Eco-ﬂoristic sectors and deforestation threats in Sumatra

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Eco-floristic sectors and deforestation threatsin Sumatra: identifying new conservation area networkpriorities for ecosystem-based land use planning

Yves Laumonier • Yumiko Uryu • Michael Stuwe • Arif Budiman •

Budi Setiabudi • Oki Hadian

Received: 2 September 2009 / Accepted: 9 January 2010 / Published online: 26 January 2010� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Biogeographical studies are a necessary step in establishing conservation area

networks. Determining the ecological factors influencing vegetation is also a basic prin-

ciple for hierarchical ecological classifications and a necessary prerequisite for ecosystem-

based land use planning. Eco-floristic sectors (EFS) have already been identified for the

Indonesian island of Sumatra, combining both approaches, dividing it into 38 EFSs rep-

resenting unique ecosystems in terms of tree flora and environment (Laumonier 1997). The

impact of deforestation on individual EFSs has been highly varied and in some cases

extreme. We assigned one of five ‘extinction risk categories’ to each EFS based on the

percentage of forest lost between 1985 and 2007. Eighty-five percent of all forest loss

(10.2 million ha) occurred in the eastern peneplain, western lowland regions and swamps.

In 2007, only 29% of forests were protected by conservation areas, only nine of the 38 EFS

had more than 50% of their remaining forest cover protected. 38% of remaining forest was

‘‘critically endangered’’, ‘‘endangered’’ or ‘‘vulnerable’’ EFSs (5 million ha) but only

1 million ha (20%) were protected. Sumatra’s existing network of conservation areas does

not adequately represent the island’s ecosystems. Priorities for a new conservation area

network can be formulated for integration into Sumatra’s new land use plans at provincial

Y. Laumonier (&)Environment and Societies Department, UR 36, Center International for Research on Agronomy andDevelopment (CIRAD), Montpellier, Francee-mail: [email protected]

Y. Uryu � M. StuweWWF US, 1250 24th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA

A. Budiman � O. HadianWWF-Indonesia, Kantor Taman A9, Unit A-1, Kawasan Mega Kuningan Jakarta 12950, Indonesia

B. SetiabudiBIOTROP-SEAMEO Center for Tropical Biology, Jl. Raya Tajur Km 6, PO Box 116, Bogor 16000,Indonesia

Present Address:Y. LaumonierCenter International for Forestry Research (CIFOR), PO Box 0113, BOBOC, Bogor 16000, Indonesia

123

Biodivers Conserv (2010) 19:1153–1174DOI 10.1007/s10531-010-9784-2

and district level. Decision makers can now use EFSs to locate new conservation areas so

they represent and maintain the whole range of the island’s diversity.

Keywords Eco-floristic zoning � Conservation assessment � Deforestation �Threat � Sumatra

Introduction

In recent decades, the pressures on South East Asian forests and their biodiversity have

intensified drastically (Sodhi et al. 2004; WRI 2003). Accelerated industrialisation, rapid

population growth and increasing linkages with global markets have overtaken the pre-

viously slow and progressive expansion of shifting agriculture, and increased the pressures

on rainforests. Logging, mining, plantations and agribusiness have imposed massive

changes on the landscape and brought forest dependent communities into conflict with the

outside world on an unprecedented scale. Biodiversity loss and even the decline of char-

ismatic fauna, such as Sumatran tigers, elephants, orangutans or rhinos, have apparently

generated little interest after decades of warnings by scientists and conservationists, but

more recent concerns about the links between climate change, deforestation (van der Werf

et al. 2008) and the loss of ecosystem services have brought a new focus on forest con-

servation issues.

Natural resource management and land use planning raise recurrent questions of where

protected areas should be located, how to develop conservation priorities, and which

criteria are the most relevant in helping us make decisions. Various frameworks have been

developed to guide conservation actions to address the increasingly burning issues of

conservation versus development. Traditionally, conservation area network systems pro-

posed for Indonesia have been based on the biogeographic scientific knowledge of dis-

tribution patterns for plants (van Steenis 1969, 1971; van Balgooy 1971, 1987; Whitmore

1981, 1987; Baker et al. 1998) or animals (MacKinnon and Wind 1981; Michaux 1994;

Holloway and Hall 1998).

Two other well-known categories of spatial planning for conservation are the biodi-

versity hotspots concept (Myers et al. 2000; Margules et al. 2002) and the ecoregion

concept used by WWF (Olson and Dinerstein 1998; Wikramanayake et al. 2001). In

Sumatra, Conservation International used the hotspots concept to define its Key Biodi-

versity Areas (Conservation International-Indonesia et al. 2007) and Birdlife International

for the Endemic Bird Areas (Sujatnika et al. 1995). The WWF ecoregion perception

described Sumatra as the ‘Sumatran Islands lowland and montane forests ecoregion’, later

subdivided into four terrestrial ecoregions identical to biomes. A debate occurred in the

literature whether ecoregions complement or improve upon existing conservation networks

(Jepson and Whittaker 2002; Wikramanayake et al. 2002), but all these global schemes

have also been criticised as being too large in scale to be of practical use anyway (Long

et al. 1996; Ferrier 2002).

Environmental classifications (such as those linked to the ecological criteria hierarchy

for vegetation distribution pattern) can be investigated in conjunction with flora distribu-

tion patterns. Such research on eco-floristic zoning facilitates the identification of regions

of interest for biodiversity, ecological research and conservation. This approach has the

advantage of being applicable to finer scales of study. It has been developed by bioge-

ography and vegetation schools (Gaussen 1959; Legris and Blasco 1979; Kuchler and

Zonneveld 1988), recommended by UNESCO (1973) and FAO (FAO 1989; Paine et al.

1154 Biodivers Conserv (2010) 19:1153–1174

123

1997), and has inspired what is known as the IUCN-WWF centres of plant diversity

(1995). It has been used in Sumatra (Laumonier 1997; Trichon 1997). It can shed light on

the passionate debate between advocates of the species-based approaches (Brooks et al.2004) and land-type approaches (Cowling et al. 2004).

This study’s main purpose was to evaluate the deforestation in the island of Sumatra

within the ecological and floristic zoning proposed by Laumonier (1997), instead of per-

forming a classic forest–nonforest analysis.1 Subsequently we wanted to assess the rep-

resentation of his eco-floristic sectors (EFSs) in Sumatra’s current protected areas network,

and to identify new conservation priority areas based on EFS conditions and threats. The

results can be used in the expected revision of regional land use plans in Sumatra and

Indonesia.

Materials

The study area is the whole island of Sumatra. The second largest in the Malay Archi-

pelago after Borneo and crossed by the Equator, this island is dominated by a range of

mountains almost 1,700 km long along the western coast (the Barisan). The mountains’

average altitude is between 2,000 and 2,500 m, with many emerging volcanoes up to

3,800 m. The north is proportionately more mountainous, while on the western coast there

is only a narrow and discontinuous coastal strip. The eastern lowlands are extensive,

crossed by numerous large rivers and bordered by huge peat swamp deposits.

Ecological zones and forest types

In the search for ecological zones or ecoregions (sensu Bailey 1983), Laumonier (1997)

discussed the relationships between the vegetation, bioclimates and the substratum.

Bioclimates

Sumatra’s insular and equatorial nature, the convection phenomena and the presence of

high mountains along the ocean, all interact to create complex regional rainfall patterns

with high climatic variability. Analysis reveals important variations in the intensity of rain

and rainfall regimes as well as in the strength and direction of winds and the intensity of

the dry season (Yacono-Janoueix and Perard 1978). Most of the island is very humid with

annual rainfall of more than 2,000 mm a year. The wettest regions are usually the pied-

monts and hills, where annual rainfall often exceeds 3,000–4,000 mm/year (maximum

6,000 mm on the western coast hills). Mean monthly temperatures (t) range from 25 to

27�C. The mean annual thermic amplitude (DT) is small (\2�C), but the value of daily

thermic amplitude qt is quite high in the lowlands, between 7 and 12�C. The maxima of

temperatures at low altitude are between 30 and 32�C, and the minima between 20 and

22�C. Oldeman et al. (1979) calculated a gradient of 0.62�C for maximum temperatures

and 0.53�C for minimum temperatures. Frost appears at about 2,600–2,700 m.a.s.l. A

biologically dry season exists at least for the south and the north east, during which the

potential evapotranspiration is higher than the rainfall. The lack of available data con-

cerning temperature, sunlight hours, humidity and winds remains a considerable obstacle

1 Throughout this paper the term forest refers exclusively to ‘natural’ forest, representing undisturbed forestwith a 100% forest cover and including logged-over forest with more then 75% forest cover.

Biodivers Conserv (2010) 19:1153–1174 1155

123

for detailed ecological studies. For his ecological classification, Laumonier used the

Fontanel and Chantefort (1978) study and map that differentiated 18 kinds of ‘bioclimates’

(a concept integrating rainfall, the temperature of the coldest month, and the number of dry

months).

Regarding the distribution of the vegetation with elevation, Laumonier (1990) has

designated the altitudinal zonation of forests, using presence–absence data for 1,500 liana

and tree species. The general regional classification of van Steenis (1935, 1972) has been

refined. Laumonier pointed out important demarcations respectively situated at around

300–400, 800–900, and 1400–1500 m. The 800 m limit, rather than the generally adopted

1,000 m, appears to be the ‘lowland flora’ frontier. Kitayama (1992) and Pendry and

Proctor (1997) also found 800 m to be an important boundary in Borneo. On mountains,

additional well-defined subdivisions appear between 1,800–2,000 m and around 2,600–

2,800 m, with a transition submontane zone between 800 and 1,400 m. The altitudinal

zonation proposed for Sumatra (Table 1) is therefore similar to that of Symington (1943)

for peninsular Malaysia and the zonation recently discussed by Canon et al. (2007) for

Sulawesi Island. The lowland dipterocarp rainforest (i.e. with a minimum 30% of trees

from this family in the canopy) always occurs below 300–400 m. Unexpectedly, another

conspicuous boundary appeared around 150–200 m, which many dipterocarp species

never or rarely cross.

Substratum

The substratum’s exact role in the distribution of vegetation types in Sumatra remains to be

worked out. Forest ecologists working on the Malay peninsula found no striking rela-

tionship between the substratum and the distribution of forest species (Poore 1968; Kwan

and Whitmore 1970), while in Borneo, on the contrary, close links between soils and

vegetation, or between geology and vegetation, have been found (Ashton 1972, 1982;

Flenley 1979; Baillie et al. 1987; Paoli et al. 2008; Slik et al. 2009). A relationship

between soils and vegetation undoubtedly exists, as far as swamp regions are concerned.

The eastern lowlands are covered by extensive swamps where forest can be easily clas-

sified according to the depth and composition of the peat deposit (see Laumonier 1997;

Brady 1997). Obvious links also exist between soil and vegetation on sandy coastal for-

mations as well as for karstic hills. Mountain vegetation itself, although related mostly to

lower temperature, is also somewhat linked to high altitude soils derived from volcanic

material (e.g. Andosols). However, so far no relationships between soil and forest have

been thoroughly investigated at the landscape level in the hills and lowlands where the data

are almost nonexistent, apart from very localised agricultural projects.

Table 1 Altitudinal zonation ofthe vegetation in Sumatra(Laumonier 1990)

Altitudinal zones Ecological zones

C2600–2800 Tropical alpine

1800/1900–2500/2600 Upper montane

1300/1400–1800/1900 Montane

800/900–1300/1400 Sub-montane

300/400–800/900 Medium elevation hills

150–300/400 Low elevation hills

0–150 m Lowlands Lowlands


123

In the absence of detailed large-scale soil maps and data, the proxy was to use the

geomorphological and geological works of Verstappen (1973) and Hamilton (1979). The

history of climate change, geological and geomorphological events played a crucial a role

in isolating plant communities in the region (Woodruff 2010). In Sumatra, volcanic activity

obviously influenced the vegetation history as well. The volcanic material is generally rich

in plagioclase and acid (dacitic to liparitic), even more so when the volcano is old. In

Sumatran vegetation history, distinctions should be made between the andesites of old,

extinguished volcanoes, the very acid lavas of still active old volcanoes, and lavas of

Quaternary volcanoes with intermediate to basic characteristics. Large expanses of rhyo-

litic tuffs and ignimbrites also exist, originating from fissure eruption during the Pleisto-

cene (the ‘‘Lampung block’’ of van Bemmelen 1949).

The ecological zones and forest area was then stratified on the basis of satellite images

superimposed with the physiography, geomorphology and bioclimates maps. Such strati-

fied random sampling design is considered adequate for representing units (sites) con-

sidered homogeneous in terms of environmental variables relevant to vegetation within

large landscapes (Mueller-Dombois and Hellenberg 1974). The number of ecological

zones (forest types) then defined by Laumonier (1997) was 15. Localities of forest sample

plots were selected on the basis of this stratification (at least one plot per ecological zone),

with a minimum size of two hectares in the lowlands, one hectare in hills and swamps, and

0.5 ha for mountain regions plots. Within each plot all trees with a diameter larger or equal

to 10 cm at 1.3 m above the ground, the variables measured were diameter, crown pro-

jection, total tree height, and height of the first branch.

Floristic regions and eco-floristic sectors

Laumonier (1990) also looked for tree flora species distribution, using cluster analysis on

presence–absence data to calculate the floristic similarity between sites (Jongman et al.1987).

For the tree flora, demarcation lines exist within Sumatra itself, the strongest one

corresponding to the existence of Lake Toba and the immense expanse of tuffs linked to its

formation. This gigantic event, which occurred 75,000 years ago (Woods and Wohletz

1991), influenced the distribution of flora by creating an ecological barrier to dissemination

and exchanges between the southern and northern parts of the island. Another important

line separates the Lampung block of tuff deposits in the south from areas further north. The

Barisan range itself is a considerable ecological barrier. However, at regular intervals there

are corridor valleys at relatively low altitude (±400 m) through which migrations may

occur.

The sampled sites clustered into spatially close geographically distinct floristic regions

in the lowlands and hills (Fig. 1). Ten floristic regions can be recognised, corresponding to

different geomorphological blocks of various age (older northern part of the island com-

pared with the central part’s young volcanic and the south west’s old andesite blocks)

delineated by large rivers. The nonswamp lowlands of Riau, Jambi and South Sumatra are

closed to each other, and so are the north eastern coastal plain locations. All locations

related to the ‘Riow pocket flora’ (Corner 1978, 1985) cluster together, which confirms the

existence of this phytogeographic unit. This included the islands south of Singapore,

Bangka, Belitung and the Riau and Lingga archipelagos, and a part of east Sumatra and

west Borneo. The boundary of this Riau pocket flora in Sumatra remains vague; at present,

one finds elements scattered in the eastern lowlands. The highest concentration of species

appears, however, in the Tigapuluh mountains range area at the border between Jambi and


123

Riau provinces (an old, eroded Tertiary metamorphic massif surrounded by Quaternary

sedimentary plains), and, to a lesser extent, in the upper Indragiri River. In the hills,

divisions mainly occur between old and recent geological formations with the well-isolated

young volcanic region of central west Sumatra. For the mountain flora, an analysis of the

treatment of Ericaceae in Flora Malesiana (Sleumer 1966) suggests three additional

regions for altitudes above 800 m can be considered (Laumonier 1990).

The overlaying of both ecological and floristic regions’ maps led to the delineation of 38

eco-floristic sectors named according to the dominant volcanoes, large rivers or neigh-

bouring large towns. They are described in detail elsewhere (Laumonier 1997) and sum-

marised in Fig. 2. These EFSs correspond to relatively homogenous units in terms of

physiography, climate and tree flora composition. They were caused by a fragmentation of

original forest blocks under tectonic and volcanic influences. Their degree of isolation in

the past was difficult to evaluate and it is possible that in a good number of cases speciation

has not yet finished, with obvious zones of hybridisation between species.

Methods

All data were processed with ArcGIS and ERDAS software applications. The original

Sumatran ecological vegetation maps based on interpretation of Landsat images and aerial

photography (Laumonier 1983; Laumonier et al. 1986, 1987) were digitised. This data

represents the vegetation and forest cover in 1985. The three sets of vector data

Fig. 1 Dendrogram clustering study sites based on presence–absence of tree species and floristicsimilarities for the lowlands and hill tree flora of Sumatra. 10 ‘floristic regions’ can be identified namedaccording to administrative provinces or big rivers (after Laumonier 1990)


123

corresponding to the three original maps were georeferenced together. Original data of the

Sumatran vegetation map was at a 1:1,000,000 scale. For overlaying and comparing with

the forest cover data from 1990, 2000 and 2007, based on Landsat images interpretation at

a scale of 1:100,000, we reinterpret the original vector data to match that scale of infor-

mation. We also looked for possible original discrepancies in the island’s central area

where original aerial photographs were of very poor quality.

Tapaktuan - Meulaboh - Lhokruet < 300 mAirbangis - Sibolga - Bakongan < 300 m

Krui - Bengkulu < 300 mPesisir - Indrapura - Talamau < 300 m

Tapaktuan - Meulaboh - Lhokruet 300 - 800 mAirbangis - Sibolga - Bakongan 300 - 800 m

Krui - Bengkulu 300 - 800 mPesisir - Indrapura - Talamau 300 - 800 m

Submontane North 800 - 1300 mSubmontane Central 800 - 1300 mSubmontane South 800 - 1300 m

Montane and upper montane North 1300 - 2500 mMontane and upper montane Central 1300 - 2500 mMontane and upper montane South 1300 - 2500 m

Langsa - Banda Aceh 300 - 800 mAsahan - Langsa 300 - 800 m

Semangka - Tembesi 300 - 800 mTembesi - Tapanuli 300 - 800 m

Tigapuluh Mountains 300 - 800 m

Langsa < 300 mAsahan < 300 m

Upper Batang Hari - Upper Barumun 150 - 300 mRiau - Kwantan to Barumun < 150 m

Upper Rawas Upper Batang Hari 150 - 300 mJambi - Musi to Kwantan < 150 mTigapuluh Mountains 150 - 300 m

East Lampung < 300 mPalembang south of Musi < 300 m

Swamps (mangroves, fresh water swamp, peat)Lake Toba

Fig. 2 Sumatra eco-floristic sectors representing potential forest types in the absence of human activity. Forthe purpose of clarity at the scale shown, some smaller eco-floristic sectors are not shown. This is the casefor most azonal EFS such as ‘Fresh Water Swamp Alluvium’ (‘Shallow Peat’), ‘Mixed Peat Swamp’ and‘Peat Swamp Forest’, ‘Mangroves’, ‘Montane swamp forest’, ‘Riparian forest’, ‘Coastal forest formations’and ‘Formation on limestone’


123

Remotely sensed data for the entire island were compiled for three dates (Landsat TM

satellite data for all Sumatra in years 1990, 2000 and 2007). We used the forest–nonforest

digital data for 1990 and 2000 of the Wildlife Conservation Society Indonesian Programme

and Conservation International (Gaveau et al. 2007). To ensure consistency in forest

interpretation WCS data was re-checked by using the Landsat original data 1990 and 2000.

For interpretation at a scale of 1–100,000, the minimum mapping unit (MPU) to digitise on

screen is usually fixed to 50 ha and polygons with an area less than 50 hectares were

eliminated.

A new forest cover map of Sumatra for 2007 was created. The method used for

interpretation follows techniques recommended by King (2002). It combines computerised

and manual interpretation. When anomalies were encountered (i.e. nonforest area in 2000

becoming forested in 2007), they were retraced back using the Landsat database and

corrected to ensure consistency between the original data and those of 1990, 2000 and

2007.

Results

Standard forest–nonforest analysis showed that in 1985, 57% of Sumatra was covered by

25 million ha of forest. By 2007, the island had lost 12 million ha of that forest or 48%, at

an average ca. 550,000 ha per year (Fig. 3a–d). Only 30% forest cover (13 million ha)

remained in 2007.

Starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s, local farmers clearing fields for subsistence

agriculture were no longer the main drivers of deforestation. Their impact had been

overtaken instead by transmigration programs, the rubber and oil palm industry and timber

companies. The usual pattern was that after logging companies had left their depleted

concession, the land was either allotted to transmigration or left idle without any protection

from illegal logging. Eventually it was declared waste land and officially ‘converted’ to

industrial oil palm or rubber plantations (Laumonier 1997). In the 1990s oil palm culti-

vation became the dominant driver of deforestation (Koh and Wilcove 2008) mostly by

clearing and burning logged-over forest still in good condition. Today’s oil palm expansion

is exacerbated by the world’s demand for biofuels. Ironically, it will not only be to the

obvious detriment of biodiversity but also to climate (Danielsen et al. 2008). It becomes

one of the most debated issues where biodiversity conservation remains faced with harsh

social and economic realities (Wilcove and Koh 2010).

Soon after oil palm, a new driver emerged. The pulp and paper industry began clearing

vast blocks of forest and eventually developed pulp wood plantations on some of the

cleared sites. The value of properly managed logged-over forest has been long advocated

for biodiversity and forest ecosystem services maintenance (Kemp et al. 1993; Linden-

mayer 1999; Clark et al. 2009; Berry et al. 2010), but their disappearance continues

unchallenged. In Sumatra in 2009 it looks too late, many logged-over forests with plentiful

timber stock, high biodiversity and other environmental values are still being cleared to

provide raw materials for the pulp and paper industry and to build industrial pulp wood and

oil palm estates (Kanninen et al. 2007; Uryu et al. 2008). This trend, surpassing the

deforestation caused by smallholders and local farmers, will continue unless there is a shift

in natural resource management policy. It remains an open question how much new oil

palm plantation development will occur by replacing natural forest left in protected and

logged-over areas.


123

We determined the loss of forest in the original 1985 EFSs for 1990, 2000 and 2007. We

showed that in the lowlands of the same elevation range, similar soil type or climate,

different tree flora could occur within a few kilometers. It was edifying to apply this finer

scale of ecological and botanical knowledge to analyse deforestation patterns. Forest loss

in the eco-floristic sectors between 1985 and 2007 varied greatly. Two EFSs lost more than

90% of their original forest and are unlikely to ever recover, meaning that by 2007, some

specific tree species, habitats and ecosystems linked to these EFSs have already almost

disappeared (Table 2; Fig. 4).

Based on the percentage of 1985 forest loss in each eco-floristic sector by 2007, we

allocated one of five ‘extinction risk’ categories using the IUCN nomenclature applied for

threatened species categories, to create an ‘extension risk’ map for Sumatra EFSs (Fig. 5).

Fig. 3 a–d Deforestation in Sumatra: forest cover remaining in 1985, 1990, 2000 and 2007 (green) andnatural forest lost since 1985 (red). Data used for 1990 and 2000 are re-interpretation of WCS data


123

Ta

ble

2F

ore

stco

ver

and

def

ore

stat

ion

bet

wee

n1985

and

2007

for

each

eco-fl

ori

stic

sect

ors

inS

um

atra

Eco

-flo

rist

icse

cto

rsE

levat

ion

(m)

Fo

rest

cov

er1

98

5(h

a)F

ore

stco

ver

19

90

(ha)

Fo

rest

cov

er2

00

0(h

a)F

ore

stco

ver

20

07

(ha)

Fo

rest

lost

19

85–

20

07

(ha)

Fo

rest

lost

19

85–

20

07

(%)

Zo

nal

eco-

flo

rist

icse

cto

rs

Wes

tern

reg

ions

Kru

i–B

engkulu

B3

00

31

9,5

56

25

1,6

95

19

4,0

68

17

6,0

72

14

3,4

84

45

30

0–

80

02

38

,65

82

22

,57

11

99

,63

01

83

,71

55

4,9

42

23

Pes

isir

–In

dra

pura

–T

alam

auB

30

06

26

,73

25

18

,18

03

62

,19

93

35

,99

82

90

,73

44

6

30

0–

80

03

94

,70

03

79

,27

63

75

,98

23

73

,00

22

1,6

98

5

Air

ban

gis

–S

ibolg

a–B

akongan

B3

00

59

8,3

63

47

5,5

81

41

5,3

12

33

5,0

91

26

3,2

72

44

30

0–

80

04

68

,95

63

99

,69

63

89

,29

03

45

,33

51

23

,62

12

6

Tap

aktu

an–M

eula

boh–L

hokru

etB

30

05

34

,19

74

65

,69

94

04

,67

23

48

,32

21

85

,87

53

5

30

0–

80

04

65

,07

64

47

,72

54

40

,31

24

21

,71

04

3,3

66

9

Eas

tern

hil

lsan

dp

iedm

on

ts

Sem

ang

ka–

Tem

bes

i3

00

–8

00

37

5,4

74

29

8,6

23

27

5,2

55

26

5,9

69

10

9,5

05

29

Tem

bes

i–S

ou

thT

apan

uli

30

0–

80

06

39

,67

25

92

,74

05

85

,59

45

73

,09

76

6,5

75

10

Asa

han

–L

angsa

300–800

434,3

96

394,2

72

385,6

83

337,1

48

97,2

49

22

Lan

gsa

–B

and

aA

ceh

30

0–

80

01

51

,40

61

33

,76

11

29

,75

11

18

,10

53

3,3

01

22

Tig

apu

luh

Mo

un

tain

s3

00

–8

00

5,0

11

5,0

11

4,9

03

4,9

03

10

82

Eas

tern

pen

epla

ins

Eas

tL

amp

un

gB

30

06

14

,55

22

28

,21

67

3,0

81

61

,54

35

53

,00

99

0

Pal

emban

g—

sou

tho

fM

usi

B3

00

99

6,8

40

73

4,5

25

28

9,2

87

26

4,1

37

73

2,7

03

74

Jam

bi—

Musi

toK

wan

tan

B1

50

2,4

48

,830

1,9

77

,502

1,0

22

,959

71

5,1

00

1,7

33

,730

71

Ria

u—

Kw

anta

nto

Bar

um

un

B1

50

1,6

12

,066

93

6,4

24

35

0,1

52

17

9,3

14

1,4

32

,752

89

Upper

Raw

as–B

atan

gH

ari

150–300

524,8

76

439,0

00

358,2

44

339,9

97

184,8

79

35

Up

per

Bat

ang

Har

i–B

aru

mu

n1

50

–3

00

64

8,1

33

54

8,7

93

52

6,7

17

46

7,5

18

18

0,6

15

28

Tig

apu

luh

Mo

un

tain

s1

50

–3

00

22

2,8

92

21

7,3

16

21

4,5

46

20

8,3

83

14

,50

97

Asa

han

B3

00

26

1,6

73

12

9,0

53

93

,96

35

4,3

07

20

7,3

66

79


123

Ta

ble

2co

nti

nu

ed

Eco

-flo

rist

icse

cto

rsE

levat

ion

(m)

Fo

rest

cov

er1

98

5(h

a)F

ore

stco

ver

19

90

(ha)

Fo

rest

cov

er2

00

0(h

a)F

ore

stco

ver

20

07

(ha)

Fo

rest

lost

19

85–

20

07

(ha)

Fo

rest

lost

19

85–

20

07

(%)

Lan

gsa

B3

00

67

4,0

25

54

3,9

35

44

9,5

10

37

8,6

32

28

6,3

93

42

Mo

un

tain

s

Su

bm

on

tan

eS

outh

80

0–

13

00

60

2,8

47

55

1,8

55

52

8,7

92

51

7,0

66

85

,78

11

4

Su

bm

on

tan

eC

entr

al8

00

–1

300

84

2,9

13

81

6,2

25

79

8,5

37

79

1,8

84

51

,02

96

Su

bm

on

tan

eN

ort

h8

00

–1

300

1,9

17

,250

1,8

06

,678

1,7

45

,987

1,6

20

,473

29

6,7

78

15

Mo

nta

ne

and

up

per

mo

nta

ne

So

uth

13

00

–2

50

03

8,0

17

38

,01

73

7,9

30

37

,93

08

70

Mo

nta

ne

and

up

per

mo

nta

ne

Cen

tral

13

00

–2

50

04

4,8

85

44

,80

14

3,2

29

43

,10

21

,783

4

Mo

nta

ne

and

up

per

mo

nta

ne

No

rth

13

00

–2

50

01

99

,27

31

98

,41

51

97

,47

81

95

,01

14

,263

2

Tro

pal

pin

eC

25

00

79

,96

87

9,9

68

79

,96

87

9,9

68

00

Azo

nal

eco

-flo

rist

icse

cto

rs

Sw

amp

s

Man

gro

ves

swam

ps

0601,0

68

498,6

43

454,8

17

441,7

88

159,2

80

26

Fre

shw

ater

swam

ps

1–

52

,45

2,0

80

1,8

05

,751

99

5,2

49

63

1,6

10

1,8

20

,470

74

Mix

edp

eat

swam

ps

2–

53

,94

4,3

59

3,2

94

,813

2,2

03

,338

1,6

07

,137

2,3

37

,222

59

Pea

tsw

amp

s5

–1

05

06

,88

84

74

,22

23

20

,62

92

46

,42

12

60

,46

75

1

Mo

nta

ne

swam

pv

eget

atio

n1

00

0–

120

02

,331

33

21

78

17

82

,153

92

No

n-s

wam

p

Lim

esto

ne

300–800

414,0

37

370,4

98

341,5

74

327,8

14

86,2

23

21

Co

asta

l0

–5

15

,70

89

,133

7,0

45

5,4

67

10

,24

16

5

Man

-mad

eT

aken

go

np

ine

fore

st5

00

–8

00

14

3,6

46

40

,97

72

5,6

04

15

,75

81

27

,88

98

9

Rip

aria

nfo

rest

2–

80

05

4,8

50

32

,93

71

3,7

18

9,7

29

45

,12

18

2


123

Eighty-five percent of all forest loss (10.2 million ha) had occurred in what are now

‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’ or ‘vulnerable’ EFSs. Most of these EFSs are located

in Sumatra’s eastern peneplain and swamps, and western coastal lowland regions

(Table 3). All EFSs in eastern hills and piedmonts and mountains above 300 m elevation

were ‘near threatened’ and ‘least concerned’.

Fig. 4 Deforestation by eco-floristic sectors between 1985 and 2007 in Sumatra


123

Discussion

The conservation area network system had an impact on the forest cover’s resilience. In

most critical lowland areas, like in Eastern Lampung EFS, the only forests left are those

in the protected area network. Unlike some regions of the world, most protected areas in

Sumatra have yet to attract population growth and development projects along their

boundary (Gaveau et al. 2009), but they are now facing increasing isolation (DeFries et al.2005), especially in the lowlands. Between 1985 and 2007, the ‘conservation’ and

Fig. 5 Conservation areas superimposed on extinction risk categories map of forests in each Sumatra eco-floristic sectors. Many critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable, as well as nearly threatened andleast concerned forests are located outside current conservation areas


123

Tab

le3

Fo

rest

cov

ero

uts

ide

con

serv

atio

nar

eas

for

each

eco-fl

ori

stic

sect

ors

sort

edo

ut

by

exti

nct

ion

risk

cate

go

ries

in2

00

7

Nat

ura

lre

gio

ns

(Ver

stap

pen

19

73)

Eco

-flo

rist

icse

cto

rsE

levat

ion

(m)

Fo

rest

loss

19

85

–2

00

7(%

)2

00

7F

ore

stco

ver

To

tal

Ou

tsid

eC

As

(ha)

(ha)

(%)

Cri

tica

lly

endan

ger

ed(f

ore

stlo

ss[

70

%)

Mounta

insw

amps

Monta

ne

swam

pveg

etat

ion

1000–1200

92

178

143

81

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inE

ast

Lam

pu

ng

B3

00

90

61

,54

32

1,5

60

35

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inR

iau

—K

wan

tan

toB

aru

mu

na

B1

50

89

17

9,3

14

15

0,9

73

84

No

n-s

wam

pM

an-m

ade

Tak

engo

nP

inu

sfo

rest

50

0–8

00

89

15

,75

81

1,4

32

73

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inR

ipar

ian

fore

st2

–8

00

82

9,7

29

5,3

60

55

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inA

sah

ana

B1

50

79

54

,30

74

9,2

67

91

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inP

alem

ban

g—

sou

tho

fM

usi

aB

30

07

42

64

,13

72

00

,29

17

6

Sw

amp

Fre

shw

ater

swam

psa

1–

57

46

31

,61

05

19

,04

58

2

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inJa

mbi—

Mu

sito

Kw

anta

na

B1

50

71

71

5,1

00

61

5,0

42

86

Endan

ger

ed(f

ore

stlo

ss50–70%

)

Wes

tern

coas

tal

stri

pC

oas

tal

no

n-s

wam

p0

–5

65

5,4

67

5,4

67

10

0

Sw

amp

Mix

edpea

tsw

amp

a2

–5

59

1,6

07

,137

1,2

93

,248

80

Sw

amp

Pea

tsw

amp

a5

–1

05

12

46

,42

12

30

,73

39

4

Vu

lner

able

(fore

stlo

ss4

0–

50

%)

Wes

tern

regio

ns

Pes

isir

–In

dra

pu

ra–

Tal

amau

B3

00

46

33

5,9

98

18

3,8

66

55

Wes

tern

regio

ns

Kru

i–B

engk

ulu

B3

00

45

17

6,0

72

74

,81

24

2

Wes

tern

regio

ns

Air

ban

gis

–S

ibo

lga–

Bak

on

gan

aB

30

04

43

35

,09

13

27

,04

09

8

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inL

ang

saa

B1

50

42

38

7,6

32

32

3,7

19

84


123

Tab

le3

con

tin

ued

Nat

ura

lre

gio

ns

(Ver

stap

pen

19

73)

Eco

-flo

rist

icse

cto

rsE

levat

ion

(m)

Fo

rest

loss

19

85

–2

00

7(%

)2

00

7F

ore

stco

ver

To

tal

Ou

tsid

eC

As

(ha)

(ha)

(%)

Nea

rth

reat

ened

(fo

rest

loss

20

–4

0%

)

Wes

tern

regio

ns

Tap

aktu

an–

Meu

labo

h–

Lh

okru

eta

B3

00

35

34

8,3

22

31

3,2

53

90

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inU

pper

Raw

as–B

atan

gH

aria

15

0–3

00

35

33

9,9

97

30

9,8

32

91

Eas

tern

hil

lsan

dp

iedm

on

tsS

eman

gk

a–T

emb

esi

30

0–8

00

29

26

5,9

69

14

2,6

97

54

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inU

pper

Bat

ang

Har

i–B

arum

un

aB

15

02

84

67

,51

83

79

,83

28

1

Wes

tern

regio

ns

Air

ban

gis

–S

ibo

lga–

Bak

on

gan

30

0–8

00

26

34

5,3

35

29

0,0

47

84

Sw

amps

Man

gro

ves

swam

psa

02

64

41

,78

83

41

,53

47

7

Wes

tern

regio

ns

Kru

i–B

engk

ulu

30

0–8

00

23

18

3,7

15

93

,88

65

1

Eas

tern

hil

lsan

dpie

dm

onts

Asa

han

–L

angsa

300–800

22

337,1

48

252,5

07

75

Eas

tern

hil

lsan

dp

iedm

on

tsL

ang

sa–

Ban

da

Ace

h3

00

–8

00

22

11

8,1

05

11

2,5

66

95

Eas

tern

and

wes

tern

hil

lsL

imes

ton

e3

00

–8

00

21

32

7,8

14

24

4,9

08

75

Lea

stco

nce

rned

(fore

stlo

ss\

20

%)

Mo

un

tain

sS

ubm

on

tane

No

rth

80

0–1

30

01

51

,62

0,4

73

1,1

34

,578

70

Mo

un

tain

sS

ubm

on

tane

So

uth

80

0–1

30

01

45

17

,06

62

85

,51

35

5

Eas

tern

hil

lsan

dp

iedm

on

tsT

emb

esi–

Sou

thT

apan

uli

30

0–8

00

10

57

3,6

28

43

4,1

98

76

Wes

tern

regio

ns

Tap

aktu

an–

Meu

labo

h–

Lh

okru

et3

00

–8

00

94

21

,71

03

37

,18

88

0

Eas

tern

pen

epla

inT

igap

ulu

hM

oun

tain

s1

50

–3

00

72

08

,38

39

5,1

64

46

Mo

un

tain

sS

ubm

on

tane

Cen

tral

80

0–1

30

06

79

2,2

01

24

0,4

72

30

Wes

tern

regio

ns

Pes

isir

–In

dra

pu

ra–

Tal

amau

30

0–8

00

53

73

,00

28

6,7

88

23

Mo

un

tain

sM

onta

ne

and

up

per

mo

nta

ne

Cen

tral

13

00–

25

00

44

3,1

02

3,3

78

8

Eas

tern

hil

lsan

dp

iedm

on

tsT

igap

ulu

hM

oun

tain

s3

00

–8

00

24

,903

12

73


123

Tab

le3

con

tin

ued

Nat

ura

lre

gio

ns

(Ver

stap

pen

19

73)

Eco

-flo

rist

icse

cto

rsE

levat

ion

(m)

Fo

rest

loss

19

85

–2

00

7(%

)2

00

7F

ore

stco

ver

To

tal

Ou

tsid

eC

As

(ha)

(ha)

(%)

Mo

un

tain

sM

onta

ne

and

up

per

mo

nta

ne

No

rth

13

00–

25

00

21

95

,01

17

5,9

06

39

Mo

un

tain

sM

onta

ne

and

up

per

mo

nta

ne

So

uth

13

00–

25

00

03

7,9

30

32

,66

98

6

Mo

un

tain

sT

rop

alp

ine

C2

50

00

79

,96

81

4,4

07

18

aH

igh

pri

ori

tyE

FS

sre

com

men

ded

for

pro

tect

ion


123

‘protection’ forest classes lost 12 and 20% of forest cover, while ‘production’ and ‘con-

version’ classes lost 59 and 78% respectively.2

In 2007, only 29% of Sumatra’s forests were protected by nationally recognised conser-

vation areas. Only nine of the 38 EFS had more than 50% of their remaining forests protected,

38% of all remaining forest was inside critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable EFSs

(5 million ha), and only 1 million ha (20%) of them were in conservation areas (Table 3;

Fig. 5). Eastern Lampung and Krui-Bengkulu EFSs are the only ones which had more than

50% of their forests protected inside nationally recognised conservation areas.

Forest cover in many of the near threatened and least concerned EFSs was also not

protected: on average 65% of their forests were outside conservation areas (5.2 mil-

lion ha). There is no guarantee that these forests will be safe from similar conversion

threats, once critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable forests are gone and the

demand for wood-based industries persists.

To ensure actual protection of the remaining forests, new conservation areas would need

to be designated and recognised at national level. The analysis based on eco-floristic

sectors developed here presents a premier first-level decision making tool for the desig-

nation of new conservation areas for the new provincial and district land use plans. The

EFS’ current extinction risks and their vulnerability to future threats need to be considered

to preserve the integrity of Sumatra’s original biodiversity.

To begin this process, we identified some of the island’s top priority areas for con-

servation, EFSs having at least 10,000 ha of forest left under 300 m elevation and with

more than 70% of the remaining forest unprotected (Table 3; Fig. 6). The unprotected

logged-over forests surrounding the small Bukit Tigapuluh and Tesso Nilo national parks

and the Harapan Forest block of the eastern peneplain should be top priorities for

immediate conservation area designation. Their exceptionally high biodiversity represents

three distinct critically endangered EFSs that are under immediate threat of being cleared

for pulp wood and oil palm plantation development or illegal encroachment. Other top

priority areas are identified in Fig. 6.

Conclusions

We showed the merits of a conservation prioritisation system based on the ecological and

biogeography knowledge known as eco-floristic zoning. Eco-floristic zoning is consistent

with the aim of biogeography and conservation science (Whittaker et al. 2005) to give equal

emphasis to structural and taxonomic factors. It applies more refined levels of ecological and

biological knowledge than simple forest–nonforest or carbon content (Harris et al. 2008)

analysis which do not reflect biodiversity values. Although floristic characterisation of these

EFSs proved to be difficult due to insufficient taxonomic data and lack of knowledge on the

ecology of so many species, it greatly facilitated the identification of conservation priority

sites. Similar studies have been conducted on the floristic regions and the conservation

priorities network in Borneo (Slik et al. 2003) and for the island of Sulawesi (Canon et al.2007).

Eco-floristic sector stratification presented here provides the finest resolution zoning of

Sumatra’s ecosystem and environmental factors available today. The defined units

2 Forest function categorization in Indonesia refers to ‘Production’, ‘Protection’ (hydrological protection),‘Conservation’ forests and ‘Conversion’ when the remaining timber potential is so low that it justifies‘‘conversion’’ to other land use.


123

represent discrete entities for consideration in natural resource management, land use and

conservation planning. We found that past and future threats to individual EFS differ

greatly and that several EFS are close to extinction today. We found the range of EFSs

Fig. 6 Top priority forest areas to be nationally recognized as conservation areas based on the followingcriteria: EFSs with at least 10,000 ha of forest, below 300 m altitude and less than 30% of the remainingforests are protected. Forest in other EFSs are shown in black. Nationally recognized conservation areas areshown by blue boundary


123

inadequately represented in the island’s current network of nationally protected areas.

Future forest conservation and restoration initiatives such as those advocated by Kettle

(2010) must be planned to fully represent the island’s EFS if Sumatra’s original biodi-

versity is to be preserved in its entirety. Research is urgently needed to determine the

thresholds of resilience and vulnerability of the remaining forest blocks in Sumatra EFSs,

some of which have almost disappeared together with many of their species and ecosystem

services.

A new land use plan for Sumatra drafted in mid 2009 offers an unprecedented oppor-

tunity for decision makers at district, provincial and national level to realign top level

protection with eco-floristic diversity to avoid extinction of whole systems and the bio-

diversity they harbour. The eco-floristic sectors delineated here and the extinction risk we

assigned to them based on forest loss over the last quarter century can guide decision

makers in this process and will hopefully lead to the designation of new protected areas on

Sumatra.

Acknowledgments This paper is based on an oral presentation given at the Society for ConservationBiology annual meeting, ‘Conservation: harmony for nature and society’, Beijing, 11–16 July 2009. Theresearch was partly funded by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the World Wildlife Fund. Theauthors wish to acknowledge these institutions, Jean-Laurent Pfund and Terry Sunderland, all of whomoffered comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Two anonymous reviewers for this journal provideduseful critiques and insights, for which they are acknowledged and thanked.

References

Ashton PS (1972) The quaternary geomorphological history of western Malesia and lowland forest phy-togeography. Transactions of the second Aberdeen-Hull symposium on Malesian ecology, Misc Ser13:35–62

Ashton PS (1982) Dipterocarpaceae. Flora Males Ser I 9(2):237–552Bailey RG (1983) Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environ Manag 19:239–248Baillie IC, Ashton PS, Court MN, Anderson JAR, FitzPatrick EA, Tinsley J (1987) Site characteristics and

the distribution of tree species in mixed dipterocarp forest on tertiary sediments in central Sarawak.Malays J Trop Ecol 3:201–220

Baker WJ, Coode MJE, Dransfield J, Harley MM, Hoffman P, Johns RJ (1998) Patterns of distribution ofMalesian vascular plants. In: Hall R, Holloway JD (eds) Biogeography and geological evolution of SEAsia. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 243–258

Bemmelen, RW van (1949) The geology of Indonesia. Govt. Printing Office, The HagueBerry NJ, Phillips OL, Lewis SL, Hill JK, Edwards DP, Tawatao NB, Ahmad N, Magintan D, Khen CV,

Maryati M, Ong RC, Hamer K (2010) The high value of logged tropical forests: lessons from northernBorneo. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9779-z

Brady MA (1997) Organic matter dynamics of coastal peat deposits in Sumatra, Indonesia. Ph.D. Thesis,University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Brooks T, Da Fonseca GAB, Rodrigues ASL (2004) Species, data and conservation planning. Conserv Biol18(6):1682–1688

Canon CH, Summers M, Harting JR, Kessler PJA (2007) Developing conservation priorities based on foresttype, condition, and threats in a poorly known ecoregion: Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biotropica 39(6):747–749

Clark CJ, Poulsen JR, Malonga R, Elkans PW Jr (2009) Logging concessions can extend the conservationestate for Central African tropical forests. Conserv Biol 23(5):1281–1293

Conservation International-Indonesia et al (2007) Priority sites for conservation in Sumatra: key biodiver-sity areas. Jakarta, Indonesia, 16 pp

Corner EJH (1978) The freshwater swamp-forest of south Johore and Singapore. Botanic Gardens Parks,Singapore

Corner EJH (1985) The botany of some islets east of Pahang and Johore. Gard Bull Singap 38:1–42Cowling RM, Knight AT, Faith DP, Ferrier S, Lombard AT, Driver A, Rouget M, Maze K, Desmet PG

(2004) Nature requires more than a passion for species. Conserv Biol 18(6):1674–1676


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9779-z

Danielsen F, Beukema H, Burgess ND, Parish F, Bruhl CA, Donald PF, Murdiyarso D, Phalan B, ReijndersL, Struebig M, Fitzherbert EB (2008) Biofuel plantations on forested lands: double jeopardy forbiodiversity and climate. Conserv Biol. doi:10.1111/j.1523–1739.2008.01096.x

DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC, Hansen MC (2005) Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropicalforests over the past twenty years. Ecol Appl 15:19–26

FAO (1989) Classification and mapping of vegetation types in tropical Asia. FAO, RomeFerrier S (2002) Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from

here? Syst Biol 51:331–363Flenley JR (1979) The equatorial rain forest, a geological history. Butterworths, LondonFontanel J, Chantefort A (1978) Bioclimats du monde Indonesien (bioclimates of the Indonesian archi-

pelago). Institute of French, PondicherryGaussen H (1959) The vegetation maps. Trav Sec Sci Tech Inst Fr Pondicherry 1(4):155–179Gaveau DLA, Adnan B, Epting J, Kumara I, Suyikno B, Sumantri H (2007) Deforestation map (1990–2000)

of Sumatra and Siberut at 150,000 scale. Indonesia Wildlife Conservation Society Indonesia Program.Conservation International and Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation,Bogor, Indonesia

Gaveau DLA, Epting J, Lyne O, Linkie M, Kumara I, Kanninen M, Leader-Williams N (2009) Evaluatingwhether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra. J Biogeogr doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02147.x

Hamilton W (1979) Tectonics of the Indonesian region. Geological Survey Professional Paper. U.S. Gov.Print. Office, Washington, DC

Harris NL, Petrova S, Stolle F, Brown S (2008) Identifying optimal areas for REDD intervention: eastKalimantan, Indonesia as a case study. Environ Res Lett 3:11 pp. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/035006

Holloway JD, Hall R (1998) SE Asian geology and biogeography: an introduction. In: Hall R, Holloway JD(eds) Biogeography and geological evolution of SE Asia. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 1–23

IUCN and WWF (1995) Centres of plant diversity: a guide and strategy for their conservation. Volume 2.Asia, Australia and the Pacific. IUCN and WWF, Cambridge, UK, p 598

Jepson P, Whittaker RJ (2002) Ecoregions in context: a critique with special reference to Indonesia. ConservBiol 16(1):42–57

Jongman RHG, ter Braak CJF, van Tongeren OFF (eds) (1987) Data analysis in community and landscapeecology. PUDOC, Wageningen, p 229

Kanninen M, Murdiyarso D, Seymour F, Angelsen A, Wunder S, German L (2007) Do trees grow onmoney? The implications of deforestation research for policies to promote REDD. Center for Inter-national Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

Kemp RH, Namkoong G, Wadsworth FH (1993) Conservation of genetic resources in tropical forestmanagement—principles and concepts. FAO Forestry Paper 107, 105 pp

Kettle CJ (2010) Ecological considerations for using dipterocarps for restoration of lowland rainforest inSoutheast Asia. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9772-6

King RB (2002) Land cover mapping principles: a return to interpretation fundamentals. Int J Remote Sens23(18):3525–3545

Kitayama K (1992) An altitudinal transect study of the vegetation on Mount Kinabalu, Borneo. Vegetation102:149–171

Koh LP, Wilcove DS (2008) Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conserv Lett1:60–64

Kuchler AW, Zonneveld IS (eds) (1988) Vegetation mapping, vol 10. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Dordrecht, p 635

Kwan WY, Whitmore TC (1970) On the influence of soil properties on species distribution in Malayanlowland dipterocarp rain forest. Malay For 33:42–54

Laumonier Y (1983) International map of the vegetation. ‘‘Southern Sumatra’’. 1:1.000.000. Institut de laCarte Internationale de la Vegetation, Toulouse, France and SEAMEO-BIOTROP, Bogor

Laumonier Y (1990) Search for phytogeographic provinces in Sumatra. In: Baas P, Kalkman K, Geesink R(eds) The plant diversity of Malaysia. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 193–211

Laumonier Y (1997) The vegetation and physiography of Sumatra. Kluwer Academic Publishers, UtrechtLaumonier Y, Purnadjaya P, Setiabudi S (1986) International map of the vegetation and ecological con-

ditions. ‘‘Central Sumatra’’. 1:1.000.000. Institut de la Carte Internationale de la Vegetation, Toulouse,France and SEAMEO-BIOTROP, Bogor

Laumonier Y, Purnadjaya P, Setiabudi S (1987) International map of the vegetation. ‘‘Northern Sumatra’’.1:1.000.000. Institut de la Carte Internationale de la Vegetation, Toulouse, France and SEAMEO-BIOTROP, Bogor


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523–1739.2008.01096.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02147.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02147.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/035006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9772-6

Legris P, Blasco F (1979) Joint pilot project for tropical forest monitoring. FAO and UNESCO, FAO Rome.Unpublished report

Lindenmayer DB (1999) Future directions for biodiversity conservation in managed forests: indicatorspecies, impact studies and monitoring programs. For Ecol Manag 115(2–3):277–287

Long AJ, Crosby MJ, Stattersfield AJ, Wege DC (1996) Towards a global map of biodiversity: patterns inthe distribution of restricted-range birds. Glob Ecol Biogeogr Lett 5:281–304

MacKinnon J, Wind J (1981) Birds of Indonesia. Special report F0/INS/78/061. FAO, RomeMargules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for iden-

tifying priority areas for conservation. J Biosci 27:309–326Michaux B (1994) Land movements and animal distributions in east Wallacea (eastern Indonesia, Papua

New Guinea and Melanesia). Palaeogeogr, Palaeoclim, Palaeecol 112:323–343Mueller-Dombois D, Hellenberg H (1974) Aims and method of vegetation ecology. Blackburn, New York, p

547Myers R, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for

conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858Oldeman LR, Las I, Darvis SN (1979) An agroclimatic map of Sumatra, vol 52. Cent Res Inst Agric Bogor,

pp 1–35 ? mapOlson DM, Dinerstein E (1998) The global 200: a representation approach to conserving the Earth’s most

biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv Biol 12:502–515Paine JR, Byron N, Poffenberger M (1997) Asia-Pacific forestry sector outlook study: status, trends and

future scenarios for forest conservation including protected areas in the Asia-Pacific region. FAOworking paper. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/W5475E/W5475E00.htm

Paoli GD, Curran LM, Slik JWF (2008) Soil nutrients affect spatial patterns of aboveground biomass andemergent tree density in southwestern Borneo. Oecologia 155:287–299

Pendry CA, Proctor J (1997) Altitudinal zonation of rain forest on Bukit Belalong, Brunei: soils, foreststructure and floristics. J Trop Ecol 13:221–241

Poore MED (1968) Studies in Malaysian rain forest I. The forest on Triassic sediments in Jengka forestreserve. J Ecol 56:143–196

Sleumer H (1966) Ericaceae. Flora Males, Ser I 6(4):469–914Slik JWF, Poulsen AD, Ashton PS et al (2003) A floristic analysis of the lowland dipterocarp forests of

Borneo. J Biogeogr 30:1517–1531Slik JWF, Raes N, Aiba SI, Brearley FQ et al (2009) Environmental correlates for tropical tree diversity and

distribution patterns in Borneo. Divers Distrib 15:523–532Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL (2004) Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends

Ecol Evol 19(12):654–660Sujatnika JP, Soehartono TR, Crosby MJ, Mardiastuti A (1995) Conserving Indonesian biodiversity: the

endemic bird area approach. PHPA/Birdlife International, Cambridge, UKSymington CF (1943) Forester manual of dipterocarps. Malay For Rec 244 ppTrichon V (1997) Heterogeneite spatiale des structures en foret naturelle de basse altitude a Sumatra,

Indonesie. These Doctorat Universite de Toulouse 3, Toulouse, FranceUNESCO (1973) International classification and cartography of the vegetation. Ecology and conservation

series. UNESCO, Paris, 92 ppUryu Y, Mott C, Foead N, Yulianto K, Budiman A et al (2008) Deforestation, forest degradation, biodi-

versity loss and CO2 emissions in Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia. WWF Indonesia Technical Report,Jakarta, Indonesia

van Balgooy MMJ (1971) Plant geography of the Pacific. Blumea suppl. to vol. 6. 222 ppvan Balgooy MMJ (1987) A plant geographical analysis of Sulawesi. In: Whitmore TC (ed) Biogeographical

evolution of the Malay Archipelago, vol 4. pp 94–102van der Werf GR, Dempewolf J, Trigg SN, Randerson JT, Kasibhatla PS, Giglio L, Murdiyarso D, Peters W,

Morton DC, Collatz GJ, Dolman AJ, DeFries RS (2008) Climate regulation of fire emissions anddeforestation in equatorial Asia. PNAS 105(51):20350–20355

van Steenis CGGJ (1935) On the origin of the Malaysian mountain flora. I–III. Altitudinal zones, generalconsiderations and renewed statement of the problem. Bull Jard Bot Btzg III–13:289–417

van Steenis CGGJ (1969) Plant speciation in Malesia, with special reference to the theory of non-adaptivesaltatory evolution. Biol J Linn Soc 1:97–133

van Steenis CGGJ (1971) Plant conservation in Malaysia. Bull Jard Bot Nat Belg 41:189–202van Steenis CGGJ (1972) The mountain flora of Java. J Brill, LeidenVerstappen HT (1973) A geomorphological reconnaissance of Sumatera and adjacent islands (Indonesia).

I.T.C, EntschedeWhitmore TC (ed) (1981) Wallace’s line and plate tectonics. Clarendon Press, Oxford


123

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/W5475E/W5475E00.htm

Whitmore TC (ed) (1987) Biogeographical evolution of the Malay archipelago. Oxford monographs onbiogeography, vol 4. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Whittaker RJ, Araujo MB, Jepson P, Ladle RJ, Watson JEM, Willis KJ (2005) Conservation biogeography:assessment and prospect. Divers Distrib 11:3–23

Wikramanayake E, Dinerstein E, Loucks C, Olson D, Morrison J, Lamoreux J, McKnight M, Hedao P(2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: a conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington,DC

Wikramanayake E, Dinerstein E, Loucks C, Olson D, Morrison J, Lamoreux J, McKnight M, Hedao P(2002) Ecoregions in ascendance: reply to Jepson and Whittaker. Conserv Biol 16(1):238–243

Wilcove DS, Koh LP (2010) Addressing the threats to biodiversity from oil-palm agriculture. BiodiversConserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9760-x

Woodruff DS (2010) Biogeography and conservation in Southeast Asia: how 2.7 million years of repeatedenvironmental fluctuations affect today’s patterns and the future of the remaining refugial-phasebiodiversity. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9783-3

Woods AW, Wohletz K (1991) Dimensions and dynamics of co-ignimbrite eruption columns. Nature350:225–227

World Resources Institute (2003) World resources 2002–2004: decisions for the Earth: balance, voice andpower. United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, WorldBank and World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org

Yacono-Janoueix D, Perard J (1978) Pluviosite et regimes pluviometriques a Sumatra. Bulletin del’Association des Geographes Francais (France) 55:329–338


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9760-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9783-3

http://www.wri.org

Documents

Eco-ﬂoristic sectors and deforestation threats in Sumatra