Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
LAND EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR ELAEIS GUINEENSIS JACQ. CULTIVATION IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
ADZEMI BIN MAT ARSHAD
FH 1999 3
LAND EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR ELAEIS GUINEENSIS JACQ. CULTIVATION IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
By
ADZEMI BIN MAT ARSHAD
Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Forestry
Universiti Putra Malaysia
August 1999
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All praise be to Allah s. w. t who has make it easy for me to complete my study.
I would like to acknowledge the contribution and help given to me by organizations
and individuals throughout the course of my study.
Prof. Dr. Nik Muhamad Nik Ab. Majid, my chairman of supervisory committee for his
invaluable guidance, discussions and encouragement towards the completion of my
study.
Dr. Hamdan 101 and Dr. Anuar Abd. Rahim, my co-supervisors for their assistance
and invaluable discussions throughout the period of this study. Mr. Peli Mat, for useful
comments and discussions.
Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) Head Quarters, Kuala Lumpur for
giving permission to use soil maps for FELDA Scheme in the State of Kelantan.
Technical staffs of Department of Land Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia
particularly Mr. Mohd. Ghazali Abd. Satar and Mr. Alias Tahar for their help in field
work.
i i
Government of Malaysia through Universiti Putra Malaysia who has awarded a
scholarship for my study leave without which it will be difficult for me to have a chance
as such.
Special acknowledgements are due to the Ministry of Science, Technology and
Environment, Malaysia for IRPA research grant no. 0 1 -02-04-058 without which some of
the research could not have been possible.
Last but not least, to my beloved wife, An'am Bt. Fauzi and children, Fadhlina,
Fadhilah, Ahmad Fadhli, Nur Hidayah, Ahmad Mujahid, Siti Zulaikha, Muhamad
Ridzuan, Abdul Aziz, Nasibah, Rabi'atul'adawiyah and Muhamad Salihin whose
sacrifice and understanding has enable me to complete this study successful.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' " . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , xi ABSTRACT . . . '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . xiii ABSTRAK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... xv
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION . . . . . , ................................ , ... '" ............... 1 Objective of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ................................ 5 Physiographic S ituation of Peninsular Malaysia ........................... 5
Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ......................... 5 Physiology ........................ '" " .......... '" ......... " .............. 5 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Geomorphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Vegetation ................................................................... 11
Land Evaluation as a Basic Tool for Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Land Evaluation for Agricultural Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 16 The Evaluation of Climate . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 18 Climatic Conditions and Habitat Preference . . . . . . . . . . . , .................. 18
Geographic Distribution of Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 18 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Rainfall and the Length of the Dry Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 21 Relati ve Humidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '" .. 23 Sunshine and Solar Radiation . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 23 Wind Velocities . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Climate of Peninsular Malaysia . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , ........... ....... 26 Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Diurnal Variation of Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 30 Coefficient of Variability of Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 Air Temperature and Relative Humidity . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . .... 34 Evaporation and Water Balance .......................................... 35
Climatic Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Papadakis Climatic Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Estimation of Crop Evapotranspiration for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Soil Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Entisols . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Inceptisols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . , .. , .. , .. , .......... " ......... " ..... 42 Vertisols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . 43 Mollisols . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . ... 43
iv
Alfisols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
Ultisols . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. ..... . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. 44
Oxisols . ... .. . . , .............. , .......................... , .. , ................. 45
Spodosols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Histosols . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 46
Concepts and Philosophies in Land Evaluation Methodology ........ , .. .47
Land Evaluation Systems in Peninsular Malaysia . . . . . ... . . . . ... ... . .. . .. . . 56
Land Capability Classification ..... . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . ..... .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .... . . . .. 56
Evaluation of Mineral Resources ... . .. . ..... ...... . . ........ . ... . . . . '" .56
Evaluation of Soil Resources . . . .. . .... . .. . .. .. . . . .. ....... .. ... . .... . .. .. 57
Evaluation of Forest Resources . .. . ... .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . 60
Evaluation of Water Resources .. ... . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . ... 61
Evaluation of National Parks, Wild Life and Recreational . . . . . .. . .. . 61
Resources Land Capability Classification System in Peninsular Malaysia ..... 62
General Systems of Soil Suitability Classification . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Soil-Crop Suitability Classification for Peninsular Malaysia . . .. . . . . 64
Specific Soil Classification Systems . . ....... . ....... . . . ......... . . . . ..... . 67
The FAO Framework for Land Evaluation . . . '" '" ........................ 69
The Development and Utility of the Framework .... . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . 69
The Principles of FAO Framework for land Evaluation . ... . . ........ 71
The Classification of the F AO Framework for Land Evaluation . . . 72
Geographic Information System .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . ..... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 74
What is Geographic Information System? .......... . . . ...... . ... . . ... 74
Distinctive Characteristics of GIS . .. . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ... ..... 76
The Nature of Geographic Data .......... . ... . .. .. ... ... . ... .. ... . .. . . ... 77
Modelling of Geographic Data ............. . ...... . . . ... ... . .. . . . . .. ..... 78
Spatial Data ModeL .. ' " .... , ................... '" ....................... 80
Raster Data Model . . . .. .. . . ... .. . . . . . .. . .. '" ............................. 80
Vector Data ModeL . . .. . . . . . . .. . ... .. .... . ..... . . .. . .. ... .. . . .. . ... . . .. . .. 82
Comparison of Raster and Vector Model . . . . . .. . .. . .... . .... . . . .. . . . .. . 84
Database Approach in GIS .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . 86
Hierarchial Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 87
The Network or CODASYL Approach ...... . .. . . . .... . .... . . . . .. 88 Relational Structure . ... . . . . . . .. . . .. ... .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . ... 89
Managing Spatial and Attribute Data Together . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...... 89
Computerized Land Evaluation System ..... . . .. . ... . . . .. . .. . ....... .. . . . .. 92
The FAO Agroecological Zones Approach (AEZ) . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... 92
Land Evaluation Computer System (LECS) .. . .. . . ... .... . . . . . .. .. ... 93
World Food Supply (WOFOST) . ..... . .. . . ... . . . . .. . .. . ... .. . . . . .. . ... 93
Crop Yield Prediction Model for Perennial and .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . ... 94
Annual Crops (CYPPAC) Geographic Information System and Land Evaluation .. . ... .. . ..... . 94
System (GILES) Automated Land Evaluation System (ALES) . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 95
Tropical Crop Selection Advisory (TROPSEL) . . . . .. . ... .. . ... .. . ... 96
Advantages and Disadvantages of Cartographic Modelling in . . . .. . .. . .. 97
Land Evaluation
v
III MATERIALS AND METHODS ..... . .. . ... ... . . . . . . . .. ... . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 99
Oil Palm Cultivation as a Land Utilization Type . .. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 99
The Evaluation of Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . , ... 99
The Stations Selected for the Study . .. . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .... 99
The Papadakis System for Classifying Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l 00
Methods of Estimating Crop-Water Requirement for Oil Palm . . . . 101
Penman's Method (JPS, 1977) ................... , ................ .101
The Method of Doorenbos and Pruitt (1 977) .................... 102
The Penman-Monteith Method (Smith, 1991) .................. 104
Method to Estimate Crop Evapotranspiration for Oil Palm . ..... . ... 1 06
Method to Evaluate Climate for Oil Palm Cultivation .. . .... ... . . .... 106
The Soils Chosen for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 107
Evaluation of the Land Units . . . . . ... ........ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 111
Mapping Land Suitability Areas for Oil Palm Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Development of Expert System Land Evaluation for Oil Palm . . . " ..... 117
Cultivation (ESLEOP)
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Oil Palm as a Land Utilization Type . .. . ... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . ..... . ... 119
Oil Palm Cultivation in Estates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9
Oil Palm Cultivation in Smallholdings . . . . . . . . . .... . ..... . . ..... ... . . . . . 126
Papadakis Climatic Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 134
Estimation of Crop-Water Requirements for Oil Palm . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... 141
Comparison of Three Methods of Estimating Potential . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 141
Evapotranspiration Crop Evapotranspiration for Oil Palm ..... . . . . . . . .. . .. . ..... . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . 146
Crop-Water Requirement of Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 50
Evaluation Criteria for Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 152
Climatic Conditions of the Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 152
Evaluation of Climate in the Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 1 63
The Soils Chosen for the Study . .. . . . ... ... .. . ... ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . ... ... 168
Classification of the Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Soil Properties and Management Implications .. . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Evaluation of the Land Unit. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 174 Land Evaluation by Land Qualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 174 Description of Land Qualities ................................................. 175
Internal Land Qualities .......................................................... 175
Water Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Oxygen Availability ....................................................... 175
Nutrient Availability .................... , ..... , ........................... 179
Favourability of Soil Acidity Conditions ............................... 180
Availability of Foothold for Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... .. . . . .. ......... . .. 180
Presence of Coarse Fragments ............................................ 1 81
Presence of Impenetrable Layers .......................................... 181
Favourability of Soil Physical Conditions for Plant .................... 181
Growth Presence of Organic Soil Materials . . .. . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . .. . . . . .... , ...... 182
External Land Qualities . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184
VI
Workability and Planting Operation Facilities in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 1 84 Function of Rock Outcrops Availability Layout of farm Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 1 84 Flood Hazard . . . . . . . . , . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . '" . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 85 Soil Erosion Hazard . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 86
Land Suitability Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 89 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 190 Classification of the Land Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 1
Land Evaluation by Land Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 1 Relationship between Land Qualities and Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... 228 Characteristic Relationship between Land Indices and Yield of Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Mapping Land Suitability Areas for Oil Palm Cultivation . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 238 Oil Palm Yield Trends in KESEDAR Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 282 Expert System Land Evaluation for Oil Palm Cultivation . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... 292
Evaluation of Climate . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 294 Evaluation of Land Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Evaluation of Land Qualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . ... 296 ESLEOP Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . ... 298 Printing the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 298 Saving the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 299 Quitting the Window Analysis and the Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .... 299 Advantages of Using ESLEOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
V SUMMARRY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
APPENDIX
A Methods of Laboratory Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 B Climatic Characteristics, Diagnosis and Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 C PET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... 338 D Rainfall , Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water . . . . . . . . . . 363
Deficit E Profile Description and Analytical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 F Geographic Information System Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . '" . . . 509 G Expert System Land Evaluation for Oil Palm Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 5 1 7
Software
VITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 582
Vll
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Land Characteristics for Evaluation of Tropical Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 2 Land Qualities for Evaluation of Tropical Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3 Soil Characteristics and Related Land Qualities Used in Land Evaluation . . . 5 1 4 The Structure of the Suitability Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 5 Comparison of Raster and Vector Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 6 The Soil Series and their Associated Parent Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 7 Land Utilization Type for Oil Palm Cultivation in Peninsular Malaysia . . . . 1 33 8 Papadakis Classification of Climate and its Interpretation for the . . . . , . . . . . . . 1 34
Regions in Peninsular Malaysia 9 Mean Maximum Temperatures ( °C) of the Warmest Months in Alor Star. 1 39
Ipoh, Kuala Krai and Tanah Merah 10 PET Values Estimated by the Method of labatan Parit dan Saliran . . . . . . . . . . 142
Doorenbos and Pruitt and Penman-Monteith for Various Regions in Peninsular Malaysia
1 1 Relationship and Correlation Coefficient Values of PET between labatan. 147 Parit dan Saliran and Doorenbos and Pruitt, labatan Parit dan Saliran and Penman Monteith and Doorenbos and Pruitt and Penman-Monteith for Various Regions in Peninsular Malaysia
1 2 Crop Evapotranspiration and Water Availability for Oil Palm i n the . . . . . . . . 149 Different Regions in Peninsular Malaysia
1 3 Consumptive Use of Water by Oil Palm in the Different Regions in . . . . . . . . . 1 50 Peninsular Malaysia
14 Limitation Levels and Their Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 52 1 5 Climatic Requirements for Oil Palm Cultivation . . , . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 53 1 6 Climatic Data for Alor Star. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 54 17 Climatic Data for Ipoh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 55 1 8 Climatic Data for Subang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 56 1 9 Climatic Data for Malacca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 57 20 Climatic Data for Kluang . . . . . . . . , '" . , . . . . '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 58 2 1 Climatic Data for Senai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 59 22 Climatic Data for Kuantan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 60 23 Climatic Data for Kuala Krai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 1 24 Climatic Data for Tanah Merah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 62 25 Evaluation of Climate for Oil Palm in the Different Regions in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 64
Peninsular Malaysia 26 The Classification of the Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 68 27 Land Suitability Requirements for Oil Palm Based on Land Qualities . . . . . . 1 76 28 The Assessment of the Availability of Foothold for Roots in Peat . . . . , . . . . . . 1 83
Materials 29 Assessment of Soil Erosion Hazard for Mineral Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 1 88 30 Actual Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 95
Cultivation by Using Land Qualities 3 1 Potential Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . 1 99
viii
Cultivation by Using Land Qualities 32 Actual Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . , . .. 203
Cultivation by Using Land Qualities in the Different Regions in Peninsular Malaysia
33 Potential Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . 207 Cultivation by Using Land Qualities in the Different Regions in Peninsular Malaysia
34 Land Suitability Requirements for Oil Palm Based on Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 2 1 2 Characteristics
35 Actual Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Cultivation by Using Land Characteristics
36 Potential Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . 2 17 Cultivation by Using Land Characteristics
37 Actual Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Cultivation by Using Land Characteristics in the Different Regions in Peninsular Malaysia
38 Potential Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . 229 Cultivation by using Land Characteristics in the Different Regions in Peninsular Malaysia
39 Relationship between Land Characteristics and Land Qualities . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 233 40 Land Indices and Yield of D x P for Various Land Units . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 41 Oil Palm Plantations and Estate in the District of Gua Musang, Kuala . . . . . 238
Krai and Tanah Merah, Kelantan 42 Potential Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . .. . . . . . 245
Cultivation by Using Land Qualities at KESEDAR Region in Kelantan 43 Potential Suitability Classification of the Land Units for Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . 249
Cultivation by Using Land Characteristics at KESEDAR Region in Kelantan
44 Oil Palm Yield and Land Indices of the Land Units at KESEDAR . . . . . . . . . 282 Region in Kelantan
45 Oil Palm Yields in Peninsular Malaysian Estate Sector (1988 to 1997) . . . . 290 46 Oil Palm Yield Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '" 29 1 47 Climate Characteristics, Diagnosis and Classification of Alor Star by . . . . . . 328
the Papadakis System 48 Climate Characteristics, Diagnosis and Classification of Ipoh by . . . . . . . . . . . 329
the Papadakis System 49 Climate Characteristics, Diagnosis and Classification of Subang by . . . . . . . . .330
the Papadakis System 50 Climate Characteristics, Diagnosis and Classification of Malacca by . . . . . . .3 31
the Papadakis System 51 Climate Characteristics, Diagnosis and Classification of Kluang by . . . . . . . . 332
the Papadakis System 52 Climate Characteristics, Diagnosis and Classification of Senai by . . . . . . . . . . 333
the Papadakis System 53 Climate Characteristics, Diagnosis and Classification of Kuantan by . . . . . . 334
the Papadakis System 54 Climate Characteristics, Diagnosis and Classification of Kuala Krai by. . . 335
the Papadakis System
IX
55 Climate Characteristics, Diagnosis and classification of Tanah Merah . . . . 336 by the Papadakis System
56 PET of Alor Star by the Method of labatan Parit dan Saliran . ... , ........... 338 57 PET of Ipoh by the Method of labatan Parit dan Saliran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 58 PET of Subang by the Method of labatan Patit dan Saliran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 59 PET of Malacca by the Method of 1 abatan Parit dan Saliran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 60 PET of Kluang by the Method of labatan Parit dan Saliran . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 342 61 PET of Senai by the Method of labatan Parit dan Saliran . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 62 PET of Kuantan by the Method of labatan Parit dan Saliran . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 344 63 PET of Kuala Krai by the Method of labatan Parit dan Saliran . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 345 64 PET of Alor Star by the Method of Doorenbos and Pruitt . . . . . . '" . . . . . . . . . '" 346 65 PET of Ipoh by the Method of Doorenbos and Pruitt. . . . . .. ..... . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 347 66 PET of Subang by the Method of Doorenbos and Pruitt. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 348 67 PET of Malacca by the Method of Doorenbos and Pruitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 68 PET of Kluang by the Method of Doorenbos and Pruitt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 69 PET of Senai by the Method of Doorenbos and Pruitt ... . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . ... . 35 1 70 PET of Kuantan by the Method of Doorenbos and Pruitt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 7 1 PET of Kuala Krai by the Method of Doorenbos and Pruitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 72 PET of Alor Star by the Method of Penman-Monteith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 73 PET of Ipoh by the Method of Penman-Monteith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. 355 74 PET of Subang by the Method of Penman-Monteith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 75 PET of Malacca by the Method of Penman-Monteith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 76 PET of Kluang by the Method of Penman-Monteith . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 77 PET of Senai by the Method of Penman-Monteith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 359 78 PET of Kuantan by the Method of Penman-Monteith . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 360 79 PET of Kuala Krai by the Method of Penman-Monteith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 80 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit. . . 363
at Alar Star 81 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit. . . 364
at Ipoh 82 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit . . . 365
at Subang 83 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit . . . 366
in the Coastal Areas of Malacca 84 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit. . . 367
in the Non-Coastal Areas of Malacca 85 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit. . 368
at Kluang 86 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit. . . 369
at Senai 87 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit. . . 370
in the Coastal Areas of Kuantan 88 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit. . . 371
in the Non-Coastal Areas of Kuantan 89 Rainfall, Crop Evapotranspiration, Effective Rainfall and Water Deficit. . . 372
at Kuala Krai
x
LIST OF FIGURES
F�re P�e
1 General Physiology Map for Peninsular Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 Highlands in Peninsular Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 Rainfall Regions of Peninsular Malaysia and the Location of the . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Meteorological Stations Chosen for the Study 4 Map of Peninsular Malaysia Showing the Location of the Study Profiles . . . 1 1 0 5 Map of Peninsular Malaysia Showing the Study Area (Shaded Portion) . . . . . 1 1 4
for Mapping Land Suitability for Oil Palm Cultivation 6 Physical Features and River Systems Map of Kelantan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5 7 Flowchart of Operations Needed to Create a Land Suitability Map for OiL1 17
Palm Cultivation Using FAO Land Evaluation Procedures 8 Land Use Map for Oil Palm in Kelantan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 9 Agroclimatic Map of Kelantan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1 1 0 Land and Climate Suitability Map for Oil Palm Cultivation i n Kelantan . . . . 242 1 1 Location of Oil Palm Mapping Area in Kelantan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 1 2 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Ciku l A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 1 3 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Ciku lB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 14 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Ciku l C . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 254 1 5 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Ciku 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 1 6 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Ciku 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 1 7 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Ciku 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 1 8 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Ciku 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 1 9 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Ciku 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 20 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Aring 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1 2 1 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Aring 1 Phase 2ABC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 22 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Aring 1 Phase 3B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 23 Oil Palm Suitability Map for KESEDAR Paloh 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 24 Oil Palm Suitability Map for KESEDAR Paloh 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 25 Oil Palm Suitability Map for KESEDAR Paloh 3A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 26 Oil Palm Suitability Map for KESEDAR Paloh 3B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 27 Oil Palm Suitability Map for KESEDAR Paloh 3C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 28 Oil palm Suitability Map for KESEDAR Lebir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1 29 Oil Palm Suitability Map for KESEDAR Chalil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 30 Oil Palm Suitability Map for Lepan Kabu Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 3 1 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Kemahang 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 32 Oil palm Suitability Map for FELDA Kemahang 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 33 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Kemahang 2 Phase 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 34 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Kemahang 3 Phase 1 A . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 278 35 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Kemahang 3 Phase 1 B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 36 Oil Palm Suitability Map for FELDA Kemahang 3 Phase l C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 37 Data of land Unit, Land Suitability Map for Oil Palm Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1
and Picture for FELDA Ciku 2 38 The ESLEOP Programme Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 39 Introduction to ESLEOP Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
xi
40 Oil Palm Statistic in the District of Gua Musang, Kelantan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509 41 Oil Palm Statistic in the District of Tanah Merah, Kelantan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10 42 Oil Palm Statistic in the District of Kuala Krai , Kelantan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 1 43 Oxygen Availability Map for FELDA Ciku l A . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 2 44 Water Availability Map for FELDA Ciku 1 A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 3 45 Nutrient Availability Map for FELDA Ciku 1A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 14 46 Workability and Availability of Foothold for Root Map for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5
FELDA Ciku 1 A 47 ESLEOP Programme Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 7 48 Main Analysis Menu for ESLEOP and Table for Data Entry and Results . . . 5 1 8
for Evaluation of Climate for Oil Palm Cultivation in Different Regions 49 Table for Data Entry and Results for Actual Suitability Classification . . . . . . . 520
of the Land Units for Oil Palm Cultivation by Using Land Characteristics 50 Table for Data Entry and Results for Potential Suitability Classification . . . . 522
of the Land Units for Oil Palm Cultivation by Using Land Characteristics 5 1 Table for Data Entry and Results for Actual Suitability Classification . . . . . . . 524
of the Land Units for Oil Palm Cultivation by Using Land Qualities 52 Table for Data Entry and Results for Potential Suitability Classification . . . . . 526
of the Land Units for Oil Palm Cultivation by Using Land Qualities
xii
Abstract of thesis presented to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
LAND EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR ELAEIS GUINEENSIS JACQ. CULTIV ATION IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
By
ADZEMI BIN MAT ARSHAD
August 1999
Chairman: Professor Nik Muhamad Bin Nik Ab. Majid, Ph.D
Faculty: Forestry
The FAO Framework for Land Evaluation (FAD, 1976) was used for the development
of a land evaluation system for oil palm cultivation in Peninsular Malaysia. The
combined limitation and parametric approach was used as it contributed to a more
meaningful interpretation of the results. Three basic land utilization types were identified
in oil palm cultivation. Nine meteorological stations in the country were chosen for the
study: Alor Star (Kedah), Ipoh (Perak), Subang (Selangor), Malacca (Malacca), Kluang
(lohore), Senai (lohore), Kuantan (Pahang), Kuala Krai (Kelantan) and Tanah Merah
(Kelantan). The results showed that when some amendments were made, the Papadakis
climatic classification was found to be accurate in defining the climate of the country.
Three climatic groups were identified to exist in the country and all the climatic groups
are considered to be suitable for oil palm cultivation.
A system was developed for evaluating climate suitability for oil palm cultivation.
Five rainfall regions were studied and it was found that the North-West was the least
Xlll
favourable for oil palm cultivation. Three methods were compared to estimate crop
evapotranspiration and the results showed that the method of Doorenbos and Pruitt
( 1 977) provided a better estimation of crop evapotranspiration and crop-water
requirement for oil palm. The results showed that the use of climate in land evaluation
system for oil palm cultivation would enable a more accurate interpretation of the results
for land evaluation.
Forty five soils were chosen to analyze the land evaluation systems. The system of
evaluation by using land qualities was first developed. The system of Sys et al. ( 1 99 1 )
was used i n combination with climatic characteristics for the evaluation using land
characteristics. The results showed that the evaluation using land qualities and land
characteristics for land evaluation lead to similar conclusions with few exceptions.
Comparing between the two systems, the system using land characteristics for land
evaluation was prefered due to its simplicity and because the data required are often
obtainable from soil survey reports. The method of using land qualities was complicated
and required more time to arrive at about similar conclusion and the data required may
not be easily obtainable from soil survey reports.
Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to map the oil palm suitability areas
and the results were presented in the form of maps for easy interpretation together with
data calculated by using combined limitation and parametric approach. A window based
and user friendly Expert System Land Evaluation for Oil Palm Cultivation (ESLEOP)
software was developed. The results showed that ESLEOP evaluate climate, land
qualities and land characteristics faster that the conventional methods.
xiv
Abstrak tesis yang dikemukakan kepada Senat Universiti Putra Malaysia sebagai memenuhi keperluan untuk Ijazah Doktor Falsafah
SISTEM PERNILAIAN TANAH BAGI TANAMAN ELAEIS GUINEENSIS JACQ. DI SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA
Oleh
ADZEMI BIN MAT ARSHAD
Ogos 1999
Pengerusi: Profesor Nik Muhamad Bin Nik Ab. Majid, Ph.D
FakuIti: Perhutanan
Rangkakerja FAO bagi Pernilaian Tanah (FAO, 1 976) telah digunakan bagi
membangunkan sistem pernilaian tanah bagi tanaman kelapa sawit di Semenanjung
Malaysia. Gabungan limitasi dan pendekatan parametrik telah digunakan kerana ia
memberikan sumbangan kearah pentafsiran keputusan yang lebih bermakna. Tiga jenis
penggunaan tanah dikenal pasti bagi tanaman kelapa sawit. Sembilan stesyen kajicuaca
negara ini telah dipilih untuk tujuan penyelidikan: Alor Star (Kedah), Jpoh (Perak),
Subang (Selangor), Melaka (Melaka), Keluang (lohor), Senai (lohor), Kuantan (Pahang),
Kuala Kerai (Kelantan) dan Tanah Merah (Kelantan). Keputusan menunjukkan bahawa
apabila dibuat sedikit perubahan, pengkelasan iklim Papadakis didapati menunjukkan
ketepatan dalam mendefinisikan iklim negara ini. Tiga kumpulan iklim dikenal pasti
wujud di negara ini dan kesemua kumpulan iklim didapati sesuai bagi tanaman keJapa
sawit.
S istem pernilaian kesesuaian iklim bagi tanaman kelapa sawit telah dibangunkan.
Lima wilayah hujan telah dikaji dan didapati wilayah Barat Laut sedikit kurang baik
xv
bagi tanaman kelapa sawit. Tiga kaedah telah dibandingkan bagi menganggar
evapotranspirasi tanaman dan keputusan rnenunjukkan bahawa kaedah Doorenbos dan
Pruitt (1977) rnernberikan anggaran yang baik bagi evapotranspirasi tanaman dan
keperluan air tanaman kelapa sawit. Keputusan menunjukkan penggunaan iklim dalam
pernilaian tanah bagi tanaman kelapa sawit memberikan keputusan tafsiran yang tepat.
Empat puluh lima tanah telah dipilih bagi menganalisis sistem pernilaian tanah.
Sistem pernilaian tanah menggunakan kualiti tanah telah dibangunkan. Sistem Sys et al.
(1991) digunakan dengan kombinasi sifat iklim bagi pernilaian tanah dengan
menggunakan sifat tanah. Keputusan menunjukkan pernilaian menggunakan kualiti
tanah dan sifat tanah memberikan kesimpulan yang hampir sarna dengan beberapa
pengecualian. Perbandingan di antara dua sistem tersebut didapati sistem menggunakan
sifat tanah lebih diutamakan disebabkan ia lebih ringkas dan data yang diperlukan boleh
didapati dari laporan siasatan tanah. Kaedah menggunakan kualiti tanah didapati lebih
rurnit dan memerlukan lebih mas a bagi mendapatkan kesimpulan yang hampir sarna dan
data yang diperlukan tidak boleh didapati terus dari laporan siasatan tanah.
Sistem Maklumat Geografi (SMG) telah digunakan bagi pemetaan kesesuai an
kawasan kelapa sawit dan keputusan didapati dalarn bentuk peta bagi mernudahkan
pentafsiran keputusan dengan data yang dikira dengan menggunakan gabungan limitasi
dan pendekatan parametrik. Perisian Sistem Pakar Pernilaian Tanah bagi Tanaman
Kelapa Sawit (SPPTKS) dibangunkan berdasarkan tetingkap dan mesra pengguna.
Keputusan menunjukkan SPPTKS menilai kesesuaian iklim, kualiti tanah dan sifat tanah
lebih cepat berbanding dengan kaedah lama.
xvi
CHAPTER!
INTRODUCTION
There is a deep concern nowadays about land use strategy because land resources have
become scarce. The fact that the increase in human population almost guarantees an
increase in their activities, whether for agricultural or non agricultural purposes has
become a great concern in society. In either agricultural or non agricultural sectors,
planners are trying to meet the demand of an ever increasing population which means that
land resources have to be systematically evaluated before being assigned for any
particular land use. A decision, therefore has to be made to allocate a particular parcel of
land for the most productive use, normally based on economics. Such decisions have to
be formulated by taking into the recommendations based on some form of land appraisal
or land evaluation to assess the potential of new land to be occupied in frontier extension
where land reserve still exist and of intensifying the utilisation of already occupied land
by applying new agricultural techniques and inputs to increase productivity.
The impetus to land development in this country was set in motion during the Malayan
First Five Year Plan ( 1 956 to 1 960) with emphasis directed towards diversifying
agriculture and opening of new land for agriculture, particularly in the undeveloped areas.
With the rapid increase in the opening of new land for agriculture and the need to
diversify agriculture, there was a pressing need to some form of land allocation. The
experience and the efforts of the Soil Survey Branch, Department of Agriculture in the
1
2
country led to the development of a soil suitability system published in 1 966 by Leamy
and Panton. The system was meant for general agricultural use although it was mainly set
up on the basic experiences gained from the rubber and oil palm sectors. This system was
revised, updated and subsequently renamed the Soil Crop Suitability Classification for
Peninsular Malaysia (Wong, 1 974, 1 986). More changes have been proposed recently to
made it more effective for current needs (Lim, 1 993).
For oil palm, choice of land seems to have been limited by steep-sided hills in the
interior, by mangrove or established padi on the coast and by inaccessibility in the
remaining areas. The was little evidence that the planters preferred a particular land areas
except that they avoided the more extensive peat deposits which were difficult to drain.
The different land evaluation systems in the country consider soil and landscape
properties. As such the existing system of land evaluation for oil palm (Ng, 1 968; Chiew,
1 977) in Peninsular Malaysia is confined solely to the evaluation of soil and landscape.
Climate is often assumed to be the same or it is considered that differences due to
climate are insignificant. Climate often defines ecological zones. As such the evaluation
of climate forms a very important part in land evaluation. The relationship between
climate and yield of oil palm is not well studied in this country. Research carried out in
other countries have shown that climatic variations have resulted in a reduction of yields
of oil palm (Hartley, 1 988).
3
The Framework for Land Evaluation published by FAO in 1976 aimed towards a
standardisation in land evaluation systems. Attempts have already been made to adapt
this system of a land evaluation for specific land utilisation types including oil palm (Sys
et aI. , 1 993). Land characteristics have been used as diagnostic criteria. The FAO also
recommended the use of land qualities for land evaluation and work on this field of land
evaluation for oil palm in this country is new.
Oil palm is an important industry in Malaysian economy producing 7.8 million tons of
crude palm oil and remained as the world' s largest producer and exporter of palm oil in
1 995. The oil palm industry constitutes one of the thirty-four land use categories in
Malaysia and in 1 995 it occupies 43% of the total agricultural land use in Malaysia
(Kerajaan Malaysia, 1 996) . Since oil palm industry is important in agriculture sector it
will be used in the land evaluation study.
Almost always land evaluation presents its results as maps but the use of Geographic
Information System (GIS) for map analysis and presentation of land evaluation for oil
palm cultivation in this country has not been documented.
With that in mind, this research will integrate all relevant climatic features, soil and
landscape properties to evaluate the suitability of land for oil palm cultivation in
Peninsular Malaysia.
4
Objective of the Study
The general objective of the study is to determine the environmental factors that affect
oil palm cultivation towards providing a rational basis for national planning in oil palm
cultivation.
The Specific Objectives of the Study are to:
1 . Identify the land utilization types for oil palm cultivation
2. Examine the Papadakis system for classifying climate and its possible use to identify
regional differences affecting oil palm cultivation and to estimate the crop-water
requirement for oil palm using the method of Doorenbos and Pruitt ( 1 977) and
Penman-Monteith (Smith, 1 99 1 ) the latter is compared with the method currently
used in Peninsular Malaysia as recommended by labatan Parit dan Saliran ( 1 977)
3. Develop a system of evaluating the suitability of climate for oil palm cultivation and
to test its applicability using climatic data of selected meteorological stations
4. Characterise and classify the soils to be used for land evaluation purposes
5. Develop a system of land evaluation for oil palm cultivation by using land qualities
and to compare with the system using land characteristics
6. Produce land suitability maps for oil palm cultivation in selected study areas using
Geographic Information System (GIS)
7. Develop an expert system to ease in the calculation of the data for land evaluation
purposes
Location
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Physiographic Situation of Peninsular Malaysia
Peninsular Malaysia is located within the equatorial zone between latitudes 1 ° 5 ' and
6° 45'N and longitudes 99° and 1 04° 20'E. South China Sea lies to the east while Straits
of Malacca to the west of the peninsula. Peninsular Malaysia has an area of 1 3 .2 million
hectares . Its greatest length is about 735 km and the maximum width is about 320 km.
Physiology
The topography of most of the country is undulating and mountainous, dominated by
valley slopes. The central mountain range runs nearly through the middle of the
peninsular and rises up to a height of 2 , 000 m. The highest peak, Gunong Tahan is 2,
188 m in elevation. Secondary mountain ranges fan out from this, mainly in the northern
half of the country. These ranges consist of steep land with slopes exceeding 25° and
constitute 40% of the total land surface. From these mountain systems, many rivers flow
through hilly, rolling and undulating lowlands towards the flood plains, coastal flats and
beach ridges. The intermediate lowlands lie mainly between 20 to 1 , 1 60 m above sea
level.
6
The undulating and rolling terrain occupIes areas that are generally suitable for
agriculture production. In Peninsular Malaysia, the criteria which divides the steep land
which is unsuitable for agriculture is 20° slope limit. The 76 m contour line generally has
slopes less than 20°. Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows general physiography of Peninsular
Malaysia and highlands in Peninsular Malaysia respectively. Now the government
departments and agencies which are involved in research, planning and utilisation of land
resources have agreed to adopt a slightly steeper slope of 25° as the lower limit of the
steep land (DOA-MARDI, 1 993).
The landforms of Peninsular Malaysia can be generalise into higher hills and
mountains, limestone hills, low hills and flat lowlands. The high hills and mountains
cover land of high altitudes at about 80 m above sea level and are usually steep slope (>
25°) . Below these mountain slopes is the land considered suitable for agricultural
purposes that do not exceed 25°. This break in slope occurs at different altitudes in
different parts of Peninsular Malaysia. The low limestone hills are often very steep; they
are isolated hills up to 400 m high. The area is dissected with typical elevation
differences from valley to crest of 1 5 to 60 m. These hills have gentle to moderately
steep slopes. The flat lowlands consist of coastal plains and flood plains. The coastal
areas of the west coast are dominated by clay deposits of marine and riverine origin whilst
the coastal areas of the east consists of beach ridges.
••
�( .. �E"lIS • •
PROVINCE
PUlA\l� : � -::-
PINANG • - -_ -L WEllESL.Y -
Legend
Thailand
r---tl � r.:-7J � Cooslal Plains and low terraces 0 _ 20m.
� � C::::::d o
Flood plains and low (errace> 0 _ 80 m Inlermediate and hi,her lerrace, 10- 80m Rollin, 10 low billy land 30-110m
7
PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
32 64 km km 32 �t======k=====�====� o
Sou I h Chi n a
Sea
Figure 1 : General Physiography of Peninsular Malaysia
r----T-r--------------�--------_,--____r
i I I I T. ; U.
THAll.\�D
SINGKATAN (ABBREVIATION) '.
Timor Utara
Legend
East North
1 000-3 000 METER (Mturs) MELEBIHI 3000 METER (Ova) (l.felers)
L-.----'-_________ ____ L- ___ _ _
10000T 1010T
'. '.
10ZOT
8
KAWASAN KETINGGIAN l 01 SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA
(Highlands if! Peninsular Malaysia) SKALA 1:3000000
o I
:'
.
"
IOOl'm.
\ TERENGGANU
•
� .
LAUT CHINA SELATAN (50 U T H
CHINA SEA
� -� .... - .. -'"
.
'
#-
'.
,
.. ,
.
.... ,;:
-< .
..
,.
�..£ • �� 'Ii;if ." -.' MELAKA(F . r JOHOR
� . <.:. .' ' . '.
SINGAPORE
10J"r 1()4'"l"
Figure 2 : Highlands in Peninsular Malaysia
