+ All Categories
Home > Documents > The International Peat Congress Peatlands in Balance

The International Peat Congress Peatlands in Balance

Date post: 18-Dec-2021
Category:
Upload: others
View: 1 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
8
The 14th International Peat Congress Peatlan ds in Bal an ce Stockholm, Sweden June 3-8 , 201 2 Internat i onal Peat Society I IfI,TG
Transcript

The 14th International Peat Congress

Peatlands in Balance

Stockholm Sweden June 3-8 201 2

Internat ional Peat Society I IfITG ~ITC

14th International Peat Congress

m abstract No 115

INDICATIONS OF COMPACTION IN TO ON PEATLANDS FOR ACCACIA Lnf PLANTATION IN INDONESIA

Department Soil Science Land Resources of Agriculture Bogor Agricultural University Campus 1 Bogor mooneSla +62-0251 dannawan_soilyahoocom Dwi Baskoro and Nugroho of Soil Science and Resources Faculty ofAgriculture Bogor Agricultural University

Land subsidence will always when peatlands are drained subsidence is predicting Carbon emission from One year subsidence monitoring as well as

measurement ofbulk and size of the organic materials was out at several ofpeatlands in used for crassicarpa plantation The subsidence rate during

the was found to be since the land were to alternately down Peat above water table are by fine that general corresponded higher bulk but the higher bulk density is to be straightforwardly interpreted as an indication ofcompaction because it depends on the historical Ulaquo11Igt of the peatlands

Keywords Emission U1 Tl1 SubSidence re(manas

INTRODUCTION

rn of tropical to agriculture as well as to forest in llUVU

become a environmental with to carbon emission to atmosphere are many publications presenting data of the emission obtained from mathematical estimates use subsidence as a parameter that involves consolidation compaction decomposition (Andriesse 1988) and ofland materials it is of great importance to fully

rIroh rI how far the subsidence would Understanding and rate subsidence will give contribution material to the and hence understanding emission

Measurement of compaction is not an work (Kool et to correlate increasing bulk density (BD) theretoremeasuring of peat layer is

done for this the other compaction likely correlates with of organic material of peat the finest the the highest compaction would happen

1

International Peat Congress

locations Sumatra Island Indonesia location is in plantation area directly 8-10 from

peatland deep peat location is Jambi also within an cracicarpa plantation on a moderate peat depth which area was previously logged third is located in Sumatra on shallow peat depth which area is denuded and has subjected to burnings and over from the surrounding

at three one plot the neighboring pristine peatland forest at one plot in location an additional plot within a and two plots in the third location The monitoring was run a year at 1- interval At plots the surface level was measured perforated tube as poles inserted vertically through the and anchored the ------J mUtleral sediment this perforated PVC water table was monitored as

Measurement ofBD was done at plots of the subsidence monitoring first location one plot in second and third locations The BD samples were collected from pits using top-down open box with 10 em x 10 em x 10 em dimension Sampling was done depth-wisely to around water table were collected for nltgtrltgtrtgt

into sizes of lt10611 10611 100011100011 200011 200011 500011 gt 5000~l by VUIHllZ samples with 01 M Sodium pyrophosphate followed by sequential wet respective of sieves

AND DISCUSSION

1 shows that subsidence rates plantations on deep peat over a year was unclear plot 9 years plantation shows a subsidence of about 2 em after a year In the contrary plotofthe 6 plantation a surface level instead of subsidence Rising and surface alternately happen and is for all the measurement 15 that pristine Among considered to have with

process it seems that the (peat) parameter a significant correlation The correlation is even quite forest plot possible explanation of this correlation is that the increasing and soil moisture content to a considerable extent made peat material to swell and respectively

2 and 3 show subsidence rates of the A plantations on the shallower peat over a year were slightly higher than that of the However between the plots there are significant variations lowest extent of subsidence the deep is likely due to a steady water table is kept 50-80 em the surface A sharp fall surface is detected

2

bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull

14th International Peat Congress

at the plot of new ly started plantation from a condition of an over drained and burnt peatland The drop happen just follow significant lowering of the water table (Fig 3 a) This anomaly is hard to explain but it may be attributed to a sharp increase in decaying process of wood remnants below the surface by termites during the low water table period

9 years A crasscarp a Plantation on Deep Peat

300

250

1] middot4 middot6

200

sect~ middot8 150 g-~

middot10 ~t middot 12 II100

middot 14 middot16 50 -18 middot20 0

Month

Rainfa ll -- Wate r Table - Soil M oisture -A Crass ica rpa plot 1 -----A Crassica rpa plo t 2 A Crassi ca rpa plot 3

- A Crassica rpa p lo t 4 (0)

6 years A erossicorpo Plantation on Deep Peat

0 -- - --300

-2 0[ -4

e -6 g -8

C ~

D -10 ~ -12 _ -

-1 4 shy-16 50 -18

middotO o Month

Rainfa ll - - -Water Tabl e ---Soil Moisture - ~ - A_ crassicarpa plot 1 da n 2 (b)

A crassicarpa p lo t 3

Pristine Forest 4 800

700

I 600 -

soo ~

Eif 400 E~s

=-3 300 ~

~

0 middot 14 200

middot 16 100

-18 _ ramp1 ~ ~ ~~ bull t~

middot20 o Month

Rainfa ll Wat er Table - - Soil M oisture - - Pristine Forest Ie)

Figure 1 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

3

14th International Peat Congress

A Cfassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat Secondary Forest

(ex loggedmiddotover area)

650

o - 550 0 Z 3 4 ~5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~

__~2 450 t r ~-E-

350 E u ~ ~ middot4 1 ~ f v ~ -6 D ~

c

------------__- ~- 1~ ltII g

~ 50

middot12 - middot50 middot12 middot50

10

MonthMonth

_ Rainfall -middot ~Water table - ~- Soil Moisture Rainfall ~-Water Table Pipe A -middot-PipeB (a) (b)- ~- Soil Moisture --- Pipe A

Figure 2 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted moderate peat and of adjacent secondary forest (ex logged-over area)

middot10 I -~- shy so

1year A crassieorpa on Shallow Peat lex over drained and burnt area)

350 4years A crassicarpaon Shallow Peat

lex over drained end burnt area)

r--- --shy 150

Month

Rainfall

- - s6~ Moisture ACrassicQtPQ 1yl

Acra~icarpa Plot 2

~Water table ACrassicarpa 1 yr

- Alaquo(gs~i((lrpa Plot 1

1middot1

_ Rainall _ Water lab l eA(lal~(3Ipa 4yl

bull Acro~icopo Plot J

Month

- ~ Soil moisture Aua~i((Hpa 4yl

- ~ Ac rassiwpa Plot I

Ibl

JO _

S 250 g

7 Eshy)00 E g 150~~~ IIhl~ 9J c

Figure 3 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted shallow peat (ex over drained and burnt area)

The alternate rising and lowering of the surface level is also detected in Fig 2 and 3 This fact brings a difficulty in correlating the extent of subsidence over a period with the controlling factors including the decomposition

Results of depth BD measurement and fractionation of the peat particle size are presented in Fig 4 and 5 In general the data show that BD values of the upper parts are higher than those of the lower parts Similar trend is found for the particle size Fig 4 and 5 however show that values of BD does not necessarily correspond with the particle size of the respective depth in that there

4

14th International Peat Congress

were found that in some cases BD values differ significantly between depths having similar particle size distribution and also that similar BD values were found at depths with differing particle size distribution

-() I-() ~() gtlt() ~() ro() () 9() op v C () () gt() lt-C roC ) q()

(a)Depth (em)

I~O ~ vAada Cltaio~ ntion nooP Po

90 I 012 80 _ - bull - ~ cJ lt 106 II 7OcY 010 ~1000-10611

c 60 008-5 ~ 1000middot10001~ 50

006 _ 5000-2000jl

0 04 _ 50001

002 - -- BO

000

(b)

9 years Acacia Crassicarpa Plantation on Deep Peat

Plot 2 0 12

90~ 100

0108 000 c=J lt100 II 7070

c 0 g ~O9~

1

lt Cgt Ci ltgt cgt r~ o() T c-

~gt lt7 ltgt 0gt 0

-~ ~ -

]

v u

4(f)S

30 10

u 40 u 20

20 shy1 0

0 c) c)C

0 0 ~ 0~l 0

Depth (em) (e)

Pristine I=orest

100 90 180 shyc 70 ~

260 eo _

t 40 ~ 509lt

~ ~O

lO 10

0 ~

OlO - 018 ~ lt1061

016 014 cJI000middotI06p

012 E ~ 2000-10001 0 10~ 008 OD 5000-20001 0 06

5000p0 04 002 - - BO 000

Figure 4 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

5

14th International Peat Congress

ACrassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat -I-------zssicarpa Plantation on Shallow Peat

(ex logged-over area) middot 014 I 100 J

012 c=J lt106~ 9Q ~-eshy80 middot 010 c=J 10001061 70W 1 middot 008sect lOOO1000p ~ 60middot

_ 50 J j 006 _ 5000l000~

~ 40 1 middot 004 _gt5(1ll~ 30LOOl lO

I 10 000

(ex over drained and burnt area)

r 0l5 c=J lt100~

OlO c=Jl000middotl00~

0151 lOOO-1000I

010 - 5000middotl000

005 _ gt50001

Figure 5 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted moderate and shallow peat

Fig 4 shows that BD values of the upper parts of the pristine forest plot are about 016-020 g cnf 3 that is higher than that of the plots of the A crassicarpa The reason is unclear but strongly indicates that interpretation ofBD values of peatlands with respect to compaction cannot be straightforward but need to check for historical disturbance or change to the lands The use of mathematical fonnulation such as shown in Hooijer et at (2011) to calculate compaction using difference ofBD values between the upper and the lower parts would therefore be uncertain

CONCLUSION

The subsidence rate during the year was found to be uncertain since the land surfaces was found to alternately rise and down

Peat materials above the water table are dominated by fine fractions that in general corresponded with higher bulk density but the higher bulk density is difficult to be straightforwardly interpreted as an indication of compaction because it depend on the historical change of the peatlands

ACLNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank PT Bukit Batu Hutani Alam PT Sekato Pratama Makmur PT Wirakarya Sakti PT Sebangun BUlni Andalas Sinar Mas Forestry Management and APP Indonesia for giving pennission to conduct this research on their plantation forest concession areas and financial support

6

14th International Peat Congress

REFERENCES

Andriesse JP 1988 Nature 248pp

soils FA peat soils F AO JJWlYl1

Hooijer A Page S Jauhiainen J Subsidence and Carbon loss 1JIWaLlU)

A and Anshari G 2011 reducing uncertainty and implication

for emission reduction ODtIOlllS JjVV-lt01 11-9356 doil05194Ibgd-8-931 1

7

14th International Peat Congress

m abstract No 115

INDICATIONS OF COMPACTION IN TO ON PEATLANDS FOR ACCACIA Lnf PLANTATION IN INDONESIA

Department Soil Science Land Resources of Agriculture Bogor Agricultural University Campus 1 Bogor mooneSla +62-0251 dannawan_soilyahoocom Dwi Baskoro and Nugroho of Soil Science and Resources Faculty ofAgriculture Bogor Agricultural University

Land subsidence will always when peatlands are drained subsidence is predicting Carbon emission from One year subsidence monitoring as well as

measurement ofbulk and size of the organic materials was out at several ofpeatlands in used for crassicarpa plantation The subsidence rate during

the was found to be since the land were to alternately down Peat above water table are by fine that general corresponded higher bulk but the higher bulk density is to be straightforwardly interpreted as an indication ofcompaction because it depends on the historical Ulaquo11Igt of the peatlands

Keywords Emission U1 Tl1 SubSidence re(manas

INTRODUCTION

rn of tropical to agriculture as well as to forest in llUVU

become a environmental with to carbon emission to atmosphere are many publications presenting data of the emission obtained from mathematical estimates use subsidence as a parameter that involves consolidation compaction decomposition (Andriesse 1988) and ofland materials it is of great importance to fully

rIroh rI how far the subsidence would Understanding and rate subsidence will give contribution material to the and hence understanding emission

Measurement of compaction is not an work (Kool et to correlate increasing bulk density (BD) theretoremeasuring of peat layer is

done for this the other compaction likely correlates with of organic material of peat the finest the the highest compaction would happen

1

International Peat Congress

locations Sumatra Island Indonesia location is in plantation area directly 8-10 from

peatland deep peat location is Jambi also within an cracicarpa plantation on a moderate peat depth which area was previously logged third is located in Sumatra on shallow peat depth which area is denuded and has subjected to burnings and over from the surrounding

at three one plot the neighboring pristine peatland forest at one plot in location an additional plot within a and two plots in the third location The monitoring was run a year at 1- interval At plots the surface level was measured perforated tube as poles inserted vertically through the and anchored the ------J mUtleral sediment this perforated PVC water table was monitored as

Measurement ofBD was done at plots of the subsidence monitoring first location one plot in second and third locations The BD samples were collected from pits using top-down open box with 10 em x 10 em x 10 em dimension Sampling was done depth-wisely to around water table were collected for nltgtrltgtrtgt

into sizes of lt10611 10611 100011100011 200011 200011 500011 gt 5000~l by VUIHllZ samples with 01 M Sodium pyrophosphate followed by sequential wet respective of sieves

AND DISCUSSION

1 shows that subsidence rates plantations on deep peat over a year was unclear plot 9 years plantation shows a subsidence of about 2 em after a year In the contrary plotofthe 6 plantation a surface level instead of subsidence Rising and surface alternately happen and is for all the measurement 15 that pristine Among considered to have with

process it seems that the (peat) parameter a significant correlation The correlation is even quite forest plot possible explanation of this correlation is that the increasing and soil moisture content to a considerable extent made peat material to swell and respectively

2 and 3 show subsidence rates of the A plantations on the shallower peat over a year were slightly higher than that of the However between the plots there are significant variations lowest extent of subsidence the deep is likely due to a steady water table is kept 50-80 em the surface A sharp fall surface is detected

2

bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull

14th International Peat Congress

at the plot of new ly started plantation from a condition of an over drained and burnt peatland The drop happen just follow significant lowering of the water table (Fig 3 a) This anomaly is hard to explain but it may be attributed to a sharp increase in decaying process of wood remnants below the surface by termites during the low water table period

9 years A crasscarp a Plantation on Deep Peat

300

250

1] middot4 middot6

200

sect~ middot8 150 g-~

middot10 ~t middot 12 II100

middot 14 middot16 50 -18 middot20 0

Month

Rainfa ll -- Wate r Table - Soil M oisture -A Crass ica rpa plot 1 -----A Crassica rpa plo t 2 A Crassi ca rpa plot 3

- A Crassica rpa p lo t 4 (0)

6 years A erossicorpo Plantation on Deep Peat

0 -- - --300

-2 0[ -4

e -6 g -8

C ~

D -10 ~ -12 _ -

-1 4 shy-16 50 -18

middotO o Month

Rainfa ll - - -Water Tabl e ---Soil Moisture - ~ - A_ crassicarpa plot 1 da n 2 (b)

A crassicarpa p lo t 3

Pristine Forest 4 800

700

I 600 -

soo ~

Eif 400 E~s

=-3 300 ~

~

0 middot 14 200

middot 16 100

-18 _ ramp1 ~ ~ ~~ bull t~

middot20 o Month

Rainfa ll Wat er Table - - Soil M oisture - - Pristine Forest Ie)

Figure 1 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

3

14th International Peat Congress

A Cfassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat Secondary Forest

(ex loggedmiddotover area)

650

o - 550 0 Z 3 4 ~5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~

__~2 450 t r ~-E-

350 E u ~ ~ middot4 1 ~ f v ~ -6 D ~

c

------------__- ~- 1~ ltII g

~ 50

middot12 - middot50 middot12 middot50

10

MonthMonth

_ Rainfall -middot ~Water table - ~- Soil Moisture Rainfall ~-Water Table Pipe A -middot-PipeB (a) (b)- ~- Soil Moisture --- Pipe A

Figure 2 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted moderate peat and of adjacent secondary forest (ex logged-over area)

middot10 I -~- shy so

1year A crassieorpa on Shallow Peat lex over drained and burnt area)

350 4years A crassicarpaon Shallow Peat

lex over drained end burnt area)

r--- --shy 150

Month

Rainfall

- - s6~ Moisture ACrassicQtPQ 1yl

Acra~icarpa Plot 2

~Water table ACrassicarpa 1 yr

- Alaquo(gs~i((lrpa Plot 1

1middot1

_ Rainall _ Water lab l eA(lal~(3Ipa 4yl

bull Acro~icopo Plot J

Month

- ~ Soil moisture Aua~i((Hpa 4yl

- ~ Ac rassiwpa Plot I

Ibl

JO _

S 250 g

7 Eshy)00 E g 150~~~ IIhl~ 9J c

Figure 3 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted shallow peat (ex over drained and burnt area)

The alternate rising and lowering of the surface level is also detected in Fig 2 and 3 This fact brings a difficulty in correlating the extent of subsidence over a period with the controlling factors including the decomposition

Results of depth BD measurement and fractionation of the peat particle size are presented in Fig 4 and 5 In general the data show that BD values of the upper parts are higher than those of the lower parts Similar trend is found for the particle size Fig 4 and 5 however show that values of BD does not necessarily correspond with the particle size of the respective depth in that there

4

14th International Peat Congress

were found that in some cases BD values differ significantly between depths having similar particle size distribution and also that similar BD values were found at depths with differing particle size distribution

-() I-() ~() gtlt() ~() ro() () 9() op v C () () gt() lt-C roC ) q()

(a)Depth (em)

I~O ~ vAada Cltaio~ ntion nooP Po

90 I 012 80 _ - bull - ~ cJ lt 106 II 7OcY 010 ~1000-10611

c 60 008-5 ~ 1000middot10001~ 50

006 _ 5000-2000jl

0 04 _ 50001

002 - -- BO

000

(b)

9 years Acacia Crassicarpa Plantation on Deep Peat

Plot 2 0 12

90~ 100

0108 000 c=J lt100 II 7070

c 0 g ~O9~

1

lt Cgt Ci ltgt cgt r~ o() T c-

~gt lt7 ltgt 0gt 0

-~ ~ -

]

v u

4(f)S

30 10

u 40 u 20

20 shy1 0

0 c) c)C

0 0 ~ 0~l 0

Depth (em) (e)

Pristine I=orest

100 90 180 shyc 70 ~

260 eo _

t 40 ~ 509lt

~ ~O

lO 10

0 ~

OlO - 018 ~ lt1061

016 014 cJI000middotI06p

012 E ~ 2000-10001 0 10~ 008 OD 5000-20001 0 06

5000p0 04 002 - - BO 000

Figure 4 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

5

14th International Peat Congress

ACrassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat -I-------zssicarpa Plantation on Shallow Peat

(ex logged-over area) middot 014 I 100 J

012 c=J lt106~ 9Q ~-eshy80 middot 010 c=J 10001061 70W 1 middot 008sect lOOO1000p ~ 60middot

_ 50 J j 006 _ 5000l000~

~ 40 1 middot 004 _gt5(1ll~ 30LOOl lO

I 10 000

(ex over drained and burnt area)

r 0l5 c=J lt100~

OlO c=Jl000middotl00~

0151 lOOO-1000I

010 - 5000middotl000

005 _ gt50001

Figure 5 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted moderate and shallow peat

Fig 4 shows that BD values of the upper parts of the pristine forest plot are about 016-020 g cnf 3 that is higher than that of the plots of the A crassicarpa The reason is unclear but strongly indicates that interpretation ofBD values of peatlands with respect to compaction cannot be straightforward but need to check for historical disturbance or change to the lands The use of mathematical fonnulation such as shown in Hooijer et at (2011) to calculate compaction using difference ofBD values between the upper and the lower parts would therefore be uncertain

CONCLUSION

The subsidence rate during the year was found to be uncertain since the land surfaces was found to alternately rise and down

Peat materials above the water table are dominated by fine fractions that in general corresponded with higher bulk density but the higher bulk density is difficult to be straightforwardly interpreted as an indication of compaction because it depend on the historical change of the peatlands

ACLNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank PT Bukit Batu Hutani Alam PT Sekato Pratama Makmur PT Wirakarya Sakti PT Sebangun BUlni Andalas Sinar Mas Forestry Management and APP Indonesia for giving pennission to conduct this research on their plantation forest concession areas and financial support

6

14th International Peat Congress

REFERENCES

Andriesse JP 1988 Nature 248pp

soils FA peat soils F AO JJWlYl1

Hooijer A Page S Jauhiainen J Subsidence and Carbon loss 1JIWaLlU)

A and Anshari G 2011 reducing uncertainty and implication

for emission reduction ODtIOlllS JjVV-lt01 11-9356 doil05194Ibgd-8-931 1

7

International Peat Congress

locations Sumatra Island Indonesia location is in plantation area directly 8-10 from

peatland deep peat location is Jambi also within an cracicarpa plantation on a moderate peat depth which area was previously logged third is located in Sumatra on shallow peat depth which area is denuded and has subjected to burnings and over from the surrounding

at three one plot the neighboring pristine peatland forest at one plot in location an additional plot within a and two plots in the third location The monitoring was run a year at 1- interval At plots the surface level was measured perforated tube as poles inserted vertically through the and anchored the ------J mUtleral sediment this perforated PVC water table was monitored as

Measurement ofBD was done at plots of the subsidence monitoring first location one plot in second and third locations The BD samples were collected from pits using top-down open box with 10 em x 10 em x 10 em dimension Sampling was done depth-wisely to around water table were collected for nltgtrltgtrtgt

into sizes of lt10611 10611 100011100011 200011 200011 500011 gt 5000~l by VUIHllZ samples with 01 M Sodium pyrophosphate followed by sequential wet respective of sieves

AND DISCUSSION

1 shows that subsidence rates plantations on deep peat over a year was unclear plot 9 years plantation shows a subsidence of about 2 em after a year In the contrary plotofthe 6 plantation a surface level instead of subsidence Rising and surface alternately happen and is for all the measurement 15 that pristine Among considered to have with

process it seems that the (peat) parameter a significant correlation The correlation is even quite forest plot possible explanation of this correlation is that the increasing and soil moisture content to a considerable extent made peat material to swell and respectively

2 and 3 show subsidence rates of the A plantations on the shallower peat over a year were slightly higher than that of the However between the plots there are significant variations lowest extent of subsidence the deep is likely due to a steady water table is kept 50-80 em the surface A sharp fall surface is detected

2

bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull

14th International Peat Congress

at the plot of new ly started plantation from a condition of an over drained and burnt peatland The drop happen just follow significant lowering of the water table (Fig 3 a) This anomaly is hard to explain but it may be attributed to a sharp increase in decaying process of wood remnants below the surface by termites during the low water table period

9 years A crasscarp a Plantation on Deep Peat

300

250

1] middot4 middot6

200

sect~ middot8 150 g-~

middot10 ~t middot 12 II100

middot 14 middot16 50 -18 middot20 0

Month

Rainfa ll -- Wate r Table - Soil M oisture -A Crass ica rpa plot 1 -----A Crassica rpa plo t 2 A Crassi ca rpa plot 3

- A Crassica rpa p lo t 4 (0)

6 years A erossicorpo Plantation on Deep Peat

0 -- - --300

-2 0[ -4

e -6 g -8

C ~

D -10 ~ -12 _ -

-1 4 shy-16 50 -18

middotO o Month

Rainfa ll - - -Water Tabl e ---Soil Moisture - ~ - A_ crassicarpa plot 1 da n 2 (b)

A crassicarpa p lo t 3

Pristine Forest 4 800

700

I 600 -

soo ~

Eif 400 E~s

=-3 300 ~

~

0 middot 14 200

middot 16 100

-18 _ ramp1 ~ ~ ~~ bull t~

middot20 o Month

Rainfa ll Wat er Table - - Soil M oisture - - Pristine Forest Ie)

Figure 1 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

3

14th International Peat Congress

A Cfassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat Secondary Forest

(ex loggedmiddotover area)

650

o - 550 0 Z 3 4 ~5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~

__~2 450 t r ~-E-

350 E u ~ ~ middot4 1 ~ f v ~ -6 D ~

c

------------__- ~- 1~ ltII g

~ 50

middot12 - middot50 middot12 middot50

10

MonthMonth

_ Rainfall -middot ~Water table - ~- Soil Moisture Rainfall ~-Water Table Pipe A -middot-PipeB (a) (b)- ~- Soil Moisture --- Pipe A

Figure 2 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted moderate peat and of adjacent secondary forest (ex logged-over area)

middot10 I -~- shy so

1year A crassieorpa on Shallow Peat lex over drained and burnt area)

350 4years A crassicarpaon Shallow Peat

lex over drained end burnt area)

r--- --shy 150

Month

Rainfall

- - s6~ Moisture ACrassicQtPQ 1yl

Acra~icarpa Plot 2

~Water table ACrassicarpa 1 yr

- Alaquo(gs~i((lrpa Plot 1

1middot1

_ Rainall _ Water lab l eA(lal~(3Ipa 4yl

bull Acro~icopo Plot J

Month

- ~ Soil moisture Aua~i((Hpa 4yl

- ~ Ac rassiwpa Plot I

Ibl

JO _

S 250 g

7 Eshy)00 E g 150~~~ IIhl~ 9J c

Figure 3 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted shallow peat (ex over drained and burnt area)

The alternate rising and lowering of the surface level is also detected in Fig 2 and 3 This fact brings a difficulty in correlating the extent of subsidence over a period with the controlling factors including the decomposition

Results of depth BD measurement and fractionation of the peat particle size are presented in Fig 4 and 5 In general the data show that BD values of the upper parts are higher than those of the lower parts Similar trend is found for the particle size Fig 4 and 5 however show that values of BD does not necessarily correspond with the particle size of the respective depth in that there

4

14th International Peat Congress

were found that in some cases BD values differ significantly between depths having similar particle size distribution and also that similar BD values were found at depths with differing particle size distribution

-() I-() ~() gtlt() ~() ro() () 9() op v C () () gt() lt-C roC ) q()

(a)Depth (em)

I~O ~ vAada Cltaio~ ntion nooP Po

90 I 012 80 _ - bull - ~ cJ lt 106 II 7OcY 010 ~1000-10611

c 60 008-5 ~ 1000middot10001~ 50

006 _ 5000-2000jl

0 04 _ 50001

002 - -- BO

000

(b)

9 years Acacia Crassicarpa Plantation on Deep Peat

Plot 2 0 12

90~ 100

0108 000 c=J lt100 II 7070

c 0 g ~O9~

1

lt Cgt Ci ltgt cgt r~ o() T c-

~gt lt7 ltgt 0gt 0

-~ ~ -

]

v u

4(f)S

30 10

u 40 u 20

20 shy1 0

0 c) c)C

0 0 ~ 0~l 0

Depth (em) (e)

Pristine I=orest

100 90 180 shyc 70 ~

260 eo _

t 40 ~ 509lt

~ ~O

lO 10

0 ~

OlO - 018 ~ lt1061

016 014 cJI000middotI06p

012 E ~ 2000-10001 0 10~ 008 OD 5000-20001 0 06

5000p0 04 002 - - BO 000

Figure 4 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

5

14th International Peat Congress

ACrassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat -I-------zssicarpa Plantation on Shallow Peat

(ex logged-over area) middot 014 I 100 J

012 c=J lt106~ 9Q ~-eshy80 middot 010 c=J 10001061 70W 1 middot 008sect lOOO1000p ~ 60middot

_ 50 J j 006 _ 5000l000~

~ 40 1 middot 004 _gt5(1ll~ 30LOOl lO

I 10 000

(ex over drained and burnt area)

r 0l5 c=J lt100~

OlO c=Jl000middotl00~

0151 lOOO-1000I

010 - 5000middotl000

005 _ gt50001

Figure 5 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted moderate and shallow peat

Fig 4 shows that BD values of the upper parts of the pristine forest plot are about 016-020 g cnf 3 that is higher than that of the plots of the A crassicarpa The reason is unclear but strongly indicates that interpretation ofBD values of peatlands with respect to compaction cannot be straightforward but need to check for historical disturbance or change to the lands The use of mathematical fonnulation such as shown in Hooijer et at (2011) to calculate compaction using difference ofBD values between the upper and the lower parts would therefore be uncertain

CONCLUSION

The subsidence rate during the year was found to be uncertain since the land surfaces was found to alternately rise and down

Peat materials above the water table are dominated by fine fractions that in general corresponded with higher bulk density but the higher bulk density is difficult to be straightforwardly interpreted as an indication of compaction because it depend on the historical change of the peatlands

ACLNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank PT Bukit Batu Hutani Alam PT Sekato Pratama Makmur PT Wirakarya Sakti PT Sebangun BUlni Andalas Sinar Mas Forestry Management and APP Indonesia for giving pennission to conduct this research on their plantation forest concession areas and financial support

6

14th International Peat Congress

REFERENCES

Andriesse JP 1988 Nature 248pp

soils FA peat soils F AO JJWlYl1

Hooijer A Page S Jauhiainen J Subsidence and Carbon loss 1JIWaLlU)

A and Anshari G 2011 reducing uncertainty and implication

for emission reduction ODtIOlllS JjVV-lt01 11-9356 doil05194Ibgd-8-931 1

7

bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull

14th International Peat Congress

at the plot of new ly started plantation from a condition of an over drained and burnt peatland The drop happen just follow significant lowering of the water table (Fig 3 a) This anomaly is hard to explain but it may be attributed to a sharp increase in decaying process of wood remnants below the surface by termites during the low water table period

9 years A crasscarp a Plantation on Deep Peat

300

250

1] middot4 middot6

200

sect~ middot8 150 g-~

middot10 ~t middot 12 II100

middot 14 middot16 50 -18 middot20 0

Month

Rainfa ll -- Wate r Table - Soil M oisture -A Crass ica rpa plot 1 -----A Crassica rpa plo t 2 A Crassi ca rpa plot 3

- A Crassica rpa p lo t 4 (0)

6 years A erossicorpo Plantation on Deep Peat

0 -- - --300

-2 0[ -4

e -6 g -8

C ~

D -10 ~ -12 _ -

-1 4 shy-16 50 -18

middotO o Month

Rainfa ll - - -Water Tabl e ---Soil Moisture - ~ - A_ crassicarpa plot 1 da n 2 (b)

A crassicarpa p lo t 3

Pristine Forest 4 800

700

I 600 -

soo ~

Eif 400 E~s

=-3 300 ~

~

0 middot 14 200

middot 16 100

-18 _ ramp1 ~ ~ ~~ bull t~

middot20 o Month

Rainfa ll Wat er Table - - Soil M oisture - - Pristine Forest Ie)

Figure 1 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

3

14th International Peat Congress

A Cfassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat Secondary Forest

(ex loggedmiddotover area)

650

o - 550 0 Z 3 4 ~5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~

__~2 450 t r ~-E-

350 E u ~ ~ middot4 1 ~ f v ~ -6 D ~

c

------------__- ~- 1~ ltII g

~ 50

middot12 - middot50 middot12 middot50

10

MonthMonth

_ Rainfall -middot ~Water table - ~- Soil Moisture Rainfall ~-Water Table Pipe A -middot-PipeB (a) (b)- ~- Soil Moisture --- Pipe A

Figure 2 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted moderate peat and of adjacent secondary forest (ex logged-over area)

middot10 I -~- shy so

1year A crassieorpa on Shallow Peat lex over drained and burnt area)

350 4years A crassicarpaon Shallow Peat

lex over drained end burnt area)

r--- --shy 150

Month

Rainfall

- - s6~ Moisture ACrassicQtPQ 1yl

Acra~icarpa Plot 2

~Water table ACrassicarpa 1 yr

- Alaquo(gs~i((lrpa Plot 1

1middot1

_ Rainall _ Water lab l eA(lal~(3Ipa 4yl

bull Acro~icopo Plot J

Month

- ~ Soil moisture Aua~i((Hpa 4yl

- ~ Ac rassiwpa Plot I

Ibl

JO _

S 250 g

7 Eshy)00 E g 150~~~ IIhl~ 9J c

Figure 3 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted shallow peat (ex over drained and burnt area)

The alternate rising and lowering of the surface level is also detected in Fig 2 and 3 This fact brings a difficulty in correlating the extent of subsidence over a period with the controlling factors including the decomposition

Results of depth BD measurement and fractionation of the peat particle size are presented in Fig 4 and 5 In general the data show that BD values of the upper parts are higher than those of the lower parts Similar trend is found for the particle size Fig 4 and 5 however show that values of BD does not necessarily correspond with the particle size of the respective depth in that there

4

14th International Peat Congress

were found that in some cases BD values differ significantly between depths having similar particle size distribution and also that similar BD values were found at depths with differing particle size distribution

-() I-() ~() gtlt() ~() ro() () 9() op v C () () gt() lt-C roC ) q()

(a)Depth (em)

I~O ~ vAada Cltaio~ ntion nooP Po

90 I 012 80 _ - bull - ~ cJ lt 106 II 7OcY 010 ~1000-10611

c 60 008-5 ~ 1000middot10001~ 50

006 _ 5000-2000jl

0 04 _ 50001

002 - -- BO

000

(b)

9 years Acacia Crassicarpa Plantation on Deep Peat

Plot 2 0 12

90~ 100

0108 000 c=J lt100 II 7070

c 0 g ~O9~

1

lt Cgt Ci ltgt cgt r~ o() T c-

~gt lt7 ltgt 0gt 0

-~ ~ -

]

v u

4(f)S

30 10

u 40 u 20

20 shy1 0

0 c) c)C

0 0 ~ 0~l 0

Depth (em) (e)

Pristine I=orest

100 90 180 shyc 70 ~

260 eo _

t 40 ~ 509lt

~ ~O

lO 10

0 ~

OlO - 018 ~ lt1061

016 014 cJI000middotI06p

012 E ~ 2000-10001 0 10~ 008 OD 5000-20001 0 06

5000p0 04 002 - - BO 000

Figure 4 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

5

14th International Peat Congress

ACrassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat -I-------zssicarpa Plantation on Shallow Peat

(ex logged-over area) middot 014 I 100 J

012 c=J lt106~ 9Q ~-eshy80 middot 010 c=J 10001061 70W 1 middot 008sect lOOO1000p ~ 60middot

_ 50 J j 006 _ 5000l000~

~ 40 1 middot 004 _gt5(1ll~ 30LOOl lO

I 10 000

(ex over drained and burnt area)

r 0l5 c=J lt100~

OlO c=Jl000middotl00~

0151 lOOO-1000I

010 - 5000middotl000

005 _ gt50001

Figure 5 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted moderate and shallow peat

Fig 4 shows that BD values of the upper parts of the pristine forest plot are about 016-020 g cnf 3 that is higher than that of the plots of the A crassicarpa The reason is unclear but strongly indicates that interpretation ofBD values of peatlands with respect to compaction cannot be straightforward but need to check for historical disturbance or change to the lands The use of mathematical fonnulation such as shown in Hooijer et at (2011) to calculate compaction using difference ofBD values between the upper and the lower parts would therefore be uncertain

CONCLUSION

The subsidence rate during the year was found to be uncertain since the land surfaces was found to alternately rise and down

Peat materials above the water table are dominated by fine fractions that in general corresponded with higher bulk density but the higher bulk density is difficult to be straightforwardly interpreted as an indication of compaction because it depend on the historical change of the peatlands

ACLNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank PT Bukit Batu Hutani Alam PT Sekato Pratama Makmur PT Wirakarya Sakti PT Sebangun BUlni Andalas Sinar Mas Forestry Management and APP Indonesia for giving pennission to conduct this research on their plantation forest concession areas and financial support

6

14th International Peat Congress

REFERENCES

Andriesse JP 1988 Nature 248pp

soils FA peat soils F AO JJWlYl1

Hooijer A Page S Jauhiainen J Subsidence and Carbon loss 1JIWaLlU)

A and Anshari G 2011 reducing uncertainty and implication

for emission reduction ODtIOlllS JjVV-lt01 11-9356 doil05194Ibgd-8-931 1

7

14th International Peat Congress

A Cfassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat Secondary Forest

(ex loggedmiddotover area)

650

o - 550 0 Z 3 4 ~5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~

__~2 450 t r ~-E-

350 E u ~ ~ middot4 1 ~ f v ~ -6 D ~

c

------------__- ~- 1~ ltII g

~ 50

middot12 - middot50 middot12 middot50

10

MonthMonth

_ Rainfall -middot ~Water table - ~- Soil Moisture Rainfall ~-Water Table Pipe A -middot-PipeB (a) (b)- ~- Soil Moisture --- Pipe A

Figure 2 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted moderate peat and of adjacent secondary forest (ex logged-over area)

middot10 I -~- shy so

1year A crassieorpa on Shallow Peat lex over drained and burnt area)

350 4years A crassicarpaon Shallow Peat

lex over drained end burnt area)

r--- --shy 150

Month

Rainfall

- - s6~ Moisture ACrassicQtPQ 1yl

Acra~icarpa Plot 2

~Water table ACrassicarpa 1 yr

- Alaquo(gs~i((lrpa Plot 1

1middot1

_ Rainall _ Water lab l eA(lal~(3Ipa 4yl

bull Acro~icopo Plot J

Month

- ~ Soil moisture Aua~i((Hpa 4yl

- ~ Ac rassiwpa Plot I

Ibl

JO _

S 250 g

7 Eshy)00 E g 150~~~ IIhl~ 9J c

Figure 3 One year subsidence monitoring on A crassicarpa planted shallow peat (ex over drained and burnt area)

The alternate rising and lowering of the surface level is also detected in Fig 2 and 3 This fact brings a difficulty in correlating the extent of subsidence over a period with the controlling factors including the decomposition

Results of depth BD measurement and fractionation of the peat particle size are presented in Fig 4 and 5 In general the data show that BD values of the upper parts are higher than those of the lower parts Similar trend is found for the particle size Fig 4 and 5 however show that values of BD does not necessarily correspond with the particle size of the respective depth in that there

4

14th International Peat Congress

were found that in some cases BD values differ significantly between depths having similar particle size distribution and also that similar BD values were found at depths with differing particle size distribution

-() I-() ~() gtlt() ~() ro() () 9() op v C () () gt() lt-C roC ) q()

(a)Depth (em)

I~O ~ vAada Cltaio~ ntion nooP Po

90 I 012 80 _ - bull - ~ cJ lt 106 II 7OcY 010 ~1000-10611

c 60 008-5 ~ 1000middot10001~ 50

006 _ 5000-2000jl

0 04 _ 50001

002 - -- BO

000

(b)

9 years Acacia Crassicarpa Plantation on Deep Peat

Plot 2 0 12

90~ 100

0108 000 c=J lt100 II 7070

c 0 g ~O9~

1

lt Cgt Ci ltgt cgt r~ o() T c-

~gt lt7 ltgt 0gt 0

-~ ~ -

]

v u

4(f)S

30 10

u 40 u 20

20 shy1 0

0 c) c)C

0 0 ~ 0~l 0

Depth (em) (e)

Pristine I=orest

100 90 180 shyc 70 ~

260 eo _

t 40 ~ 509lt

~ ~O

lO 10

0 ~

OlO - 018 ~ lt1061

016 014 cJI000middotI06p

012 E ~ 2000-10001 0 10~ 008 OD 5000-20001 0 06

5000p0 04 002 - - BO 000

Figure 4 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

5

14th International Peat Congress

ACrassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat -I-------zssicarpa Plantation on Shallow Peat

(ex logged-over area) middot 014 I 100 J

012 c=J lt106~ 9Q ~-eshy80 middot 010 c=J 10001061 70W 1 middot 008sect lOOO1000p ~ 60middot

_ 50 J j 006 _ 5000l000~

~ 40 1 middot 004 _gt5(1ll~ 30LOOl lO

I 10 000

(ex over drained and burnt area)

r 0l5 c=J lt100~

OlO c=Jl000middotl00~

0151 lOOO-1000I

010 - 5000middotl000

005 _ gt50001

Figure 5 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted moderate and shallow peat

Fig 4 shows that BD values of the upper parts of the pristine forest plot are about 016-020 g cnf 3 that is higher than that of the plots of the A crassicarpa The reason is unclear but strongly indicates that interpretation ofBD values of peatlands with respect to compaction cannot be straightforward but need to check for historical disturbance or change to the lands The use of mathematical fonnulation such as shown in Hooijer et at (2011) to calculate compaction using difference ofBD values between the upper and the lower parts would therefore be uncertain

CONCLUSION

The subsidence rate during the year was found to be uncertain since the land surfaces was found to alternately rise and down

Peat materials above the water table are dominated by fine fractions that in general corresponded with higher bulk density but the higher bulk density is difficult to be straightforwardly interpreted as an indication of compaction because it depend on the historical change of the peatlands

ACLNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank PT Bukit Batu Hutani Alam PT Sekato Pratama Makmur PT Wirakarya Sakti PT Sebangun BUlni Andalas Sinar Mas Forestry Management and APP Indonesia for giving pennission to conduct this research on their plantation forest concession areas and financial support

6

14th International Peat Congress

REFERENCES

Andriesse JP 1988 Nature 248pp

soils FA peat soils F AO JJWlYl1

Hooijer A Page S Jauhiainen J Subsidence and Carbon loss 1JIWaLlU)

A and Anshari G 2011 reducing uncertainty and implication

for emission reduction ODtIOlllS JjVV-lt01 11-9356 doil05194Ibgd-8-931 1

7

14th International Peat Congress

were found that in some cases BD values differ significantly between depths having similar particle size distribution and also that similar BD values were found at depths with differing particle size distribution

-() I-() ~() gtlt() ~() ro() () 9() op v C () () gt() lt-C roC ) q()

(a)Depth (em)

I~O ~ vAada Cltaio~ ntion nooP Po

90 I 012 80 _ - bull - ~ cJ lt 106 II 7OcY 010 ~1000-10611

c 60 008-5 ~ 1000middot10001~ 50

006 _ 5000-2000jl

0 04 _ 50001

002 - -- BO

000

(b)

9 years Acacia Crassicarpa Plantation on Deep Peat

Plot 2 0 12

90~ 100

0108 000 c=J lt100 II 7070

c 0 g ~O9~

1

lt Cgt Ci ltgt cgt r~ o() T c-

~gt lt7 ltgt 0gt 0

-~ ~ -

]

v u

4(f)S

30 10

u 40 u 20

20 shy1 0

0 c) c)C

0 0 ~ 0~l 0

Depth (em) (e)

Pristine I=orest

100 90 180 shyc 70 ~

260 eo _

t 40 ~ 509lt

~ ~O

lO 10

0 ~

OlO - 018 ~ lt1061

016 014 cJI000middotI06p

012 E ~ 2000-10001 0 10~ 008 OD 5000-20001 0 06

5000p0 04 002 - - BO 000

Figure 4 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted deep peat and of adjacent pristine forest

5

14th International Peat Congress

ACrassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat -I-------zssicarpa Plantation on Shallow Peat

(ex logged-over area) middot 014 I 100 J

012 c=J lt106~ 9Q ~-eshy80 middot 010 c=J 10001061 70W 1 middot 008sect lOOO1000p ~ 60middot

_ 50 J j 006 _ 5000l000~

~ 40 1 middot 004 _gt5(1ll~ 30LOOl lO

I 10 000

(ex over drained and burnt area)

r 0l5 c=J lt100~

OlO c=Jl000middotl00~

0151 lOOO-1000I

010 - 5000middotl000

005 _ gt50001

Figure 5 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted moderate and shallow peat

Fig 4 shows that BD values of the upper parts of the pristine forest plot are about 016-020 g cnf 3 that is higher than that of the plots of the A crassicarpa The reason is unclear but strongly indicates that interpretation ofBD values of peatlands with respect to compaction cannot be straightforward but need to check for historical disturbance or change to the lands The use of mathematical fonnulation such as shown in Hooijer et at (2011) to calculate compaction using difference ofBD values between the upper and the lower parts would therefore be uncertain

CONCLUSION

The subsidence rate during the year was found to be uncertain since the land surfaces was found to alternately rise and down

Peat materials above the water table are dominated by fine fractions that in general corresponded with higher bulk density but the higher bulk density is difficult to be straightforwardly interpreted as an indication of compaction because it depend on the historical change of the peatlands

ACLNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank PT Bukit Batu Hutani Alam PT Sekato Pratama Makmur PT Wirakarya Sakti PT Sebangun BUlni Andalas Sinar Mas Forestry Management and APP Indonesia for giving pennission to conduct this research on their plantation forest concession areas and financial support

6

14th International Peat Congress

REFERENCES

Andriesse JP 1988 Nature 248pp

soils FA peat soils F AO JJWlYl1

Hooijer A Page S Jauhiainen J Subsidence and Carbon loss 1JIWaLlU)

A and Anshari G 2011 reducing uncertainty and implication

for emission reduction ODtIOlllS JjVV-lt01 11-9356 doil05194Ibgd-8-931 1

7

14th International Peat Congress

ACrassicarpa Plantation on Moderate Peat -I-------zssicarpa Plantation on Shallow Peat

(ex logged-over area) middot 014 I 100 J

012 c=J lt106~ 9Q ~-eshy80 middot 010 c=J 10001061 70W 1 middot 008sect lOOO1000p ~ 60middot

_ 50 J j 006 _ 5000l000~

~ 40 1 middot 004 _gt5(1ll~ 30LOOl lO

I 10 000

(ex over drained and burnt area)

r 0l5 c=J lt100~

OlO c=Jl000middotl00~

0151 lOOO-1000I

010 - 5000middotl000

005 _ gt50001

Figure 5 Bulk density and particle size fraction ofA crassicarpa planted moderate and shallow peat

Fig 4 shows that BD values of the upper parts of the pristine forest plot are about 016-020 g cnf 3 that is higher than that of the plots of the A crassicarpa The reason is unclear but strongly indicates that interpretation ofBD values of peatlands with respect to compaction cannot be straightforward but need to check for historical disturbance or change to the lands The use of mathematical fonnulation such as shown in Hooijer et at (2011) to calculate compaction using difference ofBD values between the upper and the lower parts would therefore be uncertain

CONCLUSION

The subsidence rate during the year was found to be uncertain since the land surfaces was found to alternately rise and down

Peat materials above the water table are dominated by fine fractions that in general corresponded with higher bulk density but the higher bulk density is difficult to be straightforwardly interpreted as an indication of compaction because it depend on the historical change of the peatlands

ACLNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank PT Bukit Batu Hutani Alam PT Sekato Pratama Makmur PT Wirakarya Sakti PT Sebangun BUlni Andalas Sinar Mas Forestry Management and APP Indonesia for giving pennission to conduct this research on their plantation forest concession areas and financial support

6

14th International Peat Congress

REFERENCES

Andriesse JP 1988 Nature 248pp

soils FA peat soils F AO JJWlYl1

Hooijer A Page S Jauhiainen J Subsidence and Carbon loss 1JIWaLlU)

A and Anshari G 2011 reducing uncertainty and implication

for emission reduction ODtIOlllS JjVV-lt01 11-9356 doil05194Ibgd-8-931 1

7

14th International Peat Congress

REFERENCES

Andriesse JP 1988 Nature 248pp

soils FA peat soils F AO JJWlYl1

Hooijer A Page S Jauhiainen J Subsidence and Carbon loss 1JIWaLlU)

A and Anshari G 2011 reducing uncertainty and implication

for emission reduction ODtIOlllS JjVV-lt01 11-9356 doil05194Ibgd-8-931 1

7


Recommended