Next Article in Journal
Establishment of a Highly Efficient In Vitro Propagation System of Diospyros lotus
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-Term Nitrogen Addition Exerts Minor Effects on Microbial Community but Alters Sensitive Microbial Species in a Subtropical Natural Forest
Previous Article in Journal
The Characteristics of Gas and Particulate Emissions from Smouldering Combustion in the Pinus pumila Forest of Huzhong National Nature Reserve of the Daxing’an Mountains
Previous Article in Special Issue
Relationship between the Floristic Composition and Soil Characteristics of a Tropical Rainforest (TRF)
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Influence of Tree Vegetation and The Associated Environmental Factors on Soil Organic Carbon; Evidence from “Kulon Progo Community Forestry,” Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Department of Forest Science, Kongju National University, Yesan-gun 32439, Chungnam, Republic of Korea
Office for Standard Implementation of Environment and Forestry Instruments, Solo City 10270, Indonesia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2023, 14(2), 365;
Original submission received: 28 December 2022 / Revised: 9 February 2023 / Accepted: 9 February 2023 / Published: 11 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Soil Carbon Cycle in Response to Global Change)


This study aimed to assess the influence of tree vegetation and some environmental factor on soil organic carbon (SOC), which is part of soil organic matter (SOM). Vegetation survey and soil sampling were carried out in five stand types in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry, including Pinus (PN), Aleurites-Swietenia (AS), Swietenia-Acacia (SA), Melaleuca-Acacia (MA) and Tectona-Dalbergia (TD). Tree vegetation composition and characteristics (diversity, basal area, density, canopy height and canopy cover), SOC and SOM were analyzed using some comparative analyses. The influence of tree vegetation characteristics and environmental factors related to topographic, edaphic and anthropogenic aspects on SOC was performed by employing principal component analysis (PCA) and redundancy analysis (RDA). Our result confirmed that species composition among stand types was significantly different. Characteristically, PN was relatively close to MA, having similarities in canopy cover, canopy height and basal area. While AS, SA and TD were relatively similar to each other in diversity, basal area, density and canopy cover. Moreover, PN and MA similarly hold less SOC and SOM compared to TD, while AS and SA showed not significantly different from TD. RDA confirmed the high influence of tree vegetation, where the most influencing factor for SOC and SOM was an interaction among canopy cover, canopy height and below-stand utilization, where canopy cover was directly proportional to canopy height and increased with decreasing below-stand utilization. We concluded that in relatively small variations of environmental factors, selecting dense-canopy trees and adaptive management of below-stand utilization promised SOC sequestration and storage. Our findings provide fundamental information for maximizing the potential of forest carbon to meet the global payments for ecosystem services and contribute to low-carbon development strategies and emission reduction.

1. Introduction

Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) is one of the most important factors determining soil quality, nutrient availability, plant growth and productivity [1] and corresponds to C sequestration potential [2,3]. The availability of SOC provides a significant effect on the global carbon cycle [4] and holds an important role in the response of the biosphere to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide [5,6]. Therefore, the perception of the sequestration potential of SOC is important knowledge to increase public attention and participation in achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets of many countries.
Carbon stored in soil is about two to three times greater compared to that in living vegetation and is becoming the most dominant component of the terrestrial carbon pool [7,8,9]. However, the sequestration of SOC varies as the variations occur in biotic characteristics, environmental factors and anthropogenic activities [10,11,12,13]. Accordingly, variations of vegetation types in certain local areas may lead to the difference in SOC [14,15,16], although the influences are also related to differences in soil conditions such as land use [17], climate, soil physicochemical [18] and topographical features [11,12]. Meantime, the individual effects of several environmental factors, such as topography and slope, are possible in controlling SOC by displacing soil particles and soil organic matter (SOM) [19].
Variation of vegetation commonly affects SOC [15] related to input of soil organic matter, decomposition process and alterations [11,20]. Therefore, forests provide important roles in the carbon balance reflected by the amount of carbon stored in the vegetation biomass, SOC and the amount circulated per year [21]. In this process, forests with different vegetation (tree species) also influence the microenvironment and soil characteristics [22] and provide different amounts and quality of litter, root exudates and soil properties, which possibly influence the soil microbial community [23]. Some research showed that land use and vegetation-change affect biomass and vegetation carbon, temperature, humidity, erosion and soil fertility and lead to lower levels of SOC, nitrogen and many essential nutrients [13,21,24,25]. Research conducted by Agus et al. [26] showed that the re-vegetation program improved SOC, nitrogen and soil pH in West Kalimantan. Some studies in China also revealed similar results that re-vegetation programs improve SOC [3,24,27,28]. Meanwhile, different tree species or stand types in Merbabu Mt. National Park Central Java also significantly affect SOC concentration [29].
In the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry and many other areas of Community Forestry in Indonesia, studies on environmental/ecosystem services were commonly limited to ecotourism potential [30] and some information on living-trees carbon assessment [31]. Carbon storage potential involved SOC as the ecosystem service was barely discussed. This is pitiable given the large potential of carbon stored in soil [7,8,9]. In addition, in a revegetated forest such as the study site, SOC is also one of the essential indicators to assess the success of forest revegetation [3,24,27,28]. Moreover, with increasing interest in global payments for ecosystem services such as carbon trading mechanisms [32], studies in SOC will provide input for a more comprehensive carbon service assessment of a forest area. As regulated in Presidential Regulation no 98 of 2021, followed by Ministerial Decree of Environment and Forestry no 21 of 2022, forest managers potentially receive payments for carbon services [33,34] in addition to receipts from non-timber forest products [35,36] and tourism services [30,37,38]. In this regard, carbon stored in soil could be considered in the forest carbon stock calculation, not just a soil property. Therefore, a study on SOC related to tree vegetation and environmental conditions needs to be carried out in order to provide more information and consideration in the evaluation of the forest carbon potential.
This study investigated tree vegetation in various stand types and the influence on SOC by considering environmental factors related to topographic, edaphic and anthropogenic aspects. Tree vegetation composition and characteristics, as well as the SOC content among five stand types, i.e., Pinus (PN), Aleurites-Swietenia (AS), Swietenia-Acacia (SA), Melaleuca-Acacia (MA) and Tectona-Dalbergia (TD), were compared. The main influencing factors on SOC were also assessed. We hypothesized that different tree vegetation compositions and characteristics, as well as the associated environmental factors, would contain different SOC concentrations and stock. We used the Protected Forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry as a study area since it provided an excellent context for the study, which fulfilled the analytical framework of our study. The study site was a landscape with randomly distributed mixed tree vegetation, which can be classified into several stand types to compare. In addition, Kulon Progo Community Forestry is a famous successful Community Forestry in Indonesia. Therefore, the obtained information will provide valuable lessons and exemplifications for other community forestry programs in order to enhance the potential for community welfare by maximizing forest carbon potential to meet the global payments for ecosystem services and to contribute to low carbon development strategies and emission reductions as targeted in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

A field investigation was conducted in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry located in the Kokap Sub-district, Kulon Progo Region, Special Territory of Yogyakarta, Indonesia (Figure 1). This is a part of the Kulon Progo state forest, where about 196.8 ha of the forest was managed by the local community by adopting a social forestry program through the Community Forestry scheme. The area of the Community Forestry scheme with protected status reached about 114 ha, almost 60% of the total area of Community Forestry in the region [31,39]. Topographically, Kulon Progo Community Forestry is located on one of the hillsides on the line of Menoreh Hills [31], with variations in slope between 5% and 42% and elevations ranging from 100 to 450 masl [39,40]. The soil type was latosol [41], as a common feature of all the forest areas in the Kulon Progo region [39]. In the climate aspect, the area of Kulon Progo Community Forestry is categorized as C type of climate based on Schmidt Ferguson classification with high rainfall (>2500 mm/year. 4.5–6 dry months and 6–7.5 wet months) and 26.9–30 °C of average temperature [39,42,43].
The protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry has suffered massive deforestation since 1970 and peaked in 1998 [44]. However, as rehabilitation efforts continue, this area has now been successfully reforested. The Kulon Progo Community Forestry can be seen as a successful participatory forest rehabilitation story that has been officially carried out since 2003 [45]. The successful of the rehabilitation program was also continuously strengthened by the designation of this area as a protected forest in 2007 [46]. With this regard, the utilization of environmental services then became very important to support community welfare in order to maintain and increase community awareness of protecting and preserving the forests. Some parts of this area have provided their environmental services (especially tourism) as an alternative to benefit sharing for the community. However, most other parts still need to be explored and utilized for potential environmental services or other ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, water retention and the provision for non-timber forest products.
Currently, the forest cover of the Protected Forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry is a mixed-forest dominated by trees such as Tectona grandis, Dalbergia latifolia, c, Acacia mangium, Pinus merkusii, Melaleuca Leucadendra, Aleurites molucana and Eucalyptus sp. [40,45]. However, the distribution of tree species was not patterned in a block management scheme, as the afforestation was carried out according to community preferences and seedling availability. Consequently, the level of stand density among utilization permits called “andil” also varies. This is also related to the community’s dependence on below-stand utilization at the initial forest development, especially in the spots where the utilization of environmental services (tourism) has not been established.

2.2. Vegetation Sampling and Survey

We selected sample sites based on stand classification obtained from aerial photography confirmed by quick field-check through 72 plots as reported by Siswo et al. [40]. In this regard, tree vegetation in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry has been classified into 5 stand types with various levels of canopy coverage (Table 1). In this study, we conducted a more detail vegetation survey through a quantitative method within the existing 72 survey plots, i.e., PN = 7 plots, AS = 8 plots, SA = 24 plots, MA = 11 plots and TD = 22 plots (Table 2). Plots were nested quadratic [47]. The nested quadratic plot consisted of a 20 × 20 m plot for the tree layer (mature trees; ≥20 cm diameter at breast height), a 10 × 10 m plot for the sub-tree layer (pole: young trees; >10 cm diameter at breast height) and a 5 × 5 m plot for saplings (small trees, 2–10 cm diameter at breast height).
In the current study, we recorded tree vegetation characteristics by taking note of species names, counting the number of individuals and measuring the diameter at breast height (dbh). The number of individuals and diameter are the common fundamental measure in a quantitative survey related to the density and basal area reflecting species domination [48,49]. We also estimated the maximum tree height (canopy height) and canopy coverage. In addition to vegetation data, we simultaneously took some environmental factors. The influence of vegetation on soil is often related to many associated factors such as climatic, topographic, edaphic and anthropogenic factors [11,17]. We did not include climatic data as the study site was known to lie on a single stretch/area with the same temperature and annual rainfall [39]. Topographic factors, including location, altitude, slope gradient and aspect, were cited from Siswo et al. [40], which were generated from a global positioning system (GPS) and map. Slope position and bare rock were also noted based on observation. Furthermore, the estimation of below-stand utilization as an anthropogenic factor was also noted. We also counted other factors related to below-stand utilization, including distance from road (DR) and distance from streams (DS) generated from Google Earth. Furthermore, some edaphic factors were also collected through soil samples. These factors were commonly considered as associated with vegetation [50] and some edaphic conditions [12,13,51].

2.3. Soil Samples Collection and Laboratory Analysis

Soil samples were collected and analyzed to investigate SOC, SOM and other related soil properties, including bulk density (BD), soil acidity (pH) and texture (silt, clay, sand). SOC is an integral part of SOM, where the SOC value is often simply calculated as 58% of SOM [11,28,52]. Meanwhile, BD is a factor determining the amount of SOC in the soil [4,13,53]. Soil pH and soil texture (percentage of silt, sand and clay) are also recognized widely as factors associated with SOC and other soil fertility indicators [13,54,55,56,57]. For this analysis, soil samples were taken purposively to represent each stand type with seven replications. In total, we collected 35 soil samples from 5 stand types. Soil samples were collected from the topsoil layer (10–15 cm) after removing herbs and the overlying litter. We collected soil samples only from the topsoil layer because most of the variation in SOC occurs in this layer [5,13] especially related to vegetation effects [29]. Soil samples were analyzed at the Soil Laboratory of the Faculty of Agriculture, Sebelas Maret University. Soil analysis procedure referred to PPT [58] where SOC and SOM content (concentration) were analyzed using the Walkley & Black method, Soil texture was analyzed using the pipette method, BD was examined through the volumetric method, while pH was analyzed using a pH meter at a 2.5:1 (soil:water).

2.4. Data Processing

We characterized tree vegetation by species abundance measures, including basal area, density and important value (IV), to confirm species domination [48,49,59]. We computed those parameters at the plot level and also averaged them to provide values per stand type. Furthermore, we also considered the species diversity reflected by the Shannon diversity index [48,59]. In addition, the estimation of the percentage of canopy cover (canopy density), as reported by Siswo et al. [40], was also included to characterize the stand types. Canopy density is closely related to canopy gap and shade influencing micro climate [49,60] and soil condition [22,51].
The abundance measures and diversity were calculated by using the following formulas [48,49,59]:
Stand   density   ( individual   ha 1 ) = n A
Individual   Basal   area   ( BAi ) = π ( D   ×   0.1 ) 2 4
Basal   area   per   ha   ( BA ) = B A i   A   ( h a )
Relative   density = n j   n j   ×   100
Relative   basal   area = B A j   B A j     ×   100
IV = R e l a t i v e   d e n s i t y + R e l a t i v e   b a s a l   a r e a 2  
H = ( n . i N ) ln ( n . i N )
where n is the number of species, A is the total area of plots (ha), BAi is the basal area of ith species of j species, nj is the number of j species, BA is basal area, BAj is the BA of j species, H′ is the Shannon diversity index, N is the total number of individuals and n.i is the number of ith species.
For the analysis of soil organic carbon, we included the concentration and stock of SOC. In addition, we also considered the concentration and stock of SOM in the analysis and discussion on SOC because SOC is an integral part of SOM. We calculated SOC stock using the following equation [24,53]:
SOCs   ( Mg   ha 1 ) = SOCc   %   ×   BD   ×   SD   × 100
where SOCs is soil organic carbon stock (Mg ha−1 or ton/ha), SOCc is soil organic carbon concentration (%), BD is bulk density (g/cm2), SD is soil depth (cm), 100 is the conversion factor from g/cm2 to ton/ha.
Equation (8) was also applied to calculate SOM stock from SOM concentration data.
We arranged species abundance per plot for a comparison analysis of tree vegetation characteristics among stand types, including diversity index, density, basal area, maximum height (canopy height) and canopy coverage. Furthermore, we set SOC data, including the concentration and stock of SOC and SOM, according to stand types to assess the variation of SOC and SOM in different stand types. We also arranged the data for ordination analysis, including response/dependent variables (the concentration and stock of SOC and SOM) and the explanatory variables, including vegetation factors (Shannon diversity index, density, basal area, max height (canopy height) and canopy cover), topographic factors (elevation, slope position, slop gradient and bare rock), edaphic factors (pH, BD, clay, sand and silt) and factors related to anthropogenic (below-stand utilization, distance from road and distance from streams).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

We confirmed the difference among stand types by comparing tree species composition (species and the IV) using multi-response permutation procedures analysis (MRPP) in PC-ORD 7. This analysis is a nonparametric analysis ignoring distributional assumption, which is appropriate for ecological community data [59]. Furthermore, we compared tree stand characteristics, including diversity index, density, basal area, maximum height (canopy height) and canopy coverage using a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a posthoc test using the Bonferroni method. ANOVA has been applied in many studies to compare species and environmental characteristics [13,25,29,50]. Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests were applied to check normality data. We also performed data log-transformation to improve normality. In case the data does not meet the requirements for parametric analysis, we employed non-parametric analysis, i.e., Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney U-tests for pairwise comparison [61]. Furthermore, we also employed ANOVA and the related analysis to compare SOC among stand types. ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests, as well as the posthoc test, were performed using Statistical Product and Service Solution (SPSS) software version 25.0.
Considering many associated factors with SOC and SOM [12,13,62], we further analyzed the influence of tree stand characteristics and other associated factors on SOC. We include vegetation factors (Shannon diversity index, density, basal area, max height (canopy height) and canopy cover), topographic factors (elevation, slope position, slope gradient and bare rock), edaphic factors (pH, BD, clay, sand and silt) and factors related to anthropogenic (below-stand utilization, distance from road and distance from streams) as the explanatory variables and the concentration of SOC and SOM as the response/dependent variables. For this analysis, because of the unbalanced nature of many variable combinations in the data sets, we employed an exploratory pattern association type approach (ordination method) by using a redundancy analysis (RDA) [12,13,62] run in PC-ORD 7 [63]. Moreover, variance partitioning was also performed to show the proportion or partial effect of the explanatory variables.
RDA is a multivariate (multi-response) multiple regression [64], so it is possible to include more than 1 response/dependent variable [12,13,62]. However, like regression analysis, independent variables in RDA should have only a handful of variables and not strongly correlate with each other [63]. Therefore, prior to running the RDA, we summarized/grouped the explanatory variables by applying principle component analysis (PCA) to handle the multicollinearity [65]. We further used the score values of the grouped/summarized variables as the explanatory variable in RDA. By running PCA, we also intended to find out the interrelation among the independent variables in influencing SOC and to assess the nature of their relationship. PCA was run in SPSS software as this software provided a detail explanation of the summarized/grouped variables [66].

3. Results

3.1. Variations in Tree Vegetation Composition and Characteristics

3.1.1. Species Diversity

Our study found 28 tree species with diameters >2 cm belong to 13 families from a total of 72 vegetation survey plots. A total of 16 species were found in the tree layer/mature tree, 17 species in the pole 22 species in the shrub layer (Appendix A Table A1). Each stand type was dominated by specific species resulting in significant differences in species composition (Appendix A Table A2). As shown in Appendix A Table A1, Pinus merkusii at the tree layer in PN was greatly dominant with more than 70% of IV, and the total IV of the other seven species reached only 29.87%. Meantime, Aleurites molucana in AS, Acacia mangium in SA, Melaleuca leucadendra in MA and Dalbergia latifolia in TD showed only 52.39%, 30.78%, 39.80% and 36.89% of IV, respectively. In these stands, distribution among the two most dominant species was more even though these species similarly hold more than 65% of IV in the composition. Consequently, the value of H’ in PN differed from other stands. At the plot level, PN showed significantly lower values of H’ than those of other stands (Table 2). In the smaller growth levels/layers, i.e., the sub-tree layer (pole) and shrub layer (sapling), tree species distribution was greater, even resulting in similar values of H’.

3.1.2. Structural Characteristics

We found significant differences in structural characteristics among stand types (Table 3). At the tree layer, PN significantly showed higher density than other stand types. Nevertheless, they were not significantly different in terms of basal area. Inversely, in the sub-tree layer, AS, SA, MA and TD stands significantly exhibited higher densities compared to PN. Uniquely, they were equal in basal area (Table 3). Furthermore, we found different patterns in the shrub layer where the entire stand types had equal tree density. Basal area was also mostly similar, with only PN having a smaller basal area than other stand types. Moreover, in addition to density and basal area, we found significant differences in canopy cover and height. The smallest canopy cover was in MA and PN, which is significantly distinct from the TD stand. Meanwhile, max height (canopy height) was mostly similar, except between the PN and AS stands, where the canopy height in AS was significantly lower than PN.

3.2. SOC Variation and the Influencing Factors

3.2.1. SOC Variation According to Vegetation Types

Values of SOC content varied among sample plots where both the concentration and stock of SOC were directly proportional to those of SOM (Figure 2 and Figure 3). This is inherent to the common knowledge that SOC is part of SOM for about 58% [11,25,52]. In addition, Figure 2 and Figure 3 also showed that the SOC stock in this study was directly proportional to the concentration due to weak variation of BD among sample plots. Furthermore, our study found significant differences in SOC among stand types for both concentration and stock (Figure 2a,c). The PN and MA stands significantly exhibited lower SOC than TD. However, they were not significantly different compared to AS stand and SA. On average, the SOC concentrations in PN and MA were only 1.05% and 0.98%, with stocks of 18.08 ton/ha and 16.94 ton/ha, respectively. Meanwhile, TD showed the highest SOC among the entire stand types (1.72% SOC concentration and 30.82 ton/ha SOC stock.

3.2.2. SOC Variation between Plots

On average, soil in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry contained approximately 1.25% of SOC with a storage potential of 21.93 tons/ha, which is about 58% of SOM (2.18% and 38.11 tons/ha for the concentration and stock, respectively). From total soil sample plots, the SOC and SOM concentrations varied from 0.67%–2.35% and 1.15%–4.05%, respectively (Figure 2a). Meanwhile, the SOC and SOM stock successively ranged from 11.26 to 45.12 ton/ha and 19.32–77.79 ton/ha (Figure 2b). The coefficient variations of SOC concentration, SOM concentration, SOC stock and SOM stock were consecutively 34.95%, 35.16%, 36.35% and 36.80%. Moreover, we found that the maximum values of SOC and SOM were in some plots of TD stand type (Figure 2a,b).

3.2.3. Influencing Factors of SOC

The highlighted factors (five tree vegetation factors and 12 others) varied among plots with medium coefficient variation, except soil pH and BD, which were weak variations (Appendix A Figure A1). However, as the common nature of ecological data, there was inter-correlation (multicollinearity) among several predictor variables. Based on the PCA, the highlighted variables were grouped into six factors/components (Table 4).
Implicit in the PCA results (Table 4), Component 1 consisted of diversity index, elevation and distance from streams where the three factors were positively correlated to each other. Component 2 grouped density and basal area where both are positively related to one another. Furthermore, component 3 was a combination of silt, clay and sand (soil texture), showing that clay is negatively correlated with silt and sand concentration in the composition. Meanwhile, component 4 was a summarized factor of canopy cover, canopy height and below-stand utilization, where canopy cover and canopy height positively related to each other, but both were negatively correlated with below-stand utilization. Moreover, component 5 grouped slope, distance from road and BD, where slope, distance from road and BD were positively related to each other. Lastly, the sixth component was the mixture factors of bare rock and soil pH, where both are directly proportional.
The RDA exhibited the effect of the six components on SOC and SOM. As shown in Table 5, the RDA showed 0.229 of the eigenvalue in the first axis and showed 28.8% of the total variance explained. Interpreted from the first axis (Table 5; Figure 4), component 4 showed a moderate positive correlation to SOC concentration, SOC stock, SOM concentration and SOM stock. Other components showed weak correlations (components 2, 3 and 6) and no significant correlations (components 1 and 5). Therefore, component 4 provided the most dominant influence on SOC in this study. Based on the variation partitioning, component 4 contributed almost half of the total variance explained as this factor had 13.20% of the variance explained, while the other components hold only 1.6%, 4.4%, 4.7%, 0.5% and 4.4% for components 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, respectively (Table 5).

4. Discussion

4.1. Tree Species Diversity and Structural Characteristics

Differences in tree vegetation composition among all groups (Appendix A Table A1) were not followed by the same pattern in terms of species diversity (Table 3). In addition, due to the high dominance of several species, species diversity in the entire stand types was generally low category as H′ values in all stand types was <2.30 [67]. However, at the tree layer, the PN stand showed lower H’ compared to other stand types because the tree density in PN was more concentrated to one species (P. merkusii). The density of stands concentrated in certain species contributes to the low value of H’ because the proportion of the number of individuals of each species is very decisive in calculating H’ [59]. Accordingly, plant enrichment at the lower layers (smaller growth level) will lead to a smaller variation of H’ among stand types. Plant enrichment in this area has been gradually applied by planting some tree species producing NTFs since this forest area was designated as a protected forest in 2007 [46]. In a non-production forest, community income from forests depends on non-timber forest products [35,36] and environmental/ecosystem services [32]. Furthermore, we then found no significant difference in H’ among stand types at the sub-tree layer (pole) and shrub layer (sapling), although these values were still in the low category (Table 4).
In contrast to the density and basal area, PN had a comparable average canopy height with SA, MA and TD and even significantly showed higher canopy height than AS. All the existing dominant tree species, including P. merkusii, A. molucana, S. macrophylla, M. leucadendra, A. mangium, T. grandis and D. latifolia, were tall trees with a max height of more than 20 m [68,69]. Therefore, the lower canopy height in AS might be coincidently related to age and local environmental conditions because the planting of tree species in the study site mostly depended on farmer preference. Age is closely related to tree height, and both are often used as measures of site quality [70]. Moreover, canopy density/canopy cover showed different patterns, where the TD stand had a significantly denser canopy cover than PN and MA. In the TD stand, the denser canopy cover gained from the combination of T. grandis and D. latifolia. Widely known that T. grandis is a broad-leaved tree with a wide canopy [68,69], and D. latifolia has a dome-shaped canopy with lush green foliage [69]. Inversely, there were more canopy gaps in PN because P. merkusii is a needle-leaved tree, although it has a wide and thick canopy [68]. Meanwhile, the combination of A. auriculiformis with a rounded canopy [69] and M. leucadendra with small leaves [68] also provides less canopy cover than the TD stand.

4.2. Variation in SOC

The protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry had low SOC and SOM because the average SOC concentration in all stand types was only between 1 and 2% (Figure 2). At the plot level, most of the sample plots also showed less than 2% of SOC concentration in the soil samples (Figure 3). Only a few plots located in the TD stand showed moderate values. According to PPT [58], SOC values followed these levels: SOC concentration < 1% = very low, 1%–2% was low, 2%–3% = moderate, 3%–5% = high and >5% = very high.
The low values of SOC concentration might be related to site characteristics dominated by latosol soil with steep slopes and hilly topography [39]. Some previous studies suggested that latosol soil usually contained low SOC. An experiment by Yakti et al. [71] showed that the SOC concentration in latosol soil was only 0.84%, included in SOM content of 1.452%. A similar finding was revealed by Pinheiro et al. [72] that SOC at 5–10 cm soil in red latosol soil in Brazil was only 1.1%. In addition, other soil types found in several spots of the study site were inceptisol and entisol soils which also have generally low SOC contents, especially in dry land such as our study site. This was in-line with a finding of Fazrina et al. [73], revealing that inceptisol and entisol in dry land in the Aceh-Besar district showed only 0.4%–0.72% and 0.15%–1.25% SOC concentrations, respectively. Furthermore, López-Hernández et al. [74] found that entisol soil had the lowest SOC concentration in an open area (savanna) in South Africa, with only 0.54%. Therefore, considering the site characteristic, the average SOC concentration between 1 and 2% in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry was acceptable and did not reflect the absence of the influence of vegetation and environmental factors on SOC.

4.2.1. Effect of Different Vegetation Types on SOC

In general, our finding was consistent with many previous studies that vegetation increases SOC [15,16], although the influences maybe related to other environmental factors [11,17,18]. TD stands hold the highest SOC in both concentration and stock (Figure 2), which was consistent with the better condition in tree structural characteristics (Table 3). Although TD was actually having comparable basal area and density to other stand types, especially in the tree layer, the character of D. latifolia with a lush and dense crown [68,69] and T. grandis with a wide crown and broad leaves [69] resulted in wider/denser canopy cover (Table 4). According to You et al. [22], vegetation community structure may affect the SOC pool by changing the microenvironment and soil characteristics. Therefore, it was reasonable that AS and SA stands showed equal values SOC to TD following their similarity in structural characteristics, including diversity index, basal area, density and canopy cover (Table 3). Like TD stand, AS was also characterized by a wide canopy from A. molucana [75] and Swietenia macrophilla [76]. In addition, these two species had strong rooting systems [75,76]. Therefore, the combination of these species in AS might contribute to the equal value of SOC between AS and TD. Moreover, the combination of the most dominant species in SA, including Acacia auriculiformis with rounded canopies [68] and Swietenia macrophilla with a wide canopy [76], likely provided a good environment as in TD and AS.
In similar environmental factors such as climate, topography and soil type of the entire study site, D. latifolia, A. molucana and A. auriculiformis indicated great potential in SOC sequestration and seemed to be determinant factors of the higher SOC in TD, AS and SA stands, respectively. The average SOC in TD (SOC concentration 1.72%, SOC stock 30.82 ton/ha) was in line with some previous studies and even indicated a better result, especially when considering the latosol soil in the study site. Previous studies suggested that monoculture T. grandis stand had lower SOC concentration than other stands in similar environmental factors in Central Java, especially compared to mixed stands [77]. Research conducted by Riniarti and Setiawaan [78] revealed that soil under tree stands dominated by D. latifolia contains higher SOC than other stand types. Meanwhile, monoculture stands of T. grandis in several community forests in Central Java were reported to contain less SOC than mixed stands [77]. Therefore, the mixing of D. latifolia and T. grandis in TD stand seemed to have a useful effect on SOC in this area. According to Devi [11], mixing tree species provide a significant effect on SOM and SOC distribution. Moreover, the average SOC concentration of 1.33% in AS and 1.17% in SA were equal to the SOC concentration explored in some private community forests, which are extensively cultivated. Suyana et al. [77] reported SOC concentration of mixed private community forest in a hilly region of Central Java was 1.12%. Another finding was reported by Pham et al. [79] that A. auriformis and A. mangium forest plantations in mountainous regions of Central Vietnam exhibited ranges of SOC concentration from 0.45% to 1.85%.
Contrasting conditions appeared in PN and MA, which significantly showed lower SOC compared to TD. In PN, it was strikingly different, with some previous papers revealing that coniferous forests usually accumulate greater SOC than broad-leaves forests in temperate regions [11,80]. Coniferous forests were usually grown or planted in areas with lower temperatures associated with elevation [11], thus supporting the delay of litter decomposition, allowing SOC to accumulate [81]. In temperate forests, coniferous forests are also considered as having a dense and low/short canopy, which inhibits raindrops and reduces the rate of erosion [13,24]. However, in tropic regions, especially in Indonesia, coniferous forest (P. merkusii) is a tall tree and commonly a monoculture plantation which is also considered low SOC accumulation [82]. Moreover, P. merkusii usually requires a higher elevation and annual rainfall compared to species such as D. latifolia and T. grandis in TD. Normally, P. merkusii grows in areas of high rainfall above 2000 mm/year in elevations of 400–2000 masl [83]. In fact, PN and other stand types in our study were located in the same cluster of hills with similar temperatures and annual rainfall [39]. In addition, pine species with a sparse canopy cover of coniferous leaves and high water consumption lead to high evapotranspiration [84,85], soil drying and high soil temperature [83]. The higher temperature has been reported as negatively impacting SOC accumulation and sequestration [13,81]. Another study showed that Pinus merkusii stands in Merbabu mount contained lower SOC levels compared to other stands [29].
In the MA stand, a similar mechanism to PN was possible to occur as the most dominant tree species (M. leucadendra) in MA showed less density compared to PN (Table 3) and was categorized as a small canopy [86]. The lower density of M. leucadendra was the common feature of the M. leucadendra plantation in all community forestry in Kulon Progo, which is categorized as low [39]. In terms of canopy cover, M. leucadendra is characterized by a straight stem, little and irregular branching, small leaves and a narrow crown [69,86].

4.2.2. Main Influencing Factors

Analysis of the effect of tree vegetation characteristics and some associated factors confirmed the variation of SOC among stand types. RDA showed that the six grouped factors (components) influenced SOC, with 28.8% of the total variance explained (Table 5). Component 4 (canopy height, canopy cover and below-stand utilization) was the most influential factor on both SOC and SOM (Table 5; Figure 4). This component accounted for nearly half of the total variance explained (Table 5). Our finding was in-line with some previous studies in Indonesia. Muardimansyah et al. [87] reported that tree stands dominated by denser canopies contained higher SOC in a protected forest in Donggala, Central Sulawesi. Similar results were also implied in a study conducted by Suyana et al. [29], revealing that SOC in Merbabu Mt. National Park also was more stored under the denser tree stands. A study in China also suggested that vegetation with denser canopies prevents nutrient loss, including SOC [88]. According to Wenjie et al. [84] and Fan et al. [85], the high and dense canopy cover reduces evaporation from the land or forest floor. Trees with wide and dense canopies also generally have large and deep roots resulting in high soil moisture obtained from the “hydraulic lift” process [89]. Furthermore, the cold temperature under the dense canopy cover is able to maintain and increase SOC sequestration [11,81]. In addition, a high and dense canopy also reduces the direct impact of raindrops on the ground reducing the rate of erosion [13,24]. According to Rosose et al. [90] and Wang et al. [3], the rate of erosion influenced the loss of SOC and soil fertility. Moreover, a decrease in below-stand utilization in a high and dense canopy will further reduce the risk of erosion [11] and provide a benefit for the accumulation of litter and understorey cover, increasing the supply of SOM and SOC [23,81].
Other grouped factors (components) showed smaller contributions in affecting SOC, although particular factors are sometimes given higher influence in certain areas. For instance, Suyana et al. [76] found that density indicated a positive effect on SOC. The small effect of density and basal area (component 2) in this study was likely caused by differences in vegetation characteristics among plots or by other stronger factors. For instance, the greater density and basal area in PN were not followed by greater SOC and SOM due to the character of P merkusii, which has a sparse canopy. In addition, P. merkusii is also known as a high water consumer, resulting in high evaporation and evapotranspiration [84,85]. Meanwhile, in component 3, soil texture in the whole area of our study site was relatively similar to the balanced composition of sand, silt and clay (loam texture). Only a few plots showed different soil textures, namely clay-loam textures. However, our findings were quite enough to confirm the results of several studies that soil texture has an effect on SOC. We found that some plots with higher clay content had lower SOC. This is in accordance with articles published by Devi [11] and Suyana et al. [29], reporting that clay concentration negatively affects SOC. Furthermore, soil pH in component 6 was also reported to have a low correlation with SOC [13].
The diversity index in component 1 was categorized as a low diversity index for all plots and all stand types, so it only provided a small contribution. In addition, the elevation and the distance from the river in this study had only a small range resulting in a smaller contribution. In various stands with high ranges of elevation, SOC is possibly more influenced by elevation [12]. Moreover, slope, distance from the road and BD grouped in component 5 also showed only a small range, so they provided the smallest contributions to the total variance.

5. Conclusions

Tree vegetation affects SOC, although the influences are often related to other environmental factors. Our result found significant differences in tree vegetation composition and characteristics, especially in the tree layer. As we hypothesized, the difference pattern seems to be directly proportional to the variation of SOC and SOM values. RDA confirmed that tree vegetation held an important role in SOC and SOM storage in the protected forest of Kulon Progo community forestry, although it was also related to other associated factors. Lower SOC and SOM were explored in Pinus and Melaleuca-Acacia stands, while the greater ones were found in Tectona-Dalbergia, Aleurites-Swietenia and Swiietenia-Acacia stand types. The most influential factor for SOC and SOM storage and accumulation was a combination factor of canopy cover, canopy height and below-stand utilization, where canopy cover was directly proportional to canopy height and increased with decreasing below-stand utilization. In other words, the higher the canopy cover and canopy height, the lower the below-stand utilization and ultimately increase the SOC storage. Accordingly, dense-canopy trees are highly recommended for further forest management. The SOC storage and accumulation will be greatly conditioned through the development of such species, followed by adaptive management of below-stand utilization.
Our findings provide fundamental information for maximizing the potential of forest carbon to meet the global payments for ecosystem services and to increase the forest contribution to low carbon development strategies and emission reductions from forests and other land use sectors (FOLU) as targeted in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) of Indonesia. Repetition of this study in other protected forest areas with various environmental conditions related to the role of tree vegetation was suggested to enrich this finding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.; methodology, S. and C.-W.Y.; software, S., H.K. and J.L.; validation, S. and C.-W.Y.; formal analysis, S.; investigation, S., H.K. and J.L.; resources, C.-W.Y.; data curation, S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.; writing—review and editing, S.; visualization, S., H.K. and J.L.; supervision, C.-W.Y.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, C.-W.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This work was supported by the research grant of Kongju National University in 2022.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the manuscript.


The authors would like to thank Bambang Dwi Atmoko, Lathif Brahmantya, Eko Priyanto and Uchu Waluya Heri Pahlana for their valuable support in data collection. The authors also thank Susi Abdiyani for providing a careful proofread of the manuscript, especially for English style, spelling and grammar.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Species Composition.
Table A1. Species Composition.
Tree LayerSub-Tree LayerShrub Layer
SpeciesIV (%)SpeciesIV (%)SpeciesIV (%)
P. merkusii70.14P. merkusii22.16992D. latifolia16.97593
A. camansi6.17E. cyclocarpum20.63984A. heterophyllus15.3369
M. leucadendra6.11A. camansi13.78127S. macrophylla14.39476
T. grandis2.80G. genemon12.60789D. zibetinus10.27393
Swietenia sp2.34A. Altilis8.547447P. speciosa6.898614
E. cyclocarpum5.26M. Leucadendra7.871581A. Altilis6.42607
A. altilis2.50P. speciosa7.871581L. leucocephala6.318482
P. speciosa4.70A. heterophyllus6.51S. aromaticum5.843828
----S. densiflora5.843828
----H. brasiliensis5.84
----E. cyclocarpum5.843828
Total100.00 100.00 100.00
A. molucana52.39S. Macrophylla34.40032Swietenia sp.30.63431
Swietenia sp.21.49M. Leucadendra16.24192A. mangium11.62835
A. mangium15.05T. grandis13.48878A. heterophyllus11.03645
Eucalyptus sp.5.90P. speciosa11.92149T. cacao9.812265
P. speciosa2.66A. heterophyllus11.64972T. grandis6.419125
M. Leucadendra2.51A. camansi6.21713P. speciosa6.419125
--A. Auricuiformis6.080649M. Leucadendra5.79059
----J. curcas5.245859
----D. zibetinus4.784933
----G. genemon4.114495
Total100.00 100.00 100.00
A. mangium30.78S. macrophylla26.15Swietenia sp.28.13
S. Macrophylla22.86A. mangium15.29D. latifolia21.89
D. latifolia11.52D. latifolia14.43A. mangium10.84
T. grandis10.89M. leucadendra13.47C. calothyrsus7.66
M. Leucadendra6.45T. grandis11.83M. Leucadendra6.21
E. cyclocarpum3.87P. speciosa4.93P. speciosa6.16
P. merkusii2.80A. molucana3.14A. heterophyllus6.13
Eucalyptus sp.2.54P. falcataria3.09T. grandis4.82
P. speciosa1.91A. heterophyllus2.72Eucalyptus sp.1.55
C. nucifera1.48A. Altilis1.36M. indica1.55
S. cumini1.46Eucalyptus sp.1.26G. genemon1.55
A. molucana1.05A. camansi1.26A. elliptica1.30
A. camansi0.99G. genemon1.06D. zibetinus1.20
L. Leucocephala0.70--J. curcas1.01
A. heterophyllus0.70----
Total100.00 100.00 100.00
M. Leucadendra39.80M. Leucadendra27.22A. mangium16.79
A. mangium24.07P. speciosa24.91P. speciosa13.78
Eucalyptus sp.8.63A. mangium18.02M. indica11.19
T. grandis8.46S. Macrophylla9.51Swietenia sp.10.63
A. molucana6.31P. canescens6.06A. heterophyllus10.14
D. latifolia3.73P. falcataria2.95D. latifolia7.64
S. Macrophylla3.70D. latifolia2.95D. zibetinus6.95
P. speciosa1.77Eucalyptus sp.2.83M. Leucadendra6.26
P. merkusii1.77A. molucana2.83G. genemon6.26
P. canescen1.77A. pauciflorum2.72S. aromaticum5.82
---G. sepium4.54
Total100 100 100
D. latifolia36.89D. latifolia30.95D. latifolia50.03
T. grandis34.95S. Macrophylla26.98Swietenia sp.17.14
S. Macrophylla9.56M. Leucadendra19.17T. grandis10.33
M. Leucadendra6.04T. grandis15.95L. leucocephala7.31
A. mangium3.52G. genemon1.94A. heterophyllus4.79
E. cyclocarpum3.10Eucalyptus sp.1.87G. genemon4.46
Eucalyptus sp.2.83A. mangium1.57G. sepium2.57
A. molucana1.50A. molucana1.57M. Leucadendra2.01
L. Leucocephala0.83--P. speciosa1.37
P. speciosa0.78----
Total100 100 100
Note: PN = Pinus stand, AS = Aleurites-Swietenia stand, SA = Swietenia-Acacia stand, MA = Meulaleuca-Acacia stand, TD = Tectona-Dalbergia stand. IV = important value.
Table A2. Summary statistics of multi-response permutation procedure (MRPP) analysis for tree vegetation communities.
Table A2. Summary statistics of multi-response permutation procedure (MRPP) analysis for tree vegetation communities.
NoComparison of Sorensen DistanceTAp-Value
1General Comparison−28.270.320.000
2Pairwise Comparison:
1 vs. 2−15.470.320.000
1 vs. 3−12.740.220.000
1 vs. 4−11.480.200.000
1 vs. 5−13.500.130.000
2 vs. 3−11.070.490.000
2 vs. 4−8.850.460.000
2 vs. 5−16.350.280.000
3 vs. 4−9.360.260.000
3 vs. 5−12.540.150.000
4 vs. 5−9.840.130.000
Note: T = separation between groups, A = within-group homogeneity, p = significance level at alpha 0.05, UF = undisturbed post-logged forest, JF = jungle rubber forest, MF = mixed regrowth forest, NF = newly regrowth forest (open area).
Figure A1. Relationship graphs of vegetation characteristics and associated factors within PCA components (a) = component 1, (b) = component 2, (c) = component 3, (d) = component 4, (e) = component 5 and (f) = component 6.
Figure A1. Relationship graphs of vegetation characteristics and associated factors within PCA components (a) = component 1, (b) = component 2, (c) = component 3, (d) = component 4, (e) = component 5 and (f) = component 6.
Forests 14 00365 g0a1


  1. Janzen, H.H. The soil carbon dilemma: Shall we hoard it or use it? Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 2004, 123, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, Y.; Fu, B.; Lü, Y.; Chen, L. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil organic carbon sequestration at multiple scales in semi-arid Loess Plateau, China. Catena 2011, 85, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Walter, K.; Don, A.; Tiemeyer, B.; Freibauer, A. Determining soil bulk density for carbon stock calculations: A systematic method comparison. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016, 80, 579–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Smith, P.; Fang, C.; Dawson, J.J.; Moncrieff, J.B. Impact of global warming on soil organic carbon. Advan. Agron. 2008, 97, 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nishina, K.; Ito, A.; Beerling, D.J.; Cadule, P.; Ciais, P.; Clark, D.B.; Faloon, P.; Friend, A.D.; Kahana, R.; Kato, E.; et al. Global soil organic carbon stock projection uncertainties relevant to sensitivity of global mean temperature and precipitation changes. Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss. 2013, 4, 1035–1064. [Google Scholar]
  7. Stockmann, U.; Adams, M.A.; Crawford, J.W.; Field, D.J.; Henakaachchi, N.; Jenkins, M.; Minasni, B.; McBratney, A.B.; Singgh, K.; Wheeler, I.; et al. The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 164, 80–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. FAO; ITPS. Status of the World’s Soil Resources-Technical Summary; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  9. Calvode, A.R.; Luis, E.; Febrero-Bande, M.; Galinanes, J.; Macias, F.; Ortiz, R.; Casas, F. Soil organic carbon in peninsular Spain: Influence of environmental factors and spatial distribution. Geoderma 2020, 370, 114365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deng, L.; Liu, G.B.; Shangguan, Z.P. Land-use conversion and changing soil carbon stocks in China’s ‘Grain-for-Green’ Program: A synthesis. Glob. Change Biol. 2014, 20, 3544–3556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Devi, A.S. Influence of trees and associated variables on soil organic carbon: A review. J. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 45, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lv, X.; Jia, G.; Yu, X.; Niu, L. Vegetation and Topographic Factors Affecting SOM, SOC, and N Contents in a Mountainous Watershed in North China. Forests 2022, 13, 742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hu, P.-L.; Liu, S.-J.; Ye, Y.-Y.; Zhang, W.; Wang, K.-L.; Su, Y.-R. Effects of environmental factors on soil organic carbon under natural or managed vegetation restoration. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shi, Y.; Baumann, F.; Ma, Y.; Song, C.; Uhn, P.K.; Scholten, T.; He, J.-S. Organic and inorganic carbon in the topsoil of the Mongolian and Tibetan grasslands: Pattern, control and implications. Biogeosciences 2012, 9, 2287–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Saiz, G.; Bird, M.I.; Domingues, T.; Schrodt, F.; Schwarz, M.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Veenendaal, E.; Djagbletey, G.; Hien, F.; Compaore, H.; et al. Variation in soil carbon stocks and their determinants across a precipitation gradient in West Africa. Glob. Change Biol. 2012, 18, 1670–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gruba, P.; Socha, J.; Błońska, E.; Lasota, J. Effect of variable soil texture, metal saturation of soil organic matter (SOM) and tree species composition on spatial distribution of SOM in forest soils in Poland. Sci. Total. Environ. 2015, 521–522, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Vesterdal, L.; Schmidt, I.K.; Callesen, I.; Nilsson, L.O.; Gundersen, P. Carbon and nitrogen in forest floor and mineral soil under six common European tree species. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Batjes, N.H. Harmonized soil profile data for applications at global and continental scales: Updates to the WISE database. Soil Use Manag. 2016, 25, 124–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ziadat, F.M.; Taimeh, A.Y. Effect of rainfall intensity, slope, land use and antecedent soil moisture on soil erosion in an arid environment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2013, 24, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Deng, L.; Wang, K.; Tang, Z.; Shangguan, Z. Soil organic carbon dynamics following natural vegetation restoration: Evidence from stable carbon isotopes (δ13C). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 221, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dlamini, P.; Chivenge, P.; Manson, A.; Chaplot, V. Land degradation impact on soil organic and nitrogen stocks of sub-tropical humid grassland in South Africa. Geoderma 2014, 235–236, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. You, Y.; Wang, J.; Huang, X.; Tang, Z.; Liu, S.; Sun, O.J. Relating microbial community structure to functioning in forest soil organic carbon transformation and turnover. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4, 633–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chandra, L.R.; Gupta, S.; Pande, V.; Singh, N. Impact of forest vegetation on soil characteristics: A correlation between soil biological and physic-chemical properties. 3Biotech 2016, 6, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Zhang, C.; Liu, G.; Xue, S.; Sun, C. Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen storage as affected by land use in a small watershed of the Loess Plateau, China. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2013, 54, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dong, L.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Bing, M.; Liu, Y.; Wu, J.; Hai, X.; Li, A.; Wong, K.; Wu, P.; et al. Effects of vegetation restoration types on soil nutrients and soil erodibility regulated by slope positions on the Loess Plateau. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 302, 113985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Agus, C.; Pradipa, E.; Wulandari, D.; Supriyo, H.; Agus, D. Peran Revegetasi Terhadap Restorasi Tanah Pada Lahan Rehabilitasi Tambang Batubara Di Daerah Tropika [The Role of Revegetation in Soil Restoration in Coal Mine Rehabilitation Land in the Tropics]. J. Mns. Dan Lingkung. 2014, 21, 60–66. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gong, L.; Liu, G.; Wang, M.; Ye, X.; Wang, H.; Li, Z. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil organic carbon in China: A me-ta-analysis. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2017, 27, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dong, L.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Hai, X.; Li, M.; Wu, J.; Wang, X.; Shangguan, Z.; Zhou, Z. Forestation delivers significantly more effective results in soil C and N sequestrations than natural succession on badly degraded areas: Evidence from the Central Loess Plateau case. Catena 2022, 208 Pt b, 105734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Suyana, J.; Tanah, F.P.P.S.I.; Krismonanto, W.; Muliawati, E.S.; Widijanto, H.; Hartati, S. Karakteristik vegetasi, hara nitrogen dan karbon organik tanah pada tegakan hutan taman nasional gunung-merbabu dan tegalan (The Characteristics of Vegetation, Soil Nutrients of Nitrogen and Soil Organik Carbon at Forest Stands of Mount-Merbabu National Park and Dry Field). J. Penelit. Pengelolaan Drh. Aliran Sungai 2022, 6, 141–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dewi, I.N.; Andayani, W.; Suryanto, P. Pengembangan Ekowisata Kawasan Hutan Dengan Skema Hutan emasyarakatan Di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta (Development of Forest Area Ecotourism ith Community Forest Scheme in Special Teritory of Yogyakarta). J. Mns. Lingk. 2017, 24, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Arsalan, A.; Gravitiani, E.; Irianto, H. Biomassa di Atas Tanah dan Penghitungan Simpanan Karbon Hutan Kalibiru Kabu-paten Kulon Progo [Aboveground Biomass and Calculation of Carbon Stores in the Kalibiru Forest, Kulon Progo Regency]. J. Penelit. Biol. 2020, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim, Y.-S.; Latifah, S.; Afifi, M.; Mulligan, M.; Burke, S.; Fisher, L.; Siwicka, E.; Remoundou, K.; Christie, M.; Lopez, S.M.; et al. Managing forests for global and local ecosystem services: A case study of carbon, water and livelihoods from eastern Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. Perpres Nilai Ekonomi Karbon Dukung Pencapaian NDC Indonesia [Pres-idential Decree on Carbon Economic Value Supports the achievement of Indonesia’s NDC]. Available online: (accessed on 3 November 2021).
  34. Megarani, A. Tata Cara Perdagangan Karbon [Carbon Trade Mechanism]. Forestdigest. Available online: (accessed on 26 October 2022).
  35. Adalina, Y.; Nurrochmat, D.R. Harvesting of non-timber forest products by the local communities in Mount alimun-Salak National Park, West Java, Indonesia. J. Manaj. Hutan Tropika. 2014, 20, 103–111. [Google Scholar]
  36. Harbi, J.; Erbaugh, J.T.; Sidiq, M.; Haasler, B.; Nurrochmat, D.R. Making a bridge between livelihoods and forest conservation: Lessons from non-timber forest products’ utilization in South Sumatera, Indonesia. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 94, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Anggraheni, Y.; Hermawan, H.; Sujarwoto, S. Understanding Community Participation within Sustainable Rural Tourism Development (A Single Case Study in alibiru Village, Yogyakarta Special Region, Indonesia). J. Ilm. Adm. Publik 2018, 4, 301–309. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wiyono, W.; Hidayat, R.; Oktania, S.N. The Community Empowerment trategy in Protected Forest Management through Community-Based Ecotourism Development in alibiru Village, Kulon Progo Regency. Habitat 2020, 1, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Balai KPH Yogyakarta. Ringkasan Eksekutif Rencana Pengelolaan KPH Yogyakarta Jangka Tahun 2014–2023 [Executive Summary of the KPH Yogyakarta Management Plan for the 2014–2023 Term]; Balai Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2013.
  40. Siswo; Atmoko, D.A.; Brahmantya, L.; Pahlana, U.W.; Yun, C.W. Overseas Forest Survey; Tree Species Distribution and the Rela-tionship to Environmental Factors in the Protected Forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry; Report; Kongju National University: Yesan-gun, Republic of Korea, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ariyani, R. Kelayakan Potensi Sumber Daya Ekowisata di Kawasan Hutan Kemasyarakatan Kalibiru, Kabupaten Kulon Progo [Feasibility of Potential Ecotourism Resources in the Kalibiru Community Forest Area, Kulon Progo Regency]. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 31 January 2021. [Google Scholar]
  42. BPS Kabupaten Kulon Progo. Kabupaten Kulon Progo Dalam Angka Tahun 2021 [Kulon Progo Regency in Figures for 2021]; Biro Pusat Statistik [Central Agency on Statistic]: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  43. Climate Engine. Computing Climate and Remote Sensing Data. Available online: (accessed on 22 September 2022).
  44. Wikipedia. Sejarah Terjadinya Hutan Negara di Kulon Progo. Available online: (accessed on 22 September 2022).
  45. HKm Mandiri. Profil Kelompok Tani Hutan Kemasyarakatan [Profile of Community Forest Farmer Groups]; HKm Mandiri: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kementerian Kehutanan. Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan no SK.437/Menhut-II/2007 Tentang Penetapan Areal Kerja Hutan Ke-Masyarakatan di Kabupaten Kulon Progo Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta [Decree of the Minister of Forestry no SK.437/Menhut-II/2007 Regarding the Determination of Community Forestry Areas in Kulon Progo Regency, Special Teritory of Yogya-Karta Province]; Kemeterian Kehutanan [Ministry of Forestry]: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kusmana, C. Metode Survey Vegetasi [Vegetation Survey Method]; Institut Pertanian Bogor: Bogor, Indonesia, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  48. Magurran, A.E. Measuring Biological Diversity; Blackwell Science: Malden, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  49. Indriyanto. Ekologi Hutan [Forest Ecology]; Bumi Aksara: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  50. Thammanu, S.; Marod, D.; Han, H.; Bhusal, N.; Asanok, L.; Ketdee, P.; Gaewsingha, N.; Lee, S.; Chung, J. The influence of environmental factors on species composition and distribution in a community forest in Northern Thailand. J. For. Res. 2020, 32, 649–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Aji, B.D.S.; Wijayanto, N.; Wasis, B. Visual Evaluation of Soil Structure (VESS) Method to Assess Soil Properties of Agroforestry System in Pangalengan, West Java. J. Manaj. Hutan Trop. 2021, 27, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pribyl, D.W. A critical review of the conventional SOC to SOM conversion factor. Geoderma 2010, 156, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. BSN. Pengukuran dan Penghitungan Cadangan Karbon—Pengukuran Lapangan Untuk Penaksiran Cadangan Karbon Hutan [Meas-urement and Calculation of Carbon Stocks—Field Measurements for Estimating Forest Carbon Stocks]; Badan Standardisasi Nasional [National Standardization Agency]: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2011.
  54. Mandal, G.; Joshi, S.P. Analysis of vegetation dynamics and phytodiversity from three dry deciduous forests of Doon Valley, Western Himalaya, India. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers. 2014, 7, 292–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Andivia, E.; Rolo, V.; Jonard, M.; Formanek, P.; Ponette, Q. Tree Species Identity mediate mecanisms of top soil carbon se-questration in a norway Spruce and Euripean beech mixed forest. Ann. Forest. Sci. 2016, 73, 437–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Webber, O.B.; DaSilva, M.C.B.; DaSilva, C.F.; DeSouza, J.A.; Taniguch, C.A.K.; Garruti, D.S.; Romero, R.E. Biological and Chemical attribuites of soil under forest species in Northeast Brazil. J. Forest. Res. 2019, 31, 1959–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Amolikondori, A.; Vajari, K.A.; Feizian, M. Assessing soil organic carbon, N and P stocks and its relation to soil properties in artificial canopy gaps in a managed oriental beech (Fagus orientalis L.) forest. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2022, 185, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. PPT. Petunjuk Teknis Evaluasi Kesuburan Tanah [Technical Guidelines for Soil Fertility Evaluation]; Pusat Penelitian Tanah [Center for Soil Research]: Bogor, Indonesia, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  59. McCune, B.; Grace, J.B. Analysis of Ecological Communities; MJM Software Design: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  60. Meijide, A.; Badu, C.S.; Moyano, F.; Tiralla, N.; Gunawan, D.; Knohl, A. Impact of forest conversion to oil palm and rubber plantations on microclimate and the role of the 2015 ENSO event. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 252, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cleophas, T.J.; Zwinderman, A.H. Non-Parametric Tests for Three or More Samples (Friedman and Kruskal Wallis); Clinical Data Analysis on a Poscket Calculator; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  62. Rabbi, S.; Tighe, M.; Cowie, A.; Wilson, B.R.; Schwenke, G.; Mcleod, M.; Badgery, W.; Baldock, J. The relationships between land uses, soil management practices, and soil carbon fractions in South Eastern Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 197, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Peck, J.E. Multivariate Analysis for Community Ecologists; MJM Software Design: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  64. Makarenkov, V.; Legendre, P. Nonlinier Redundancy Analysis and Cannonical Correspondence Analysis Based on Polynomial Regression. Ecology 2002, 83, 1146–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Perez, L.V. Principal Component Analysis to Address Multicollinearity; Whitman College: Walla Walla, WA, USA, 2017; p. 99362. [Google Scholar]
  66. Beaumont, R. An introduction to principal component analysis & factor analysis using SPSS 19 and R (psych package). Factor Anal. Princ. Compon. Anal. (PCA) 2012, 24, 8–9. [Google Scholar]
  67. Shannon, C.; Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theori of Communication; University of Illonis Press: Champaign/Urbana, IL, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
  68. Backer, C.A.; Van-Den-Bakhuizen, B. Flora of Java (Spermatophytes Only); Wolters-Noordoff N.V: Groningen, Nedherland, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yudhoyono, A.; Sukarya, D.G. 3500 Plant Species of the Botanic Gardens of Indonesia; PT. Sukarya dan Sukarya Pendetama: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  70. Clutter, J.L.; Fortson, J.C.; Pienaar, L.V.; Brister, G.H.; Bailey, R.L. Timber Management: A Quantitative Approach; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  71. Yekti. Kadar Bahan Organik Tanah [Soil Organic Matter]; Report; UPN “veteran”: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  72. Pinheiro, E.; Pereira, M.; Anjos, L. Aggregate distribution and soil organic matter under different tillage systems for vegetable crops in a Red Latosol from Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 77, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fajrina, C.; Arabia, T.; Sufardi, S. Distribusi Fe-dan Al-humus serta C organik tanah pada Entisol dan Inceptisol di Lahan Kering Jantho, Kabupaten Aceh Besar [Distribution of Fe-and Al-humus and soil organic carbon in Entisols and Inceptisols in Jantho Dry Land, Aceh Besar District]. J. Ilm. Mhs. Pertan. 2019, 4, 664–676. (In Indonesian) [Google Scholar]
  74. López-Hernández, D.; Hernández-Hernández, R.M.; Hernández-Valencia, I.; Toro, M. Nutritional stress in dystrophic sa-vanna soils of the Orinoco basin: Biological responses to low nitrogen and phosphorus availabilities. In Emerging Technologies and Management of Crop Stress Tolerance; Academic Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 343–375. [Google Scholar]
  75. Krisnawati, H.; Kallio, M.; Kanninen, M. Aleurites Moluccana (L.) Willd: Ekologi, silvikultur dan produktivitas; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2011. (In Indonesian) [Google Scholar]
  76. Krisnawati, H.; Kallio, M.; Kanninen, M. Swietenia Macrophylla King: Ecology, Silviculture and Productivity; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2011. (In Indonesian) [Google Scholar]
  77. Suyana, J.; Widijanto, H.; Muliawati, E.S.; Melida, O.; Damayanti, R. Penilaian Biomassa Vegetasi, Karbon Vegetasi, Dan Karbon Tanah Pada Beberapa Tipe Tegakan Hutan Rakyat [Assessment of Vegetation Biomass, Vegetation Carbon, and Soil Carbon in Several Types of Community Forest Stands]. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Fakultas Pertanian UNS; Universitas Sebelas Maret: Solo City, Indonesia, 2021; pp. 1279–1291. (In Indonesian) [Google Scholar]
  78. Riniarti, M.; Setiawan, A. Status kesuburan tanah pada dua tutupan lahan di Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Lindung (KPHL) Batutegi Lampung [Soil fertility status in two land covers in the Batutegi Lampung Protected Forest Management Unit (KPHL)]. J. Sylva Lestari 2014, 2, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pham, T.G.; Tran, C.T.M.; Nguyen, H.T.; Trinh, H.N.; Nguyen, N.B.; Nguyen, H.K.N.; Tran, T.T.; Le, H.D.; Le, Q.N.P. Land Evaluation for Acacia (Acacia mangium × Acacia auriculiformis) Plantations in the Mountainous Regions of Central Vietnam. Land 2022, 11, 2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Augusto, L.; De Schrijver, A.; Vesterdal, L.; Smolander, A.; Prescott, C.; Ranger, J. Influences of evergreen gymnosperm and deciduous angiosperm tree species on the functioning of temperate and boreal forests. Biol. Rev. 2015, 90, 444–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Liu, Y.; Li, S.; Sun, X.; Yu, X. Variations of forest soil organic carbon and its influencing factors in east China. Ann. For. Sci. 2016, 73, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhou, L.; Sun, Y.; Saeed, S.; Zhang, B.; Luo, M. The difference of soil properties between pure and mix Chinese fir (Cunning-hamia lanceolata) plantations depends on tree species. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e01009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Priyono, C.N.; Siswamartana, S. Hutan Pinus dan Hasil Air [Pine Forest and Water Yield]; Pusat Pengembangan Sumber Daya Hutan Perhutani: Cepu, Indonesia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  84. Wenjie, L.; Pengju, L.; Hongmei, L.; Weinping, D. Estimation of evaporation rate from soil surface using stable isotopic com-position of throughfall and stream water in a tropical seasonal rain forest of Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2016, 26, 1303–1310. [Google Scholar]
  85. Fan, J.; Ostergaard, K.T.; Guyot, A.; Fujiwara, S.; Lockington, D.A. Estimating groundwater evapotranspiration by a sub-tropical pine plantation using diurnal water table fluctuations: Implication from night-time water use. J. Hydrol. 2016, 542, 679–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sunanto, H. Budi Daya dan Penyulingan Kayu Putih; Kanisius: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2003. (In Indonesian) [Google Scholar]
  87. Muardimansyah, S.; Akhbar, A.; Arianingsih, I. Cadangan Karbon Tanah Pada Berbagai Tingkat Kerapatan Tajuk Di Hutan Lindung Kebun Kopi Desa Nupabomba Kecamatan Tanantovea Kabupaten Donggala. J. War. Rimba 2016, 4, 125–131. [Google Scholar]
  88. Lukina, N.V.; Tikhonova, E.V.; Danilova, M.A.; Bakhmet, O.N.; Kryshen, A.M.; Tebenkova, D.N.; Kuznetsova, A.I.; Smirnov, V.E.; Braslavskaya, T.Y.; Gornov, A.V.; et al. Associations between forest vegetation and the fertility of soil organic horizons in northwestern Russia. For. Ecosyst. 2019, 6, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Siswo; Yun, C.W.; Abdiyani, S. Distribution of tree species around springs and trees-springs interplay possibility in the springs area of Soloraya, Central Java, Indonesia. For. Sci. Technol. 2019, 15, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Roose, E.J.R.; Lal, C.; Feller, B.; Barthes; Stewart, B.A. Advances in Soil Science: Soil Erosion and Carbon Dynamics; CRC Press; Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; Volume 352, p. 88. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Map of the study site. Stand type and abbreviation; PN = Pinus stand, AS = Aleurites—Swietenia stand, SA = Swietenia-Acacia stand, MA = Meulaleuca-Swietenia stand, TD = Tectona-Dalbergia stand.
Figure 1. Map of the study site. Stand type and abbreviation; PN = Pinus stand, AS = Aleurites—Swietenia stand, SA = Swietenia-Acacia stand, MA = Meulaleuca-Swietenia stand, TD = Tectona-Dalbergia stand.
Forests 14 00365 g001
Figure 2. Variations in SOC and SOM among stand types; (a) SOC concentration, (b) SOM concentration, (c) SOC stock and (d) SOM stock. Yellow and grey areas of the boxes indicate the second and third quartiles, respectively. Whiskers imply the upper and the lower quartile. Different letters (a,b,c) demonstrate significant differences between plot groups (Annova, p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Variations in SOC and SOM among stand types; (a) SOC concentration, (b) SOM concentration, (c) SOC stock and (d) SOM stock. Yellow and grey areas of the boxes indicate the second and third quartiles, respectively. Whiskers imply the upper and the lower quartile. Different letters (a,b,c) demonstrate significant differences between plot groups (Annova, p < 0.05).
Forests 14 00365 g002
Figure 3. Between plot variations in SOC and SOM; (a) concentration (%), (b) stock (ton/ha). Blue lines indicate SOC, and yellow lines indicate SOM.
Figure 3. Between plot variations in SOC and SOM; (a) concentration (%), (b) stock (ton/ha). Blue lines indicate SOC, and yellow lines indicate SOM.
Forests 14 00365 g003
Figure 4. Effect of tree vegetation characteristics and environmental factors on the concentration and stock of SOC and SOM in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry. SOCc is SOC concentration, SOMc is SOM concentration, SOCs is SOC stock and SOMs is SOM stock.
Figure 4. Effect of tree vegetation characteristics and environmental factors on the concentration and stock of SOC and SOM in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry. SOCc is SOC concentration, SOMc is SOM concentration, SOCs is SOC stock and SOMs is SOM stock.
Forests 14 00365 g004
Table 1. Stand types in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry.
Table 1. Stand types in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry.
NoStand TypeSpecies DominantCanopy Cover (%)
1PNPinus Merkusii68.43
2ASAleurites miolucana, Swietenia macrophylla75.50
3SASwietenia macrophylla, Acacia auriculiformis, Tectona grandis, Dalbergia latifolia74.29
4MAMelaleuca Leucadendra, Acacia auriculiformis59.71
5TDDalbergia latifolia, Tectona grandis85.43
Source: Siswo et al. [40]. Note: PN = Pinus stand, AS = Aleurites-Swietenia stand, SA = Swietenia-Acacia stand, MA = Meulaleuca-Acacia stand, TD = Tectona-Dalbergia stand.
Table 2. Description of experimental design.
Table 2. Description of experimental design.
NoSurvey VariablesDescriptionMethod/Tools
1Existing information on vegetation classification [40]
Aerial photographyDrone
Plot sampling

Seventy-two quadratic plots (20 × 20 m single quadratic plot), determined and placed randomly on the mapStratified random sampling
Tree species investigation
Tree species identification and coverage estimation as a field check for the forest cover visually investigated on the map (72 plots).Map-based visual investigation and field qualitative survey
Estimation of canopy cover
Canopy density was measured as a field check for the percentage of forest cover.Spherical densiometer
Environmental factors
General environmental factors (altitude, slope position and aspect)
Global positioning system (GPS) and topographic map
2Tree vegetation, more detail environmental factors and SOC investigation (current Study)
Plot sampling:
For tree vegetation composition

For tree vegetation characteristics and soil sample
72 existing plots determined by Siswo et al. [40]: PN = 7 plots, AS = 8 plots, SA = 24 plots, MA = 11 plots and TD = 22 plots

Seven selected plots from each stand type
Purposive sampling

Purposive sampling
Tree species investigation
Species identification, density, diameter, height (tree layer, sub-tree layer and shrub layer)Quantitative survey
SOC investigation
Soil analysis (SOC, SOM, bulk density and soil depth)Soil sampling
Environmental factors:
  • Topographic
Altitude, slope and aspectSiswo et al. [40]
Bare rock, soil pH, bulk density and soil textureObservation and soil sampling
Below-stand utilization, distance from road and distance from riverObservation and desk study
Table 3. Plot-level tree species diversity and structural characteristics of tree species in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry.
Table 3. Plot-level tree species diversity and structural characteristics of tree species in the protected forest of Kulon Progo Community Forestry.
Tree CharacteristicsMean/Mean RankF/pTest
Diversity index (T)0.48/10.14 a0.54/13.86 b1.11/24.43 b1.07/27.14 b0.75/14.43 b0.006KW
Diversity index (ST)0.39/12.07 a0.72/19.71 a0.84/23.36 a0.79/17.93 a0.67/16.93 a0.326KW
Diversity index (S)0.59/20.29 a0.40/16.57 a0.82/24.14 a0.34/13.86 a0.37/15.14 a0.284KW
Basal Area (T)27.61 a17.56 a15.94 a19.91 a23.55 a0.422AN
Basal Area (ST)3.98/11.64 a6.45/18.43 a7.26/21.57 a5.06/17.50 a5.68/20.86 a0.39KW
Basal Area (S)0.73/7.71 a2.76/18.57 b4.89/26.29 b2.83/18.50 ab2.97/18.93 b0.019KW
Density (T)375 a204 b232 b154 b211 b0.001AN
Density (ST)2007.79 a343/16.71 b528/22.57 b400/21.07 b429/21.86 ab0.004KW
Density (S)886/15.07 a1028/16.21 a1842/27.14 a1142/16.07 a971/15.50 a0.179KW
Max height28.14 a19.29 b21.29 ab21 ab27.14 a0.005AN
Canopy coverage68.43/12.79 a75.5/19.21 abc74.29/19.21 abc59.71/11.43 ab85.43/27.36 c0.029KW
Note: Stand type; PN = Pinus stand, AS = Aleurites-Swietenia stand, SA = Swietenia-Acacia stand, MA = Meulaleuca-Acacia stand, TD = Tectona-Dalbergia stand. Growth level; T = tree layer, ST = sub-tree layer, S = shrub layer. Test used: KW = Kruskal wallis test, AN = Annova. N = number of samples. Different letters (a,b,c) demonstrate significant differences between plot groups. Computed using alpha 0.05.
Table 4. Summary statistic of Principal component analysis (PCA).
Table 4. Summary statistic of Principal component analysis (PCA).
NOVariables PCA Component
2Basal Area0.1060.785−0.1810.2240.0760.253
3Canopy cover (%)0.3190.4680.2120.490−0.1050.157
4Canopy height (m)−0.4890.070−0.1040.6940.0160.053
5Diversity index0.531−0.2920.2720.1410.3720.364
6Altitude (masl)0.8290.117−0.077−0.094−0.110−0.066
7Slope (%)0.1790.044−0.195−0.1410.734−0.051
8Slope position (Topography)0.681−0.356−0.196−0.1370.215−0.191
9Bare Rock (%)−0.3420.3720.085−0.4300.1510.477
10Distance from road (m)−0.393−0.1420.1900.2130.6020.298
11Distance from river (m)0.7670.107−0.2790.0450.3100.167
12Below-stand utilization0.037−0.210−0.039−0.827−0.1730.029
13Soil Texture (Silt)−0.1630.4120.7100.342−0.012−0.202
14Soil Texture (Clay)0.159−0.030−0.9630.030−0.057−0.005
15Soil Texture (Sand)−0.054−0.3990.628−0.4120.0950.225
Eigenvalue 3.5272.7322.3331.6881.5291.014
% of Variance explained 20.7516.0713.729.938.99
Cumulative % of variance explained 20.7536.8250.5460.4769.46
Note: Bold letter indicated members of each component.
Table 5. Summary Statistics of Redundancy Analysis (RDA) between tree vegetation communities and environmental factors.
Table 5. Summary Statistics of Redundancy Analysis (RDA) between tree vegetation communities and environmental factors.
Axis1Axis2Axis3Partial Variation (%)
Summary statistic:
    Variance Explained (%)28.5000.2000.000-
    Cumulative explained (%)28.50028.70028.800-
    Pearson correlation0.5190.5170.652-
Inter-set correlation:
    Component 10.1230.300−0.1421.60
    Component 20.2100.214−0.1154.40
    Component 30.215−0.2940.2884.70
    Component 40.3650.010.08113.20
    Component 5−0.0670.2900.5240.50
    Component 60.2110.002−0.0694.40
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Siswo; Kim, H.; Lee, J.; Yun, C.-W. Influence of Tree Vegetation and The Associated Environmental Factors on Soil Organic Carbon; Evidence from “Kulon Progo Community Forestry,” Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Forests 2023, 14, 365.

AMA Style

Siswo, Kim H, Lee J, Yun C-W. Influence of Tree Vegetation and The Associated Environmental Factors on Soil Organic Carbon; Evidence from “Kulon Progo Community Forestry,” Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Forests. 2023; 14(2):365.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Siswo, Hojin Kim, Jeongeun Lee, and Chung-Weon Yun. 2023. "Influence of Tree Vegetation and The Associated Environmental Factors on Soil Organic Carbon; Evidence from “Kulon Progo Community Forestry,” Yogyakarta, Indonesia" Forests 14, no. 2: 365.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop