Study

Response of peat swamp forest species to macronutrients

  • Published source details Yuwati T.W., Rachmanadi D., Santosa P.B., Rusmana . & Graham L.L.B. (2014) Response of peat swamp forest species to macronutrients. Pages 46-63 in: F.R.U. Banjarbu, . FORDA & L.L.B. Graham (eds.) Tropical Peat Swamp Forest Silviculture in Central Kalimantan. Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership, Indonesia.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Add lime (before/after planting)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Add inorganic fertilizer (before/after planting)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Add lime (before/after planting)

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2011 in a nursery in Indonesia (Yuwati et al. 2014) found that liming typically had no effect on growth of planted tree seedlings. Seedlings of 22 peat swamp tree species were studied. Limed and unlimed seedlings showed similar height growth for 15 species, similar growth of stem diameter for 14 species, and similar increase in dry mass for 19 species. The remaining species showed mixed responses: liming increased growth of some but reduced growth of others. In June 2011, 10 random seedlings of each species were limed (36.8 mg dolomitic lime twice/week) and 10 were not. Seedlings were grown in pots of soil and rice husk, from seed or transplanted from the wild. The duration of the experiment was not reported.

  2. Add inorganic fertilizer (before/after planting)

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2011 in a nursery in Indonesia (Yuwati et al. 2014) found that fertilization typically had no effect on growth of planted tree seedlings. Seedlings of 22 peat swamp tree species were studied. For 14–22 species (depending on the chemicals in the fertilizer), fertilized and unfertilized seedlings showed similar height growth. Similarly, fertilization had no significant effect on stem diameter of 16–18 species and dry mass of 19–20 species. The remaining species showed mixed responses: fertilization increased growth of some but reduced growth of others. In June 2011, 10 random seedlings of each species received each fertilizer treatment (36.8 mg of each nutrient twice/week): N, N+P, N+P+K or none. Seedlings were grown in pots of soil and rice husk, from seed or transplanted from the wild. The duration of the experiment was not reported.

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust