^ ----.~ ^ -~^ \

. . > ? r . . . , ,* . . . . . ^ . . . . . >, . . . , . . . . , . . . . ~ ,f . . , . .

. > . . .

. .

. . . .

, . .

. . . . ,\}',.*;:$'! if ,I^ ," . . ,' "' "' ~" , . ^ a; * , 1.1 t3:-,..:"! .I 4:3. ;i" , * ^ , I^; "~,^ I' ,. I"', C> -.": I', .'.' ~. .

,,.t ~I^:;; ,.. , , ,.- * I. '..\:,.., 1/1 ,,* . . if*;)'\'*~,.,. . . . ,-%;, y#-*~\ ,- *\ . ..\..\. -- .*&.*& . \. D , . . , .. .. *' I ~ .J . . . . ,!g , . , . .. * a:

. , I ,~.-- ^ ,, ,, . * ,

I r~ ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS I I

PAGE CONTENT

TITLE PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 IV I~' LIST OF TABLES V I ^ LIST OF FIGURES Vl ABSTRACT

I , 1.1NTRODUCTION

1.1 General background 5 1.2 Objectives of Study 6 1.3 The Importance of the Study 6 1.3. , Forest Depletion 1.3.2 The need for best forest practice 6 8 1.4 Forest regeneration 9 1.41 Pioneer species 9 1.4.2 Building-Phase Species 1.4.3 Climax/Light Hardwood Species 9 10 1.44 Climax/Heavy Hardwood Species 10 1.5 Diameter class distributions 11 1.6 Damage in relation to felling intensity 12 11. RESEARCH METHODS I_ 12 2.1 Location of Study Site 13 ^-. 2.2 Description of Plots (PSP) 14 2.3 Regeneration plots 16 2.4 Periodic Annual Diameter Increment 17 2.5 Treatments L_ 18 2.6 Logging damage assessment 18 I ^ 26.1 Damage on trees with dbh ;^20 cm 19 2.62 Mapping of skid-trail and canopy opening L. 19 2.63 Canopy closure 21 2.7 Data Processing and Analysis I ' 21 2.8 Linear Regression . 21 2.9 The main data sheet

1/1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 22 22

3.1 Re-measurement

L_~

^ -.^ I'

f.

23 -. 3.2 Forest structure and species richness 3.3 Periodic Annual Diameter Increment 27 3.4 Distribution of residual stand 31 3.5 Logging damage assessment 32 3.6 Canopy opening 40 3.7 TPTl needs to be reviewed 42

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44

4.1 Conclusions 44 4.2 Recommendations 45 Acknowledgments 46 References 47

Annex Annex I. An example of permanent sample plot sheet(RIL 6) 52 Annex 2. List of dipterocarp species identified in PSPs 53 Annex 3. List of all species identified in the PSPs 55 Annex 4. Coordinate position of PSPs 67

I '

I ' I,

L.

J

,

I_.

I I I

-. r'

LIST OF TABLES

I ' I TABLE TITLE PAGE r. Table2. I Code of classification for types of injuries and 20 causes of mortality Table 3.1 Schedule of Plot Measurement in CNV plots 22 Table 3.2 Schedule of Plot Measurement in RIL plots 23 ,. Table 3.3 Number of Species and Genus within the family 24

Table 3.4 Mean density and mean basal areas (+SD)in the RIL and 27 CNV plots before logging (CNV=12 plots, RIL=, 2 plots) .

Table 3.5 The periodic annual diameter increment in the Plots of RIL 28 Table 3.6 The periodic annual diameter increment in the Plots of RIL 28 Table3.7 Mean damage to residual stand (%) against felling 33 intensity (trees/ha) Table3.8 Residual stands damaged in each diameter classes in 35 CNV plots I ' Table 3.9 Residual stands damaged in each diameter classes in RIL 36 plots Table 3.10 Residual stand damaged both in CNV and RIL according 36 ^ to class diameter in Malinau Research Forest, East

Kalimantan Table 3.11 A review of logging damage studies in the tropical forests 37 Table 3.12 Percentage of each canopy openness class in RIL and 40 CNV plots

. I I L,

IV L,

-. I~ '

,-.. LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

I~' I . I General map of MRF (initially BRF), East Kalimantan 2 2. I The blocks where PSPs are located (arrow), block 28 and 29 for 12 CNV Plots and block 27 for RIL plots 2.2 Plot, sub plot and grid label 14 2.3 Lay outforthe regeneration study of sapling in I ha of PSP 15 2.4 Lay out of Plots Design 18 3.1 Basal areas of nori dipterocarps (left bar), dipterocarps (middle 25 bar) and Agathis borneensis fright bar) in the 7 plots of block 28/29 where this species was present before logging I' 3.2 Distribution of the sapling by diameter classes (all plots, all 31 I . species included) 3.3 Proportion of the main families and genus in the sapling stock 32 I~ ' 3.4 Correlation between felling intensity and percentage of tree 34 I . damaged in RIL and conventional 3.5 Percentage of canopy openness measurements in each canopy 41 class in CNV (blue bars) and RIL(orange bars): a) before logging b)after logging

I. ,

I ,^

I I I_

V L ,

L

L-

\ . . r '~

I '

. Vegetation Dynamic under Different Logging Treatments in Permanent Sample Plots of a Hill Mixed Dipterocarps Forest, Malinau East Kalimantan (A preliminary r. results)

By Hari Priyadi

,

Abstract

Permanent sample plots (PSP) is an important media to maintain biophysical data for the long term observation purpose. In Malinau Research Forest, East Kalimantan, 24 PSPs of I ha each have been established since 1998 and observed regularly. Those I~~' plots were set up prior to logging activity. Two logging system were implemented during that period; reduced-impact logging (RIL) and conventional logging (CNV). Periodic

I' annual diameter increment and forest regeneration are among others, to be measured We found that the increment of dipterocarps vary from 0.35 to 0.52 cm year' according

i- , to logging intensity in RIL plots. While in CNV plots, increment of dipterocarps range I , I, from 0.42 to 0.62 cm year'. Group of non-dipterocarps are also calculated. Correlation between periodic annual diameter increment and felling intensity (F1) in the plots were I also measured for dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps groups. Linear regression for L__ these correlation is Dipt^" = 0,242 + 0,0850 F^ (R'=70.4%) and Non-Dipt^" = 0,190 +

I . 0.0683 F1 (R'=54.3%). The increment we found is far below assumption of Indonesian I, Selective Cutting and Replanting System or TPTl which is I cm year'. Based on this finding, cutting cycle of 35 years is therefore needed to be reviewed towards sustainable _ I forest management.

I_ ,

I Keywords: PSP; East Kalimantan; Hill mixed dipterocarps forest; Periodic annual

IJ diameter increment; RIL; TPTl;logging damage; forest regeneration

I

- .

\,

Vl

I. _

L -

I . r .

I. INTRODUCTION

I. I. General Background In December 1995, the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry designated 303,000 ha of ,~ forest for GIFOR in East Kalimantan (Indonesia) to be developed as a long-term

model of exemplary research-based management. The creation of this research I_ ^ forest-the first ever in Indonesia - and the agreement with CIFOR grew out of a I~~ provision in the host-country agreement granting access to a long-term research

, site. CIFOR began the search for an appropriate site in 1994 and, in October

1995, submitted a recommendation to the Ministry of Forestry for an area in

I_ . Bulungan district, recently it is changed to Malinau (Figure, .,). The Minister of

I ' Forestry approved the designation in December 1995.

!_ .^

The tropical forest is heterogeneous and uneven age with very high tree species composition. In 24 ha hectare plot of forest in Malinau of East Kalimantan, for I _ , example, more than 700 species were found. Based on the characteristics of the forests, the most suitable silvicultural system to be applied on the forest is . . selective logging system based on the minimum diameter cutting limit, and the

L_., minimum number of nucleus trees.

I .

L _.

.-,

L_ .

I I ~

------.---.------.-.------.--.-- ,,,." .,"',* ,".., ,>,^ .,""o ,^""

Mannau Research Forest \ LA al , ^..

R .-~* .... ~ ^ ^ . A*. .. .. *,-.- **--.,-; --., ..

; P I, , *'4"",*-*t -'*'~' I~ ' 4 LongPak . ..*. -. ,

, ,, * ., HP ; .$ "L ,. ~ \ ~":I. ,-.,. . 7'1i~,' .,.,. ,, ., g^ ^ ,: ^ , , . .,. ^:, ., ..',,""'aA-W aA-W I',I ", ,,I I I L LOGO . .. ~ .,.., I.. F.. I

. or INH 11 :. , : ., L;orbg Pada , Benni I' ,# I ,:.:1.1:, .--;: ', IF "," MALINA HL I' .',,' ,., f Malinau ' I. .','~I' ^ ~. Research .-, I' or, g .,,, ;a .. ,.... ^ ^ Forest I ^ I ^ 11>f ,.,,, ~

, . , q .,,'V ** . I'

, , ..,.\., I~~' '.'- .;..

I ^. ,

,, J" " * ~, .: CFC, , ,."^ I' ,/ .,,., . J P. a ,* ~ ~~ -,,- , a ." ,. I \ . , \ V , ,

, .,.~\ ' * ~ ~ \i\ , ^-^ .-~^.~-- , ,- .. \ ^ I I_ , ., '.*. \ ;. ~.-.. 4- '.-,~._ A ," Q core^.

30.6co ,"o. 0 I * a~,."--^ ,,.^. . a~,:^;~ ,,,., a , .^ ~..-~-~~-.~--- ^^~^^ ~ ~~,- ..^.^ Arc. : 32, .0.10 h. ^ ,.~~~- ,,," ^ L, ^. - -~.~ ^^~ . ^"*^

' I ^!^I. M. po, ,^han; .^.,,......

I. Figure 1.1 General map of MRF (initially BRF), East Kalimantan

- . The tropical forest of Malinau were classified as follows: protection forest which

.--, covers approximately 14% of the total forested area, preservation forest (25%),

.- permanent production forest (26.5%), limited production forest (, 7%), and

conversion forest (, 0.5%).

L_

2

\. r' According to Sellat0 (2001), Malinau district (in which the research site is located) covers an area of 8783 kin', which include mainly the Malinau (364 500 ha) and Tubu (261 675 ha) river basins , and a portion of Sesayap-Meritarang

I I river.

.^\

In Malinau, fluid Punan groups constitute a notable proportion of the population.

In 1998, the total population of the Bulungan regency amounting to over 300 000. Bulungan's population has grown by at least 25% in the last ten years, The development of industrial activities, including petroleum, timber, plywood plants, shrimp farms and oil palm estates, must account for this population growih

I (Sellat0 2001).

There are two category of logging treatments in this report, namely reduced - ,.^.

. impact logging (RIL) and conventional logging (CNV). Conventional logging i. e.

\-- , logging operation systems are often described as unplanned, haphazard timber harvesting. In Indonesia, conventional logging refers to TPTl system, which is followed by Concession Company or HPH . Unplanned and uncontrolled timber

^., harvesting will cause excessive logging damage so that it will make imbalance between forest regeneration and production and yield of the forest will be

declined (Van der Hout 1999).

I _ .

The term of reduced-impactlogging (RIL) surfaced around the inid 1990s, butthe

.-, concept is also referred to as low impact logging, planned (as opposed to

IHakPengusahaan Hutan

3

I_ r' unplanned) logging, environmentally sound harvesting and damage controlled logging (Van der Hout 1999). RIL is the implementation of a collection of forest

harvesting techniques which results in low level of damage to the stock of

,~ residual trees, soil and water, so that the production capacity of the forest after

logging is sustained, besides maintaining the biodiversity function of the forest.

I I RIL implementation which is a component in the management at the r compartment level, is an effort to reduce the impact of harvesting in accordance

L with the requirement of the sustainable forest management system.

I_ .

Seven elements are common to most RIL system including the following (Sist at

at 1998): r. . Pre-harvest inventory and mapping of the trees, including providing

topography map

^,

. Pre-harvest planning of roads and skid trails I~ I L. . Climber cutting prior to logging

I' . Directional felling I_.

. Optimum recovery of utilizable timber I I, . Winching of logs to planned skid trails

-, The re-measurement study in Malinau Research Forest therefore will play - important role to give a scientific information about biophysical data in order to

L improve si!vicultural system to be applied on the forest, and also to provide continuous data in growth and yield of the forest taken from the PSPs.

4 . 1.2 Objectives of study

r~. The general objectives of this study was to measure PSPs in regular basis and

make an analysis in order to have an overview the dynamic of vegetation within r the plots. Further study will be used this findings, among others for providing

some input for Indonesian silvicultural system.

The specific objectives of the study as follows: L _ . I. To examine the stand structure and status of species composition of

logged over forest in a hill mixed dipterocarps forest in East Kalimantan

^ under reduced impact and conventional logging

r t 2. To compare the effects of logging operation using conventional and

reduced-impact!o99ing to the residual stands r. 3. To observe preliminary forest regeneration after logging

1.3. The Importance of the Study

1.3. I Forest depletion I I

-, East Kalimantan is experiencing ever accelerating loss of primary forest cover,

Yet, land use and vegetation patterns, both in spatial and temporal contexts, are

L, _, not well-documented or understood because the conversions have been taking

place so rapidly. Up to about four decades ago, the core of the forest area was

I little disturbed and sparsely populated by indigenous Dayak population, who L practiced shifting agriculture and harvested non-timber forest products. More , . intensive forest disturbances began in the late 1960s when commercial logging

started. Initially it was small scale tree harvesting with low level of damage but L

5 . -.

^^ later, large-scale logging operations began and consequently with harsh I I environmental impacts.

I ,

1.3.2 The need for bestforest practice

Any efforts at sustainable management in mixed dipterocarps forest carry

considerable risks due to the lucrative short term gains from destructive timber

extraction. The question of how to achieve 'sustainable forest management' in Malinau is clearly neither purely a biophysical question, nor purely a social or

-, economic one,

-.

^

~I In general, forest logging may cause detectable changes on environmental variables, depending on the intensity of disturbance and the extent of cover

^^ removed. By the same token, forest clearance and forest conversion to other land use are expected to cause greater impacts on hydrology and soil erosion I processes. With the progress towards sustainable forest management, an improved harvesting techniques (i. e. RIL)is being implemented and promoted in ,

various regions. The aim of this techniques is to reduce damage on residual I_ trees, soil disturbance, and impacts on wildlife (SISt at a1. 1998 and E!ias et al.

I ' 2001).

The R!L techniques is one of the important elements of sustainable forest

L management. The present reduced-impact logging studies constitute a development phase within a longer-term research strategy on sustainable forest

I_-

6 L- ^

Malinau concession of In hutanil! with technical supervision by CIFOR. Research

on the immediate and long term impact of timber harvesting with conventional

and RIL techniques from both environmental and economic perspectives was r~ carried out. The overall objective was to promote the integration of RIL into

logging techniques at the concession scale.

1.4. Forest regeneration

Regeneration stands are an important stage in the reconstitution of the stock and

re- presents the potential of the future harvesting. Information about natural

^ regeneration is therefore very important to ensure the sustainability of logging

^

. operations and silviculture.

-J

Studying regeneration assumes the definition of maximum and minimum size to LJ investigate. Some authors have focused on the seedling in its early stage L. (Nicholson, 1965; Fox, 4973). Banteau (1994) defined two phases of r. regeneration: small seedlings (<,. 50 in) and high seedlings (^ 1.50 in and dbh

<10 cm). In this study, in line with Behault (1986), the focuse of the

L_: investigations was on saplings from 2 to 20 cm dbh in a stand considered as

being well-established compared to the unstable seedling phase (Benault, 1994). ..

, Whitmore (1974) divided the majority of tree species into four groups, or guilds,

of species ecologicalIy similar with respect to their reproductive response to

gaps. Whitmore's classification provides a useful basis for the recognition of the

7

\ - , I

following guilds of tropical plants for the purpose of forest management in Africa,

Latin America, and Asia:

1.4. , Pioneer species

\ The species of this guild require large gaps for both establishment and growth, are fast growing (often greater than 1.5 cm annual diameter increment), and are ,-\

I . generally short-lived (15 to 40 years). Their branching is often orthotropic (ascending, and developing in a similar manner to the leading stem), resulting in

a spreading crown and relatively low proportion of wood in the bole. Their wood

J is very lightweight, and often of low or no market value. Included in this guild are

such genera as Macaranga, Musanga, and Cecropia.

1.4.2 Building-Phase Species

Often similar to the pioneer guild in their establishment requirements and growih rates, these species differ from the pioneers primarily in that they live longer and

^ posses stronger apical dominance. Consequently, they are capable of producing a long, straight bole. Their wood is marketable as paper pulp, plywood, and light L_. , construction timber. Example of genera in this guild include TerminalIa, Bombax,

and A1bizia fatcataria.

I

^^

^^

8 1.4.3 Climax/Light Hardwood Species

This guild includes species that can establish and grow beneath closed canopy,

but benefit significantly from gaps of small-to-moderate size. Under optimal growing conditions, diameter increment in these species can approach 1.0 cm/year, but is generally lower. The species of this guild constitute the bulk of

the tropical timber trade, being highly valued for plywood, construction timber,

and interiorjoinery. Many of the world's "mahogany' species figure prominently in

this guild, including Swietenia and Cedrela in Latin America, Khaya and

Entandrophragma in Africa, and many Dipterocarpaceae in Asia (e. g. red merenti

Shorea). Teak (Tectona grandis) is a prominent member of this guild in Asian

deciduous forests.

^^ 1.4.4 Climax/ Heavy Hardwood Species

Species with seedlings able both to establish and to grow to maturity beneath

small gaps or perhaps even closed canopy comprise this guild. These trees are

slow growing (less than 0.5 cm annual diameter increment) and commonly live

I ' for several hundred yeas. Their wood is dense, fine-grained, and often quite

LJ valuable. They are widely sought after for interior joinery, furniture making, and

, specialty uses. Examples of this group include ebony (Diospyros), rosewood (Daibergia, A1:Zena), greenheart (OGOtea), merbau (Intsia), and ironwood L. _, (EUsideroxy/on).

^

L. 9

. . I~ '

I~ 1.5 Diameter class distributions

I' An important prerequisite for polycyclic management is that sufficient small and medium-sized trees of commercial species are available to secure adequate

I yields in the second and third felling cycles. Hence, the diameter class

distribution of commercial stand was studied, using separate analyses for each

replication to illustrate differences within experimental area. Furthermore, size I~ class distributions were computed for individual commercial species. This

,. information was used to illustrate long-term fluctuations in species composition

and to propose diameter limits fortrees to be felled. f. I

I' ' 1.6 Damage in relation to felling intensity

The hypothesis that the incidence of each type of damage increases when more I ~' L, trees are being felled was tested by analysis of variance. Basal area is strongly

correlated with trunk volume and is therefore an excellent parameter to quantify LJ losses of timber. Test results forthe destroyed and undamaged categories show I ' I. significant differences between levels of exploitation. It can therefore be

concluded, as would be expected, that the incidence of the most severe form of \. I logging damage increases with felling intensity, and the basal area of the

undamaged stand decreases with heavier exploitation.

Large canopy openings and heavy vine invasion, occurring in over-logged

L_. forests, increase vulnerability to fire as this was dramatically demonstrated in

Indonesia during the recent past successive EI Nino dry events (Bertault, 1991,

10 ,..-. Laumonier and Legg, 1998). Reducing logging damage to both forest and soilis

likely to shorten the felling cycle length because it ensures better natural

regeneration and growth of the desired commercial species (Putz, 1994).

Minimizing the effect of logging damage to both forest and soilis, therefore

regarded as the main requirement for achieving sustainable forest management. I '

I '*

L ,

I~ I

I' I I \ ;

I. ,

I__,

L,

L_.

L_ 11 I ~ *

I ^ 11. RESEARCH METHODS i-. I

2.1 Location of Study Site I

I I Malinau concession where the study was conducted is situated in East

I~' Kalimantan (2'45' - 3'15'N, 1,6'30' E). The concession area with the size of

48,300 hectares, belongs to PT Inhutanill, a state forest enterprise. The study

I~~' site is situated in the forest area with the elevation between 100 in to 300 in I I

above sea level with undulating terrain of to - 70% slope. The annual rainfall of

the area is 3 790 mm with number of wet months more than nine months in one

year. .- ,

.-\, \, *,,.,. .- L, ,-. .~_<. AnnualWxh'I^ Plan ,. ... -..*. .-.. ..., , I- I, (RKr) e, . ,.. L. \,. ,,.';'.'./" \;.'.\,:,.. . .,, .\'* P. TINHurANi" SUB UNIT MALIl*AU I ' ..,"...'" .' .'*. East Kalirrerilan

t. I. ,..*'. .,,,,., .. ,' .*~ ""' .,-..*'-.* ',' " 'I '_.,.' .',,.,,' ,, I '^ -...... ,. .. o I I ./,-....*.I, .-,..-1:43 ....,., .,.,.,. .. --I'. .*.!) .-!

1< I -,. ...,.*.. . --,-71' ,' Rivers I * ,...- ,"-,'. s .~/" , I '* ',*.. ---'. .\ 4.1 contour lines , " . :J:. ..:\ ., I. J

.. ,},,-, .~ .., J = I I *--.:.!..,. .... _.., ... ~"""'~~" Via

,...... ,.~. ., . ' ' a ,,***\,,,~\ '*.*. t'*.'\ " I, '...',*'.' ' .t 't' I_. J airP .'-"*., c I ,, ...*..#*,":,**-' I. ', I ', -.' , I'*', ,, I',I. I.,-_.*,{.,.. ,__.*, 11. L, I I . I , . I . ...,.,~,.,--- ..-.. I .

L, Figure 2.1 The blocks where PSPs are located (arrow), block 28 and 29 for CNV Plots I , and block 27 for RIL plots (including control plots). .--,

12 I

.

I Two blocks, namely number 28 and 29 with sizes 96 ha and 80 ha, respectively,

in company's annual coupe (RKT) 1998/99 were selected as study site for

conventional logging while block 27 in the same annual coupe with size 137 ha

I was selected for reduced-impact logging (Figure 2.1). I

2.2 Description of Plots

,. ,

. Each plot is square (100 x 100 in), and contains one ha of land. Each plot is

I~. further subdivided into 25 numbered 20 by 20 in subplots (Figure 2.2). The plots

were aligned following a magnetic-north direction. The plot corners are clearly I' marked with posts set into mounds, and with short ditches running from the

~I corners along each side (about 2 in long and 40 cm deep). Additional posts are

LJ located every 20 in (horizontal) interval along each side. I' (- J A central stake and a series of marked posts run north, south, east and west

from the center. Using these measured posts as a reference 'hip-chain' threads L, are used to create the 20 by 20 in grid overthe plot(each thread carrier stars out I I ^._I on a compass bearing but is called to the correct post 25m ahead by an

individual who has a bright marker to wave). Where the threads cross further I__. posts are established. Each of these posts is sited within a short(30 cm section) I

*_ _. of painted PVC piping, and a metal-tag indicates the marker's number (each post

has a unique number). The south-west post's number is used to denote the

\-J number of the subplot. The control plots are surrounded by a 50 in area that is

also protected from harvesting activities and takes the form of a 200 by 200m

L, ,

13 ^.

square (4 ha) - the perimeter of this area is marked with strings and bright .

flagging (Shei1, , 998)

. .

I I

CIFOR - P. "n. n. nt S. in PI. Plot!Bulung. nj. Subplot and grid I. to I.

20n 20n 20n 20n am ,, , 32 ,, 34 ,s ,, I~~ . a C d . d . d e a

25 26 27 28 29 a a . b . b . b . b . b

25 , a. 27 a. a 30

e d . d C d e d C d

23 L ,9 20 21 22 a a . b . b . b . b . b

21 22 23 24 I~ ,. , 20 C d . a . d E d C d

13 ,4 ,5 ,6 ,7 a a . b . b . b . b . b

,^: I, , ,, ,, ,, 17 ,,

. d e d C d e d e d

7 8 9 ,O 11 a a . b . b . b . b . b

70 . . ,@ I, ,a

C d e a . a e d C d

" 2 3 4 5 a a . b . b . b . b . b

-. ,, a, ,, CD go Go

North Vo West ^ East South

L_^ Figure 2.2 Plot, sub plot and grid label(source: Shei1, 1998) I '

I. , 2.3 Regeneration plots L, Initial work on regeneration study was carried outin four permanent sample plots

I I I (PSPs) in conventional block and four others plots in the RIL block. This activity

was also reported to incorporate information aboutthe plots funded by MacArthur

L_ Foundation. A systematic sampling was implemented in the eight PSPs

established in both CNV and RIL block including in the plots that were not

harvested (undisturbed) as a control plots. Regeneration study was done in PSP

,~ which consists of 2 subplots of 100 in' (20 in x 5 in) in each I ha plot (Figure

14

, 2.3), translating into 10 % sampling intensity. The study was carried out in the

.^ logged area representing low, medium and high intensity plots.

loom

;' N I I

.

2 3 4 5

I_ ,

enter 100 in

L. -

6 7 8 9 10

^

- - .

F1 sin E:::^Isub lot ^I I ' ^,

I * Figure 2.3 Lay outforthe regeneration study of sapling in I ha of PSP L

. In each subplot, allthe saplings from 2 to 20 cm dbh were tagged and voucher

L, specimens were collected from those plots for identification in Herbarium

Bogoriense. I I L

15 L. Canopy openness was defined as the proportion of sky hemisphere not

obscured by vegetation when viewed from a single point. Canopy openness were

measured using a concave spherical densiometer in the middle of every sub

plots (5 x 20 in).

In each I ha plot of regeneration study, the data has been collected as follows: r . Initial density

I' . Total harvested trees and its estimated volume (logging intensity)

. Canopy opening before and after logging

. Logging damage criteria (injury, dead) of the initial density and basal area

. Trees have been removed I .

2.4 Periodic Annual Diameter Increment

Growih were measured based on periodic annual diameter increment(Pd). In this study, the data were used based on measurement from 1998 to 2004. Pd was calculated using following equation (1):

-.

oft+k-dt x365 I ' Pd ' k (, ) L_

Where Pd = observed periodic annual diameter increment(cm year' ) dt+k = diameter at end of growth period (cm) dt = diameter at beginning of growth period (cm) Lt k = Length of growth period (days)

L. 16 I , 2.5 Treatments

The experimental design was stratified according to stocking which was defined

as the density of the harvestable timber trees (dbh^: 50 cm). Seven different

treatments, each with 3 replicates and control were defined (Figure 2.4) as

followed:

. I~ Treatment I: conventional logging with low intensity (^ 5 trees/ha)

L . . Treatment 2: conventional logging with moderate intensity (6-9

trees/ha)

I, . Treatment 3: conventional logging with high intensity (^ to trees Iha) I'

. Treatment 4: RIL with low intensity (RIL's intensity refers to CNV r I_ , above)

!~\ . Treatment 5: RIL with moderate intensity

. Treatment 6: RIL with high intensity

. Treatment 7: control, no logging I'

L, __ The location of the plots was firstly selected randomly and treatment was

L. allocated to each of them according to the density of harvestable timber.

\-.

. 17 CNV RIL CONTROL

I Low intensity < 5 trees/ha Low intensity < 5 trees/11a Low (3 x I ha) 3 x I ha each 3 x I ha each

. , a Medium intensity 6 - 9 trees/11a Medium intensity 6 - 9 trees/ha 3 x I ha each 3 x I ha each Medium(3 x I) . High intensity >9 trees/11a a a Higli intensity >9 trees/ha 3 x I ha each 3 x I ha each Hi h 3xlha) a a

^

Figure 2.4. Lay out of Plots Design

2.6 Logging damage assessment L.

I ' Logging damage were assessed following three different but complementary I, approaches: I

I__ 2.6. I Damage on trees with dbh ^:20 cm

Alltrees recorded in the PSP prior to logging were checked and type of injuries

I, .. or causes of mortality recorded according to a code of classification (Table 2.1). Logging damage were assessed in terms of proportion of the original tree density

or basal area killed or injured by logging.

.,

18

L_ r'

, 2.6.2 Mapping of skid-trail and canopy opening

In the PSP, projection of canopy openings were mapped and classified according

to the following groups:

--. Code I : Close canopy, undisturbed

Code 2 : Close canopy with a skid-trail beneath (i. e understorey vegetation

destroyed) r' Code 3 : Interrupted canopy in a felling area (understorey vegetation still

present)

Code 4 :Interrupted canopy in a skid-trail area (understorey vegetation

destroyed) I ,

-, Code 5 : Open canopy in a felling area

L. Code 6 : Open canopy in a skid-trail area

^ Code 7 : Open canopy, natural gap

I I 2. 6.3 Canopy closure

In both permanent sample plot and along skid-trail, canopy closure was

I measured using a concave spherical densiometer. Measurements were made

~J to each the 36 grid points of the plots and along the skid-trails every 50 in. At

L, each point, four readings were made: one at north, south, east and west. This

study aimed to quantify canopy opening after logging and to check the validity

of the first rapid assessment of canopy opening based on the 7 codes cited

-, above.

19 Table 2.1 : Code of classification fortypes of injuries and causes of mortality

Code Description Observations

Smashed Trees (SM) SM, Smashed trees at height < 3 in Dead SM2 Smashed trees at height > 3 in Dead

I . SM3 Smashed trees at height > 3 in with stillfew branches

Crown Damage(CD) CD I Minor crown damage, only small branches broken Alive CD2 Medium crown damage, medium-size branches Alive broken

CD3 Alive ^^ Sever crown damage, at least half crown destroyed Leaning Trees (LT) LT, Leaning angle < 20' Alive , LT2 Leaning angle 20-45' Alive LT3 Leaning angle > 45' Alive or dead -. Bark and wood

I, (BW) BW I Minor, only small part of bark removed Alive BW2 Alive L, Medium, bark and sapwood affected BW3 Major, bark and sapwood affected on a large part of Alive or dead the bole

Uprooted Trees Dead , (un

.,

20

., ..

2.7 Data Processing and Analysis

All raw data from tally sheets have been inputted into Microsoft Excel spreadsheet while controlling/checking data is put into consideration. Those data were analyzed using both Excel and SPSS Program. Regression models and t- r tests were conducted for further analysis. Among the major outputs will be: (1) Periodic annual diameter increment (2) Forest structure and species richness (3) canopy opening analysis and (4) Logging damage assessment under RIL and CNV I~~'

L 2.8 Linear Regression The models to describe a correlation between periodic annual diameter

. increment and felling intensity as well as the correlation between percentage of

trees damage after logging and felling intensity would be made by using linear

regression as follows:

~I Yj= a. + 13'x + ej I_. Where:

Yj = percentage of trees damage (%) .! X = felling intensity(trees/ha) o 13 = true regression parameters e errorterm observation

I ^ Li 2.9 The main data sheet

This sheet contains the main tree data (species, diameter and details of the

measurement, crown position), standing dead wood (dead trees) and tree

, cavities. All stems with a diameter breast height at 1.3 in were recorded, this

includes palms, climbers, dead trees and any other form of stern that qualifies by

virtue of its diameter(see annex I).

I 21 .,

'*

1/1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Re-measurement Re-measurement of PSPs was conducted from April to June 2004. This was a third measurement conducted in the Plots. Some forestry students from various

I I university were involved as interns, those were from Faculty of Forestry of Gadjah Mada University, Bogor Agricultural University, Mulawarman University r~* (Samarinda) and University of Nusa Bangsa (Bogor).

The interns were trained on how to set up permanent sample plot in the field prior to do PSPs re-measurement. They also were trained in using compass, clinometer, diameter tape, densiometer and data collection related work. In order ^^ to have a precise location of the plots, coordinate points of the plots were also .. measured by using GPS (annex 4).

I' I ,. Until now, three measurements have been took place in the plots. First measurement was conducted in 1998 or before logging. Second one was in 2000

L_ I or two years after logging. The third one was just conducted this year. Following Table 3.1 and 3.2 show series of measurements including detail calculation of I I I. , time length (in days)from second measurement to the last one,

I I ^ Table 3.1 Schedule of Plot Measurement in CNV plots I_ , Plots CNV Second Measurement Third Measurement t3-t2 No First Measurement tl t2 t3 da s 6 and 8 November 5 and 7 November 1998 2000 5 May 2004 1274 2 22 and 25 October 1998 23 - 24 October 2000 30 April 2004 1284 3 12.4 November 1998 13 -, 4 November 2000 1297 ^ 24 May 2004 4 10n2 November1998 9 -to November 2000 06 May 2004 1273 5 26 and 28 October 1998 30 - 31 October 2000 14 May 2004 1291 21 October and 3 November .J 6 1998 I- 2 November 2000 6-7 May 2004 1282 6 November and 9 November 6 and 9 November 7 1998 2000 19 & 24 May 2004 1292 8 27 and 30 October 1998 28 & 30 October 2000 27 & 29 Ma 2004 1307

I ' 22

.. Continued 9 11 November 1998 11-November 2000 17 - 18 May 2004 1284 10 24 October 1998 27 - 28 October 2000 30 April 2004 1280 31 October I 11 28 October 1998 November 2000 15 May 2004 1291 12 9 November 1998 8 - 9 November 2000 15 and 17 Ma 2004 1285

F1

. Table 3.2 Schedule of Plot Measurement in RIL plots

Plots RIL Third Measurement I _ No First Measurement tl Second Measurement t2 t3 t3-t2 da s 9 and 11 March 1999 2 April 2001 10-, I May 2004 11/6 I'~ 2 10 March 99 2 April 2001 8 May 2004 1/13 3 14 March 1999 07 and 09 April2004 21 May 2004 1119 4 26 February 1999 28 and 31 March 2001 10 -11 May 2004 11/8 .. 5 19 and 24 March 1999 9-, 0 April 2001 21 May 2004 11/8 6 It and 13 May 1999 17 - 18 April 2001 13 May 2004 1102 7 11 and 13 May 1999 5 - 6 April 2001 08 May 2004 1109 8 14 and 18 May 1999 5 and 7 April 2001 22 May 2004 1/22 9 14 April 1999 16.7 April 2001 4 - 5 May 2004 1095 10 26 March and 5 May 1999 11 - 12 April 2001 13.4 May 2004 1109 11 3 May 1999 10 - 11 April2001 28 - 29 April 2004 1095 I ' 12 and 16 A ri12001 12 Ma 2004 1102 I_ , 12 5 A rill999

3.2 Forest structure and species richness

A total of 705 trees species were recorded from the permanent sample plots, of

which 67 (9.5%) were dipterocarp species (Table 3.3). Among the most

I. distributed Dipterocarpaceae included Dipterocaipus lowii, D. stellatus, Shorea

becoariana, S. brunescens, S. exelliptica, S. macroptera, S. maxwelliana, S.

multiftora, S. parvifolia, S. rubra and S. venu/OSa. I I I I,

t,

I 23 LJ Table 3.3 Number of Species and Genus within the family.

Famil Number species, Genus Dipterocarpaceae 67 Euphorbiaceae 57 Lauraceae 45 ,. Fagaceae 37 Anacardiaceae 24 Burseraceae 24 I' Clusiaceae 24 I ^ Fabaceae 24 Ebenaceae 23 Annonaceae 14 I _ Bombacaceae 14 Elaeocarpaceae 10 F1acourtiaceae 10 J Apocynaceae 7 Celastraceae 6 Lecythidaceae 6 Arecaceae 3 Crypteroniaceae 3 Dilleniaceae 3 \, ICacinaceae 3 Cornaceae 2 . 2 I Erythroxy!aceae I__ , Linaceae 2 Alangiaceae I ' Aquifoliaceae t- , Araucariaceae Convolvulaceae I I Gnetaceae Jun landaceae

Altogether, 29 families were represented in the RIL block and CNV block

I I (Machfudh at at 2001). The largest families, which each contained more than 10 I _^ species and were common to both the RIL and CNV blocks, were

L_. Dipterocarpaceae, Euphorbiaceae, MyItaceae, Lauraceae, Fagaceae, Myristicaceae, Sapotaceae, Clusiaceae, Fabaceae, Ariacardraceae, Ebenaceae,

.

24 I _ .

\ I '

I'

." * Moraceae and Burseraceae. Dinterocarpaceae is the most importantfamily in the

study area. I'~ '

Agathis borneensis is one of the most noticeable timber species in the study

area. It is the unique timber representative of the family Araucariaceae in the

lowland and hill mixed dipterocarp forest of Borneo. This tree has a very high r value on timber market and is therefore highly appreciated by loggers. The bole

shows generally no defectin shape and buttresses are absent. It showed that the

wastes during felling were very low. Hence, the blocks where this species was

present were selected.

6 ( .

I_ 5

,^. =4 e, = ^ a a, 3 I ' . CS ^ eC a e, 2 ea

\ ,

o 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 9099 > 100 .. 20-29 30-39 dbh classes (cm)

I

Figure 3.1: Basal areas of non dipterocarps (left bar), dipterocarps (middle bar) and Agathis borneensis (right bar) in the 7 plots of block 28/29 where this species was present before logging.

L,

25 L ~

I, I" It is worthwhile that Agathis spp has second large basal area after dipterocarps I , compare with non dipterocarps in dbh above 80 cm dbh (Figure 3.1). However,

I its natural regeneration does not appear enough on the forest floor. In mature populations and plots after logging, seedlings were never present (Provendier

2001). This demonstrate the irregularity of the regeneration process. More survey

on the phenology would be necessary to conclude, but the irregularity of I~~ seedlings occurrence under similar populations seems to prove the role of

I chance in the regeneration process. Knowledge on phenology would permit to plan the dates of logging operation like harvesting on Agathis fructification.

Agathis borneensis is considered to be one of the most importanttimber species, I' harvested by timber concession in the study area, firstly because it has a very high value on the timber market, hence is highly appreciated by loggers, and I, . secondly because it was the sole coniferous timber representative of the family {\ :

-, Araucariacea in the low land and hill mixed dipterocarp forest of Borneo. It was j I I not homogeneously distributed but rather occurred on tops or edges of ridges on \ welldrained soils.

\ ,

I I Trees with dbh of > 50 cm (commercially harvestable trees) constituted 46.2 % in I. the RIL block and 50.3% in the CNV block. Trees with dbh > 60 cm were

^^ dominated by species Dipterocarpus and Shorea but nori-dipterocarp species, such as Agathis borneensis and Koompassia malaccensis, are also abundant. L. ,^ Species of the Dipterocarpaceae family were dominant, contributing about 27%

-,

26 f'

of the total tree density and 40% of the basal area (BA). They also form the main

.. component of the canopy trees. The largest tree so far recorded was Shorea

venu/OSa with a dbh of 199.6 cm.

I' '

The main density and basal area of the four additional plots in CNV blocks (243.6 I' trees/ha, SD=41; 30.4 in'/ha, SD=4.9) were not distinct from those 12 plots (230

I~ trees/ha, SD=35.8 and 32.8m'/ha, SD=4.7) set up before logging (t=0.57, df=14,

P=0.58 for density, and t=0.87, df=14, P=0.40 for basal area). RIL (n=,,) and ,, I , CNV (n=12) plots showed similar trees densities and basal area (t=0.52, df=21

P=0.60 for density, and t=,. 39, P=0.18 as shown in Table 3.4). The mean density \- . and basal areas in each dbh class were similarin RIL and CNV. r '

L_, Table 3.4. Mean density and mean basal areas (+SD)in the RIL and CNV plots I'~ ' before logging (CNV=, 2 plots, RIL=, 2 plots) I, dbh (cm) 20-29 30-39 4049 50-59 260 All L_. RIL plots density (n/ha) 1243:t31.2 525*12.9 26.3t7. O 14.9*5.6 22.4*6.2 239.8t53.7 CNV Plots density ( I (n/ha) 123.1*270 550t9.2 26.2t5.6 15.7t4.9 24.6t5.5 2447t38. O Mean density RIL + CNV (n/ha) 128.6t24.7 54.3t9.6 272*:5.8 15.3t5.4 230t5.3 248.8t34. I RIL Plots basal area ,in21ha' 6.3*ID 50t0.9 44t0.9 3.3t, 4 10.5t2.5 29.6t3.8 I_ CNV Plots basal area ,in21ha) 57t, .2 5.2t0.8 4.1*09 36*,., I38*4.1 324*5.1 Mean Basal area in Iha 5.9*1.1 5.1t0.9 43t0.9 3.5t12 12.2t3.7 31.2t4.7 I,

L_,' 3.3 Periodic Annual Diameter Increment From the last of measurement (2004) the periodic annual diameter increment of . the stand for Dipterocarps in CNV plots was 0.50 cm year' (SD = 0,1693), while in non-Dipterocarps was 0.33 cm year' (SD = 0,0916). Within the plot's of RIL, \,

27 L_ .

I_ . diameter increment of Dipterocarps was 0.41 cm year' (SD = 0,0877), while

-\ non-Dipterocarps was lower amounted as 0.33 cm year~ (SD = 0,0803). It

shows that diameter increment for non-dipterocarps in both logging treatments

I~ ' was the same in average. In contrast, for dipterocarps was slightly different as

shown in the following tables: I' Table 3.5. The periodic annual diameter increment in the Plots of RIL Logging Intensity Plot's of RIL

\ Dipterocarps Non-Dipterocarps I~~ (cm yearn, (cm yearn, Low Intensity 0.35 0.24 I~' Medium Intensity 0.37 0.36 High Intensity 0.52 0.38

Tablt^ 3.6 The periodic annual diameter increment in the Plots of CNV Plots ofCNV

.. Logging Intensity Dipterocarps Non-Dipterocarps (cm yearn, (cm yearn,

I ' Low Intensity 0.62 0.33 Medium Intensity 0.47 0.39 High Intensity 0.42 0.28

^

Lr The tables above explain that periodic annual diameter increment for

~, Dipterocarps in CNV plots by using low and medium felling intensities is 0.62 and 0.47 cm year' respectively. Those increments were higher compare with RIL

- plotslots forthe samesame grouprou of of s speciesecies and and felling felling intensity intensity (0.35 (0.35 cm cm year~' year~ andand 0.370.37 cm yearn, . .^-

28

. - . r' The same situation also applied in the non-dipterocarps group. In contrast, in the RIL plots in which high felling intensity occurred, the increment shows higher compare with CNV (0.52 and 0.38 versus 0.42 and 0.28 cm year'). Logging had

I a stimulating effect on growth as a consequence of the canopy opening and ; I sudden light inflow the understorey. Those that took the most advantage of this I situation and reacted most vigorously were also those that suffered most before

I~'^ logging of the competition. This is consistent with initial study in which the

average of canopy openness vary from 4 % (low felling intensity) to 18% (high \ felling intensity). In other words, more felling intensity creates more gaps or more

open canopy.

Correlation between periodic annual diameter increment (y) and felling intensity (F1) expressed in the following regression equitation:

DiptRiL = 0,242 + 0,0850 F1 (R'=70.4%) Non-Dly>tRjL = 0,190 + 0,0683 F1 (R'=54.3%), ' I Dfy, toNv = 0,704 - 0,0985 F1 (R'. 27.4%) Non-DiptcNv = 0,370 - 0,0200 F1 (,,.,."' I' '

. . Where: Y = periodic annual diameter increment for Dipterocarps or Non-dipterocraps F1= Felling intensity

I I The equitation above show that in RIL plots there is positive correlation between periodic annual diameter increment and felling intensity both for dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps group (Pvaiue= 0,005 and Pvaiue=0,024 respectively). Meanwhile, correlation between increment and felling intensity in CNV plots both for -^ dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps could not be positively explained ( Preiue'0,186 and Prej, e=0,724 respectively). In other words, there is no positive I__

29

. ,..

I~' correlation between diamater increment and felling intensity in CNV plots for dipterocarps and non dipterocarps.

Initial measurement that was conducted in 2000 shows that periodic annual

. diameter increment rate for all species in CNV block two years after logging was 0.28 cm year" and 0.48 cm year' for dipterocarps (Priyadi at a1. 2003). Among I' I , the genera within dipterocarps the fastest increment rates were Pareshorea (0.59 cm year') and Shorea (0.51 cm year~), followed by Dipterocarpus (0.35 cm

^ year') and Vatica (0.35 cm year').

In RIL plots, the periodic annual diameter increment for all species after logging

. was 0.31 cm year". The highest growth rates were Fagaceae (0.57 cm year'),

Clusiaceae (0.48) and Dipterocarpaceae (0.35). .11 In Malaysia, under the SMS , a gross volume growth of 2.0-2.5 in ha' yr' for all species 30 cm dbh and larger is used (Shaharuddin 1997). In Berau another district in East Kalimantan, growth rate in unlogged forest was 0.22 cm year' for all species and 0.3 cm cm year~' for dipterocarps (Nguyen-The at all998). This I I L_ is similar to the rates found by Manokaran, Khocummen (1987), Yong Teng Koon (1990) in mixed dipterocarp lowland forest of Peninsular Malaysia, although Nicholson (1965) mentioned an overall growth rate of 0.48 cm year~ in the I , Sepilok Forest Reserve in Sabah. Growih in primary forest (e. g. unlogged forest)

I I:

.

L ' Selective Management System

30 , . I

is on the whole very low but also very variable with negative growth as well as

records of more than I cm reported.

3.4 Distribution of residual stand

Based on inventory of the regeneration plots after logging, sapling density calculated from the census of the 12 plots (5 x 100 in' each) was more than 4600

stern/ha on average. The distribution of these sterns per diameter class is shown in the Figure 3.2. The post-harvest distribution of trees by diameter class showed

I~I an "inverse-J" distribution typical of uneven-aged, mixed forests. The inverse-J distribution was reasonably well maintained in the post-harvest distributions on

the cutting blocks.

2000

1800

46 1600

1400 ^

^ -. 1200

. 1000

= 800 = = 600 t,

^ 400

200

o 2-3cm 34cm 4-5cm 5-6cm 6-7cm 7-8cm 8-9cm 9-, 0cm

L- Diameter classes

-, Figure 3.2 Distribution of the sapling by diameter classes (all plots, all species included)

31 . The most important families in terms of species composition were

Euphorbiaceae, Dipterocarpaceae, Mynaceae, and Lauraceae. There are 57

families and 453 genera found in the sapling stock for both RIL and CNV plots.

However, only 307 of genus consist of more than 10 species. Euphorbiaceae

dominates 21.5% of the genus, followed by Dipterocarpaceae 13.3%, Mynaceae ^ 10.4%, and Lauraceae 9.4%. Those fourfamilies were dominating 54.7% of total

.^ family in regeneration plots (Figure 3.3).

.

I~\ 70 I I 60

>. 50 E .^ ^^ C o 40 to @ co = = 30 @ L _ . 01

^ 20 o ,.

10 .

o I ' .$" rig' ^ -as' ^ .:$' ^ e9' .:g' ^ 66' ^:' ,, g, 63' J <5".,;;, 49'.,;;, ^:!1" ,9 ,,.0 CS ,.06'' ,,,6" <$>"0 ,,$1, -^"" &.c, .S" .,<:.'a f, ,.0

L Figure 3.3 Proportion of the main families and genus in the sapling stock

3.5 Logging damage assessment

^ Logging damage is directly correlated to the felling intensity applied. In this study,

felling intensities vary among treatments given. In CNV plots, the average intensity was 7.3 trees Iha (equivalent to 83 in'/ha or 10.5 in'/tree). Meanwhile in

L, .

32 L, ,

the RIL plots felling intensity was 6.8 trees/ha on average (equivalent to 60 in Iha or 9 in'/tree). The total basal area removed in CNV was significantly higher than

that of RIL with 5.4 in'/ha and 3.8 in/ha, respectively. Table 3.7 shows

--, percentage mean residual stands damage associated with felling intensity.

\ Table 3.7 Mean damage to residual stand (%) against felling intensity (trees/ha) r. PLOTS X (Felling I . ID CODE Y (Mean Damage) Intensity) SD CNV5 51.03 5 32.35 2 CNV7 ,3.64 5 5.99 22.89 5 I3.71 I_ 3 CNVIO 4 CNV6 32.27 6 I0.01

^^ 5 CNV13 2336 6 8.43 6 CNV14 2589 6 7.20 I. 7 CNV9 22.00 11 10.26 8 CNV15 40.19 11 14.69 9 CNV16 45.25 It 5.82 I. , 10 RIL, It .48 35 5.53 11 RIL2 14.72 3.5 836 12 RIL3 8.40 3.5 5.32 13 RIL5 2339 7 18.35 14 RIL6 20.85 7 10.46 I ' 15 RIL7 23.64 7 10.53 I_; 16 RIL9 16.24 to 10.37 17 RILIO 51.20 10 24.04 18 RILll 41.54 10 17.48

I-

I I The correlation model between felling intensity and percentage of trees damaged I. _ . in the plots both in RIL and CNV were analyzed by using SPSS 10. The

regression lines for RIL, CNV and both of them are shown in Figure 3.4. There

was a significant positive correlation between felling intensity and the proportion of tree damaged by RIL (R'=0,571, P=0,018), but not in CNV ( R'=0,086,

P=0.443 ). However, altogether regression line of CNV and RIL had a positive

33 ^ correlation between felling intensity and the proportion of tree damaged (R'=0,295, P=0.02) as shown in Figure 3.4c.

I 60

^ 50 I~ * 40

30

o * .. 20 , *

,O

o o 2 4 6 8 ,O ,2 I~ ' trees fe, .ed/ha (a)

60

50 I . * 40

-. o 30

* * Q

^ ^. * ,O

o o 2 4 6 8 ,O ,2 ..., trees felled/ha (b)

60

* 50 * o o 40

* 30

C. o o 20 * LJ * o *

,o *

. o o 2 4 6 8 10 ,2 trees felled/ha (c) ^^ Figure 3.4. Correlation between felling intensity and percentage of tree damaged in RIL and conventional: (a) between felling intensity and total trees damaged in RIL. Regression line for RIL = Y = -2,449 +3,797X (b) between felling intensity and total trees damaged in CNV. Regression line for CNV=Y= 21,152 +,. 306X (c) between felling intensity and total trees damaged in CNV and RIL. Y = 8,186 L, +2.672X

34 ^,

-. In CNV plots, with felling intensity was considered as low, damage created was

27 9", in the class diameter between 20-50 cm (n=212, SD= .^ 7.9) and total 31% r damage in all residual stands (n=262, SD= ^ 6.6). In the same time, 22% I damaged was created in the same diameter classes at medium felling intensity (n=141, SD = ^^3.7), and total damage was 27 % (n=210, SD= ^4). Meanwhile, r* when felling intensity was considered as high (, I trees/ha), trees damaged in I. diameter between 20-50 cm was 27% (n=172, SD= ^ 4.4), but total trees

L_! damaged was 33% (n=2.5, SD = ^ 5) as shown in Table 3.8.

J Table 3.8 Residual stands damaged in each diameter classes in CNV plots

Diameter CNV CNV CNV % CNV CNV CNV % CNV CNV CNV % classes cm 5 7 10 darna e 6 13 14 darna e 9 15 16 darna e 2030 87 14 38 17.7 29 23 19 11 30 38 21 14 30,140 31 10 14 7 15 14 16 7 14 23 12 8 J 401-50 13 2 3 2.3 15 3 7 4 10 16 8 5 501-60 13 o 6 24 4 3 3 2 6 5 9 3 60.1-70 o 3 05 5 2 3 2 4 8 2 2 2 4 L. I >70 4 o 4 3 5 3 Total damage 148 27 68 31 71 50 51 28 66 84 62 33 I_ ,

L, Meanwhile in RIL plots, with felling intensity was considered as low, residual damaged created in diameter class 20-50 cm was 10.5% (n=81, SD = ^: 3), and total damage for all diameter classes was 14.3% (n=262, SD= :t 2). In the other -, hand, with felling intensity considered as medium, residual damaged of 20-50cm

diameter classes was 20%( n= 163, SD = ^ 5.7), and 28% for all diameter J classes (n=268, SD= ^ 4.5). Meanwhile, with high felling intensity, RIL created

L_.

35 I~

. damage in diameter classes 20-50 cm which amounted to 29% (n=239,

SD=,:6.4), and for all diameter classes was 359, ', (n= 274, SD = ^ 6) as shown in

the following table:

^^ Table 3.9. Residual stands damaged in each diameter classes in RIL plots

Diameter RIL RIL RIL VC RIL RIL RIL % RIL RIL RIL 9''0 Classes cm 2 3 darna e 5 6 7 darna e 9 10 11 darna e

20-30 14 23 14 6 48 29 30 13 29 61 50 17

30,140 10 7 3 3 11 8 15 4 8 23 25 7

401-50 3 4 3 7 5 10 3 6 22 15 5

501-60 2 2 3 4 13 9 3 601-70 o o o 2 3 5 5 4 2 -~ >70 2 2 o o 2 3 2 4 5 Total

darna e 31 39 21 11 69 49 65 23 51 128 108 35

^

I _ I

Therefore, when residual stand damage both in RIL and CNV were summarized

it is clear that when logging was implemented by involving low and medium

~. intensity, RIL has significantly lower than those in CNV. However, when felling intensity considered as high, there was no significant different in both RIL and CNV (Table 3.10). Overall, the proportion of logging damage to residual stands resulted from the study in Malinau Research Forest were lower than any study

!._i which were done in several tropical countries (Table 3.11).

I Table 3.10. Residual stand damaged both in CNV and RIL according to class diameter in Malinau Research Forest, East Kalimantan.

Diameter class Residual stand darna e % RIL CNV

Low Medium Hi h Low Medium Hi h

20-50 cm dbh 10 20 29 27 22 27 >50 cm dbh 3 6 3.9 6 6

36

^ ^

Table 3.11 A review of logging damage studies in the tropical forests

Source Logging damage Remarks r Fox (1968) 68 -75% Lowland Dipterocarp Forest in Sabah 64% fortrees 30 - 50 cm diameter class Dipterocarp forest in Jengka

.^ Canonizad0 1978 Peninsular Mala sia Weidelt & Banaag 56.7% Highlead logging in the Philippines (1982) 45.5% Tractor skidding logging in the Philiines Liew&On 1986 48- 72% Mixed Di terocar forest in Sarawak I ~* Yong (1990) 40.75% fortrees 5-15 cm diameter class Gunung Tebu Forest Reserve, 41.75% fortrees 15-30 cm diameter class Peninsular Malaysia 49.12% fortrees 3060 cm diameter class Van der Hout(1999) 37.2%: Conventional:16 trees/ha Guyana I I 33.6% :RIL 46 trees/ha Gu aria Sist at at (2002) 9.5% Skidding damage under RIL Dipterocarp forest, East Kalimantan, 25% skidding damage under conventional Indonesia r-\ 10 in

Yong (1990) who conducted a stepwise regression analysis using various

predictor variables indicated that cutting intensity is significantly related to overall stand damage. The predicted variables include parameters before (e. g. precut basal area, cutting intensity, % basal area removed) and precut quadratic - J diameter and after felling (e. g. postcut quadratic diameter), in the derived I' ' I _, function, however is not suitable for prediction of residual stand damage using

static inventory data, such as pre-felling inventory.

I_

Logging damage could also be reduced by instituting pre-felling climber cutting. This activity is usually undertaken as a silvicultural treatment after harvesting

aimed at liberating and enhancing the growth of preferred crop trees. However, Azman at a1. (1999) showed in his study in Pahang that out of 3000 trees tagged for felling about 15% were infested with climbers that could potentially inflict serious damage to neighbouring trees. By cutting the climbers about 10 months

37

- . ,-. prior to felling, it was found that they have all decayed and did not inflict damage

to their neighbouring trees during the actual felling operation. -^

I ^

I~ * In the Eastern Amazon, Brazil(e. g. Holmes at at 2000) the RIL system reduced

the rate at which trees in the residual stand were fatalIy damaged. For every 100

trees felled on the CNV block, 38 trees (commercial or potentially commercial, I~ ' greater than 35 cm dbh and with good form) were fatalIy damaged, compared to only 17 trees in the RIL block. Also, damaged future crop trees in the residual stand were recovering at nearly twice the rate on the RIL block than on the CNV block. These results suggest that economic and ecological benefits provided by

the residual stand will be greater on the RIL block.

At Fazenda Cauaxi, Brasil(e. g. Holmes at at 2000) the initial harvest averaged I' 'I I. _: 25 in' (4 to 6 trees) per hectare from the harvesting blocks. Pre- and post-harvest inventories showed that RIL activities were effective in reducing the amount of

I wood wasted in the forest and on the log deck relative to the CNV operation.

, Wood wasted in the CNV operation represented about 24% of the initial harvest I ^ volume, compared to only 8% in the RIL operation. More careful bucking of logs using RIL techniques increased recovered volume by about 1.1 in per hectare

^^ relative to CNV techniques.

^^ In the RIL operations, better coordination between felling and skidding crews

increased recovered volume by about 0.9 in per hectare. More careful tree selection by RIL crews (in terms of size, species and defect) resulted in a

38 I~

(--. decrease of about 1.4 in' per hectare in the volume of logs that were harvested but never utilized by the mill. Logging causes damage to the residual stand of -: trees. By cutting vines, directionalIy felling trees and planning the layout of roads

,- .. and skid trails in RIL operations, damage to commercially valuable trees in the I residual stand can be greatly reduced.

On - going stand monitoring will yield relevant information about long-term, post i. logging stand dynamics. An important variable is the mortality rate which, for

^^ several years after logging, is expected to remain high before returning to the primary forest rates of I-2% per year (Wari Razali ,988). Although it is assumed ^.

. that injuries during logging are the main cause of this high post harvesting I~~ ' mortality rate (Nicholson 1965), only future monitoring will lead to understand I, logging injuries which result in mortality and the ways different logging intensities

. J affect regeneration, stand growrth and yield.

. .

In this study it was demonstrated that damage caused by felling is different from that caused by skidding. Felling primarily injured trees 30-50 cm in dbh where as I ' skidding caused substantial mortality of smalltrees, to-20 cm dbh. The main benefit of RIL was reduce skidding damage from 25% of the original stand in

L, CNV to only 9.5%. Skidding operations are the major causes of mortality, the low

I ' proportion of trees killed in RIL appear to result from improved skidding. In term of skidtraillength in the total harvesting area , according Chabbert and Priyadi (2001) CNV's skidtrail has almost 2 times length compare with RIL ones (, 7 301

in versus 9 090 in).

39 I__ In term of natural regeneration, some species may grow in the skidtrail. In East I~ Kalimantan, many primary forest species including Shorea Iaevis, Shorea

Ieprosu/a, Shorea parvifolia and Dryoba/anops aromatiba are growing on

skidtrails and logging roads. Shorea Ieprosu/a and Shorea parvifoliaoiten behave I'~ I . I like secondary forest species (personal coin. Kuswata Kanawinata).

I~ ~'

I 3.6 Canopy opening I~ I Before logging, mean canopy openness in CNV (three plots) and RIL (nine plots)

was 3.6% and 3.1% respectively. The distributions of the values according to I I I . canopy openness classes in CNV and RIL plots were similar (Table 3.12). After I' logging, the mean canopy openness was 19.2% in CNV (n=9 plots) and 13.3% in

~ I RIL (n=8 plots). There was a higher proportion of measurements in the 0-5% canopy openness class and a lower one in the last class (=30%) in RIL than in

I I CNV as shown in Figure 3.5. Canopy openness was significantly correlated with _I

I I felling intensity in RIL but not in CNV (Pearson's R = 0.84, P<0.01, df=7 for RIL, I, R = 0.33, P=0.38 df= 8 in CNV)

\..-- Table 3.12. Percenta e of each cano o enness class in RIL and CNV lots Canopy openness (%) O-<5% 5-<109'. 10-<209", 20-<30% >30% Before

I_, logging CNV 80.6 (87) 12 (13) 7.4 (8) RIL 81.8 (265) 14.5 (47) 3.7 (, 2)

I_ After Logging CNV 26.5 (86) 13.9 (45) 13.9 (45) 11.7 (38) 30.9 (110) 49.3 142 I2.2 35 14.6 42 8.3 24 I5.6 45 L, RIL

40 I '

I~~ '^ Table 3.12 also shows the number measurements in each class before and after

logging. Before logging, the measurements in conventional were done in 3 plots and 108 measurements, and 9 plots in RIL (324 measurements). After logging,

I~' the measurements in conventional were done in 9 logged plots (324

measurements), and 8 logged plots in RIL as amounted 288 measurements I'~ ' (before logging, x'=2.73, P=0.25;after logging x'=43.56, P<0,001).

I ~~' (a)

90 , -..

80 I ^ 70

60

50

40

30 '6 'Q 20

,o

o O- < 5 9'0 5-<, 070 ,0- < 20 VC 20-<30% > 30 VC Canopyopeness classes

! I (b)

60 I ' L, 50

40

.

30

. .8 20 ^e

, . 10

L_, o O- < 5 9'0 5-<, 0% 10-<20% 20. <30% >30% Canopyopenness classes

- Figure 3.5 Percentage of canopy openness measurements in each canopy class in CNV (blue bars) and RIL(orange bars): a) before logging b)after logging. I_,

41 " 'I

I 3.7 TPTl needs to be revised (An Analysis)

PT Inhutani, as one of concession company and many others company must follow regulation which is stipulated by Ministery of Forestry to follow TPTl

-. \ regulation. One of stipulation is about diameter cutting limit i. e. in production

I~ forest it is allowed to cut the trees above 50 cm dbh, while in limited production forest, minimum diameter limit must be 60 cm dbh. However, this kind of

,- regulation is debatable among foresters.

,-- I I I I Sist (2001) stated that application of minimum diameter limit (e. g. cut above 60 cm dbh) as practiced in many mixed dipterocarp forest in the Southeast Asia region is not sustainable, even when reduced - impact logging technique is implemented, !angely due to the high volume and number of trees harvested.

L

I I In Indonesian's forestry issue, currently criticisms on how effective TPTlin L. achieving sustainable forest management were being reviewed. Tree main

I I weakness ofTPTl systems as follows: L ,^ I. The basic assumption on tree diameter increment I cm per year for all ^- J species, all forest type and all forest condition is based-less. The data

from PSPs measurement showed that the tree diameter increment is

., varying according to tree species or tree species group and site. From the L_, plots observation in Malinau Research Forest, it shows that the average diameter increment for dipterocarps vary from 0.35 to 0.62 cm year and L. for non-dipterocarps was from 0.24 to 0.39 cm year ". In Berau forest, a

.

.-.-.

42 neighboring district of Malinau, dipterocarps reached on average 0.51 and the non-dipterocarps 0.34 cm year ' (Nguyen-The at a1. , 1998). It proves that assumptions regarding with increment in TPTlis over estimated. In

Suhendang (2003), he notes the same statement.

2. Given the factthe increments found on the ground is far under what TPTl

assumed, there fore cutting cycle of 35 years urgently need to be justified accordingly. It is clear that cutting cycle should be determined based on I I tree diameter increment.

3. Taking number I and 2 findings into account, therefore using yield

^-, regulation method based on standing stock volume, without observing

actual tree diameter or stand volume increment will lead to the wrong

conclusion.

- .

I_ _

L_.

^

L_

43

^- r'

IV. CONCLUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions

I ' The periodic annual diameter increment of stand of dipterocarps in the plots vary from 0.35 cm year ' to 0.62 cm year' both in RIL and CNV plots within different logging intensities. On the other hand, non-dipterocarps range from 0.24 cm I I year ' to 0.39 cm year". This figure differs to basic assumption of trees diameter r. ., increment under TPTlregulation which is I cm year

Indonesian Selective Cutting and Replanting System (TPTl), Tebang Pillh Tanam

Indonesia) is indeed need to be revised because some of assumption are riot r I I well accepted on the ground. Biophysical data from the field is needed for

F1 supporting those assumptions.

The study showed that the overall density of saplings were 4600 stems/ha, which

-, mainly composed of two families, Euphorbiaceae and Dipterocarpaceae. -\ Euphorbiaceae particularly dominated this stand. Pioneer species, such as Macaranga spp is one of the main species of family of Euphorbiaceae.

.^, Nevertheless, the proportion of dipterocarps remained stable. If the canopy

opening favoured the invasion of pioneer species, these conditions were

favourable to dipterocarps regeneration. L

In most classes, Euphorbiacea dominated sapling stock in class diameter 2-, O L cm dbh. Macaranga spp is one of main pioneer species which is almost exist in L

44 r'

family Euphorbiaceae. Meanwhile, dipterocarps is the main stand in class

diameter 10-20 cm dbh. Those are including Shorea spp, Vatica spp, -. Dipterocaipus spp, and Hopea spp. They have high value as commercial timber

-. species.

4.2 Recommendations

. I Attention must be paid to the possible changes in species composition after logging, primarily Agathis borneensis and most of Dipterocarpaceae family.

Moreover, the quality of the injured sterns will need further study. In any case,

damage reduction by RIL techniques will be a benefitin the long run.

The basic assumption of TPTl on tree diameter increment I cm per year for all species, all forest type and all forest condition is based-less. Observations of the I' L, annual diameter increment on the ground show the evidences. It proves that assumptions regarding with increment in TPTlis over estimated, therefore cutting .^ r~~\ cycle of 35 years urgently need to be further reviewed towards sustainable forest

management. r ,

If dipterocarps can regenerate well two years after logging to an almost

I. reconstituted stock level, systematic planting of seedling after logging operations may not prove necessary except in wide bare areas such as landings.

I_,

I ' Higher net benefits associated with RIL should induce the adoption of L environmentally sounder practices. Much of the financial benefit of RIL was due

I I to the impact of reduced waste. Unfortunately these costs are often not I.

45 ,-.

I

recognized as many CNV operators do not apply rigorous cost-accounting systems. However, the waste left during logging operation could be utilized for . people by using them for handicrafts, for instance. Therefore, study on the waste

. management is being conducted in the field.

I~' Other constraints to adoption include the lack of trained staff, the lack of L . enforcement of environmental legislation and financial disincentives to change F1

.- - Practices. Therefore, appropriate training should be given to all staff of company r and related forest authorities. CIFOR still concerns to continue in giving trainings I. in RIL and SFM (Sustainable Forest Management) to the project stakeholders in I.

I ^ the field. r I I I, PSPs should be continuously monitored and measured in order to have complete data to support research on biodiversity and biophysics. Therefore, donors

should be searched up.

Acknowledgements

I am most grateful to the interns from Faculty of Forestry of Gadjah Mada ' I

. University (UGM), Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Mulawarman University (UNMUL) and University Nusa Bangsa (UNB) who have assisted in doing data I~ ' LJ collection together in the field and data input; Messer. Anf Rahmanullah, Raina

Mulyana, Julita Budi and Fajar Arif.

Special thanks are deserved by Dr. Petrus Gunarso as MRF Coordinatorfor his

invaluable advice especially during my involvement in the ITTO Project.

46 ^ r~' Acknowledgment is also due to ITTO for financial supports that helped make this

study possible. I ^

I would like before pay tribute to these too often anonymous and obscure

workers, foremen and technicians who did their utmost during the years in a

difficult environment like tropical rain forest to allow us to issue these results.

I' \ ,^ Finally, my utmost appreciations are due to Mr. Kresno D Saritosa, Mr. Ahmad

, Zakaria, Sahar, Laing, Petrus Udin, Irang, Jalung, and Ita for their close

.. collaboration in the field.

I ,

References

Abdul Rahim, N (ed). 2002. A Model project for cost analysis to achieve Sustainable Forest Management. V01.11. Main Report. FRIM and ITTO. 288pp

I . I ^ Alder, D. , Synnott, T. J. 1992. Permanent Sample Plots techniques for mixed tropical forest. Tropical Forestry Papers n' 25. Oxford Forestry Institute, U. K. , I 24 p.

Azman, H. , Ismail, H. & Mohd. Ridza, A. 1999. Climber cutting before felling: an evaluation towards implementation. Paper presented to the 36 meeting of MAJURUS, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu. ,

Benault, J-G. , Sist, P. 1997. An experimental comparison of different harvesting intensities with reduced-impact and conventional logging in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management, 94: 209-218.

47

^ I~ Chabbert, J. , Priyadi, H. 2001 Exploitation a Faible Impact (EFl) dans une foret a I , Borneo Bois at Forets des Tropiques, n0 269:79-86

Contreras-HerinOSilla, Amold0. 1999. Towards sustainable forest management: an examination of the technical, economic and institutional feasibility of improved management of the global forest estate. Working Paper: FAO/FPIRS/01. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. 65p.

Dawkins, H. C. 1958. The management of tropical high forest with special reference to Uganda. Imperial Forestry Institute Paper N 34. University of Oxford. I' I. De Graff, N. R. 1986. A Silvicultural system for natural regeneration of tropical ,-\ rain forest in Sunname. Agricultural University Wageningen' The Netherlands. 249 pp.

1.1 Dwiprabowo, H. ,Grulois, S. ,Sist, P. , Kartawinata. K. 2002. Cost-benefit analysis of t. reduced-impact logging in lowland dipterocarps forest of Malinau, East Kalimantan. In: Technical Report Phase I 1997-2001. ITTO Project PD 12/97 Rev. ,(F). Forest, Science and Sustainability: The Bulungan Model Forest. CIFOR, Bogor. Indonesia. P39-55. Durst, P. B. ,'Enters, T. 2001. Illegal Logging and the Adoption of Reduced Impact Logging. Paper presented at the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance: East Asia Regional Ministerial Conference, 11n3 September I' ' 2001, Denpasar, Indonesia.

, Dykstra, D. , and Heinnch, R. 1996. FAO model code of forest harvesting, FAO, Rome. 85p. Dykstra, Dennis P. 2001. Reduced impactlogging: concepts and issues. Paper presented at the International Conference on Application of Reduced Impact Logging to Advance Sustainable Forest Management: Constraints, I_ Challenges and Opportunities, 26 February to I March 2001, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. Elias, Applegate, G. , Kanawinata, K. , Machfudh and Klassen, A. 2001. Pedoman Reduced-Impact Logging dilndonesia. CIFOR. Jakarta.

J Holmes, T. P. , Blate, G. M. , Zweede, J. C. , Pereira, R. Jr. , Barreto, P. , Boltz, F. , And Bauch. R. 2001. Financial Costs and Benefits of Reduced-Impact Logging in the Eastern Amazon. Tropical Forest Foundation.

Hout, van der, P. 1999. Reduced -impact logging in the tropical rain forest of Guyana. Tropenbos-Guyana series 6. 335p.

48 -.

I' Machfudh, Kanawinata, K. , Priyadi, H. , Sheil, D. , Sist, P. 2001. Field guide to the CIFOR's permanent sample plots: Conventional and RIL logging treatment. Bulungan Research Forest Field Guide Series No. I. Internal report (unpublished)

Manokaran N. , Kochummen, K. M. , 1987. Recruitment, growth and mortality of tree species in a lowland dipterocarp forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 3: 315-330.

-. Nguyen-The, N. , Rizal, F. 1998. Some aspects of natural regeneration. In: Benault, J. G and Kadir, K. Silvicultural Research in lowland mixed dipterocarp forest of east Kalimantan. The contribution of STREK project. Jakarta. Indonesia. p 217-226. I . Nguyen-The, N. ,V. Favrichon, P. Sist, L. Houde, J. G. Benault, N. Fauvet. 1998. Growth and mortality patterns before and after logging. In: Benault, J. G and Kadir, K. Silvicultura! Research in lowland mixed dipterocarp forest of east Kalimantan. The contribution of STREK project. Jakarta. Indonesia. p I81-216.

Nicholson, D. I. , 1965. A study of virgin forest near Sandakan, North Borneo. In: Symposium on humid tropics vegetation, Kuching. UNESCO, Paris, p. 67-87. -,

Oliver, C. D. , and Larson, B. C. 1990. Forest stand dynamics. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 467pp

11 Pinard, M. A. and Putz, F. E. , Tay, J. and SUIlivan, T. E. , 1995. Creating timber harvesting guidelines for a reduced-impact logging project in Malaysia. Journal of Forestry, 93 (10) : 41-45. ,

Pinard, M. A. and Putz, F. E. , 1996. Retaining forest biomass by reducing logging

^^ damage. Biotropica, 28(3): 278-295. Priyadi Han, Kuswata Kanawinata, PIinio Sist, Douglas Shei1. 2002. Monitoring

^, Permanent Sample Plots (PSPs) after conventional and Reduced -Impact Logging in the Bulungan Research Forest, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Shaharuddin bin Mohammad Ismail, Thai See Kiam, Yap Yee Hwai,

-, Othman bin Dens and Svend Korsgaard (Eds). Proceedings of The Malaysia-ITTO International workshop on growth and yield of managed tropical forest 25-29 June 2002, Pan Pacific Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia. p 226-235

49 .

^ Provendier, D. 2001. Occurrence, structure and impact of logging on regeneration of Agathis borneensis in a Mixed dipterocarp forest of East Borneo (Bulungan Distric). Master "Agro-silvo-pastoral systems management in tropical zones" University of Paris XII. Unpublished report. Sellato, B. 2001. Forests, Resources and people in Bulungan;-elements for a history of settlement, trade and social dynamics in Borneo, 1880-2000. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor. Indonesia. 183 p.

Shaharuddin, M. I. 1997. Technical requirements for the successful implementation of selective management system in Peninsular Malaysia. f'. Pp. ,5-28 in Wari Yusoff, W. A. , Abdul Rahman, A. R. , Yong, T. K. , Mohd. Nizum, M. N. & Kadri, S. (Eds. ) Proceedings of the workshop on Selective Management System and Enrichment Planting. Forestry Department Headquarter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. r'~\

Sheil, D. 1995. A critique of permanent plot methods and analysis with examples from Budongo Forest, Uganda. Forest Ecology and Management 77: 11- 34. Sheil, D. 1998. Notes on permanent sample plot methods used in Bulungan Unpublished Report. CIFOR. I' L, Sist, P. , No!an, T. , Bertault, J-G. , Dykstra, D. 1998. Harvesting intensity versus sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management, 108: 251-260. Sist, P. Dykstra, D. , Fimbel, R. 1998. Reduced-Impact logging guidelines for lowland and hill dipterocarp forests in Indonesia. CIFOR Occasional Paper I I n*, 5' I. ._.

Sist, P. 2001. Why RIL won't work by minimum-diamater cutting limit alone. ITFO , Tropical Forest Updated It(2):5.

~, Sist, P. , Sheil, D. , Kanawinata, K. and Priyadi, H. 2003. Reduced Impact Logging in Indonesian Borneo: some results confirming the needs for new SIIvicultural precriptions. Forest Ecology and Management 61 39: I-, 3

Smith, Joyetee, and Grahame Applegate. 2001. Could trade in forest carbon contribute to improved tropical forest management? Paper presented at the International Conference on Application of Reduced Impact Logging to Advance Sustainable Forest Management: Constraints, Challenges and L_ Opportunities, 26 February to I March 2001, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.

50

. .^

I' Suhendang, E. 2002. Growth and yield studies: The implication for the management of Indonesian Tropical Forest. In: Shaharuddin bin Mohammad Ismail, Thai See Kiam, Yap Yee Hwai, Othman bin Deris and Svend Korsgaard (Eds). Proceedings of The Malaysia-ITTO International workshop on growth and yield of managed tropical forest 25-29 June 2002, Pan Pacific Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia. p 205-216.

-. Suparma, Nana, Hanmawan, and Gusti Hardiansyah. 2001. Implementing reduced impact logging in the Alas Kusuma Group. Paper presented at the International Conference on Application of Reduced Impact Logging to Advance Sustainable Forest Management: Constraints, Challenges and I' Opportunities, 26 February to I March 2001, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.

-. Van Der Hout, P. 1999. Reduced-Impact logging in the tropical rain forest of , Guyana. Tropenbos. Guyana Series, 335 pages. Wari Razali M. , 1988. Modelling the mortality in mixed tropical forests of Peninsular Malaysia. In: Growth and yield in tropical moist forest, IUFRO, 20-24 June 1988. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I' I, Whitmore, T. C. 1984. Tropical Rain Forest of the Far East (2nd edition). Clarendon Press. Oxford.

Yong, T. C. 1990. Growth and yield of a mixed dipterocarp forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Fellowship report. ASEAN Institute of Forest Management, Kuala Lumpur. 460 p. \-,

I' I,

..

-,

.,

51 Annex I. An example of permanent sample plot sheet (RIL 6). Original sheets are in the excelformat.

CIFOR - Permanent Sample Plot Data sheet( Mamau Research Forest)

Plot :RIL61 1st measurement2 '1& 13 May 19'' 2nd measurement: 17 - 18 April 2001 3rd measurement: 13 May 2004 Team :Han Prtyadi, Bioma, LIPl. interns from Unmul, IPB, UGM, UNB3

Omj7 om2 om3 CTPle CTP2 CTP3 PLOT s I Tree# Name Famij Girth15 Girth2 Girth3 h16 h2 h3 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 RIL 6 Ia Machuca malaccensis (Clame) HJ. Lain Sapotaceae 737 743 755 1.3 1.3 1.3 RIL 6 Ia 2 Machuca malaccensis (Clame) H. J. Lain Sapotaceae 875 88.4 90.7 13 1.3 1.3 2 3 RIL 6 Ia 3 Pimeleodendron papaveroidesJ. J. S. Euphorbiaceae 73 73.8 73.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 2 5 RIL 6 Ib 4 Shorea macroptera Dyer Dipterocarpaceae 79.8 80.3 81.2 3 1.3 1.3 B B 5 5 5 RIL 6 Ib 5 Shorea exell^tica MeI^ Dipterocarpaceae 243 248.0 2565 1.3 1.3 1.3 4 4 3 RIL 6 Ib 6 retire maingayiDyer Dipterocarpaceae 150.1 150.8 152.7 3 2 RIL 6 IC 7 Gluta watchii(Hk. f) Ding HDu Anacardiaceae 115.9 117.4 120.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 2 RIL 6 IC 8 Syzygium gland^^ Wight. Myhareae 81.7 833 840 1.3 1.3 1.3 3 1.3 1.3 B B 4 4 5 RIL 6 IC 9 Sarin^a grinhii(Hk. f) Engi Burseraceae 179 180.7 182.0 RIL 6 IC 10 Knema latenbia Elmer Myristicaceae 635 63.5 64.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 RIL 6 IC 11 folica maingayiDyer Dipterocarpaceae 627 629 634 1.3 1.3 1.3 3 1.3 1.3 B B B 5 5 5 RIL 6 IC 12 Dinterocaipus stellatus Vesque Dipterocarpaceae 326 328.7 334.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 RiL 6 Id 13 Sanma Iaevigata a BUTSeraceae 62 637 647

2 2 5 RIL 6 29d 250 S Ium randis Wi ht M rtaceae 79.7 80.0 82.7 1.3 1.3 1.3

Name of the plot ' The day of the field observations being recorded (daylmonthlyear)then it refers to girth to be taken ' Names of other team members. These may be called upon to clarify or comment upon any discrepancies in the data ' The location of the stern observations being made on this row. The number comes from the south-west tag within the local 20 by 20 in grid square. ' The measured circumference of the stern recorded and rounded to the nearest tenth of a cm (i. e. min). Each measure must conform to the agreed conventions. ' The height or distance along the stem from the ground to the point of measurement. ' Code (point of measurement code) records the reason why a particular stem measurement may have been difficult either in terms of access to a suitable p. 0. in. or in determining where the p. 0. in should be. A porn. code is always needed when h is riot1.3m. Crown position is a simple 1-5 classification of a tree's crown position with respect to direct incident light

52

---- -.. \ .. \ r ,- - ,- - -~ r--~ \ ,.-- ~ .-- . -\ ^.^.^ .^J -, I ^^^-, L___ ^.-^ ^~-~ L___^ .-.--^ L_,_ -^^.. L_,_.._ L_._. ~___! .-----: L_,__, ^, .-.---, Annex 2. List of dipterocarps species identified in PSPs

No Species I AntsopteracostataKorth 2 AntsopteramegistocarpaSlooten 3 047terocarpaceae 4 04, foro0arpuscaudfferusMerr I I 5 047terocarpusconfortusSloot 6 DipterocarpuscornutusDyer I' 7 DinterocarpushumeratusSloot 8 Dfy, torocarpuslowiiHook. f 9 04:iterocarpussp. 10 047terocarpusstehatusVesque 11 DinterocarpustempehesSloot 12 Hopea sp. I 13 HopeabracteataBurck 14 HopeadryobalanoidesMiq 15 ParashoreasmythiesffWyatt-Smith exAshton 16 ShoreaagamffAshton I~~" 17 ShoreaamplexicaulisAshton I_ I 18 ShoreaatrinervosaSym 19 ShoreabeccarianaBurck. 20 ShoreabracteolataDyer 21 ShoreabrunnescensAshton 22 Shorea of singkawang(Miq. ) Miky 23 Shoreaexell^tica MeIer (, 24 Shoreait, foxMejer 25 ShoreafaquetiaHein, 26 ShoreafoxworthyiSym 27 ShoreagibbosaBrandis 28 Shoreahopeifolia(Helm) Sym 29 ShorealeprosulaMiq 30 ShoreamacropteraDyer 31 ShoreamaxweffanaKing 32 ShoreamuMftora(Burck. ) Sym 33 ShoreaochraceaSym \~ 34 Shoreaovalis(Korth. )81 35 Shoreaparvffol^boyer 36 Shoreaparvffolia Dyerssp. parvi^116 I, 37 Shoreaparvi^11aDyerssp. veintiha 38 ShoreapaucMoraKing 39 ShoreapinangaScheff: I 40 ShorearubraAshton

53 I~

.. ,

, '*

continued

41 Shorea seminis KOIth -. 42 Shorea sp. I 43 Shorea sp. 10 44 Shorea sp. 11 45 Shorea sp. 2 46 Shorea sp. 3 47 Shorea sp. 4 11 48 Shorea sp. 5 I . 49 Shorea sp. 6 50 Shorea sp. 7 I' 51 Shorea sp. 8 I 52 Shorea sp. 9 53 Shorea venulosa Wood. ex. Mearer

54 Vatica albiramis SIoot.

55 Vatica caulMora Ashton I_ , 56 Vatica cf granulata SIoot 57 Vanca maingayiDyer 58 Vatica microntha SIoot 59 Vatica oblongffolia Hook. f 60 Vanea rassak (Korth. ) 81. 61 Vatica sp. 2 I, 62 Vatica sp. 3 63 Vatica sp. 4 64 Vatica sp. 5

.J 65 Vatica sp. I 66 Vatica umbonta (Hook. f) Bunt 67 Vatica vinosa Ashton

I '

^

I ' I ^ .

^^

Li

L_.

54 Annex 3. List of all species identified in the PSPs of Malinau Research Forest

I S Actihodaphne borneensis Meissri Lauraceae 2 S Actinodaphne glabra Bl Lauraceae 3 S Actinodaphne 910merata (Bl. ) Nees Lauraceae i. .~ 4 S Adinandra borneensis Kob Theaceae I 5 S Adinandra coinna Kabuski Theaceae 6 S Adjnandra cordifol^a Ridley Theaceae 7 S Adjnandra dumosa Jack. Theaceae 8 S Adjnandra sarosanthera Miq Theaceae 9 G Adinandra sp. I Theaceae 10 S Agathis boneensis Warb Araucariaceae 11 S Aglaia of gainopetala Merr Menaceae I~~ ' 12 S Aglaia of pseudolansium Kosterm. Meliaceae 13 S Aglaia cordata Hiem Meliaceae 14 S Aglaia cordi^11a Merr. Meliaceae 15 S Aglaia ganggo Miq Meliaceae 16 S Aglaia grii7ithiiKurz. Meliaceae 17 S Aglaia harmsiana Park. Menaceae 18 S Alangiumjavanicum (81) Warig Alangiaceae 19 S AISeodaphne ceratoxylon Kosterm Lauraceae -: 20 S AISeodaphne curieata (81) Kosterm. Lauraceae 21 S AISeodaphne folcata (Bl. ) Boerl Lauraceae 22 S AISeodaphne havilandii(Gamble) Kosterm Lauraceae 23 S AISeodaphne iris@his Gamble Lauraceae 24 S AISeodaphnepaludosa Gamble Lauraceae 25 G AISeodaphne sp. I Lauraceae 26 S AIStonia angustiloba Miq Apocynaceae 27 S AIStoniapneumatophora Baker Apocynaceae 28 S AIStonia spathulata 81 Apocynaceae 29 S Amoofa lanceolata Hiem Meliaceae ^^ 30 S AnISOphyllea cornerjoing Hou Rhizophoraceae 31 S Antsoptera costata KOIth Dipterocarpaceae I~ * 32 S Antsoptera megistocarpa SIooten Dipterocarpaceae 33 S Aphanamixis of grandi^11a 81. Meliaceae I, 34 S Aphanamixis humile (Hassk. ) Kosterm. Menaceae 35 S Aporusa antsnnifera (Airy Shaw) Airy Shaw Euphorbiaceae 36 S Aporusa futonbra Hk. f Euphorbiaceae 37 S Aporusa lucida (Miq. ) Airy Shaw Euphorbiaceae 38 S Aporusa Iunata Kurz. Euphorbiaceae 39 S Aporusaprainiana Kihg ex Gage Euphorbiaceae 40 G Aporusa sp. I Euphorbiaceae 41 G Aporusa sp. 2 Euphorbiaceae L . 42 S Aquilaria malaccensis Laink Thymelaceae 43 S Archidendron cl^earla (Jack) Nielsen Fabaceae 44 S Archidendron fogifoffum (81. ex Miq. ) Nielsen Fabaceae 45 S Altocarpus antsophyllus Miq Moraceae .! 46 S Altocarpus dadah Miq Moraceae 47 S Altocarpus elasticus Reinw. ex Bl Moraceae 48 S Altocarpus integer(Thumb. ) MeIr Moraceae 49 S Altocaipus kernando Miq Moraceae L_, 50 S Altocaipus lanceifolius Roxb Moraceae 51 S Altocarpus odoratissima Blanco Moraceae 52 G Altocarpus sp. I Moraceae 53 G Altocamus sp. 2 Moraceae t-. 54 S Aturia excelsa (Jack) Koslerm Rosaceae 55 G Aturia sp. I Rosaceae 56 S Baccaurea of Macrophylla (M. A. ) M. A. Euphorbiaceae 57 S Baccaurea angulata Merr Euphorbiaceae 58 S Baccaurea bracteata M. A Euphorbiaceae

55

L_ Codes of identification. Level Sidentified to species, G:to genus, R to Family, X: Unknown ^. Continued 59 S Baccaurea deftexa M. A Euphorbiaceae 60 S Baccaurea edults Merr Euphorbiaceae 61 S Baccaureajavanica (81) M. A Euphorbiaceae 62 S Baccaurea kunstlerfiKihg ex Gage Euphorbiaceae 63 S Baccaurea minorHook. f Euphorbiaceae 64 S Baccaurea motleyana (M. A. ) M. A Euphorbiaceae 65 S Baccaurea parvMora (M. A. ) M. A Euphorbiaceae f~ 66 S Baccaureapendulla Merr. Euphorbuaceae 67 S Baccaurea puberula Merr Euphorbiaceae 68 S Baccaurea racemosa (Reinw. ) MuelArg Euphorbiaceae 69 G Baccaurea sp f Euphorbiaceae 70 G Baccaurea sp 4 Euphorbiaceae 71 G Baccaurea sp. 2 Euphorbiaceae I ^ 72 G Baccaurea sp. 3 Euphorbiaceae 73 G Baccaurea sp. 5 Euphorbiaceae 74 S Baccaurea sumatrana (Miq. ) M. A Euphorbiaceae 75 S Baringtoriia sarcostachys (81) Miq Lecylhidaceae 76 S Baringtoriia SCOrtechiniiKing Lecylhidaceae 77 G Baringtoriia sp 2 Lecylhidaceae 78 G Baringtoriia sp. I Lecylhidaceae I~ ' 79 S Barringtoriia macrostachya (Jack. ) Kurz. Lecylhidaceae 80 G Bellschmeidia sp. 2 Lauraceae 81 G Beltschmeidia sp. I Lauraceae 82 S Bellschmiedia bankae Kosterm Lauraceae 83 S Bellschmiedia glabra Kosterm. Lauraceae 84 S Bellschmiedia kunstleriGamble Lauraceae 85 S Betschmiedia madang (B1. ) 81. Lauraceae 86 S Bhesapaniculata Arm Celastraceae 87 S 81umeodendron elateriospermum J. J. Sin Euphorbiaceae I. , 88 S Brackenridgea palustris Barte" Ochnaceae 89 S Brownlowia peltata Benth Tiliaceae J\ 90 S BUGhanania arborescens (81) Bl Anacardiaceae 91 S Buchanania sessili^11a 81 Anacardiaceae 92 G BUGhanania sp. I Anacardiaceae 93 S Calophyllum bifforum Herid. & Wyatt-Smith Clusiaceae 94 S Calophyllum of soulatriBurm. f Clusiaceae 95 S Calophy"urn depresinervosum Hend. &Wyatt-Smith Clusiaceae 96 S Calophyllum lowiiHk. f Clusiaceae 97 S Calophyllumpulcherrimum Wa". explanch. at Triana Clusiaceae 98 G Calophy"urn sp. I Clusiaceae 99 G Calophyllum sp. 2 Clusiaceae Anacardiaceae -, too s Campnosperma auriculatum (Bl. ) Hk. f 101 S Cananurn caudatum long Burseraceae 102 S Cananurn denticulatum H. J. Lain. ssp. dent^bulatum Burseraceae 103 S Can anurn litorale Bl Burseraceae Burseraceae I_ , 104 S Cananurn liftorale Bl. f pubescens 105 G Cananurn sp. I Burseraceae Burseraceae I . 106 G Cananurn sp. 2 107 S Carollia brachyata (Lour. ) Merr Rhizophoraceae - 108 S Castanopsis hypophoenica (Vseem) Soepadmo Fagaceae 109 S Castanopsisjavanica (81) ADC Fagaceae 110 S Castsnopsis motleyana Kihg Fagaceae 111 S Castsnopsis ovfformis Soepadmo Fagaceae 1/2 S Fagaceae -J Castanopsis tungurut(Bl. ) ADC 1/3 S Geltis norecens (Miq. ) Planch Ulmaceae 114 S Celtis philj, pensis Blanco Ulmaceae 115 G Geltis sp. I Ulmaceae 116 S Cephalomappa beccariana BaM Euphorbiaceae 1/7 S Cephalomappa Iepidotula AiryShaw Euphorbiaceae 118 S Chinnanthus of pubicalyx (Ridl. ) Kiew Oleaceae 1/9 S Ohionanthus cuspidatus Bl. Oleaceae 120 S Chinnanthus ell^ticus 81 Oleaceae

, 56 Codes of identification. Level SIdentified to species, G:to genus, R to Family, X: Unknown L- ,-

,-. Continued 121 S Chibnanthus pub^^alyx (Ridl. ) Kiew Oleaceae 122 G Chibnanthus sp. I Oleaceae 123 G Chionanthus sp. 2 Oleaceae ,- 124 S Chisocheton beccarianus (00) Harms Meliaceae 125 S ChiSocheton divergens 81 Meliaceae 126 G Chisocheton sp. I Meliaceae 127 G Chisocheton sp. 2 Menaceae 128 S Ginnamomum mers Reinw Lauraceae 129 S Lauraceae I ^ Ginnamomumjavanicum Bl 130 G Cmnamomum sp. I Lauraceae 131 S 01eistanthus bakonensisAiryShaw Euphorbiaceae f~ 132 S 01eistanthus tofugineus M. A. Euphorbiaceae 133 S Cleistanthus mynanthus (Hassk. ) Kurz Euphorbiaceae 134 S 01e^stanthus sumatranus (Miq. ) M. A Euphorbiaceae 135 S Cocoseras borneensi$ M. A Euphorbiaceae I~ * 136 S Cratoxylon arborescens (Vah1. ) 81 Clusiaceae 137 S Cmtoxylum formosum (Jack) Dyer Clusiaceae I ^ 138 S Cratoxylum sumatranum (Jack) 81. Clusiaceae 139 S Croton Iaevi^11us Bl Euphorbiaceae ^. 140 S Cryptoronia cumingii(Planch. ) Engi Conteroniaceae 141 S Crypteronia gr"fithii Clarke Cryptoroniaceae 142 G Crypteronia sp. Cryptoroniaceae 143 S Cryptocarya crossinervia Miq Lauraceae 144 G Cryptocarya sp. I Lauraceae 145 S Cryptocarya tomentosa 81 Lauraceae 146 S Ctenolophon parvi^flus 011v Linaceae 147 G Cyathocalyx sp Annonaceae 148 S Dacryodes costata (Benn. ) H. J. Lain Burseraceae 149 S Dacryodes incurvata (Engl. ) H. J. Lain Burseraceae 150 S Dacryodes laxa (Benn. ) H. J. Lain Burseraceae 151 S Dacryodes rostrata H. J. Lain Burseraceae 152 S Dacryodes rubi^inOSa H. J. Lain Burseraceae 153 S Dacryodes rugosa H. J. Lain var. rugosa Burseraceae 154 G Dacryodes sp. I Burseraceae 155 G Dacryodes sp. 2 Burseraceae 156 G Dacryodes sp. 3 Burseraceae 157 G Dacryodes sp. 4 Burseraceae 158 G Daibergia sp Fabaceae 159 S Dehaasia brachybotrys (Merr. ) Kosteim Lauraceae 160 S Dehaasia firma Bl Lauraceae 161 S Dehaasia incrassata (Jack) Kosterm Lauraceae 162 S Dehaasiapolyneura (Miq. ) Kosterm Lauraceae 163 S Dialium indum L Fabaceae 164 S Dialium Iaurinum Baker Fabaceae 165 S Dialium maingayiBaker Fabaceae Fabaceae \- 166 S Dial^^in modesturn (V. Steenis) Stegaert 167 S Dialiumpatens Baker Fabaceae 168 S Dialium platycephalum Baker Fabaceae 169 G Dialium sp Fabaceae 170 S Dialium trffol^alum de Wit Fabaceae --. 171 S Dinenia excelsa (Jack) GIIg Dilleniaceae 172 S Dinenia grandi^11a Wall. ex. Hk. f Dilleniaceae 173 S Dinenia reticulata King Dilleniaceae 174 S Diospyros borneensis Hiem Ebenaceae 175 S Diospyros conlbrtiflora (Hiem. ) Bakh Ebenaceae 176 S Diospyros cuffaniopsis Bakh Ebenaceae 177 S Diospyros daiakensis Bakh Ebenaceae t- 178 S Diospyros elf^tidfolia Merr Ebenaceae 179 S Diospyros evena Bakh Ebenaceae 180 S Diospyros everethiMerr Ebenaceae 181 S Diospyros kunstleri Ebenaceae 182 S Diospyros revigata Bakh Ebenaceae L_.

57 Codes of identification. Level Sidentified to species, G: to genus, F to Family, X: Unknown \- - Continued 183 S Diospyros macrophylla a Ebenaceae 184 S Diospyros oblonga Wall. ex. Goon Ebenaceae 185 S Diospyros puncticulosa Bakh Ebenaceae 186 G Diospyros sp. I Ebenaceae 187 G Diospyros sp. 2 Ebenaceae 188 G Diospyros sp. I Ebenaceae 189 G Diospyros sp. 2 Ebenaceae I"~ 190 G Diospyros sp. 3 Ebenaceae 191 G Diospyros sp. 4 Ebenaceae 192 G Dinspyros sp. 5 Ebenaceae 193 G Diospyros sp. 6 Ebenaceae r-\ 194 G Diospyros sp. 7 Ebenaceae I 195 G Diospyrossp. 8 Ebenaceae 196 G DIDterocarus spf Dipterocarpaceae 197 S 04, torocarpus caudiforus Merr Dipterocarpaceae ,- 198 S Ontorocarpus confortus SIoot Dipterocarpaceae 199 S 047terocarpus cornutus Dyer Dipterocarpaceae \ 200 S Ontorocarpus humeratus SIoot Dipterocarpaceae 201 S Onterocarpus fowliHook. f Dipterocarpaceae 202 G Ontofocalpussp. Dipterocarpaceae 203 S DIDterocarpus stellatus Vesque Dipterocarpaceae 204 S 04, torocarpus tempehes SIoot Dipterocarpaceae 205 S Drymicarpus luridus (Hook. f) Ding Hou Anacardiaceae 206 S Drypetes k, kirAiryShaw Euphorbiaceae 207 S Drypetes longifolia (Bl. ) Pax. & Hoifm Euphobiaceae 208 G Drypetes sp. I Euphorbiaceae 209 S Duno carinatus Mast. Bombacaceae 210 S Duno dulcis BeCG. Bombacaceae 211 S Duno grandMorus (Mast. ) Kost. Bombacaceae , 212 S Duno kuteyensis (Hassk. ) BeCG Bombacaceae 213 S Duno lanceolatus Mast Bombacaceae 214 S DunomalaccensiS Mast. Bombacaceae 215 S Duno oxleyanus Griff Bombacaceae

^ 216 G Dunosp4 Bombacaceae 217 G Dunosp. I Bombacaceae Bombacaceae I~ I 218 G Duno sp. 2 219 G Duno sp. 3 Bombacaceae 220 S Duno testudinarum Becc. Bombacaceae 221 S Dyera costulata (Miq. ) Hk. f Apocynaceae 222 S Dyera eximia Val Apocynaceae 223 S Dysoxylum a"laceum (B1. ) 81. Menaceae 224 S Dysoxylum excelsum 81 Meliaceae 225 S Dysoxylum hexandrum Merr. Meliaceae 226 G Dysoxylum sp .4 Meliaceae 227 G Dysoxylum sp 5 Meliaceae I_ 228 G Dysoxylum sp. I Meliaceae 229 G Dysoxylum sp. 2 Meliaceae 230 G Dysoxylum sp. 3 Meliaceae 231 S Elaeocarpus cfpedunculatus Wall Elaeocarpaceae 232 S Elaeocarpus grimhii(Weight. ) A. Gray Elaeocarpaceae 233 S Elaeocarpus longfy)etiolatus Merr Elaeocarpaceae 234 S Elaeocarpus petiolatus (Jack) Wall Elaeocarpaceae 235 S Elaeocarpuspolystachys Wall Elaeocarpaceae I_ 236 G Elaeocarpus sp. I Elaeocarpaceae 237 G Elaeocarpus sp. 2 Elaeocarpaceae 238 G Elaeoca, pus sp. 3 Elaeocarpaceae 239 S Elaeocarpus stir?ularis 81 Elaeocarpaceae L 240 S Elaeocarpus valetoniHochr Elaeocarpaceae 241 S Elateriospermum tapos 81 Euphorbiaceae 242 S Endiandra conacea Merr Lauraceae 243 S Endiandra ochrecea Lauraceae 244 S Endiandra rubescens Miq Lauraceae

58 Codes of identification. Level SIdentified to species, G: to genus, F to Family, X: Unknown L_ Continued 245 G Endiandra sp. I Lauraceae 246 G Endiandra sp. 2 Lauraceae 247 S Engihardia serrata 81 Junglandaceae 248 S Erycibe impressa Hood Convolvulaceae 249 S Eiythroxylon curieatum (Miq. ) Kurz Erylhroxylaceae 250 G Eiythroxylon sp. I Erythroxylaceae 251 S EUgeissona utilts BeCG Arecaceae 252 S EUgenia fostigiata Miq Myrtaceae 253 G Fabaceae I Fabaceae 254 G Fabaceae 2 Fabaceae 255 S Fagraea fragrans Roxb. Loganiaceae 256 S Ficus glandulffera Wall Moraceae 257 S Ficus Iepicaipa Bl Moraceae 258 G Ficus sp. I Moraceae 259 S Garcinia bancana Miq Clusiaceae I~' 260 S Garcinia of penangiana Pierre Clusiaceae 261 S Garcinia dioica Bl. Clusiaceae 262 S Garcinia gaudichaudiiBl Clusiaceae 263 S Garcinia macrophylla Miq. Clusiaceae 264 S Garcinia maingayiHook. f Clusiaceae 265 S Garcinb nervosa Miq Clusiaceae 266 S Garninia palvi^Iia Miq. Clusiaceae 267 S Garcinia rostrata T. ex. B Clusiaceae 268 G Garcinia sp. f Clusiaceae 269 G Garcinia sp. 2 Clusiaceae 270 S Gardenia antsophylla Rubiaceae 271 S Gardenia tubifora Wall Rubiaceae 272 S Gir'ontora hirta Radlk. Ulmaceae 273 S Gifroniera nervosa Planch Ulmaceae

^^ 274 S Gifroniera subaequaffs Planch Ulmaceae 275 S Glochidion borneense (M. A. ) Boerl Euphorbiaceae 276 S Glochidion macrocarpum 81 Euphorbiaceae 277 G Glochidion sp. I Euphorbiaceae 278 S Gluta wallchii(Hk. f) DJhg HDu Anacardiaceae 279 S Gnetum cusp^^aturn a Gnetaceae 280 S Gomphia serrata (Gaertn. ) Kanis Ochnaceae 281 S Gonocaryum impressinervium SIeum ICadnaceae 282 G Gonocaryum sp. ICacinaceae 283 S Gonys^Jus brunnescensAiryShaw Thymelaeaceae 284 S Gonystylus 10thesii GIIg Thymelaeaceae 285 S Gonys^Jus kerihiiAiry Shaw Thymelaeaceae 286 S Guma d^lopetala (Hassk. ) Radlk Rutaceae 287 S Gymnacranthera contracta Warb Myristicaceae 288 S Gymnacranthera forbeSII(King) Warn Myristicaceae 289 S Gymnacrantherapaniculata Warb Myristicaceae L 290 S Harmandia mekongensis Pierre ex Bai" 01acaceae 291 S Hencia pescotomentosa Sueneus Proteaceae 292 S Hellcia petiolaris Benn Proteaceae 293 S Honda serrata (R. Br. ) Bl. Proteaceae 294 G Hellcia sp. f Proteaceae 295 S Heritiera borneensis (MeIT. ) Kosterm Sterculiaceae 296 S Heritierajavanica (Bl. ) Kosterm Sterculiaceae 297 S Heritiera SImplicifolia (Mast. ) Kosterm SIerculiaceae L 298 G Heritiera sp. I Sterculiaceae 299 G Hopea sp. I Dipterocarpaceae 300 S Hopea bracteata Burck Dipterocarpaceae 301 S Hopea dryobalanoides Miq Dipterocarpaceae 302 S Horsfieldia crossffolia (Hk. f. at Th. ) Warb Myristicaceae 303 S Horsfieldia glabra (81) Warb Myristicaceae 304 S Horsfieldia polyspherula (Hk. f at King) SiCnl. Myristicaceae 305 G Horsfieldia sp. I Myristicaceae 306 G Horsfieldia sp. 2 Myristicaceae

59 L Codes of identification. Level SIdentified to species, G:to genus, R to Family, X: Unknown Continued I ' 307 G Horsfieldra sp. 3 Myristicaceae 308 G Horsfieldia sp. 4 Myristicaceae 309 S Hydnocarpus anQinala (Merr. ) SIeumer F1acourtiaceae 310 S Hydnocarpus ginciffs (SIoot. ) SIeum F1acourtiaceae 311 S Hydnocaipus kunstlen^King) Warn F1acourtiaceae 312 G Hydnocarpus sp. I F1acourtiaceae 313 G Hydnocarpus sp. 2 F1acourtiaceae r 314 G Hydnocaipus sp. 3 F1acourtiaceae 315 G Hydnocamussp. 4 F1acourtiaceae I I 316 S Hydnocarpus woodiiMerr F1acourtiaceae 317 G Ilex sp. Aquifoliaceae 318 S fryingia malayana 011v. ex Benn Simarubaceae 319 S ironanthes petiolaris Bl Linaceae 320 S Jackia Qinata Wall Rubiaceae 321 S Kibatalia arborea (Bl. ) G. Don Apocynaceae 322 S rolema cinerea (Poit') Warn. var. cinerea Myristicaceae 323 S foiema cinerea (Poir. ) Warb var. cordata (J. Sincl. ) J. Sincl Myristicaceae L . 324 S Knema cinerea (Poir. ) Warb. varsumatr'aria (Miq. ) J. Sincl Myisticaceae 325 S Knema contorta (King) Warb Myristicaceae 326 S Knema filthiracea (Hk. F. ex Th. ) Warb Myristicaceae 327 S Knema glauca (Bl. ) Warb Myristicaceae I I 328 S Knema interniedia (81) Warb. Myristicaceae 329 S foiema laterICia Elmer. Myristicaceae r. 330 S foiema Iati^Iia Warb. Myristicaceae I ^ 331 S rolema Iaurina (Bl. ) Warb Myristicaceae , 332 S foiema luriduensis (Warb. ) de Wilde Myristicaceae 333 G Knema sp 7 Myristicaceae 334 G Knema sp. 2 Myristicaceae 335 G Knemasp. 3 Myristicaceae

-, 336 G Knema sp. 4 Myristicaceae 337 G Knema sp. 5 Myristicaceae 338 S Knema tomentosa Warb Myristicaceae 339 S Kokoona littoralis Laws. Celastraceae Celastraceae . 340 S Kokoona ohracea (Elm. ) Merr 341 S Koompasia of excelsa (BeCG. ) Taubert. Fabaceae 342 S Koompasia malaccensis Maing. exBenth Fabaceae I~ I 343 S Koordersiodendron pinnatum (Blanco) Merr Anacardiaceae I. 344 S Licania splendens (KOIth. ) Prance Rosaceae 345 S Lithocarpus berinetii(Miq. ) Rehd Fagaceae 346 S Lithocarpus binmeanus (KOIth. ) Rehd Fagaceae 347 S Lithocarpus cantleyanus (long ex Hk. f) Rehd Fagaceae 348 S Fagaceae ^, Lithocarpus conocarpus (Oudem. ) Rehd 349 S Lithocarpus ewyckiiKorth. ) Rehd Fagaceae 350 S Lithocarpus gracilis (KOIth. ) Soepadmo Fagaceae r I I 351 S Lithocarpus lucidus (Roxb. ) Rehd Fagaceae L 352 S Lithocarpus ribuwenhuisii(Vseem) ACamus Fagaceae 353 S LithocarpuspseudokunstleriA. Camus Fagaceae 354 S Lithocarpus pulcher(King. ) Markgr Fagaceae I 355 S Lithocarpus sencobalanus E. F. Warb Fagaceae

: 356 G Lithocarpus sp Fagaceae 357 G Lithocarpus sp. I Fagaceae 358 G Lithocarpus sp. 2 Fagaceae 359 G Lithocarpus sp. 8 Fagaceae L 360 G Lithocarpus sp. 3 Fagaceae 361 G Lithocarpus sp. 4 Fagaceae 362 G Lithocarpus sp. 5 Fagaceae 363 G Lithocarpus sp. 6 Fagaceae 364 G Lithocarpus sp. 7 Fagaceae L~ 365 S Lithocarpus sundaicus (81) Rehd Fagaceae 366 S Lithocarpus urceolaris (Jack. ) Merr Fagaceae I

60 Codes of identification. Level SIdentified to species, G:to genus, F to Family, X: Unknown I_, I~ '

,- . Continued 367 S LIThocarpus wallchianus (Lind. ex Hance) Rehd Fagaceae 368 S Litsea angulata 81 Lauraceae 369 S Litsea castanea Hook. f Lauraceae 370 S Litsea elliptica Bl Lauraceae r' 371 S Litsea firma (81) Hook. f Lauraceae 372 S Litsea forstenii(81. ) Boerl Lauraceae 373 S Litsea grandis (Wall. ex Nees) Hook. f Lauraceae . 374 S Litsea machilffolia Gamble Lauraceae 375 S Litsea mappacea (Bl. ) Boerl Lauraceae 376 S Litsea nidularis Gamble Lauraceae 377 S Litsea noronhae Bl Lauraceae ^- 378 G Litsea sp. I Lauraceae 379 G Litsea sp. 2 Lauraceae 380 S Lophopetalum beCGarianum Pierre Celastraceae 381 S Lophopetalum sp. I Celastraceae 382 S Lophopetalum subobovatum King Celastraceae 383 S Macaranga conff'era (Zori. ) M. A. Euphorbiaceae 384 S Macaranga gigantea (Reichb. F. & Zoll. ) M. A Euphorbiaceae 385 S Macaranga hoseiKing exHook. f Euphorbiaceae 386 S Macaranga hypoleuca (Reichb. f& Zoll. ) M. A Euphorbiaceae 387 S Macarangapruinosa (Miq. ) M. A Euphorbiaceae

. 388 G Macaranga sp. I Euphorbiaceae 389 G Macaranga sp. 2 Euphorbiaceae

. 390 S Macaranga triloba (Bl. ) Much. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 391 S Madhuca beCGarii(Engi. ) H. J. Lain Sapotaceae _I 392 S Madhucabomeensts vanRoyen Sapotaceae 393 S Madhuca of rupicola H. J. Lain Sapotaceae 394 S Machuca eiythrophyffa (K. ex G. ) H. J. Lain Sapotaceae 395 S Madhuca kingiana (Clarke) H. J. Lain Sapotaceae 396 S Madhuca koithalsii^Pierre) H. J. Lain Sapotaceae 397 S Madhuca in agrihica H. J. Lain Sapotaceae 398 S Madhuca malaccensis (Clarke) H. J. Lain Sapotaceae F1 399 S Machucapalembanica (Miq. ) PC. Yii& PChai Sapotaceae . 400 G Madhuca sp. f Sapotaceae 401 G Madhuca sp. 2 Sapotaceae 402 S Magnolia gigantffolia (Miq. ) Noot Magnoliaceae 403 S Mallotus echinatus M. A Euphorbiaceae 404 S Euphorbiaceae . Mallotus tiffofius (81) Muell. Arg 405 S Mangffera biommertenii Kosterm Anacardiaceae 406 S Mangffera inagriMca Kochumen Anacardiaceae I 407 S Mangffera quadrifida Jack Anacardiaceae 408 G Mangffera sp. I Anacardiaceae 409 G Mangffera sp. 2 Anacardiaceae 410 S Mangffera swintonioides Kosterm Anacardiaceae 4/1 S Mastixia rostrata Bl Cornaceae I ' Mastixia trichotoma Bl Cornaceae L, 4/2 S 4/3 S Malanochyla auriculata Hook. f Anacardiaceae 4/4 S Mehnochyla beccariana 011V Anacardiaceae 4/5 S Mehnochyla elmeriMerr Anacardiaceae 4/6 S Mehnochyla fillvinervis (81) Ding Hou Anacardiaceae 4/7 S Mallbsma nitida Bl Sabiaceae 4/8 S Memecylon edule Roxb Melastomataceae 4/9 S Memecylon myrsinoides 81 Melastomataceae 420 S Memecylon obifolium Bl Melastomataceae 421 G Memecylonsp Melastomataceae 422 S Mesua congestiflora P. F. Stovens Clusiaceae 423 S Mesua comata P. F. Stevens Clusiaceae 424 S MOSua macrontha (Bailay Kosterm Clusiaceae L, 425 S Mezzetia parvifolia Becc Anonaceae 426 S Microcos cmnamomifolia Burr Tiliaceae 427 S Mouftonianthus leembruggianus (Boerl. & Koord. ) Steenis Euphorbiaceae

L^

61 Codes of identification. Level SIdentified to species, G: to genus, R to Family, X: Unknown L~ I~

Continued 428 S Myfistica beccarii Warb Myristicaceae 429 S Myfistica crossa King Myristicaceae 430 S Myfistica ellfy, tica Wall. ex Hk. f. at Th Myristicaceae 431 S Myfistica mers 81 Myristicaceae 432 S Myfistica malaccensis Hk. f Myristicaceae 433 S Myfistica maxima Warb Myristicaceae 434 G Mylistica sp. I Myristicaceae 435 G Myfistica sp. 2 Myristicaceae 436 G Myfistica sp. 3 Myristicaceae 437 G Myfistica sp. 4 Myristicaceae 438 G Mylistica sp. 6 Myristicaceae ^ 439 G Myfistiba sp. 7 Myristicaceae 440 S Myfistica villosa Warb Myristicaceae 441 S Naucleapu, purescens KOIth Rubiaceae 442 G Nauclea sp. I Rubiaceae -. 443 S Nauclea subdita (KOIth. ) Merr. Rubiaceae 444 S Neesia altissima (B1. ) 81. Bombacaceae 445 S Noesia syriandra Mast Bombacaceae 446 S Neontsea Gassiaefolia (Bl. ) Merr Lauraceae 447 S Neonauclea calycina (Bait. ) Merr. Rubiaceae 448 S Neonauclea excelsa (Bl. ) Merr. Rubiaceae 449 S Nephelim cuspidatum 81. Sapindaceae 450 S Nephelium eriopetalum Miq. Sapindaceae 451 S Nephelium lappaceum L. Sapindaceae 452 S Nephelium maingayiHiem Sapindaceae 453 G Nephelium sp. I Sapindaceae 454 S Nephelium uricinatum Leenh Sapindaceae 01acaceae -, 455 S Ochanostachys amentacea Mast 456 S Oncospeima horndum Sheff; Arecaceae 457 S OStodesmacrophylla B. exH Euphorbiaceae 458 S Palaquium calophyllum (T. & B. ) Pierre Sapotaceae 459 S Palaquium chiysophyllum Pierre Sapotaceae 460 S Palaquium cochlearifolium van Royen Sapotaceae 461 S Painquium dasyphyllum (de Vr. ) Pierre ex Dub Sapotaceae 462 S Palaquium eriocalyx H. J. Lain Sapotaceae 463 S Palaquium forox H. J. Lain Sapotaceae I~ ' 464 S Painquium gutta (Hook. f) BaM Sapotaceae . 465 S Palaquium ferncarpum Boerl Sapotaceae 466 S Palaquium obtusifolium Bunt Sapotaceae 467 S Palaquium ottolanderiK. ex V Sapotaceae 468 S Patsquium quercifolium (De Vr. ) Burck Sapotaceae 469 S Painquium rostratum (Miq. )Burck Sapotaceae . 470 G Palaquium sp. I Sapotaceae 471 S Palaquium sumatranum Burck Sapotaceae 472 S Pareshorea sinythiesiiWyatt-Smith ex Ashton Dipterocarpaceae Rosaceae L_. 473 S Paresternon urophyllus (ADC. ) ADC 474 S Paretocarpus forbesiiKing Moraceae 475 S Paretocarpus venenosus (Zoll. & Mor. ) BeCG Moraceae 476 S Pannarioblongifolia Hk. f Rosaceae 477 G Parinan^p Rosaceae 478 S ParishIa maingayiHook. f Anacardiaceae 479 S Parkia speciosa Hassk Fabaceae 480 S Payena acuminata (Bl. ) Pierre Sapotaceae 481 S Payena endertiiH. J. Lain Sapotaceae 482 S Pullacalyx axillaris Korth. Rhizophoraceae 483 S Pentace borneensis Pierre Tiliaceae 484 S Pontace discolorMerr. Tiliaceae 485 S Pentace erectinervia Kosterm Tiliaceae 486 S Pentace laxiflora Merr Tiliaceae 487 S Phoebe Iaevis Kosterm Lauraceae 488 G Pholydocarpus sp Arecaceae 489 S Pimeleodendron papaveroides J. J. S Euphorbiaceae

.--

62 Codes of identification. Level SIdentified to species, G:to genus, F to Family, X: Unknown L_ -. Continued 490 S Planchonia val^da (81) 81 Lecythidaceae 491 S Piectronia conforta (KOIth. ) Va" Rubiaceae 492 S Piectronia didyina Gaertn Rubiaceae 493 G PIectronia sp Rubiaceae 494 S Podocarpus neri^fullus Doon Podocarpaceae 495 S Polyalthia glauca (Hassk. ) Boerl Annonaceae 496 S Polyalth^ latentora (81) King Annonaceae 497 S Polyalthia rumpfii(Bl. ex Hensch. ) Merr Annonaceae 498 S Polyafthia SGIerophylla Hook. f & Th Annonaceae 499 G Polyalthia sp. I Annonaceae 500 G Polyafthia sp. 2 Annonaceae . 501 S Polyalthia sumatrana Kihg Anonaceae 502 S Polyosma intogri^Iia Bl Saxifragaceae 503 S Pometia pinnata Forst Sapindaceae 504 S Popowiapisocarpa (81) End Annonaceae 505 S Pouteria malaccensis (Clarke) Baehni Sapotaceae 506 S Prairiea limpato (Miq. ) BeumexHeyne Moraceae 507 S Prunus arborea (81) Kalkm. Rosaceae 508 G Prunus sp. Rosaceae 509 S Prunus spicata Kalkm Rosaceae 510 S Ptemandra caerulescens Jack Melastomataceae 511 S Ptemandra galeata Cogn. Melastomataceae 512 S Ptemandra rostrata (Cogn) Ohwi Melastomataceae ^ 513 S Pterocarpidia polyneura (Mity. ) Brem Rubiaceae 514 S Pterocymbium tubulatum (Mast. ) Pierre Sterculiaceae 515 S Ptychopyxys baccfformis CFOiz Euphorbiaceae 516 S Quercus gemelliilora 81 Fagaceae -. 517 G Quercus sp 7 Fagaceae 518 G Quercus sp. I Fagaceae 519 G Quercus sp. 2 Fagaceae 520 G Quercus sp. 3 Fagaceae 521 G Quercus sp. 4 Fagaceae 522 G Quercus sp. 5 Fagaceae 523 G Quercus sp. 6 Fagaceae 524 S Quercussubsericea ACamus Fagaceae 525 S Rhodamnia cinereaJack Myrtaceae 526 S Rinorea bengalensis (Wall. ) OK Violaceae 527 G Rubiaceae I Rubiaceae 528 G Rubiaceae 2 Rubiaceae 529 S Ryparosa acuminata Merr F1acourtiaceae 530 S Ryparosa hullettiiKing F1acourtiaceae 531 S Sageraea e"47tica (DC. ) Hk. f & Th Ebenaceae 532 S Sandoiicum emarginatum Hiem Meliaceae 533 S Santiria apiculata Benn Burseraceae 534 S Santiria grimhii(Hook. f) Engi Burseraceae Burseraceae -. 535 S Saritiria Iaevigata Bl 536 S Sarinria Iaevigata Bit Iaevigata Burseraceae 537 S Saritiria oblongifo"a Bl Burseraceae 538 G Saritiria sp. I Burseraceae 539 G Saritirta sp. 2 Burseraceae 540 S Saritiria tomentosa Bl BUTSeraceae 541 F Sapotaceae Sapotaceae 542 S Saraca hulletiiPrain Fabaceae 543 S Sarcotheca diversifolia (Miq. ) Ha". f Oxalidaceae 544 S Scaphium macropodum (Miq. ) Beumee ex Heyne Sterculiaceae 545 S Seinecarpus forsteniiBl Anacardiaceae 546 S Seinecarpus 91aucus Engi Anacardiaceae 547 S Seinecarpus longipes Kosterm Anacardiaceae 548 S Seinecarpus rufovelutinus Ridley Anacardiaceae 549 G Seinecarpus sp. 7 Anacardiaceae 550 S Shorea againiiAshton Dipterocarpaceae 551 S Shorea amplexicaulis Ashton Dipterocarpaceae ~,

63 Codes of identification. Level Sidentified to species, G:to genus, R to Family, X: Unknown I_ , r~

r~

Continued 552 S Shorea airihervosa Sym Dipterocarpaceae 553 S Shorea beCGariana Burck Dipterocarpaceae 554 S Shorea bracteolata Dyer Dipterocarpaceae 555 S Shorea brunnescensAshlon Dipterocarpaceae 556 S Shorea cf singkawang (Miq. ) Miq Dipterocarpaceae 557 S Shorea exell^tica MeIer Dipterocarpaceae 558 S Shorea foilax Me Ier Dipterocarpaceae ~ 559 S Shorea foquetia Hem Dipterocarpaceae 560 S Shorea foxworthyiSym Dipterocarpaceae 561 S Shorea 91bbosa Brandis Dipterocarpaceae 562 S Shorea hopeffolia (Herin) Sym Dipterocarpaceae ^^ 563 S Shorea Ieprosula Miq Dipterocarpaceae 564 S Shorea macroptera Dyer Dipterocarpaceae 565 S Shorea maxwel^^na King Dipterocarpaceae 566 S Shorea multiftora (Burck. ) Sym. Dipterocarpaceae I~ 567 S Shorea ochrecea Sym Dipterocarpaceae 568 S Shorea ovalis (Korth. ) 81 Dipterocarpaceae 569 S Shoreaparvffdia Dyer Dipterocarpaceae 570 S Shorea parvi^11a Dyerssp. parvffolia Dipterocarpaceae ^ 571 S Shoreaparvi^11a Dyerssp. veintina Dipterocarpaceae 572 S ShoreapaucMora long Dipterocarpaceae 573 S Shoreapinanga Scheff: Dipterocarpaceae 574 S Shorea rubraAshton Dipterocarpaceae 575 S Shorea seminis KOIth Dipterocarpaceae 576 G Shorea sp. f Dipterocarpaceae 577 G Shorea sp. 10 Dipterocarpaceae 578 G Shorea sp. if Dipterocarpaceae 579 G Shorea sp. 2 Dipterocarpaceae 580 G Shorea sp. 3 Dipterocarpaceae 581 G Shorea sp. 4 Dipterocarpaceae 582 G Shorea sp. 5 Dipterocarpaceae 583 G Shorea sp. 6 Dipterocarpaceae 584 G Shorea sp. 7 Dipterocarpaceae _; 585 G Shorea sp. 8 Dipterocarpaceae 586 G Shorea sp. 9 Dipterocarpaceae 587 S Shorea venulosa Wood. ex. Merer Dipterocarpaceae I ' 588 S Sindora beccariana Back. ex de Wit Fabaceae I_ 589 S Sindora bruggemaniide Wit Fabaceae 590 S Sindora conacea Maingayex Pram Fabaceae 591 S Sindora leiocarpa Backer exde Wit Fabaceae 592 G Stridora sp. I Fabaceae Fabaceae ._I 593 S Stridora veintina Baker 594 G Spatholobus sp. I Fabaceae 595 S Stemonurusgrandi^Iius BeCG ICadnaceae 596 S Storeulia cordata Bl. var. montana (Me17. ) Tantra Sterculiaceae 597 S Storeulia foetida L Sterculiaceae 598 S Storeulia macrophylla Vent Sterculiaceae 599 S Storeulia oblongata R. Br Sterculiaceae 600 S Storeulia rubigiriosa Vent Sterculiaceae 601 S Swirltonia glauca Engi Anacardiaceae 602 S Syzygium acuiangulum K. Schum Myreceae 603 S Sy4, glum atomiramea Merr Myreceae 604 S Syzj, 'glum angustiTofius (Miq. ) Hats Myrtaceae 605 S Myrinceae , Sy4'glum attenuatum Merr& Perly 606 S Syz},'glum bankensis (Hassk. ) Merr. & Perly Mynaceae 607 S Syzygium borneensis Miq Myrinceae 608 S Sy4, glum caudatiWinbum (Me17. ) Merr. & Perly Mynaceae 609 S Sy^^, glum ofurceolatum MyECeae 610 S Syzygium of angusti^11Us (Miq. ) Hats Mynaceae 611 S Syz!^'glum chiorantum (Outhie) Merr. & Perly Myrtaceae 612 S Syzygium clavimyrtus K. at V Myrtaceae 613 S Sy4^'glum contortum (forth. ) Merr. & Perly Myrtaceae

64 L Codes of identification. Level SIdentmed to species, G: to genus, R to Family, X: Unknown . .

I

I ~. Continued 614 S Syzygium GymosaLam Myreceae 615 S Syzygium endertiiMerr. & Perly Myrtaceae 616 S Syzygium lastigiatum (81) Merr. & Perly Myrtaceae 617 S Syzygium it1stfoul^forum (Ridl. ) Merr. & Perly Myreceae 618 S SyzygyUm grandis Wight Myhareae 619 S Sy4^'glum heteroclada Merr Myrtaceae 620 S Syzygium incamatum (Elmei) Merr. & Perly Myrtaceae 621 S Sy4, glum laxMorum (Bl. ) DC. Myrtaceae 11 ^ 622 S Syzygium oohneocarpa Merr Myrtaceae . 623 S Syzygium opaca K. at V Mynaceae 624 S Sy4, glum operculata Roxb Myrtaceae I . 625 S Sy4, glum racemosum (Bl. ) DC Myrtaceae 626 S Syzygium rostratum (Bl. ) DC Mynaceae I , 627 G Sy4'ginm sp 15 Myrinceae 628 G Sya^. ginm sp. Myrtaceae 629 G Syz)/glum sp. I Mynaceae 630 G Sy4^'gium sp. 2 Myrtaceae 631 G Syz!,'glum sp. 24 Myrtaceae 632 G Syz!,'glum sp. 25 Mynaceae 633 G Syzji'glum sp. 26 Myrinceae I 634 G Syzygium sp. 27 Mynaceae 635 G Sy4^'glum sp. 28 Myrtaceae 636 G Syzygium sp. 3 Mynaceae 637 G Syzygium sp. 4 Myreceae 638 G Sy4, 'glum sp. 5 Myrtaceae I 639 G Syz)^, glum sp. 6 Mynaceae 640 G Syzygium sp. 70 Myrtaceae

-. 641 G Syzygiumsp. 11 Myhareae Myrtaceae I ^ 642 G Syzygium sp. 12 J 643 G Sy4^. glum sp. 13 Myrtoceae 644 G Sy4^'glum sp. 14 Myrtaceae

-\ 645 G Syzygium sp. 76 Mynaceae 646 G Syz!,'glum sp. 77 Myrtaceae 647 G Syzygium sp. 18 Myrinceae 648 G Sy4"glum sp. 19 Myrtaceae 649 G Syzygium sp. 20 Mynaceae I I 650 G Syzygium sp. 27 Myrtaceae 651 G Syzygium sp. 22 Myrinceae 652 G Sy4, 'glum sp. 23 Mynaceae 653 G Myrtaceae -\ Syzygium sp. 7 654 G Syzygium sp. 8 Myrtaceae 655 G Syz)^'glum sp. 9 Mynaceae 656 S Syzygium tawahense (KOIth. ) Merr. & Perly Myrtaceae 657 S Tabemaemontana sphaerocarpa 81 Apocynaceae 658 S Tarena incerta Kds. at Val Rubiaceae I. 659 S Tejsmaniodendron SImplicifolium Merr Verbenaceae 660 S Ternstroemia aneura Mky Theaceae 661 S Ternstroemia conacea Scheff Theaceae ~* 662 S Ternstroemia in agriMca Staff Theaceae 663 G Ternstroemia sp Theaceae 664 G Tetractomia sp Theaceae 665 S Terrainerista glabra Mky Theaceae 666 S Timonius borneensis Val Rubiaceae 667 S rimonius ovalis Boerl Rubiaceae 668 S Timonius wallichianus (Kofih. ) Val Rubiaceae 669 S Trigonopleura malayana Hook. f Euphorbiaceae 670 S Tristaniopsis whitearia (Griff) Wilson Myrinceae 671 S Turninia sphaerocarpa Hassk Staphyllaceae 672 X Unknown unknown 673 X Unknown Unknown I 674 S Vatica albiramis SIoot Dipterocarpaceae 675 S Vatica caulMora Ashton Dipterocarpaceae * I

65 Codes of identification. Level S: Identified to species, G: to genus. F to Family, X: Unknown ,

I

' I ^. Annex 4. Coordinate position ofPSPs Position UTM Plots Latitude Longitude

De ree Minutes Second DecimalDe ree De ree Minutes Second DecimalDe ree East North

CNV I 1/6 30 15,300000 116,504250 3 2600000 3017389 444910.717860 333527.785350

CNV2 116 30 6400000 116,501778 3 25.100000 3023639 444636.331170 3342/8.768980

CNV3 1/6 30 5400000 116,501500 3 8700000 3019083 444605.207390 3337/5/75130

CNV4 116 30 14,700000 116,504083 3 o 56,100000 3015583 444892.068900 333328.163500

CNV5 1/6 30 30.300000 116.508417 3 18.600000 3021833 445374.001300 3340/8.802640

CNV6 1/6 30 22.900000 116,506361 3 o 59,700000 3016583 445145.264170 333438.585720

CNV7 116 30 7000000 116,501944 o 57,00000 3015861 444654.384250 333359.001340

CNV8 116 30 3700000 116,501028 33.400000 3025944 444553.104290 334473.595790

CNV9 1/6 30 19.500000 116,505417 3 13.300000 3020361 445040.55/110 333856.243050

CNV 10 1/6 30 11,500000 116.503194 3 29,600000 3024889 444793.747780 334356.868520

CNV 11 116 30 21.000000 116,505833 3 20.200000 3022278 445086.875670 334068.12/930

CNV 12 116 30 12.400000 116.503444 3 10.800000 3019667 444821.265310 333779.630100

CNV 13 116 30 20.900000 116,505806 3 29,400000 3024833 445084.003780 334350.545970

CNV 14 116 29 59.000000 116,499722 3 44,600000 3029056 444408.133570 3348/7.654860

CNV 15 116 30 7000000 116,501944 3 23,800000 3023278 444654.759680 334178.856550

RIL I 1/6 30 43,600000 I 16.51211i 3 18.200000 3021722 445784.492780 334006.348040

RIL 2 116 30 54.200000 1165/5056 3 o 44,300000 3012306 4461/1293100 332965.384390

RIL 3 1/6 31 12,800000 116,520222 3 o 49400000 3013722 446685.439840 333121.650790

RIL 4 116 30 53,000000 1165/4722 3 16,100000 3021/39 446074.6/2/60 333941.775020

RIL 5 116 31 9800000 1165/9389 3 1900000 3017/94 446593.04/240 333505.476080

RIL 6 1/6 30 48.900000 1165/3583 3 0700000 3016861 445947.828950 333468.953820

RIL 7 116 30 41,900000 1165/1639 3 o 55,600000 3015444 445731.730150 3333/2.419410

RIL 8 1/6 31 6400000 1165/8444 3 o 46.500000 3012917 446487.818480 333032.755630

RIL 9 1/6 30 45,000000 1165/2500 3 10,300000 3019528 445827.611790 333763.810170

RIL 10 116 30 54,400000 I 16,515111 3 0900000 3016917 4461/7.631890 333475.068140

RIL 11 1/6 30 50,600000 1165/4056 o 48.100000 3013361 446000.218850 333082.050500

RIL 12 1/6 30 52,300000 116,514528 3 o 59.000000 3016389 446052.819550 3334/6.733430

67

I , , \ ,'~~ I -\ I .. \ .---^- ---- L___ \.-- ^ \--..^, L, ^ L__- L, _, L__. ^ .^ ,_I ^ .---J ^ ^-^: _...__I ^-, I~~~ ,,_, I , ^ CT. CD C:. CD CD CD CD ^ CD CD .73 71n ~-