Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
700 Based on Figure 5 to 9 show that the more forest area in the watershed, the low flow will
increase both for pine and teak forest. The water produce in pine forest is higher than in teak forest. The magnitute of increasing low flow on that forests are depend on their geologic
structure, soil depth, slope steepness, litter thickness and annual rainfall. Low flow in pine forest vary from 0.5 litreseckm2 20 of forest area in the watershed to 1.5 litreseckm2
95 of forest area, while low flow in teak forest vary from 0.2 litreseckm2 20 forest area to 1 litreseckm2 90 forest area. There are some reason that pine forest produce
more water than teak forest. First, annual rainfall in pine forest was higher than those in teak forest 2747 mm and 1309 mm. Second, parent materail in pine forest is volkanic while in
teak forest is limestone sedimen. Third, the slope is more stepness in pine forest than those in teak forest.
Johnson 1998 in his review of low flows mentioned that the low flow are sustained in very dry summer mainly by supplies from the drift and solid geology so are only affected by land
use if the forest prevent sufficient winter recharge to there sources. Furtheremore, Robinson et al.2003 said that soil water under forest is drier than under grass. This reduce the soil
moisture reserves to sustain base flows in dry weather periods. Forest area still influence the magnitute of low flow. Furthermore, Krakauer Temimi 2011 predict low flow by using
stepwise multiple regression analysis. There are six predicted variable of low flow i.e.: 1 longitude, 2 soil infiltration capacity, 3 latitude, 4 channel length, 5 forest cover, and 6
precipitation. Low flow generation processes are complex and vary naturally in time and space. Forest management is only one of a number human activities that can potentially affect
a regime of watershed hydrology Pike Scherer, 2003. For future research, factors influencing low flow since the beginning dry season until the end of dry season should be
investigated in order to get the role of forest on generating low flow. Forests can have an important role in supplying fresh water, but their management must
complement water management. There are some potential ways which forest and water can be supportive.First, mountainous forested watersheds require special attention as the highest
fresh water producing area. Second, forest can be managed to enhance fresh water supllies. Third, the potential exist to mitigate the economic damage caused by flood through forest
management, Fourth, a watershed perspective should be incorporated into the planning and mangement of forests, water, urban, and agriculture landuse. Fifth, incentives must be
provided through forest and other land use management policies and institutions from local watershed to the river basin level Hofer, 2003
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
a. The low flow will increase when forest area increases both in pine and teak forest. . b. Forest area plays an important role for producing low flow when dry season is longer.
c. The difference of low flow in pine and teak forests may be caused by differences in
climate, parent material, slope steepness, and litter thickness. d. Forest area is only one of factors to determine low flow. Therefore, other factors such as
formation of geology, soil depth, slope steepness, and climate should be investigated in the future research.
REFERENCES
Asdak, C. 1995. Hidrologi dan Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai. Gadjah Mada University Press : Yogyakarta
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
701 Beck, H.E., Van Dijk, A.I.J.M., Miralles, D.G., de Jeu, R.A.M., Bruinjzeel, L.A., Mc.Vicar,
T.R., Schellekens, J.2013. Global Patterns in base flow index and recession based on streamflow observation from 3394 catchments. Water Resources Research 49:1-21
doi:10.10022013 WR013918,2013 Bruijnzeel, L.A. 1990. Hydrology of Moist Tropical Forest and Effect of Conversion: A State
of Knowledge Review. UNESCO, Paris and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Delin, G.N., Healy, R.W., Lorenz, D.L., Nimmo, J.R., 2007. Comparison of local to regional scale estimates of ground water recharge in Minnesota, USA. Journal of
Hydrology 334, 231 –249.
Ellison, D., Futter, M.N., Bishop, K. 2011. On the forest cover-Water yield debate: from demand-to
supply side
thinking. Global
Change Biology
18: 806-820
doi:10.1111J.1365-2486.2011.02589.x Hofer, T. 2003. Sustainable use and management of fresh water resources: The role of
forest. State of the world’s forest Part II. Selected current issues in the forest sector. FAO Forestry Departrment.
Johnson, R. 1998. The forest cycle on low river flows: a review of UK International Studies.Journal Forest Ecology. Management 109: 1-7.
Krakauer, N.Y., Temimi, M. 2011. Stream recession curves storage variability in small watersheds. Hydrol Earth Syst Science 15: 2377 - 2389
Lacey, G. C., Grayson, R. B. 1998 Relating baseflow characteristics to basin properties in south-eastern Australia. Journal Hydrology. 204, 231
–250 Mazvimavi, D., Meijerink, A.M.J., Stein, A. 2004. Prediction of baseflows from basin
characteristics: a case study from Zimbabwe. Hydrological Sciences Journal 49 4, 703 –
715. Pike, R.G., Scherer, R. 2003. Overview of the potential effects of forest management on
low flow in snowmelt-dominated hydrologic regime.BC Journal of Ecology Management 3 1.
Price, K. 2011. Effects of watershed topography, soils, landuse, and climate on baseflow hydrology in humid region. A review. Progress in physical Geography 35 4: 455-492.
Price, K., Jackson, C.R., Parker, A.J., Reitan, T., Dowd, J., Cyteraki, M. 2011. Effects of watershed landuse and geomorphology on stream low flow during severe drought
conditions in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains, Georgia and North Carolina, United States. Water Resources Research 47, W.02516 doi: 10.10292010 WR009340.
Robinson, M., Cognard-Plancg, A.L., Cosandey, C., David, J., Durand, P., Fuhrer, H.W., Hall, R., Hendriques, M.O., Marc, V., Mc.Carthy, R., McDonell, M., Martin, C., Nisbet, T.,
Dea, P.O., Rodgers, M., Zolner, A. 2003. Studies of the impact of forest on peakflow and baseflow: a European perspective. Forest Ecology Management 186:
85-97.
Schafer, K.V.R., Renninger, H.J., Clark, K.L., Medvigy, D. 2014. Hydrological Responses to defoliation and drought of an upland oakpine forest. Hydrological Processess 28:
6113-6123. Smakhtin, V.U. 2001. Low flow hydrology: a review. Journal Hydrology 240: 147-186
Stuckey, M.H. 2006. Low flow, base flow, and mean flow regression equations for Pennsylvania streams. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5130.
Tallaksen, L.M. 1995. A review of baseflow recession analysis. Journal Hydrology 165: 349- 370
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
702
POSTER C4 - Water Yield of Jupoi River and Erosion in Austral Byna Consession, Central Kalimantan
Susy Andriani
1
, Purwanto Budi Santosa
1
, and Rahardyan Nugroho Adi
2 1
Researcher on Banjarbaru Forestry Research Institute
2
Researcher on Solo Forestry Technology and Watershed Management Institute Corresponding Email: d_vethoyahoo.com
ABSTRACT
In general, forest conditions will affect the condition of water system in the vicinity. The existence of forests will significantly affect the fluctuation of water yield and soil erosion that
occurs through a variety of mechanisms that was influenced by the characteristics of vegetation and soil physical and geological conditions. This paper studies the water yield and
soil erosion under meranti Shorea leprosula natural stands. Erosion was measured in erosion measuring plots of 22 x 4 meters and water yield data was collected using micro-watershed
with an area of ± 10 ha under meranti stand. Results show that the average of soil erosion of plot 1 undergrowth vegetation, thick litter was 18.38 kghamonth, while plot 2 reeds
undergrowth vegetation, no litter was 20.47 kghamonth. Soil erosion in both plots was much lower than allowed erosion in open area, so it proved that vegetation had minimized
erosion. The average runoff on plot 1 was 26.37 m
3
hamonth while surface runoff on plots 2 was 20.53 m
3
hamonth. Surface runoff was influenced by land elevation and land cover vegetation and litters. The rainfall in the study area was 193.73 mmmonth and water yield
of Jupoi river was 290.82 literssecmonth. Dense land cover in Jupoi watershed made precipitation in that area had not become erosion potency.
Keywords: water yield, soil erosion, Jupoi river, meranti stand.
1. INTRODUCTION
