V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the results mentioned above,significant positive correlations were found between soil conservation parameters and tree architecture Stone and Petit
models. The relative correlation of each variable demonstrated that throughfall and runoff are far more important than rainfall and stemflow for explaining the
variation in soil erosion. Stemflow for Castanopsis argentea 4.73 mm was slightly smaller than
stemflow for Michelia montana 6.20 mm. The values of throughfall indicate 657.82 and 640.91 mm for Castanopsis argentea and Michelia montana
respectively. Runoffmeasuredwas
49.32, 15.74
and 10.87
mmfor theControl,Castanopsis argentea andMichelia montana,respectively. Soil loss was
quantified in 1.98, 0.82 and 0.76 ton ha
-1
year
-1
for the Control, Castanopsis argentea and Michelia montanarespectively. The Infiltration rate is observed to be
higher with Michelia montanacompared to Castanopsis argentea. These results show that Michelia montana is better than Castanopsis argentea to be developed
in soil and water conservation.
5.2 Suggestion
Wesuggest that more attention be directed to the position and form of individualtree architecturemodels in studies of soil erosion. Such information is
important because it providesa more precise picture on how or in what manner rainfallis received and distributed within an ecosystem.
REFERENCES
Ackerly DD, Bazzaz FA. 1995. Seedling crown orientation and interception of diffuse radiation in tropical forest gaps. Ecology 76:1134-1146.
Aththorick TA 2000. Pengaruh Arsitektur Pohon Model Massart dan Rauh Terhadap Aliran Batang. Curahan Tajuk. Aliran Permukaan dan Erosi di Hutan
Pendidikan Gunung Walat Sukabumi.[Disertasi]. Bogor: Program Pasca Sarjana IPB.
Bautista S, Mayor AG, Bourakhouadar J, Bellot J. 2007. Plant spatial pattern predicts hillslope runoff and erosion in a semiarid Mediterranean landscape.
Ecosystems 10:987-998. Bhatt R, Khera KL. 2006. Effect of tillage and mode of straw mulch application
on soil erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab, India. Soil Till. Res. 881- 2:107-115.
Blanco H, Lal R. 2008. Principles of Soil Conservation and Management. USA: Springer.
Bruijnzeel LA. 2004. Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104:185-228.
Bruijnzeel LA. 2004. Hdrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees?Agr Eco Env 104:185-228.
Bongers F, Sterck FJ. 1998. Architectureand development of rainforest trees: responsesto lightin dynamics oftropical communities. Blackwell Science 125-
162. Chazdon RL. 1985. Leaf display, canopy structure and light interceptionof two
understory palm species. Am JBotany 72:1493-1502. Chen L, Huang Z, Gong J, Fu B, Huang Y. 2007. The effect of land
covervegetation on soil water dynamic in the hilly area of the loess plateau, China. Catena 70:200-208.
De Baets S, Poensen J, Knapen A, Barbera GG, Navaro JA. 2007. Root characteristics of representative Mediterranean plant species and their erosion-
reducing potential during concentrated runoff. PlantSoil 294:169-183. Duran-Zuazo VH. 2004. Impact of vegetation cover on runoff and soil erosion at
hillslope scale in lanjaron. Spain. Env 24:39-48. Durian ZVH, Francia MJR, Rodriguez CRP, Martinez RA, Carceles BR. 2006.
Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by plant covers in a mountainous area SE Spain: implications for sustainable agriculture. Environmentalist.26:309-319.
Francia JR, Duran ZVH, Martinez RA. 2006. Environmental impact from mountainous olive orchards under different soil-management systems. Sci.
Total Environ. 358:46-60. [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 2010.The Global Forest Resources
Assessment
.
FAO Forestry Paper 163.Rome, Italy: FAO.
Kategori