Next Article in Journal
Modeling Urban Temperature Using Measurements from Mobile and Stationary Monitoring Stations
Previous Article in Journal
Can New Energy Become a Breakthrough for Economic Development—Based on Clean Development Mechanism Projects in Less Developed Coastal Cities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 20
10.3390/su16208896
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Growth and Biomass Yield of Grey Sedge (Lepironia articulata Retz. Domin) under Different Shoot-Cutting Intervals in a Tropical Peatland

by
Erizal Sodikin
1,2,
Irmawati Irmawati
1,2,
Rujito A. Suwignyo
1,2,*,
Entis S. Halimi
1,
Marudut Tampubolon
3,
A-Ram Yang
4,
Hyunyoung Yang
4,* and
Himlal Baral
5,6
1
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Sriwijaya University, Palembang 30662, Indonesia
2
Center of Excellence Peatland Conservation and Productivity Improvement (CoE PLACE), Sriwijaya University, Palembang 30662, Indonesia
3
Department of Agroecotechnology, Sriwijaya University, Palembang 30662, Indonesia
4
Forest Strategy Research Division, Future Forest Strategy Department, National Institute of Forest Science, Seoul 02455, Republic of Korea
5
Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), Bogor Barat 16115, Indonesia
6
School of Ecosystem and Forest Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3052, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(20), 8896; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208896
Submission received: 26 August 2024 / Revised: 4 October 2024 / Accepted: 6 October 2024 / Published: 14 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Grey sedge (Lepironia articulata Retz. Domin) is a plant endemic to tropical peatlands and is widely used as a handicraft and biodegradable product that brings income to local farmers. However, its habitat has been decreasing due to peatland degradation, which has forced local farmers to harvest L. articulata repeatedly in the same habitat. To examine the effects of repeated shoot cutting at different time intervals on L. articulata growth and biomass yield, a mesocosm experiment was conducted from June 2019 to March 2020 in a tropical peatland in Perigi village, Ogan Ilir District, South Sumatra, Indonesia, using a randomized block design with four treatments and three replicates. The treatments were as follows: P1 (cutting every 1 month), P2 (cutting every 2 months), P3 (cutting every 3 months), and P4 (cutting at 6-months). The results showed that P1 significantly reduced monthly shoot height, shoot diameter, shoot number, dry biomass, cumulative shoot number, and cumulative dry biomass. In contrast, considering L. articulata‘s regenerative growth, the growth and cumulative biomass yield of P3 (1453.5 ± 518.4 g m−2) were as good as those of P4. These results indicate that the harvesting interval should be longer than 3 months for the sustainable use of L. articulata in tropical peatlands without damaging its regenerative ability.

1. Introduction

Peatlands are ecosystems that contain large amounts of organic matter in the peat layer created by plant remnants that have not fully decomposed under prolonged waterlogged and anoxic conditions [1]. The accumulated organic matter enables a large volume and biomass of living plants to grow on the peat layer, despite the low oxygen availability and pH created by waterlogged conditions [2,3]. Plants that can grow in peatlands are categorized into five groups: mosses; graminoids such as grasses, sedges, and rushes; broadleaf herbs and pteridophytes; evergreen and deciduous shrubs; and trees [3,4,5,6]. Boreal and temperate peatlands are generally dominated by moss, herbaceous plants, and shrubs, while tropical peatlands are covered by a wide range of plants including trees, shrubs, herbs, and graminoids [7,8,9,10,11].
Particularly, tropical peatlands store large amounts of biomass and carbon in both belowground peat and aboveground vegetation layers with high net primary productivity (NPP) [12,13]. For example, Indonesia, which has the second-largest tropical peatland area (225,420 km2) in the world [14], stores 55–58 and 18.6 Gt of carbon belowground and aboveground in tropical peatlands, respectively, serving as an important global carbon storage [15,16,17,18]. In addition to storing carbon and providing biomass (timber and non-timber), tropical peatlands provide diverse ecosystem services, such as regulating water and nutrients and nurturing biodiversity [19,20,21].
Biomass production from tropical peatlands is essential for not only biodiversity and ecological cycling but also local people’s livelihoods. Harvested biomass from tropical peatlands includes fruits (durian, nuts, and coconuts), crops (coffee, chilly, beans, and rice), timber, and non-timber raw materials. They are used to make handicrafts, cosmetics, medicine, and bioenergy [22,23,24,25,26]. However, efforts to produce maximum biomass in an unsustainable way can degrade tropical peatlands via large-scale plantations, biomass exploitation with frequent harvest intervals, and using fire for clearing agricultural land [27]. To ensure sustainable biomass production without degrading tropical peatlands, appropriate management approaches, such as peatland restoration, the control of harvest intervals, paludiculture, and agrosilvofishrey, should be considered [28,29,30].
Lepironia articulata Retz. Domin is an important graminoid plant for biomass production from tropical peatlands. It belongs to the Cyperaceae family and is an emergent aquatic plant widely distributed in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Madagascar, Australia, and the Pacific Islands [31,32,33,34]. Its common name is ‘grey sedge’ and its local name in South Sumatra, Indonesia is ‘purun’. It can grow up to 1–2 m throughout the year in environments from acidic and saline wet surfaces to contaminated wastewater [35,36]. Owing to these characteristics, L. articulata can become abundant in tropical peatlands. It has several functions, including stabilizing wetland banks [37] and providing important vertical structural habitats for birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates [38,39,40]. Moreover, it has traditionally been used by local people to produce handicrafts and household goods (mats, baskets, hats, and bags) [41,42,43]. It also has potential for use in biofilters, bioenergy, biodegradable construction products, and straws [44,45,46,47] through biotransformation processes, e.g., [48,49,50]. It can support zero-waste management and a circular economy because L. articulata residue can accelerate microbial growth and improve the soil quality for plant growth [51]. Through these various uses, L. articulata has become an important source of income for the local residents. For example, 16,379 local people in the Haur Gading District, South Kalimantan, Indonesia, usually depend on L. articulata when rice paddy farming fails because of high water stagnation. The average income of the community from L. articulata is IDR 12,780,000 (approximately USD 785) per year, which is 56.8% of community business [43], indicating that L. articulata is an important source of income for local people.
Recently, however, the deforestation, drainage, and burning of tropical peatlands for other land uses have resulted in their degradation [18,27]. This means that the natural L. articulata habitat has been decreasing, pushing local farmers to repeatedly and frequently harvest L. articulata shoots in the same habitat. Frequent harvests can reduce plant regenerative ability and biomass quality [51,52,53]. Nevertheless, research and guidance on sustainable L. articulata shoot-cutting intervals are needed to ensure that its biomass yield does not permanently decline in tropical peatlands.
To fill this gap, this study examined L. articulata growth and biomass yield under different shoot-cutting intervals in a tropical peatland in Perigi village, South Sumatra, Indonesia. We hypothesized that L. articulata growth and biomass yield would be negatively affected by short shoot-cutting intervals (more frequent cutting) in tropical peatlands.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

This study site was located at Perigi village, Pangkalan Lampam District, Ogan Komering Ilir Regency, South Sumatra, Indonesia (3°06′44.0″ S 105°02′59.3″ E, Figure 1). We selected tropical peatlands in Perigi village as the study site because South Sumatra has a relatively high percentage of peatland cultivation and a highly degraded area compared to other islands in Indonesia [54]. Moreover, since the livelihood of the local people in Perigi village actually depends mainly on the biomass production from tropical peatland, they are aware of the need for peatland restoration and are willing to participate in it; therefore, they were cooperative in this mesocosom experiment. Finally, the peatlands where L. articulata dwelled were relatively easily accessible [55]. The entire area of Perigi village is approximately 11,340 ha, 35% of which is tropical peatlands [55]. This type of peatland is topogenous, developed in topographically low areas, and is affected by mineral-rich river runoff [56]. The average peat depth was 128.5 ± 50.3 cm. The peat soil pH was acidic (pH H2O 4.39), with a total organic carbon of 57.8%, total N of 2.0%, available P of 57.1 ppm, and C/N ratio of 29.1 [57]. Since the dominant peat depth in Indonesia is 100–300 cm [58] and the peat soil pH range is 3–5 [59,60], the peatlands in Perigi village can be deemed representative.
This study was conducted in peatlands from June 2019 to March 2020. During the study period, the average monthly air temperature in the study area was 27.8 ± 0.6 °C (range: 27.1–28.8 °C), the average monthly integrated precipitation was 142 ± 66 mm (range: 23–230 mm per month), and the average monthly air humidity was 75.2 ± 7.9% (range: 63.5–86.5%) in Ogan Komering Ilir Regency [61].

2.2. Experimental Procedure

We used a randomized block design with four repeated stem interval treatments and three replicates. The size of each replicated plot was 0.5 m × 0.5 m at an inter- and intra-row spacing of 2 m × 2 m [62,63].
On 24 June 2019, we measured the number of naturally grown shoots and dry biomass of L. articulata in each plot. Preliminary shoot cutting was then performed 15 cm above the soil surface on the same date to ensure the same controlled conditions for every plot. The shoot-cutting treatments consisted of cutting every month (P1), every 2 months (P2), every 3 months (P3), and at 6 months (P4) 15 cm above the soil surface after the preliminary cutting. This is because L. articulata is usually mature and harvested after six months [43]; however, the harvesting interval has become more frequent because of tropical peatland degradation. For example, in Perigi village, local farmers harvest L. articulata only during the wet season because its shoots will likely become dry otherwise and it cannot be harvested during the dry season. When the peatland degradation causes prolonged dry conditions through drainage and fire, farmers are forced to repeat shoot cutting before six months [64]. Thus, we simulated more frequent shoot-cutting situations. The timeline of the shoot-cutting interval treatment is summarized in Table 1.
Shoot height, shoot diameter, and shoot number were recorded every month on the 24th. Shoot heights were measured for 10 shoots per plot using a ruler from the soil surface to the end of the shoot and then averaged per plot. The shoots per plot were counted. Shoot diameters were measured for 10 shoots per plot at the soil surface using Vernier calipers (Tricle brand, Shanghai, China) and then averaged. The harvested plant material per plot was dried at 80 °C for 72 h in an oven to determine the amount of dry biomass.
The monthly shoot height, shoot diameter, shoot number, and dry biomass were square- or log-transformed for a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by a Tukey’s post hoc test. The cumulative shoot number and dry biomass were log-transformed for a one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. Values were considered significantly different at p < 0.05. Normality and homoscedasticity were checked using Shapiro and Levene’s tests, respectively. All statistical analyses were performed using R v4.3.2 [65].

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Measurement

Before starting the shoot-cutting treatment, the shoot number and dry biomass of naturally grown L. articulata in the plots were measured (Table 2). Since L. articulata is a perennial species, shoots that had grown the previous year or earlier remained dry and dead, and only those that grew that year were green. The number of green shoots was 2113 ± 304 m−2 and their dry biomass was 1911.3 ± 912.7 g m−2.

3.2. Statistical Results

Table 3 summarizes the results of the two- and one-way ANOVAs on the effects of shoot-cutting intervals and time on L. articulata growth and biomass yield. All growth parameters were significantly affected by shoot-cutting intervals. Detailed results and descriptions of each parameter are provided below.

3.3. Shoot Height

Immediately after the preliminary cutting, the shoot heights for all treatments were not significantly different; however, they were significantly different from the second to the sixth month (p < 0.05, Figure 2). The shoot height for P1 was 50.9 ± 6.1 cm in the first month; however, it significantly decreased by 26.0 ± 3.5 cm in the sixth month (p < 0.05) due to monthly cutting. The shoot height for P2 was 74.9 ± 5.5 cm in the second month. After the first cutting, the shoots regrew to 48.6 ± 7.2 cm by the fourth month. After the second cutting, the shoot height recovered to 54.0 ± 4.7 cm by the sixth month. For P3, the shoot height constantly increased to 74.0 ± 11.9 cm in the third month. After the first cutting, the shoot height recovered to 71.50 ± SD cm in the sixth month. Even though the shoot height in the fifth month was approximately 18 cm lower than that in the second month, it was only approximately 3 cm lower in the sixth month than that in the third month, with rapid recovery. The shoot height for P4 grew from 40.7 ± 3.2 cm in the first month to 91.1 ± 6.8 cm in the sixth month. At the final harvest, shoot height was the lowest for P1 and highest for P4 followed by P3 (p < 0.05).

3.4. Shoot Diameter

The shoot diameter for all treatments was significantly different after the fifth month (p < 0.05; Figure 3). For P1, the shoot diameter significantly declined from 3.17 ± 0.12 mm in the second month to 2.47 ± 0.32 mm in the sixth month due to monthly cutting (p < 0.05). For P2, the shoot diameter in the second month was 3.23 ± 0.32 mm, and then it recovered to 2.73 ± 0.06 and 2.80 ± 0.20 mm after two months from the first and second cuttings, respectively. After the preliminary cutting, the shoot diameters for P3 were 3.03 ± 0.31 mm in the third month and even slightly higher (3.33 ± 0.29 mm) in the sixth month. For P4, the shoot diameter consistently increased until the sixth month. At the final harvest, significantly narrower shoot diameters were observed for P1 compared to P3 and P4 (p < 0.05).

3.5. Shoot Number

Immediately after the preliminary cutting, the shoot numbers for all treatments were not significantly different; however, their difference became distinct after the third month (Figure 4). The shoot number for P1 was 401 ± 119 m−2 in the first month and slightly increased in the second month. However, it significantly dropped by 167 ± 57 m−2 in the sixth month. Otherwise, the shoot number for P2 even two months after cutting recovered to 732 ± 39 and 720 ± 30 m−2 (in the fourth and sixth months, respectively). For P3, the shoot number after preliminary cutting increased to 1693 ± 121 m−2 in the third month. After the first cutting, the shoot numbers were substantially higher than those in the previous round. Finally, the shoot number for P4 steadily increased to 2207 ± 58 m−2 in the sixth month. Therefore, the shoot numbers for P3 and P4 in the sixth month were approximately thirteen and three times higher than those for P1 and P2, respectively (p < 0.05).
We further added the shoot numbers at each harvest time to calculate the cumulative shoot number for the entire period (Table 4). The cumulative shoot number was significantly higher for P3 than for the other treatments (p < 0.05).

3.6. Dry Biomass

Figure 5 shows the harvested dry biomass of L. articulata at each cut. The dry biomass decreased as the number of shoot cuttings increased for all treatments. The dry biomass for P1 significantly decreased from 144.7 ± 32.0 g m−2 (first month) to 33.0 ± 10.7 g m−2 (sixth month). The first harvested dry biomass for P2 was 261.1 ± 122.2 g m−2; however, the second and third harvested dry biomass slightly decreased. The first and second harvested dry biomass for P3 were 789.4 ± 294.6 and 664.1 ± 226.1 g m−2, respectively. The dry biomass for P4 was harvested only once in the sixth month (1211 ± 193 g m−2).
The cumulative dry biomass during the whole experimental period was the highest for P3 (1453.5 ± 518.4 g m−2), which was significantly higher than that for P1 (470.1 ± 123.8 g m−2; Table 5).

4. Discussion

4.1. Site Biomass Compared to That from Other Wetlands

We first examined whether L. articulata dry biomass at our study site was comparable to that at other sites. In this study, the aboveground L. articulata dry biomass before the preliminary cutting was 1911.3 ± 912.7 g m−2 (Table 2). After six months from the preliminary cutting, the biomass partially recovered up to 1210.5 ± 193.0 g m−2 in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, South Sumatra, Indonesia (Table 5).
Although previous studies on L. articulata are very limited, the values from our study are within the range of reported dry biomass in other wetlands. For example, the L. articulata dry biomass in a tropical swamp in Tasek Bera, Malaysia, was 850 g m−2, including the rhizomes [66]. In the Tagimaucia crater lake and swamp in Fiji, the aboveground dry biomass of L. articulata ranged widely from 500 to 4000 g m−2 [67]. Both the dry biomass before and after the preliminary cutting in this study showed a higher productivity than that reported in previous studies, indicating the preferred conditions for L. articulata.

4.2. Effects of Different Shoot-Cutting Intervals on L. articulata Growth and Biomass Yield

Shoot-cutting intervals significantly affected all growth parameters (shoot height, shoot diameter, shoot number, dry biomass, and their cumulative values). Most of them were significantly reduced in the 1-month cutting interval compared to the 3-month and 6-month cutting intervals.
The decreased growth parameters of L. articulata after cutting every 1 month can be explained by the depletion of stored energy reserves due to frequent shoot cutting. Repeated cutting leaves fewer carbohydrate and nutrient reserves in the remaining biomass, which are necessary for re-sprouting capacity, shoot regrowth, and aboveground biomass recovery [68]. Consequently, the regenerative ability was further reduced as the number of repeated harvests increased. Other species showed similar phenomena, with small variations in the growth parameters. For example, another sedge, Cyperus esculentus, displayed a decreasing growth and reproduction pattern when ramet clipping frequency increased, except in the metric of ramet density [69]. An aquatic emergent plant, Sparganium erectum L., also experienced a decreased recovery rate and permanently lowered cumulative biomass [70]. Terer et al. [71] reported that a shorter harvesting interval (six months) than the life cycle (12 months) of an emergent plant, Cyperus papyrus L., negatively affected biomass regeneration, shoot density, shoot height, and age structure. They explained that frequent harvesting does not allow the species to complete their full maturity cycle; however, this was not the case in this study. In this study, L. articulata grew better at 3-month intervals than at its full maturity cycle (6 months, Table 5), indicating that the full maturity cycle is not an absolute standard.
Interestingly, the maximum cumulative dry biomass of L. articulata was observed at 3-month cutting intervals rather than at 6-month intervals, although the standard deviation of 3-month cutting intervals were relatively large. Previous studies have reported that an intermediate cutting frequency resulted in the maximum dry biomass of the target species. Rengsirikul et al. [62] revealed that napiergrass (Pennisetum prupureum Schnmach) at five cutting intervals (1-, 2-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month intervals) showed lower shoot height and higher shoot density at 1-month intervals, whereas the cumulative biomass peaked at 3-month intervals. Other studies have shown that cutting switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) twice a season increases biomass yield and tiller density compared to cutting once a season [72,73]. The shoot density of Phragmites australis was also higher under twice-mowing than under once-mowing [63]. These studies have reported similar results to our findings. One possible explanation is that L. ariculata can rapidly allocate energy to shoot formation to quickly occupy more space and maximize the biomass capable of photosynthesis in the 3-month cutting interval, but not at 1- or 2-month intervals. In addition, warm and sunny growing conditions with sufficient precipitation enable fast and strong shoot regrowth after cutting [68,74]. Since the air temperature during the study period was slightly higher than the 30-year averaged air temperature (27.3 ± 0.4 °C) [61], the regenerative ability of L. articulata under warm conditions was stimulated in the 3-month cutting interval. Another possible reason might be the unexpected uncertainty in the field survey. Although we conducted the same preliminary shoot cutting on all treatments during plot preparation, some plots may have had a relatively high potential to develop intensive shoot density [see P3 for 3 months, Figure 4] and therefore the highest cumulative dry biomass. This uncertainty is one of the limitations of this study and should be addressed and controlled in future greenhouse experiments.

4.3. Sustainable Harvesting Period for L. articulata Biomass Yield

Based on our data, three- and six-month cutting intervals would allow a large cumulative shoot density and aboveground biomass, which can contribute to the livelihood of the local people. Even though it fully matures at least six months after shoot cutting, L. articulata seems to maintain a sufficient regenerative capability by cutting at three-month intervals. This result indicates that local people should wait for at least three months before harvesting L. articulata to ensure its regenerative ability and sustainable use in tropical peatlands. However, as we continued the mesocosm experiment only for six months, further studies should consider the long-term effects of repeated shoot cutting under diverse interannual variations in climatic conditions. Further studies are needed to analyze changes in biochemical properties (e.g., cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) after harvesting to determine the biomass quality.

5. Conclusions

To conclude, frequent repetitive shoot cuttings generally caused a large decrease in shoot height, diameter, number, and dry biomass. Shoot-cutting intervals should be longer than 3-months for a sustainable L. articulata biomass yield without reducing its regenerative capability. These findings can provide easy and clear guidelines for local people, who rely on aboveground L. articulata biomass for their livelihood, and are directly related to tropical peatland conservation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.S.; methodology, E.S. and R.A.S.; software, I.I. and H.Y.; validation, H.Y. and M.T.; investigation, M.T., E.S. and R.A.S.; resources, E.S. and I.I.; data curation, E.S., I.I., A.-R.Y. and H.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, E.S., I.I., H.Y., A.-R.Y., R.A.S., M.T. and E.S.H.; writing—review and editing, H.Y., A.-R.Y., I.I. and E.S.; supervision, E.S., H.Y. and R.A.S.; project administration, R.A.S. and H.B.; funding acquisition, A.-R.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institute of Forest Science (Grant No. FM0800-2021-03-2024.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the National Institute of Forest Science for supporting this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dargie, G.C.; Lewis, S.L.; Lawson, I.T.; Mitchard, E.T.A.; Page, S.E.; Bocko, Y.E.; Ifo, S.A. Age, extent and carbon storage of the central Congo Basin peatland complex. Nature 2017, 542, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Englhart, S.; Jubanski, J.; Siegert, F. Quantifying dynamics in tropical peat swamp forest biomass with multi-temporal LiDAR datasets. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 2368–2388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Antala, M.; Juszczak, R.; van der Tol, C.; Rastogi, A. Impact of climate change-induced alterations in peatland vegetation phenology and composition on carbon balance. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 827, 154294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Moore, T.R.; Bubier, J.L.; Frolking, S.E.; Lafleur, P.M.; Roulet, N.T. Plant biomass and production and CO2 exchange in an ombrotrophic bog. J. Ecol. 2002, 90, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Walker, T.N.; Ward, S.E.; Ostle, N.J.; Bardgett, R.D. Contrasting growth responses of dominant peatland plants to warming and vegetation composition. Oecologia 2015, 178, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rupp, D.; Kane, E.S.; Dieleman, C.; Keller, J.K.; Turetsky, M. Plant functional group effects on peat carbon cycling in a boreal rich fen. Biogeochemistry 2019, 144, 305–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Page, S.E.; Rieley, J.O.; Shotyk, W.; Weiss, D. Interdependence of peat and vegetation in a tropical peat swamp forest. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1999, 354, 1885–1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Vitt, D.H. Peatlands. In Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Carbondale, IL, USA, 2013; Volume 2, pp. 557–566. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ribeiro, K.; Pacheco, F.S.; Ferreira, J.W.; de Sousa-Neto, E.R.; Hastie, A.; Krieger Filho, G.C.K.; Alvalá, P.C.; Forti, M.C.; Ometto, J.P. Tropical peatlands and their contribution to the global carbon cycle and climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 489–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Gallego-Sala, A.V.; Charman, D.J.; Brewer, S.; Page, S.E.; Prentice, I.C.; Friedlingstein, P.; Moreton, S.; Amesbury, M.J.; Beilman, D.W.; Björck, S.; et al. Latitudinal limits to the predicted increase of the peatland carbon sink with warming. Nat. Clim. Change 2018, 8, 907–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hodgkins, S.B.; Richardson, C.J.; Dommain, R.; Wang, H.; Glaser, P.H.; Verbeke, B.; Winkler, B.R.; Cobb, A.R.; Rich, V.I.; Missilmani, M.; et al. Tropical peatland carbon storage linked to global latitudinal trends in peat recalcitrance. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Giesen, W. Utilising non-timber forest products to conserve Indonesia’s peat swamp forests and reduce carbon emissions. J. Indones. Nat. Hist. 2015, 3, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  13. Deshmukh, C.S.; Julius, D.; Desai, A.R.; Asyhari, A.; Page, S.E.; Nardi, N.; Susanto, A.P.; Nurholis, N.; Hendrizal, M.; Kurnianto, S.; et al. Conservation slows down emission increase from a tropical peatland in Indonesia. Nat. Geosci. 2021, 14, 484–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gumbricht, T.; Roman-Cuesta, R.M.R.; Verchot, L.; Herold, M.; Wittmann, F.; Householder, E.; Herold, N.; Murdiyarso, D. An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 3581–3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jaenicke, J.; Rieley, J.O.; Mott, C.; Kimman, P.; Siegert, F. Determination of the amount of carbon stored in Indonesian peatlands. Geoderma 2008, 147, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baccini, A.; Goetz, S.J.; Walker, W.S.; Laporte, N.T.; Sun, M.; Sulla-Menashe, D.; Hackler, J.; Beck, P.S.A.; Dubayah, R.; Friedl, M.A.; et al. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat. Clim. Change 2012, 2, 182–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Warren, M.; Hergoualc’h, K.; Kauffman, J.B.; Murdiyarso, D.; Kolka, R. An appraisal of Indonesia’s immense peat carbon stock using national peatland maps: Uncertainties and potential losses from conversion. Carbon Balance Manag. 2017, 12, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Page, S.; Mishra, S.; Agus, F.; Anshari, G.; Dargie, G.; Evers, S.; Jauhiainen, J.; Jaya, A.; Jovani-Sancho, A.J.; Laurén, A.; et al. Anthropogenic impacts on lowland tropical peatland biogeochemistry. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 426–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Posa, M.R.C.; Wijedasa, L.S.; Corlett, R.T. Biodiversity and conservation of tropical peat swamp forests. J. Bio Sci. 2011, 61, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Taufik, M.; Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B.; Van Dam, J.C.; Jones, P.D.; Van Lanen, H.A.J. Human-induced changes in Indonesian peatlands increase drought severity. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 084013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pudyatmoko, S.; Budiman, A.; Siregar, A.H. Habitat suitability of a peatland landscape for tiger translocation on Kampar Peninsula, Sumatra, Indonesia. Mamm. Biol. 2023, 103, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Giannini, V.; Oehmke, C.; Silvestri, N.; Wichtmann, W.; Dragoni, F.; Bonari, E. Combustibility of biomass from perennial crops cultivated on a rewetted Mediterranean peatland. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 97, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maimunah, S.; Rahman, S.A.; Samsudin, Y.B.; Artati, Y.; Simamora, T.I.; Andini, S.; Lee, S.M.; Baral, H. Assessment of suitability of tree species for bioenergy production on burned and degraded peatlands in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land 2018, 7, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Leksono, B.; Windyarini, E.; Hasnah, T.M.; Rahman, S.A.; Baral, H. Calophyllum inophyllum—A viable prospect for green energy and landscape restoration? In Bioenergy for Landscape Restoration and Livelihoods: Re-creating Energy-Smart Ecosystems on Degraded Landscapes; Baral, H., Leksono, B., Seol, M., Eds.; Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2022; pp. 178–191. [Google Scholar]
  25. Maulidya, A.; Suwignyo, R.A.; Priadi, D.P.; Baral, H.; Choi, E.; Adriansyah, F.; Yang, H. Survival and growth performance of Calophyllum inophyllum L. seedlings in peat soil and at different levels of groundwater. Land 2024, 13, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Premono, B.T.; Wakhid, N.; Handayani, D.; Nurzakiah, S.; Tata, H.L. Home garden mixed cropping practice by communities living on peatland in household’s income resilience and climate adaptation. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2024, 1315, 012003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dohong, A.; Aziz, A.A.; Dargusch, P. A review of the drivers of tropical peatland degradation in South-East Asia. Land Use Policy 2017, 69, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Budiman, I.; Bastoni, S.; Sari, E.N.; Hadi, E.E.; Asmaliyah; Siahaan, H.; Januar, R.; Hapsari, R.D. Progress of paludiculture projects in supporting peatland ecosystem restoration in Indonesia. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tan, Z.D.; Lupascu, M.; Wijedasa, L.S. Paludiculture as a sustainable land use alternative for tropical peatlands: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 753, 142111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pusvita, E.; Mulyana, A.; Adriani, D.; Antoni, M. Farmer’s interest and economics model of agrosilvofishery restoration on degraded peatland in OKI Regency south Sumatra, Indonesia. JOSAET 2023, 1, 99–111. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wunbua, J.; Nakhapakorn, K.; Jirakajohnhool, S. Change detection and identification of land potential for planting Krajood (Lepironia articulata) in Thale Noi, Southern Thailand. Sist. 2012, 34, 329–336. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sinaga, N.I.; Lense, O.N.; Hendry; Tukayo, R. Association among Lepironia articulata Cyperaceae, peat soil and people in Wanggate. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1025, 012003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rasaminirina, F.; Larridon, I. The genera of Cyperaceae of Madagascar. Plant Ecol. Evol. 2023, 156, 276–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jacobs, S.W.L. New South Walse Flora Online: Lepironia articulate. Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust, Sydney Australia. Available online: https://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Lepironia~articulata (accessed on 9 July 2024).
  35. Oishi, R.; Nioh, I.; Hayatsu, M.; Nioh, T.; Limtong, P. Isolation and characterization of heterotrophic chemoorganotrophic bacteria from the roots of Lepironia articulata (reedgrass) grown on strongly acidic sulfate soil in South Thailand. Microb. Environ. 1999, 14, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Said, N.S.M.; Kurniawan, S.B.; Abdullah, S.R.S.; Hasan, H.A.; Othman, A.R.; Ismail, N.I. Competence of Lepironia articulata in eradicating chemical oxygen demand and ammoniacal nitrogen in coffee processing mill effluent and its potential as green straw. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 799, 149315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sim, C.H.; Yusoff, M.K.; Shutes, B.; Ho, S.C.; Mansor, M. Nutrient removal in a pilot and full scale constructed wetland, Putrajaya City Malaysia. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bensink, A.H.A.; Burton, H.; Stradbroke Island, N. A place for freshwater invertebrates. Proc. R. Soc. Qld. 1975, 86, 29–45. [Google Scholar]
  39. McFarland, D. The composition, microhabitat use and response to fire of the avifauna of subtropical heathlands in Cooloola National Park, Queensland. Emu—Austral Ornithol. 1988, 88, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Marshall, J.C.; McGregor, G.B. The influence of water depth on the distribution of the emergent sedge Lepironia articulalta (Cyperaceae) in two dune lakes of Southern Queensland Wallum wetlands. Proc. R. Soc. Qld. 2011, 117, 193–199. [Google Scholar]
  41. Domyos, P.; Te-Chato, S. In vitro propagation of Lepironia articulate in Kuan Kreng peatlands, Nakhon Si Thammrat. J. Agric. Technol. 2013, 9, 1993–2004. [Google Scholar]
  42. Salim, J.M.; Lee, G.E.; Salam, M.R.; Shahimi, S.; Pesiu, E.; Jani, J.M.; Horsali, N.A.I.; Shahrudin, R.; Nor, S.M.M.; Chong, J.L.; et al. A checklist of vascular plants and uses of some species for livelihood-making in Setiu Wetlands, Terengganu, Malaysia. PhytoKeys 2020, 160, 7–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kissinger, K.; Yamani, A.; Pitri, R.M.N.; Nasrulloh, A.V. Impacts of Forest Farmers Management on Lepironia articulata Retz.: Conservation Based on Utilization of Peat Ecosystem Biodiversity in South Kalimantan. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2024, 33, 1203–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ullah, A.; Kaewsichan, L.; Tohdee, K. Evaluation of hydrothermally carbonized alternative biomass (Lepironia articulate) as a source of alternative energy and adsorbent. JPIChE 2019, 47, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Al-Ajalin, F.A.H.; Idris, M.; Abdullah, S.R.S.; Kurniawan, S.B.; Imron, M.F. Effect of wastewater depth to the performance of short-term batching-experiments horizontal flow constructed wetland system in treating domestic wastewater. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 20, 101106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Binti Hairolnizam, N.F.A.; Nasarudin, M.A.S.; Mohamad Termizi, A.Z.-A.; Amalina, F.; Abd Razak, A.S.; Sulaiman, S. The potential of biodegradable compostable eco-straw from Lepironia Articulata sp. (Purun/Kercut). Mater. Today Proc. 2024; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Homkhiew, C.; Srivabut, C.; Boonchouytan, W.; Rawangwong, S. Sandwich composites from recycled plastic reinforced with krajood (Lepironia articulata) fiber for building applications. Iran. Polym. J. 2024, 33, 839–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Oberlintner, A.; Bajić, M.; Kalčíková, G.; Likozar, B.; Novak, U. Biodegradability study of active chitosan biopolymer films enriched with Quercus polyphenol extract in different soil types. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 21, 101318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Oberlintner, A.; Likozar, B.; Novak, U. Hydrophobic functionalization reactions of structured cellulose nanomaterials: Mechanism, kinetics and in silico multi-scale models. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 1, 117742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Bjelić, A.; Hočevar, B.; Grilc, M.; Novak, U.; Likozar, B. A review of sustainable lignocellulose biorefining applying (natural) deep eutectic solvents (DESs) for separations, catalysis and enzymatic biotransformation processes. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2022, 38, 243–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chucheep, K.; Suwanpayak, N.; Phanchindawan, N. A study of the feasibility of using grey sedge residue to facilitate zero waste production. Recycling 2022, 7, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Monti, A.; Bezzi, G.; Pritoni, G.; Venturi, G. Long-term productivity of lowland and upland switchgrass cytotypes as affected by cutting frequency. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7425–7432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Moyo, H.; Scholes, M.C.; Twine, W. The effects of repeated cutting on coppice response of Terminalia sericea. Trees 2015, 29, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Applegate, G.; Freeman, B.; Tular, B.; Sitadevi, L.; Jessup, T.C. Application of agroforestry business models to tropical peatland restoration. Ambio 2022, 51, 863–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Choi, E.; Jeong, J.; Artati, Y.; Yang, H.; Adriani, D.; Yang, A.-R. Local perspectives on agrosilvofishery in peatlands: A case study of Perigi Village, South Sumatra, Indonesia. Land 2024, 13, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Omar, M.S.; Ifandi, E.; Sukri, R.S.; Kalaitzidis, S.; Christanis, K.; Lai, D.T.C.; Bashir, S.; Tsikouras, B. Peatlands in Southeast Asia: A comprehensive geological review. Earth Sci. Rev. 2022, 232, 104149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cahya, M.; Suwignyo, R.A.; Sodikin, E.; Baral, H. Increasing rice productivity in degraded peatlands using improved planting methods and rice varieties. Biol. Res. J. 2022, 8, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Anda, M.; Ritung, S.; Suryani, E.; Sukarman; Hikmat, M.; Yatno, E.; Mulyani, A.; Subandiono, R.E.; Suratman; Husnain. Revisiting tropical peatlands in Indonesia: Semi-detailed mapping, extent and depth distribution assessment. Geoderma 2021, 402, 115235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rinaldi, P.S.; ’Akromah, Z.N.; Ramadhan, H.; Husna, S.; Syamsudin, D.L.; Panggabean, P.B.; Murdianti, R.A.; Fatahillah, M.H.; Perala, I.; Rizqia, E.K.; et al. Physical and Chemical Analysis of Land in Forest Peat Swamp in Resort Pondok soar, Tanjung Puting National Park, Central Kalimantan. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 394, 012037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hikmatullah, S. Physical and chemical properties of cultivated peat soils in four trial sites of ICCTF in Kalimantan and Sumatra, Indonesia. J. Trop. Soils 2014, 19, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Klimatologi Kelas I Sumatera Selatan (1994–2023), Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi Dan Geofisika Stasiun, Palembang, Indonesia.
  62. Rengsirikul, K.; Ishii, Y.; Kangvansaichol, K.; Pripanapong, P.; Sripichitt, P.; Punsuvon, V.; Vaithanomsat, P.; Nakamanee, G.; Tudsri, S. Effects of inter-cutting interval on biomass yield, growth components and chemical composition of napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach) cultivars as bioenergy crops in Thailand. Grassl. Sci. 2011, 57, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kulik, M.; Sender, J.; Bochniak, A.; Jaźwa, M.; Ciesielski, D. The influence of mowing frequency on the growth and development of Phragmites australis. J. Nat. Conserv. 2023, 76, 126492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Irmawati, I. (Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia). Personal communication, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  65. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ikusima, I. Primary production and population ecology of the aquatic sedge Lepironia articulata in a tropical swamp, Tasek Bera, Malaysia. Aquat. Bot. 1978, 4, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Southern, W.; Ash, J.; Brodie, J.; Ryan, P. The flora, fauna and water chemistry of Tagimaucia crater, a tropical highland lake and swamp in Fiji. Freshw. Biol. 1986, 16, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. De Ryck, S.; Reheul, D.; De Cauwer, B. Impact of regular mowing, mowing height, and grass competition on tuber number and tuber size of yellow nutsedge clonal populations (Cyperus esculentus L.). Weed Res. 2023, 63, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Li, B.; Shibuya, T.; Yogo, Y.; Hara, T. Effects of ramet clipping and nutrient availability on growth and biomass allocation of yellow nutsedge. Ecol. Res. 2004, 19, 603–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bar, K.D.; Verschoren, V.; Sara, J.R.; Merie, P.; Schoelynck, J. Consequences of Different Cutting Regimes on Regrowth and Nutrient Stoichiometry of Sparganium erectum L. and Potamogeton natans L. River Res. Appl. 2017, 33, 1420–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Terer, T.; Triest, L.; Muthama Muasya, A.M. Effects of harvesting Cyperus papyrus in undisturbed wetland, Lake Naivasha, Kenya. Hydrobiologia 2012, 680, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fike, J.H.; Parrish, D.J.; Wolf, D.D.; Balasko, J.A.; Green, J.T., Jr.; Rasnake, M.; Reynolds, J.H. Switchgrass production for the upper southeastern USA: Influence of cultivar and cutting frequency on biomass yields. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Liu, X.-J.A.; Fike, J.H.; Galbraith, J.M.; Fike, W.B. Switchgrass response to cutting frequency and biosolids amendment: Biomass yield, feedstock quality, and theoretical ethanol yield. BioEnergy Res. 2014, 7, 1191–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, B.; Shibuya, T.; Yogo, Y.; Hara, T. Effects of temperature on bud-sprouting and early growth of Cyperus esculentus in the dark. J. Plant Res. 2000, 113, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 08896 g001
Figure 1. Study site at Perigi village, Ogan Komering Ilir Regency, South Sumatra, Indonesia.
Figure 1. Study site at Perigi village, Ogan Komering Ilir Regency, South Sumatra, Indonesia.
Sustainability 16 08896 g001
Sustainability 16 08896 g002
Figure 2. The effect of shoot-cutting interval on Lepironia articulata shoot height in the tropical peatland of Perigi village, Indonesia. Bars and error bars indicate average and standard error, respectively. Different letters in the same bar indicate significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 2. The effect of shoot-cutting interval on Lepironia articulata shoot height in the tropical peatland of Perigi village, Indonesia. Bars and error bars indicate average and standard error, respectively. Different letters in the same bar indicate significantly different at p < 0.05.
Sustainability 16 08896 g002
Sustainability 16 08896 g003
Figure 3. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on Lepironia articulata shoot diameter in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia. Bars and error bars indicate average and standard error, respectively. Different letters in the same bar indicate significantly different at p < 0.05. Data for 1-month were lost and not shown.
Figure 3. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on Lepironia articulata shoot diameter in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia. Bars and error bars indicate average and standard error, respectively. Different letters in the same bar indicate significantly different at p < 0.05. Data for 1-month were lost and not shown.
Sustainability 16 08896 g003
Sustainability 16 08896 g004
Figure 4. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on Lepironia articulata shoot number in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia. Bars and error bars indicate average and standard error, respectively. Different letters in the same bar indicate significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 4. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on Lepironia articulata shoot number in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia. Bars and error bars indicate average and standard error, respectively. Different letters in the same bar indicate significantly different at p < 0.05.
Sustainability 16 08896 g004
Sustainability 16 08896 g005
Figure 5. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on Lepironia articulata dry biomass in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia. Bars and error bars indicate average and standard error, respectively. Different letters in the same bar indicate significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 5. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on Lepironia articulata dry biomass in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia. Bars and error bars indicate average and standard error, respectively. Different letters in the same bar indicate significantly different at p < 0.05.
Sustainability 16 08896 g005
Table 1. Timeline of shoot-cutting intervals on Lepironia articulata in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia.
Table 1. Timeline of shoot-cutting intervals on Lepironia articulata in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia.
Cutting
Interval		Time
1 Month2 Months3 Months4 Months5 Months 6 Months
P1P 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
P2 1st 2nd 3rd
P3 1st 2nd
P4 1st
Note: Gray colors indicate shoots cut 15 cm above the soil surface. In gray colors, P indicates preliminary shoot cutting and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th indicate the number of shoot cuttings for each treatment.
Table 2. Preliminary measurement of the shoot number and dry biomass of Lepironia articulata (n = 3).
Table 2. Preliminary measurement of the shoot number and dry biomass of Lepironia articulata (n = 3).
ParameterGreen Shoot1/3 Dry ShootDry Shoot
Shoot number (m−2)2113 ± 304523 ± 441713 ± 354
Dry biomass (g m−2)1911.3 ± 912.7755.2 ± 162.81962.5 ± 375.6
Note: Means are followed by standard deviations.
Table 3. Analysis of variance on parameters observed.
Table 3. Analysis of variance on parameters observed.
Parametersd.f.Fp
Shoot height
     Time370.14<0.001 **
     Shoot-cutting interval514.04<0.001 **
     Time × Shoot-cutting interval1514.90<0.001 **
Shoot diameter
     Time322.42<0.001 **
     Shoot-cutting interval59.55<0.001 **
     Time × Shoot-cutting interval134.09<0.001 **
Shoot number
     Time385.31<0.001 **
     Shoot-cutting interval56.92<0.001 **
     Time × Shoot-cutting interval1512.13<0.001 **
Dry biomass
     Time3113.63<0.001 **
     Shoot-cutting interval56.55<0.001 **
     Time × Shoot-cutting interval32.200.11 ns
Cumulative shoot number
     Shoot-cutting interval37.51<0.05 *
Cumulative dry biomass
     Shoot-cutting interval36.54<0.05 *
Note: * Significant difference at p < 0.05, ** significant difference at p < 0.001, ns non-significant difference. The cumulative shoot number and dry biomass indicate the cumulative total shoot number and dry biomass, respectively, during the entire experimental period.
Table 4. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on the cumulative shoot number of Lepironia articulata in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia.
Table 4. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on the cumulative shoot number of Lepironia articulata in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia.
TreatmentsCumulative Shoot Number (m−2)
P12102 ± 630 b
P22148 ± 156 b
P33729 ± 677 a
P42207 ± 58 b
Note: Means are followed by standard deviations. Numbers followed by different letters in the same column are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Table 5. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on the cumulative dry biomass of Lepironia articulata in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia.
Table 5. The effect of shoot-cutting intervals on the cumulative dry biomass of Lepironia articulata in the tropical peatland in Perigi village, Indonesia.
TreatmentsCumulative Dry Biomass (g m−2)
P1470.1 ± 123.8 b
P2661.0 ± 259.1 ab
P31453.5 ± 518.4 a
P41210.5 ± 193.0 ab
Note: Mean values are presented as standard deviations. Numbers followed by different letters in the same column are significantly different at p < 0.05.
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

Sodikin, E.; Irmawati, I.; Suwignyo, R.A.; Halimi, E.S.; Tampubolon, M.; Yang, A.-R.; Yang, H.; Baral, H. Growth and Biomass Yield of Grey Sedge (Lepironia articulata Retz. Domin) under Different Shoot-Cutting Intervals in a Tropical Peatland. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208896

AMA Style

Sodikin E, Irmawati I, Suwignyo RA, Halimi ES, Tampubolon M, Yang A-R, Yang H, Baral H. Growth and Biomass Yield of Grey Sedge (Lepironia articulata Retz. Domin) under Different Shoot-Cutting Intervals in a Tropical Peatland. Sustainability. 2024; 16(20):8896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208896

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sodikin, Erizal, Irmawati Irmawati, Rujito A. Suwignyo, Entis S. Halimi, Marudut Tampubolon, A-Ram Yang, Hyunyoung Yang, and Himlal Baral. 2024. "Growth and Biomass Yield of Grey Sedge (Lepironia articulata Retz. Domin) under Different Shoot-Cutting Intervals in a Tropical Peatland" Sustainability 16, no. 20: 8896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208896

APA Style

Sodikin, E., Irmawati, I., Suwignyo, R. A., Halimi, E. S., Tampubolon, M., Yang, A.-R., Yang, H., & Baral, H. (2024). Growth and Biomass Yield of Grey Sedge (Lepironia articulata Retz. Domin) under Different Shoot-Cutting Intervals in a Tropical Peatland. Sustainability, 16(20), 8896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208896

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