View of Biodiversity and Site Quality as Indicators of Mangrove Forest Health Pasir Sakti, Indonesia

11  Download (0)

Full text


Biodiversity and Site Quality as Indicators of Mangrove Forest Health Pasir Sakti, Indonesia

RahmatSafeโ€™iยน*, RizkyNovia Sari2, Dian Iswandaru3, Fransina S. Latumahina4, Ira Taskirawati5, and Hari Kaskoyo6


Forestry Department, Agriculture Faculty, Lampung University, Indonesia.

4Forestry Department, Agriculture Faculty, Pattimura University, Indonesia

5Forestry Faculty, Hasanudin University, Indonesia.

6Forestry Master study program, AgricultureFaculty, Lampung University.

CorespondenceEmail:[email protected]


Forest health is an effort to control the level of forest damage that can support and guarantee the function and benefits of the forest. The purpose of this study was to determine the health status value of the Pasir Sakti Mangrove Forest with indicators of biodiversity and site quality. Data obtained using the Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) method. The results showed that the health status value of Pasir Sakti Mangrove Forest was 50% were in the good category, 17% were in the moderate category and 33% were in the bad forest health category.

This is influenced by the level of biodiversity and the quality of the site at the research location. The results of the data that have been obtained can be used by managers as a basis for making the right management decisions for mangrove forest management in supporting forest sustainability.

Keywords: avifauna, epifauna, mangrove forest, forest health.


The mangrove forest is a major ecosystems support important life in coastal and marine areas (Pradana et al., 2013). Mangrove habitat is the source of productivity that can be utilized both in terms of the productivity of fisheries and forestry as well as the ecosystems bermukimnya variety of flora and fauna (Adiwijaya, 2009). In addition, mangrove forests also play a role in mitigating caused by global warming because of the mangrove has the ability to store carbon (Bismark, et al. 2008; Sondak, 2015; Bachmid et al., 2018). Forest health can be used as one of the indicators of sustainable forest management (Safe'i et al. 2019).Forest health has several indicators to assess the health condition of the forest, such as biodiversity and the quality of the site. Biodiversity and the quality of the site used as indicators of forest health


assessment as to describe the condition of forest ecosystems in a region. In this study biodiversity parameters used are birds and epifauna, while the tread quality parameters used are cation exchange capacity (CEC). Birds and epifauna are animals that live in the mangrove forest habitat. The existence of birds serve as biological indicators of a region (Qiptiyah et al., 2013) and epifauna is a species that is very sensitive to changes in water quality point of his life that will affect the composition and abundance (Hamidy, 2010).



This study was conducted in December 2018 in the area of Mangrove Forest Pasir Sakti. The method used in this study is the Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) (Figure 1), with sampling using stratified sampling. According to Mangold (1997) FHM is a method to monitor, assess and report on the current status, changes and trends in the long-term health of the forest by using ecological indicators are measurable. Stratified sampling technique is used when there are different traits, or characteristics between existing strata (Arieska and Herdiani, 2018). At the study site has a different characteristic that has the effect of tide levels are different, so the population is divided into levels or strata,

The sampling intensity of 0.009%, so with an area of 296 ha based image analysis of Google Earth in 2018 and an area of 0.4 ha plot clusters thus obtained 6 clusters plot FHM (Forest Health Monitoring). It is based on the P.67 / Menhut-II / 2006 on Criteria and Standards of Forest Inventory that is in the form of plots using circles, rectangles, dots, and lines sampling intensity of at least 0.0025%. So that sampling of 0.009% was able to represent the mangrove forest area studied. The formula for determining the amount of cluster plot as follows.

n =๐ดร—๐ผ๐‘†



N = Number of clusters plotsamples A = Acreage would besampling IS = sampling intensity (0.009%)

Cl = Broad observation plots (plot clusters)


Figure 3. Plot Cluster Design FHM (Mangold, 1997).

Data collection techniques including data collection biodiversity of fauna and footprint.

a. Data fauna biodiversity (diversity of fauna)

Data taken biodiversity fauna and avifauna includes epifauna. Data epifauna and avifauna taken on each cluster plots. Data fauna biodiversity (fauna species diversity) is taken by observing avifauna in each annular plot for 30 minutes in the morning at 06:00 to 9:00 pm and the afternoon from 3:00 p.m. to 17:00 pm. This time is used as in the morning because it is a bird out of the nest to find food and later the birds to return kesarang wktu. Epifauna observations made on each annular plot at a time.

b. Quality Site

Site quality data retrieval is done by taking a soil sample done 3 points. Soil sampling on each cluster plot located between plots 1 and plot 2, plot 1 and plot 3, and plots 1 and 4 at a distance of 18 meters using tires and spades then the soil sample is inserted into a plastic that

1 2

3 4

Azimut 1-2 3600 (azimuth 1-2 3600) Azimut 1-3 1200 (azimuth 1-3 1200) Azimut 1-4 2400 (azimuth 1-4 2400)

(subplot radius 7,32 m) (Annular plot radius17,95 m)

(Soil sample point) @distance between points is 36,6 m

@ Distance soil sample point to subplot center point is 18 m

Mikroplot (Microplot)

(Radius 2,07 m @azimuth 900) (Distance from subplot center 36,6 m)


has been labeled the identity of the location , Soil samples have been obtained selajutnya tested at the Laboratory of Soil Science, University of Lampung.

Data Processing

Data processing is done by the tabulation and counting biodiversity (species diversity) fauna contained in each cluster plot by using the formula of Shannon-Wiener Index by Odum (1996)as follows.

๐ปโ€ฒ= โˆ’ ๐‘ƒ๐‘– ln ๐‘ƒ๐‘–




Hโ€ฒ = Index of diversity of fauna Pi = Ni / N

Ni = The number of individual species to 1 N = Number of individuals of all kinds

Criteria diversity index values as follows.

H '<1 (Low diversity)

1 <H '= 3 (Diversity medium) H '> 3 (High diversity)

Based on data from the Land Research Center (1993), site quality analysis obtained from laboratory test results regarding the criteria CEC CEC (me / 100g) as follows.

<5 (very low)

5-16 (low)

17-24 (Medium) 25-40 (high)

> 40 (very high)


Assessment of the health status of mangrove forests using the FHM (Forest Health Monitoring) technique is obtained from the final value of the health condition of the mangrove forest. According to Safe'i and Tsani (2016), the final value of forest health conditions is the result of the multiplication of the sum derived from the weighted value of the indicator and the score parameter for each indicator of mangrove forest health. The weighted value is eigenvalues obtained using ANP (Analytical Network Process). ANP is a decision making method with qualitative methods that can capture the influence between components (Saaty, 2003).


Formulation formula final value of mangrove forest health is as follows.

NKHm = ๐‘›๐‘›=1 ๐‘๐‘‡๐‘‹๐‘๐‘†

NKHm = (๐‘๐‘‡๐ต๐‘–๐‘œ๐‘‘๐‘–๐‘ฃ ร— ) + ๐‘๐‘†๐ต๐‘–๐‘œ๐‘‘๐‘–๐‘ฃ(๐‘๐‘‡๐‘˜๐‘ข๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘Ž๐‘  ๐‘ก๐‘Ž๐‘๐‘Ž๐‘˜ ร— )๐‘๐‘†๐‘˜๐‘ข๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘Ž๐‘  ๐‘ก๐‘Ž๐‘๐‘Ž๐‘˜


NKHm = Final value of mangrove forest health condition.

NT = Weighted parameter value of each indicator mangrove forest health.

NS = Score of each parameter of health indicators mangrove forest.

Results and Discussion

The mangrove forest in the district of Pasir Sakti, East Lampung regency, Lampung is located in the area of Protected Forest Management Unit (KPHL) Gunung Balak is geographically located on 10530'0''BT -1060'0''BT and 50'0''LS - 530'0''LS. This research was conducted in Register 15 Estuary Way Sekampung form of protected mangrove forest and swamp forest selapan. Resort Muara Sekampung has an elongated shape that is dominated byplants flame (Avicennia sp.) and mangrove (Rhizophora sp.). Based onrock formation from the sediment surface, mostlyare peppered throughout the East. This region consists of plains and tidal marshreceding formed from Holocene sediments containing marine clay, sludgerivers and swamps, as well as beach sand deposits (Malau, 2015).


Fauna species found in the study site as much as 5 different types of epifauna and 9 species of avifauna as presented in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1. Type epifauna found in mangrove forests Subdistrict Pasir Sakti, East Lampung District, Lampung Province

Family fauna Scientific name amount clusters plot FHM

Conservation Status Regulatio

n No. 106 2018


Gobiidae fish glodok Periothalamus sp.

19 4.6 T -

Limulidae Mimi / crab Limulidae 22 4,5,6 D EN

Potamididae mangrove clams

Telescopium Telescopium

5,364 3,4,5,6 T -

Ellobiidae mangrove snails

Cassidula aurisfelis

12 672 3,4,5,6 T -

Portunidae Wideng Sesarma spp 15 495 1,2,3,4,5,6 T -

Description: EN (Endangered) / endangered, T (Not protected), D (Reserved) Source: Primary Data, 2018.


Epifauna can be used as an indicator of pollution due to poorly adapted to the environmental conditions. In addition epifauna pendekomposisi acts as an organic material (Purba et al., 2015). Epifauna type encountered at all locations are wideng (Sesarma spp), because This kind is able to survive in the forest soil condition dry or waterlogged (Hidayat et al., 2012).

Table 2. Types of avifauna found in mangrove forests Subdistrict Pasir Sakti, East Lampung District, Lampung Province

Family fauna Scientific name amount

clusters plot FHM

Conservation Status Regulat ion No.

106 2018


Ardeidae great egret Egretta alba 41 1,2,3,4,5, 6

T LC little egrets Egretta garzetta 16 2,3,4,5 T LC striated


Butorides striatus

6 3 T -

Heron ash Ardea cinerea 2 4.6 T LC

Phalacrocoracidae Cormorant black rice

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

9 1,2,4 T LC

Alcedinidae cekakak river

Todiramphus chloris

1 5 T LC

King prawns blue

Alcedo coerulescens

12 3,4,5,6 T LC

Anatidae wandering

whistling duck

Dendrocygna arcuata

2 4.6 T LC

Ciconiidae Stork casks Leptoptilos javanicus

1 6 D VU

Description: LC (Least Concern) / low risk, VU (Vulnerable) / vulnerable D(dilindungi), T (unprotected)

Source: Primary Data (2018)

Avifauna species diversity that is found in a cluster plot is great egret (Egretta alba) included in the cluster plots 1 and 6. Egret bird species is a species of bird most commonly found, because the condition of mangrove forests are mostly watery and muddy shallow so it is favored by the bird species to perform daily activities (Iswandaru et al., 2018), So the birds can be used as indicators of ecosystem change. Another type is found in the cluster plots 1 and 6 are black rice Cormorant (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris), the king of blue shrimp (Alcedo coerulescens), sea kokokaan (Butorides stariatus). Based Kartijono et al. (2010) that the bird species are species of birds which use mangrove forests as a place to build a nest and is habitat for foraging.


The highest diversity of fauna found in clusters of plots 6 and the lowest for the cluster plots 1 and in detail described in Table 3.

Table 3. Value diversity of fauna in each cluster plot FHM

Cluster Plot FHM

H '

(Diversity index Type Fauna)

1 0.45

2 1.00

3 2.30

4 2.43

5 2.58

6 2.75

Source: Processed primary data (2018)

The highest diversity of fauna on cluster plot 6 due to the condition of the forest floor were flooded by water, so some kind of epifauna can survive as a slug mangrove (Cassidula aurisfelis), Mangrove clams (Telescopium Telescopium), fish glodok (Periophthalmus sp.), Crab (Limulidae), and wideng (Sesarma spp). This is supported by Hamidy (2010) which states that somespecies of molluscs such as mussels mangrove group (Telescopium Telescopium), mangrove snails (Cassidula aurisfelis) prefer a watery area or waterlogged and very sensitive to the condition of a body of water.

The data quality value footprint (CEC) in this study showed that the highest CEC values contained in cluster 1 and the lowest plots on a plot cluster 3 (Table 4).

Table 4. Value CEC (cation exchange capacity) on each cluster plot FHM

Cluster plot FHM CEC value (me / 100g)

1 19.92

2 19.74

3 16.53

4 17.51

5 17.74

6 17.82

Source: Data analysis Soil Science Laboratory (2018)

The results showed that the cluster plot with a high CEC value would have a lower value species diversity. High CEC caused by the content of organic material contained therein are derived from mangrove litter decomposition process that falls to the forest floor naturally. On this plot cluster level low diversity fauna, because the condition of the forest floor is not flooded by water and other things that can cause low diversity fauna, namely the content contained in the CEC.


The content of the high CEC has two possible contents therein which may affect the fauna.

According Sufardi et al. (2017) land with high CEC content can be dominated by alkali cations are Ca, Mg, K and Na, which can increase fertility. However, if a high CEC content dominated acid cation such as Al, H, it can reduce soil fertility. Things to allow the plot clusters is caused by the content of acid cation such as Al, H more likely to lead to some kind of fauna not be able to survive, so in this plot clusters have low diversity fauna. Additionally aeration can be run properly to support the process of decomposition. A final assessment of mangrove forest health condition based on the data obtained in Table 5.

Table 5. The final value of mangrove forest health condition

Cluster plot FHM

๐‘๐‘‡๐ต๐‘–๐‘œ๐‘‘๐‘–๐‘ฃ ๐‘๐‘†๐ต๐‘–๐‘œ๐‘‘๐‘–๐‘ฃ ๐‘๐‘‡๐‘ ๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘’ ๐‘ž๐‘ข๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘ฆ ๐‘๐‘†๐‘ ๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘’ ๐‘ž๐‘ข๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘ฆ

The final value of mangrove forest health condition

1 0.10 1 0.90 1 1.00

2 0.10 2 0.90 1 1.10

3 0.10 5 0.90 1 1.40

4 0.10 5 0.90 1 1.40

5 0.10 3 0.90 1 1.20

6 0.10 4 0.90 1 1.30

Source: Processed primary data (2018).

The final value of the health condition of mangrove forests have been obtained will determine the health status of mangrove forests as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Limits of mangrove forest health status

Health status of mangrove forests

The threshold values of mangrove forest health status

Ugly 1.00 to 1.12

moderate 1.13 to 1.25

Well 1.26 to 1.38

Source: Processed primary data (2018).

Based on these results, the condition of the health status of mangrove forests can be seen in Figure 4.


Figure 4. Percentage of health status of mangrove forests.

The percentage of the value of the highest health status of mangrove forests have good forest health condition as influenced by site quality value (CEC) belonging to the category of being at 5 clusters FHM plot. In addition a weighted basis of quality indicators footprint is higher than the value of biodiversity indicators. Another thing that supports the health status of being is the value of biodiversity that has been obtained, where the value of diversity based on Shannon index-Wienner has media diversity was contained in cluster 5 plots of 6 clusters existing plot.

The percentage of the value of the lowest health status of mangrove forests have a health condition forest being. This is because the value of the quality of the site (CEC), which are low in one cluster plot. At these locations mangrove forest floor flooded by water so that aeration can not run properly when the decomposition process conducted by the type of epifauna. This indicates that the quality of the site greatly affect the existence epifauna nor vice versa. This is in line with Tamsar et al. (2013) that the survival epifauna (makrobentos) will mendekomposit litter of mangrove vegetation, so the existence of epifauna also determine the level of soil fertility. Besides the presence of avifauna can also be influenced by the quality of the site, because avifauna foraging forest floor. Based Jamili et al.

33,00 % 17,00 %

50,00 %

Ugly Moderate Good





The final value of the health condition of the mangrove forests in Pasir Sakti, East Lampung Regency, Lampung is at 50% in the good forest health category, 17% in the moderate category and 33% in the bad forest health category.


Suggestions in this research that is needed to do the development of mangrove forest health assessment indicators and other parameters to reproduce the data and information related to the health of the mangrove forest.


1. Adiwijaya, H. 2006. Kondisi Mangrove Pantai Timur Surabaya. Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Lingkungan. 1: 1โ€“14.

2. Arieska, P. K. dan N. H. 2018. Pemilihan teknik sampling berdasarkan perhitungan efisiensi relatif. Jurnal Statistika. 6(2): 166โ€“171.

3. Bachmid, F., Sondak, C., and Kusen, J. 2018. Estimasi penyerapan karbon hutan mangrove Bahowo Kelurahan Tongkaina Kecamatan Bunaken. Jurnal Pesisir Dan Laut Tropis. 6(1): 8. DOI: 10.35800/jplt.6.1.2018.19463

4. Bismark, M., Subiandono, E., and Heriyanto, N. M. 2008. Keragaman dan potensi jenis serta kandungan karbon Hutan Mangrove di Sungai Subelen Siberut, Sumatera Barat. Jurnal Penelitian Hutan dan Konservasi Alam. 5(3): 297โ€“306. DOI:


5. Gafur, A., Labiro, E., and Ihsan, M. 2016. Asosiasi jenis burung pada Kawasan Hutan Mangrove di Anjungan Kota Palu. Journal of Warta Rimba. 4(1): 42โ€“48.

6. Hamidy, R. 2010. Struktur dan keragaman komunias kepiting di kawasan hutan mangrove Stasiun Kelautan Universitas Riau, Desa Purnama Dumai. Journal of Environmental Science. 2(4): 1โ€“11.

7. Hidayat, J. W., Anggoro, S., and Hendrarto, I. B. 2012. Dinamika populasi wideng (Sesarma spp) dan tangkapan (populasi) scylla di Kawasan Mangrove Tapak, Tugurejo Semarangโ€ฏ: suatu kajian pemberdayaan predator untuk mengendalikan wideng hama bibit mangrove berbasis manajemen ekosistem. Journal of Biomaโ€ฏ: Berkala Ilmiah Biologi. 14(2): 49. DOI: 10.14710/bioma.14.2.49-63

8. Iswandaru, D., Khalil, A.A.R., Kurniawan, B., Pramana, R., Febryano, I.G. dan Winarno, G.D. 2018. Kelimpahan dan keanekaragaman jenis burung di Hutan Mangrove KPHL Gunung Balak. Indonesian Journal of Conservation. 7(1). 57-62.

9. Jamili., Analuddin., dan W. O. A. 2014. Keanekaragaman jenis burung pada hutan mangrove di Kawasan Sungai LanoWulu Taman Nasional Rawa Aopa Watumohai ( TNRAW ) Sulawesi Tenggara diversity of birds at the Mangrove Forest of LanoWulu River , Rawa Aopa Watumohai National Park Southeast Sulawesi. Jurnal Biowallacea.1(2): 71โ€“81.

10. Kartijono, N. E., Rahayuningsih, M., and Abdullah, M. 2011. Keanekaragaman jenis vegetasi dan profi l habitat burung di hutan mangrove Pulau Nyamuk Taman Nasional


Karimunjawa. Journal of Biology & Biology Education. 2(1): 27โ€“39. DOI:


11. Malau, N.M. 2015. Keanekaragaman jenis burung di kawasan hutan mangrove KPHL Gunung Balak Resort Muara Sekampung Kabupaten Lampung Timur. Skripsi. 74 hlm.

12. Mangold, R. 1997. Forest health monitoring: field methods guide (international- indonesia). Washington DC: USDA Forest Service. 300 hlm.

13. Muhammad, F., Izzati, M., and Mukid, M. A. 2017. Makrobenthos sebagai indikator tingkat kesuburan tambak di Pantai Utara Jawa Tengah.Journal ofBiomaโ€ฏ: Berkala Ilmiah Biologi. 19(1): 38. DOI: 10.14710/bioma.19.1.38-46

14. Odum, E.P. 1996. Dasar-dasar ekologi. Gadjah Mada University Press. Yogyakarta.

697 hlm.

15. Pradana, O. Y. 2013. Kajian bioekologi dan strategi pengelolaan ekosistem mangroveโ€ฏ: studi kasus di Teluk Awur Jepara. Diponegoro Journal of Marine Research.2(1): 54โ€“61. DOI: 10.14710/jmr.v2i1.2056

16. Presiden Republik Indonesia. 1999. Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 7 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pengawetan Jenis Tumbuhan dan Satwa. Jakarta. 32 hlm.

17. Pusat Penelitian Tanah. 1983. Kriteria Penilaian Data Sifat Analisis Kimia Tanah.

Bogor: Balai Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian Departemen Pertanian.

18. Purba, H. E., Djuwito, and Haeruddin. 2015. Distribusi dan keanekaragaman makrozoobentos pada lahan pengembangan konservasi Mangrove di Desa Timbul Sloko Kecamatan Sayung Kabupaten Demak. Diponegoro Journal of Maquares. 4(4):


19. Qiptiyah, M., Broto, B. W., and Setiawan, H. 2013. Keragaman jenis burung pada kawasan mangrove di Taman Nasional Rawa Aopa Watumohai. Jurnal Penelitian Kehutanan Wallacea. 2(1): 41. DOI: 10.18330/jwallacea.2013.vol2iss1pp41-50 20. Saaty, T. L. 2003. Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector

necessary. European Journal of Operational Research 145(1): 85โ€“91. DOI:


21. Safeโ€™i, R. dan Tsani, K.M. 2016. Kesehatan Hutan. Buku. Plantaxia. 101 hlm.

22. Safeโ€™i, R., Hardjanto, H., Supriyanto, S., and Sundawati, L. 2015. Pengembangan metode penilaian kesehatan hutan rakyat sengon (Miq.) Barneby & J.W. Grimes).

Jurnal Penelitian Hutan Tanaman. 12(3): 175โ€“187. DOI:


23. Sondak, C. F. A. 2015. Estimasi potensi penyerapan karbon biru (blue carbon) oleh hutan mangrove Sulawesi Utara. Journal of Asean Studies on Maritime Issues 1(1):


24. Sufardi., Martunis, L. dan Muyassir. 2017. Pertukaran kation pada berbagai jenis tanah lahan kering Kabupaten Aceh Besar Provinsi Banda Aceh (Indonesia).

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pascasarjana (SNP) Unsyiah. 45-53.

25. Tamsar., Emiyarti. dan Wa, N. 2013. Studi laju pertumbuhan dan tingkat eksploitasi kerang kalandue (polymesoda erosa) pada daerah hutan mangrove di Teluk Kendari.

Jurnal Mina Laut Indonesia. 2(6). 1-11.




Related subjects :