..

Commented [AD8]: Discussion of this manuscript is too weak and get support from old references. Discussion must be narrative, authors own idea which clearly and in depth discusses the results with support of a number of newly relevant citations. Hereby, I recommend authors to write a separate new discussion section with support of new citations.

Commented [AD9]: Old references.

Commented [AD10]: There are too many extra and missing spaces.

Commented [AD11]: Missing space

(9)

influenced more by environmental factors and the treatments used the farmers than are tree species.

The diversity of species we found in natural forests was higher than that found by Wardah (2008) in the highlands Besoa, found in the southern region of the LLNP, where 27-79 species were observed. Likewise, in natural forests within lowland Pakuli area, found in the western LLNP, Purwaningsih and Yusuf (2005) observed 87 species, 64 genera and 38 families.

Average number of tree species (h >1.5m)

136

36

4 1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

NA AFK AFS MC

Land Type

Number of species

Average number of Seedling and low plant species

60

38 35

22

0 20 40 60 80

NA AFK AFS MC

Land Type Number of Seedling species

Average number of tree genus (h > 1.5 m)

83

35

4 1

0 20 40 60 80 100

NA AFK AFS MC

Land Type

Number of genus

Average number of Seedling and low plant genus

45

37 34

20

0 10 20 30 40 50

NA AFK AFS MC

Land Type Number of Seedling genus

Average number of tree family (h > 1.5 m)

44

23

4 1

0 10 20 30 40 50

NA AFK AFS MC

Land Type

Number of family

Average number of Seedling and low plant family

30

24 22

15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

NA AFK AFS MC

Land Type

Number of Seedling family

(a) (b)

Fig 1. Average number of species, genera and families (a) for the tree level (h >1.5 m) and (b) for seedlings and low plants.

Commented [AD12]: All Figs must be bundled as one solid figure with JPEG or TIF format. The SE bars better to be added on top of each column.

Commented [AD13]: Legend must be more informative.

(10)

In natural forest, vegetation density (number of individuals per hectare) was relatively low at the tree level and successively increased at the level of poles and stakes (Fig 2). These distribution patterns are an expected and natural phenomenon that occurr in natural forest ecosystems. For the agroforestry land types, whether complex or simple, as well as for the monoculture cocoa land type, the highest density occurred at the level of poles (Fig 2). This reflects the fact that these land types were dominated by cocoa. The density of trees with dbh

>10 cm in lowland climax forests in Indonesia, generally range from 400-600 trees/ha (Bratawinata, 1993).

183 531

2005

84 481

357 69

661

113 68 995

1 0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Tree Pole Stake Tree Pole Stake Tree Pole Stake Tree Pole Stake

NA AFK AFS MC

Land Type

Density (individual/ha)

Fig 2. Distribution of vegetation density at various growth levels and in different land types.

At the seedlings/low plants level, there was a tendency for higher densities in the cocoa monoculture land type compared to agroforestry land types and the lowest density occurred in natural forests (Fig 3).

25903

76333

89667

75200

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000

NA AFK AFS MC

Land Type

density (Individual/ha)

Fig 3. Vegetation density of seedlings/low plants on various types of land.

Commented [AD14]: All Figs and Tables must be consecutively be placed at the end of manuscript.

(11)

Dominance and Biodiversity

A diversity index is used to estimate the effects of a disturbance to the environment, or to estimate stages of succession and stability of plant communities in a location (Odum, 1996).

Low diversity index values suggest a strong ecological pressure is present, either from biotic factors (e.g., competition among individual plants) or abiotic factors.

The Shannon-Wiener species diversity (H') reveals strong differnces among the land types (Fig 4). The diversity index value in natural forests was high (H '= 3.0 to 4.04) for all vegetative sizes. Agroforestry complex sites had a slightly decreased diversity index of 3.32 for trees and species diversity index value of ,<1.0 for poles and stakes. Tree species diversity decreased to <1 in agroforestry simple land type sites, and was 0 for monoculture croplands.

The index value of diversity for seedlings/low plants was similar among land types, with a high value (H' = 3.0-4.0) in the natural forest and a medium diversity index (H' = 2.0-3.0) for agroforestry complex, agroforestry simple and monoculture cocoa land types.

3.97 3.99 4.04 3.96

3.32

0.47 0.28

2.95

0.74 2.96

0 2.51

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Tree Pole Stake Seedlings/low plant Tree Pole Stake Seedlings/low plant Tree Seedlings/low plant Tree Seedlings/low plant

NA AFK AFS MC

Land Type

Type diversity index of Shannon-Wiener (H’)

Fig 4. Shannon-Wiener (H') species diversity index by land type.

The Importance Value Index (IVI) is a quantity that indicates the dominance of a species relative to other species in the community; The greater a species' IVI, the more important its role in the community. At the level of trees (dbh >20 cm), the dominant species in the natural forest in all three replicate locations was Lithocarpus elegans Blume. Calophyllum soulattri Burm.f. was a second dominant species at locations 2 and 3 only, while Palaquium obovatum Griff. was dominant at location 2 only, Syzygium adenophylla Merr. and Eucalyptus deglupta Blume also showed dominance at location 1, and Castanopsis accuminiatisima (Miq). Rehder was dominant at location 3.

Dominant tree species differed among replicates in agroforestry land types. In the agroforestry complex land type, at location 1, the dominant species were Aleurites moluccana (L.) Willd., Theobroma cacao L. and Pterospermum celebicum Miq. In location 2, beside Pterospermum celebicum Miq., Magnolia condolii (Blume) H. King and Palaquium obovatum Griff were dominant species. At the location 3, the dominant species again included Aleurites moluccana (L.) Wild. from location 1, but also included Octhomeles sumatrana

(12)

Jack and Bischofia javanicum Blume. In other words, none of the dominant species in natural forests were dominant in agroforestry land types except Palaquium obovatum Griff types. The dominant vegetation types at all levels of the growth were types that have a great opportunity to remain in the concerned ecosystem, while the species that only exist on a specific growth level, it was unlikely to remain in the ecosystem (Wardah, 2008). The composition of species that only exist at one stage of growth are more susceptible to changes if there are disturbances.

For seedlings/low plants, the composition of the dominant species in natural forests differed for each replicate. At location 1, the dominant species were: Psychotria sp., Erigeron sumatrensis Retzdan, and Ageratum hostorianum Bleumink. At location 2, the dominant species were: Pinanga cease Blume, Pilea sp., and Calophyllum soulattri Burm.f. In location 3, the dominant species were: Calamus sp., Syzygium sp. and Calophyllum sp. Further, none of the dominant vegetation types in the natural forest sites dominated in agroforestry complex or agroforestry simple land types. On land types other than natural forests, very few tree seedlings were observed and vegetation was dominated by low plants - herbs or weeds. The change in dominant plants with land type is likely because in the three land types outside of natural forest, cocoa cultivation practice created interference in the ecosystem, in the form of removing unwanted plants (weeds).

Estimation of Biomass Potential by Agroecosystem Type

All organic material in living vegetation, dead vegetation, (e.g., leaves, twigs, branches, and stems), in the soil (roots) and in litter was dried and recorded as dry weight per hectare.

Above-ground Biomass

Above-ground biomass potentials were statistically significantly different among farming patterns (Table 1).

Table 1. Above-ground biomass potential from farm sites with differing patterns of land use.

Farming patterns Tree Biomass

(Mg/ha)*

Seedlings/Low plants Biomass (Mg/ha)*

Cocoa + Mixed Wood Trees 307.44^e 1.21^c

Cocoa + Fruit Trees 209.36^d 0.67^a

Cocoa + Hazelnut 141.50^b 1.85^e

Cocoa + Teak 155.30^c 1.49^d

Monoculture Cocoa 104.79^a 0.84^b

*Values followed by different letters in the same column were significantly different using Tukey's HSD α < 0.05 test.

Total above-ground biomass varies among farming patterns, but cocoa farming + mixed wood trees has a higher biomass than all other farming patterns (Fig 5).

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic

(13)

308.65

210.03

143.35 156.79 105.63

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Cocoa + Mix Wood Tree Cocoa + Fruits tree

Cocoa + Hazelnut Cocoa + Teak

Monoculture cocoa

Land Type

Above-ground Biomass (Mg/ha)

Fig 5. Total above-ground biomass.

Cocoa farming + mixed wood trees was a type of agro-ecosystem with a vegetation structure that still resembled natural forests because large trees were retained while vegetation at the level of saplings and poles was mostly filled by cocoa plants maintained by farmers.

Biomass potential data suggest this type of farming pattern provides the best ecosystem in terms of producing biomass.

Below-ground Biomass

Below-ground biomass all roots found below ground, including fine roots (diameter <2 mm). The results of measurements of below-ground are shown on Table 2.

Table 2. Potential of below-ground biomass Farming pattern Biomass of tree

roots (Mg/ha)*

Biomass of cocoa roots (Mg/ha)*

Biomass of fine roots (Mg/ha)*

Cocoa + Mix Wood Tree 73.89^e 8.02^a 0.98^bc

Cocoa + Fruits tree 64.51^d 12.38^c 1.14^c

Cocoa + Hazelnut 22.47^b 10.66^b 0.77^ab

Cocoa + Teak 39.15^c 9.36^ab 0.69^a

Monoculture Cocoa 17.28^a 16.72^d 0.88^ab

Below-ground biomass potential of tree roots were statistically significantly different among farming patterns. Total below-ground biomass reveals that the biomass of various farming patterns varied widely, but as with above-ground biomass, the cocoa + mixed wood tree pattern had the highest biomass (Fig 6). Thus, cocoa + mixed wood trees is the better ecosystem in producing biomass.

(14)

82.89 78.03

33.9 49.2

34.88

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cocoa + Mix Wood Tree Cocoa + Fruits tree

Cocoa + Hazelnut Cocoa + Teak

Monoculture cocoa

Land Type

Below-ground Biomass (Mg/ha)

Fig 6. Total Below-ground Biomass

Litter Biomass and Necromass

Biomass on the forest floor is acquired from coarse (intact) and fine (partially deomposed) litter, and the remains of dead plants, called necromass. The the biomass of coarse litter, fine litter, and necromass are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Potential of litter biomass and necromass.

Farming pattern Coarse litter biomass (Mg/ha)*

Fine litter biomass (Mg/ha)*

Necromass Biomass (Mg/ha)*

Cocoa + Mix Wood Tree 13.18^d 4.98^d 2.52^e

Cocoa + Fruits Tree 7.45â 2.67â 0.63â

Cocoa + Hazelnut 9.21^b 3.08^b 1.15^c

Cocoa + Teak 11.74^c 3.43^c 1.26^d

Monoculture Cocoa 8.42^ab 2.91^b 1.02^b

* Values followed by different letters in the same column were significantly different using Tukey's HSD α < 0.05 test.

The biomass potential of litter and necromass is statistically significantly different among patterns of farming. As with above-ground and below-ground biomass, value of litter biomass and necromass vary widely, but the cocoa + mixed wood trees pattern has the highest biomass of all farming patterns. This again shows that cocoa + mixed wood tree farming patterns are the better ecosystem in producing biomass.

(15)

20.68

10.75

13.44

16.43

12.35

0 5 10 15 20 25

Cocoa + Mix Wood Tree

Cocoa + Fruits tree

Cocoa + Hazelnut

Cocoa + Teak

Monoculture cocoa

Land Type

Litter biomass and necromass (Mg/ha)

Fig 7. Total biomass of litter and necromass in different farming patterns.

Litter Production

Litterfall is a growing mass of vegetative and reproductive organic material caused by aging factors (senescence), from stress by mechanical factors (as example the wind), or a combination of both, and through death or destruction of the whole plant by extreme weather (rain and wind) (Brown, 1984). We estimated litterfall production per year from observations during 6 months in various agro-ecosystem types (Table 4).

Table 4. Litterfall production in various patterns of cocoa farming.

Farming pattern Leaf fall (Mg/ha)*

Wood fall, stems, branches (Mg/ha)*

Reproductive organs fall

(Mg/ha)*

Total (Mg/ha)*

Cocoa + Mix Wood Tree 5.54^b 1.64^b 0.87^c 8.05^b

Cocoa + Fruits tree 4.07âb 1.10âb 0.76âbc 5.93âb

Cocoa + Hazelnut 2.92â 0,65â 0.39â 3.96â

Cocoa + Teak 5.55^b 1.03^ab 0.79^bc 7.37^ab

Monoculture cocoa 3.08âb 0.52â 0.45âb 4.05â

Total litterfall and its components from various farming pattern vary widely, but the cocoa + mixed wood tree farming pattern has the highest total litterfall and its components of all farming patterns (Fig 8).

(16)

8.05

5.93

3.96

7.37

4.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Cocoa + Mix Wood Tree

Cocoa + Fruits tree

Cocoa + Hazelnut

Cocoa + Teak

Monoculture cocoa

Land Type

Literfall production (Mg/ha)

Fig 8. Total litterfall production with cocoa farming pattern.

It shows that cocoa farming patterns + mix wood tree was the better ecosystem in producing total litterfall and its components (leaves, wood/stalk/branches and reproductive organs) as biomass. Cocoa farming patterns + mixed wood tree was the best cocoa farming pattern in the around of the LLNP, suggesting that the LLNP Indonesia could be sustainable and serve as a place of research, without having to give up all cocoa farming.

Litter Decomposition Rate

The litter decomposition process is an essential part in the dynamics of nutrients in an ecosystem and thus it provides useful clues about the condition of the ecosystem in relation to the cycles and availability of nutrients in the soil (Berg and McClaugherty, 2008). Benefits of litter decomposition for soil fertility and crop are heavily dependent on the production and decomposition rates (Mindawati, 1999). The chemical composition of litter also determines the number of nutrients that are returned to the soil to create a good substrate for decomposing organisms. Results of litter weight loss measures and average decomposition rates are shown on Table 5.

Table 5. Weight loss and litter decomposition rates.

Farming pattern Weight Loss (%)* Decomposition Rate* (k)

Cocoa + Mixed Wood Trees 78.58^a 0.0747^a

Cocoa + Fruits tree 78.98^a 0.0779^ab

Cocoa + Hazelnut 83.07^b 0.0861^c

Cocoa + Teak 79.20^a 0.0786^ab

Monoculture cocoa 81.38^ab 0.0817^bc

The highest dry weight loss was achieved by the cocoa + hazelnut farming pattern, which differed significantly from all other farming patterns, except monoculture cocoa. This suggests that cocoa + hazelnut and monoculture cocoa farming patterns have litter that decomposes faster. When compared with the cocoa + mixed wood trees, the dry weight loss

(17)

of the litter in cocoa + hazelnut was 5.7% higher. The low loss of weight on cocoa + mixed wood trees shows that litter produced by this farming pattern was more resistant to decomposition.

The weathering constant value (k) is commonly used to compare the rate of decomposition between plant species or between different environments (Sulistiyanto et al, 2005). The rate of litter decomposition in cocoa + mixed wood tree farming patterns was significantly lower than in cocoa + hazelnut and monoculture cocoa farming patterns, while the other agro- ecosystem farming patterns did not differ significantly (Table 5). Litter decomposition speed is affected by abiotic factors such as humidity, temperature, light, sea level, type of substrate, type of decomposers and vegetation (Chairul and Yoneda, 2002). Differences in the farming patterns may have led to differences in any of these factors, and certainly did cause differences in vegetation. It seemed that leaf litter in cocoa + hazelnut and monoculture cocoa farming patterns had a simpler composition, allowing it to more easily decompose. In contrast, cocoa + mixed wood trees, cocoa + fruit trees, and cocoa + teak farming patterns all seem to have a more complex composition and thus slower decomposition rate.

According to Suberkropp et al. (1976; as cited in Sulistiyanto et al. (2005)) most material that is soluble in litter has a simple organic structure, including glucose, phenolic and amino acids, while the poorly soluble fractions (lignocellulose) are typically composed of lignin, cellulose and xylan.

Farming Income from Different Agro-ecosystem Types

Result recapitulation of the income analysis on a various farming patterns that managed by farmers are presented on Table 6.

The average income of different farming patterns were statistically significantly different (Table 6). Cocoa + hazelnut gave the highest average revenue-per-year of IDR16,348,000/ha/year, but this did not differ significantly from the average income for farmers using the cocoa + mixed wood trees (IDR16,300,200) or cocoa + fruit tree farming patterns. The cocoa crop is a mainstay commodity for the local community because as well as its high productivity, the price of cocoa beans is relatively high and stable.

The resource deployment and capital of farmers rests on the cocoa crop and additions.

Cocoa + mixed wood trees, cocoa + fruit trees, cocoa + hazelnut, and cocoa + teak all provide a double benefit. Farmers earn money from both the cacao crop and from the result of the crop inserts (hazelnut, wood and fruit) in order to obtain a higher income.

Table 6. Farming income for various cocoa farming patterns.

Rank Farming Patterns

TC¹ TR² Income

(IDR/ha/year)

* (IDR/ha/year) (IDR/ha/year)

1 Cocoa + Hazelnut 6,025,740 22,373,740 16,348,000^a 2 Cocoa + Mixed Wood

Trees

5,280,866 21,581,066 16,300,200^a 3 Cocoa + Fruit trees 5,781,044 22,019,044 16,238,000^a 4 Cocoa + Teak 6,104,940 22,057,140 15,952,200^b 5 Monoculture cocoa 6,348,810 21,953,810 15,605,000^c

1TC = total cost; ²TR = total revenue

*Values followed by different letters in the same column were significantly different using Tukey's HSD α < 0.05 test.

Commented [AD15]: There is no Discussion for this section. Each section (sub-heading) must have at least a paragraph that discusses the results with help of new citations/references.

Commented [AD16]: Must be changed with ≤

(18)

Materials and Methods

The research was conducted in the Sigi Regency of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia (Fig 9).

This location was selected because it is located in the buffer zone area of LLNP. Many residents in this area have converted forest land into cocoa farms using different cropping patterns. Cocoa farm cropping patterns in the buffer zone of LLNP include: cocoa farming + mixed wood tree (agroforestry complex), cocoa farming + fruit trees (agroforestry simple), cocoa farming + pecan trees (agroforestry simple), cocoa farming + teak trees (agroforestry simple ), and monoculture cocoa farming.

Fig 9. Location Lore Lindu National Park Central Sulawesi, Indonesia (red box, left) and the location of the research plots (red circles, right).

Research was conducted from January to December 2015, and at a site 700-850 m above sea level. Data collected for each land type were: 1) Species composition and density of vegetation; 2) Biomass production, litterfall, and rate of decomposition; and 3) Farmers’

incomes.

Comparison of species composition and density of vegetation was done by categorizing sites based on four land types: (1) natural forest (NA), the primary forest found in LLNP without farm crops, (2) agroforestry complex (AFC), a cocoa plantation owned by a farmer that also included different types of plants and trees, (3) agroforestry simple (AFS), a plantation owned by a farmer that had one of: cocoa + fruit trees, cocoa + hazelnut, or cocoa + teak, and (4) monoculture cocoa (MC), a plantation owned by a farmer that contained only cocoa. For each land type, 3 replicate plots were used; replicate plots were located in different areas with consideration of environmental factors, especially the condition of the slope/land, in a randomized block design, in which the grouping as replication based on the degree of the slope: 0-15%, 15-30% and >30%.

Commented [AD17]: This section should be divided with some sub-heading such as Plant materials (including the name of species and cultivars, Treatments, Traits measured and finally Statistical analysis

Commented [AD19]:

Commented [AD18]: The right hand side Fig is not clear.

A higher esolution required.

(19)

20 m

Fig 10. Diagram showing study design with plots, sub-plots and sub-swath sampling areas.

Vegetation analysis was done at the level of the tree (D), pole (C), stake (B), and seedling/plant (A) for each observed land type.

Plot determination was done using the double swath method of Indriyanto (2006). For each land type, in the area designated as the study location, plots of 100 x 100 m were marked out.

This large plot was then divided into 25 subplots of 20 x 20 m. Each subplot was censused for trees (diameter at breast height (dbh) > 20 cm), Each subplot was further divided into next subplot was divided into three sizes: a 10 x 10 m area where poles (dbh 10-20 cm) were sampled, a 5 x 5 m area used to sample saplings (dbh < 10 cm and height > 1.5 m), and 2 x 2 m area that in which seedlings and low plants were censused.

Species' composition, biomass and decomposition rates, and farmer income samples for each type of land were selected intentionally (purposive sampling) to allow consideration of the effect of slope (as was done for species' composition and density data), and to keep the age of the cacao crop, teak, and pecan trees homogeneous across land types.

Biomass potential was estimated using allometric equations as done by previous researchers, such as Inoue et al. (2004); Hairiah and Rahayu (2007); Smiley and Kroschel (2008); Komiyama et al. (2002); Ebuy et al. (2011); Tinker et al. (2010); and Komiyama et al.

(2005). Biomass estimation for cocoa crops used equations from Smiley and Kroschel (2008) in the same area, namely:

Y = 0.202 D^2.112 (1)

where, D = cocoa trunk diameter at a height of 50 cm below the first branching (jorquete).

Biomass calculation of woody and branching necromass used the same allometric formula used for live trees, while for trees that were not branched, biomass was calculated based on the volume of the cylinder (Hairiah and Rahayu, 2007), namely:

BK (kg/necromass) = πρHD²/40 (2)

where, ρ = density of wood (g.cm^-3), H = height/length of necromass (cm), D = diameter of necromass (cm)

Root biomass was estimated as the ratio of the canopy root 4:1 for tree on dry land (Hairiah and Rahayu, 2007). Seedling plant roots and lower level plant roots were sampled

100 m

100 m D

C B A

A

a 20 m

Commented [AD20]: All Figs must be prepared as solid image with JPEG or TIF format.

(20)

using a root trenching method (Wardah, 2008). All samples of biomass were dried in the oven for 48 h at a temperature of 80 °C (Suprayogo et al., 2004) before weighing.

Litter production was measured by collecting litter that fell on the forest floor using litter traps 100 x 100 x 20 cm placed randomly on the forest floor; 4-5 litter traps were used for each land type use. Litter was collected every month (30 days) for 6 months, and then separated into its components (leaves, stems/branches/twigs, and reproductive organs, namely, flowers and fruits and seeds). After collection, all litter was dried in an oven for 48 h at a temperature of 80 °C, weighed (Rosleine et al., 2006).

Litter decomposition levels were estimated using six litter bags made of nylon (20 x 20 cm²) with a mesh size of 2.0 mm², placed in each land type. Each bag was filled with approximately 50 g fresh leaf litter (Rosleine et al., 2006) and then placed on the forest floor.

Litter bag content was collected after one month for six months and then dried in the oven.

Decomposition rates were calculated using an exponential regression equation, based on the litter weight loss that remained in a bag (Alhamd et al., 2005), the formula exponential Olson model (1961):

Nt/N0 = e^–kt (3)

where, N0 = weight of litter at start of the trial, Nt = weight of litter at the time t (end of the trial), e = mathematical constant (~2.72), k = coefficient of decomposition, and t = time (days, weeks or months).

To estimate income from farming, data were collected from 10 farmers of each cocoa farming pattern. Five cocoa farming patterns were identified, namely:

A = cocoa land + mix wood tree (agroforestry complex);

B = cocoa land + fruit trees (Agroforestry simple);

C = cocoa land + hazelnut trees (Agroforestry simple);

D = cocoa land + teak trees (Agroforestry simple); and E = monoculture cocoa land.

On each farm, up to five sample plots were used for sampling; plots were 20 x 20 m (trees of dbh >20 cm); 10 x 10 m (dbh = 10-20 cm); and 2 x 2 m (dbh <10 cm). Income cocoa farming patterns calculated using the formula:

 =  (TR – TVC) if, TR = pi*Qi and TVC = wi*Xi

 =  (pi*Qi – wi*Xi) (4)

where,

 = income Qi = outputs pi = output prices

Xi = inputs wi = input prices Conclusions

Cocoa farms that included mixed wood trees (agroforestry complex) produced the greatest biomass (above-ground, below-ground, litter and necromass) of all farming patterns tested.

Dry weight loss and decomposition rate were highest in cocoa farms that also had hazelnut (simple agroforestry) compared to other farming patterns. Finally, cocoa + hazelnut also gave the highest average revenue per year, but it was not significantly different the farming patterns of cocoa + mixed wood trees or cocoa + fruit trees. We suggest that the farming pattern of cocoa + mixed wood trees (agroforestry complex) along the perimeter of the forest will best support sustainability of LLNP.

(21)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Director General of Higher Education Indonesia (DIKTI), which had helped fund this research through DP2M in 2015. The authors also thanks the reviewers who had took time to perfect this article.

References

Alhamd L, Rahajoe JS, Simbolon H, Muhidin A (2005) Nutrient resorption through Decomposition Process Leaves On Natural Forest and Peatland Forest Fires Post Klampangan, Central Kalimantan. Botany Field Engineering Reports, Research Center for Biology-LIPI.

Barchia F, Aini N, Prawito P (2007) Organic Materials and Respiration Under Some of stands at Das Musi Section Hulu. Jurnal Akta Agrosia Special Edition, 2 : 172–175.

Beck J, Schulze CH, Lindsenmair KE, Fiedler K (2002) From Forest to Farmland:

Biodiversity of Geometry moths along to habitat gradients on Borneo. J. Trop. Ecology,18 : 33-51.

Berg B, McClaugherty V (2008) Plant Litter, Decomposition, Humus Formation, Carbon Sequestration. 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. P 340.

Bismark M, Sawitri R (2007) Development and Regional Management Buffer Conservation Area. Major Problems in Exposure Research Results: Conservation and Rehabilitation of Forest Resources. Padang, September 20, 2006. Proceedings Exposure Research Results (1-11).

Bratawinata AA (1993) Changes Structure and Composition of Forest Standing as a result of the selective logging. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Humid Tropical Forest Management Environmental to Increase Productivity, 14 to 15 December 1992.

Department of Forestry R.I and Forestry Faculty of Mulawarman, Samarinda.

Brown MS (1984) Mangrove Litter Production and Dynamics. In The Mangrove Ecosystem:

Research Methods (S.C Snedaker & J.G. Snedaker, eds). UNESCO, Paris. p 231-238.

Chairul, Yoneda T (2002) Comperatif study on decompotision of Litter between a Warm- Temperate Evergreen Oak Forest and a Tropical Rain Forest. Tropic. 11 (2) : 59-68.

Corre MD, Dechert G, Veldkamp E (2006) Soil Nitrogen Cycling following Montane Forest Conversion in. Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Published in Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70:359–366.

Ebuy J, Lokombe JP, Ponette Q, Sonwa D, Picard N (2011) Allometric equation for predicting aboveground biomass of three tree species. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 23(2): 125–132.

Hairiah K, Rahayu S (2007) Measurements of Carbon Stored In A Wide Range Of Land Use. World Agroforestry Centre-ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, University of Brawijaya, Unibraw, Indonesia.

Indriyanto, 2006. Forest Ecology. Publisher: PT. Bumi Aksara, Jakarta. p 210.

Inoue A, Miyake M, Nishizono T (2004) Allometric model of the Reineke equation for Japanese cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa) and red pine (Pinus densiflora) stands. J For Res.

9: 319–324.

Kim YC (2001) Patterns of Tropical Forest Management Based On the Concept of Total Economic Value. Dissertation, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta.

Komiyama A, Poungparn S, Kato S (2005) Common allometric equations for estimating the tree weight of mangroves. Journal of Tropical Ecology (2005) 21:471–477.

Komiyama A, Jintana V, Sangtiean T, Kato S (2002) A common allometric equation for predicting stem weight of mangroves growing in secondary forests. Ecological Research, 17: 415–418.

Commented [AD21]: The reference section must completely be cross checked against text to avoid extra or missing references. It MUST also be checked one by one for accuracy and consistency against journal rules. The journal title/names must be precisely abbreviated based on guidelines.

This reference section must be completely reformatted as it is different with AJCS format.

Failure to comply with AJCS referencing format may result in immediate rejection of manuscript.

Please be reminded:

1) There should not be any upper case in the title of reference/paper (except for the word at the beginning).

2) All journal titles/names must be abbreviated based on standard.

3) There should not be any period among the abbreviated words of journal title.

4) There should be a period at the end of journal title (abbreviated words).

5) There should be a period at the end after page numbers.

6) Delete dots (full stops) in the middle of abbreviations of journal titles and only place one full stop at the end of journal abbreviation name.

Commented [AD22]: Do not write uppercase letters in the middle.

(22)

Laturadja H (2009) 96.65 Percent Forest Park Lore Lindu in Good Condition. http://www.d- forin.com/HTML/. Accessed on July 4, 2010.

Mindawati N (1999) Production and Litter Decomposition rate of Acacia mangium Willd.

Bull. Pen. Hutan, 618 : 65-77.

Misra R (1968) Ecology Work Book. New Delhi : Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. p 242.

Odum P E (1996) Fundamental of Ecology. Translation by T. Samingan; Fundamentals of Ecology. UGM-Press, Yogyakarta. p 697.

Olson J (1961) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological system. 1961. In A 5 year study of litter decomposition processes in a Chamaecy-paris obtusa Endl. 1995. Takeda H. Ecological Research, 10 : 95-104.

Purwaningsih, Yusuf (2005) Type Composition and Structure of Forest Vegetation in the Area Pakuli, Lore Lindu National Park in Central Sulawesi. J. Biodiversitas, 6 (2) : 123 – 128.

Rosleine D, Choesin DN, Sulistyawati E (2006) The Contribution of Dominant Tree Spesies to Nutrient Cycling in a Mixed Forest Ecosystem on Mount Tangkubanperahu, West Java, Indonesia. International Conference on Mathematics and Natural Science, November 29- 30, 2006: 378-380, Bandung-Indonesia.

Smiley GL, Kroschel J (2008) Temporal change in carbon stocks of cocoa-gliricida agroforest in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Agroforest Syst. 73 : 219-231. Springer, Berlin.

Sulistiyanto Y, Rieley JO, Limin SH (2005) The rate of decomposition and release of Nutrient of Litter at Two Sub-Type Peat Swamp Forest in Central Kalimantan. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 11 (2) :1-14.

Suprayogo D, Widianto P, Purnomosidi RH, Widodo F, Rusiana ZZ, Aini N, Khazana, Kusuma Z (2004) Physical Properties of Soil Degradation As a result of Land Use System Being Coffee Monoculture, Assessment of Soil macroporosity changes). Jurnal Agrivita, 26 (1): 60-68.

Tinker D, Gail K, Stakes, Arcano RM (2010) Allometric Equation Development, Biomass, and Aboveground Productivity in Ponderosa Pine Forests, Black Hills, Wyoming. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 25 (3): 112-119.

Wardah (2008). Performance of Inland Forest Gardens Around The Region Conservation: A Case Study in Lore Lindu National Park in Central Sulawesi. Dissertation, Graduate School of Bogor Agriculture Institute, Bogor, p 179.

(23)

Reviewer 2:

After I read the content of the manuscript, the content is very good. Abstract has shown the purpose of research, methods of research, results and implications of research. Introduction has described the importance of the research conducted and research objectives are very clear. The research method has been very good so that it could solve the problem and research objectives in full. The results of research have been discussed clearly by linking theory and previous relevant research. The conclusion has been suitable with the problem and research objectives.

(24)

Reviewer 3:

I think this research is interesting. However, I do not find any explanation about the level of profit regarding the cultivation models proposed. The author just mention about the formula of profit in Australian or US Dollars.

(25)

AJCS-Hasanuddin-PNE34 [Major revisions required]

Dari: muhardi_hasanuddin@yahoo.com Kepada: Tony Elders (tony.elders@gmail.com) Tanggal: Senin, 26 Juni 2017 10.30 WITA

Best regards, Muhardi

Dear, Tony Elders

Australian Journal of Crop Science

I am sorry, I have sent "Manuscript revised and Response to reviewers". Please see the attacment.

Thank you.

Manuscript revised.doc387kB Response to

reviewers.docx12.8kB

1 of 1 8/30/2021, 9:01 AM

(26)

Cocoa farming patterns for sustainability of Indonesia Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP)

Muhardi

^1*

and Effendy

²

1

Department of Agriculture, Tadulako University, Palu Indonesia 94119

2

Department of Agriculture Economics, Tadulako University, Palu Indonesia 94119

*

Corresponding Author: Muhardi, Email: muhardi_hasanuddin@yahoo.com

Abstract

This research assesses the effects of different patterns of cocoa farming at the margin areas of Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) forest by estimating species richness, density of vegetation, biomass potential, litter production, litter decomposition rates and farming income. Research was conducted in the LLNP, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Five patterns of cocoa farming systems were considered: cocoa farming + mixed wood trees (agroforestry complex), cocoa farming + fruit trees (agroforestry simple), cocoa farming + candlenut trees (agroforestry simple), cocoa farming + teak trees (agroforestry simple), and monoculture cocoa farming. Five sample plots were made in each cocoa-farming pattern, sized 20 x 20 m for tree vegetation sampling. Subplots of 10 x 10 m, 5 x 5 m, and 2 x 2 m were used to sample vegetation at earlier growth stages. The results showed that using a pattern of cocoa + mixed wood trees (agroforestry complex) produced the highest biomass. A pattern of cocoa + candlenut gave the highest average income per year, but the pattern of cocoa + mixed wood trees did differ significantly from that using candlenut. It is suggested that cocoa farming with mixed wood trees (agroforestry complex) along the perimeter of the LLNP forest will support the sustainability in biodiversity, water catchment areas and disaster control.

[AJCS] Submission Acknowledgement