SINTA

0.0

Impact

Google Scholar

8

h-index

Journal of Academic Biology and Biology Education

Open Access Journal

Evaluation of Land Suitability for Teak (Tectona grandis L.) and Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Agroforestry Development in the Upper Solo Sub-watershed

Bambang Wirawan
Sebelas Maret University ROR
Indonesia
bambangwrw01@gmail.com
Isife kenneth Ifeanyi
University of Agriculture Makurdi
Nigeria
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to determine the land suitability class for teak (Tectona grandis L.) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) plants in the agroforestry area in the Solo Hulu Sub-DAS, and to assess the economic feasibility of the cultivation system in supporting sustainable land use.

    Methodology: The descriptive-exploratory survey method with stratified random sampling, field soil survey, pedon observation, analysis of physical and chemical properties of soil in the laboratory, GIS-based spatial analysis using ArcView 3.3, GPS tools, altimeters, clinometers, Munsell Soil Color Charts, pH meters, soil drills, land suitability matching methods, R/C ratio farming analysis, and in-depth interviews with farmers.

    Main Findings: Land suitability for teak plantations is generally classified as unsuitable (N), with limiting factors including dry season duration, soil depth, drainage, slope gradient, and erosion hazard. Peanuts are also predominantly unsuitable due to high rainfall and steep slopes. Nevertheless, both agroforestry systems remain economically viable, with a R/C ratio of 20.22 for teak and 2.02 for peanuts.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This research integrates biophysical land suitability evaluation with economic feasibility analysis of a teak-peanut agroforestry system in the Upper Solo Sub-watershed. This study provides specific recommendations related to land-limiting factors and improvement strategies, thereby enriching scientific information for sustainable agroforestry planning in marginal sub-watershed areas.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    B. Wirawan and I. kenneth . Ifeanyi, “Evaluation of Land Suitability for Teak (Tectona grandis L.) and Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Agroforestry Development in the Upper Solo Sub-watershed”, Jou. Acd. Bio. Ed, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 122–130, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.37251/jouabe.v1i2.3119.

    More Citation Formats

  • 39
    Abstract views
    31
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. T. Plieninger, J. Muñoz-Rojas, L. E. Buck, and S. J. Scherr, “Agroforestry for sustainable landscape management,” Sustain. Sci., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1255–1266, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00836-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00836-4
    2. N. Khan et al., “Agroforestry and Its Services for Soil Management and Sustainability,” in Sustainable Intensification for Agroecosystem Services and Management, Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2021, pp. 353–377. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-3207-5_11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3207-5_11
    3. G. Sahoo, A. M. Wani, A. Sharma, and S. Rout, “Agroforestry for forest and landscape restoration,” Int. J. Adv. Study Res. Work, no. September, pp. 536–542, 2020.
    4. S. Paudel, H. Baral, A. Rojario, and K. P. Bhatta, “Agroforestry : Opportunities and challenges in Timor-Leste,” Forest, vol. 13, no. 41, pp. 1–11, 2022, doi: doi.org/10.3390/f13010041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010041
    5. G. Wu et al., “Trade‐off between vegetation type, soil erosion control and surface water in global semi‐arid regions: A meta‐analysis,” J. Appl. Ecol., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 875–885, May 2020, doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13597
    6. C. Gong et al., “Herbaceous vegetation in slope stabilization: A comparative review of mechanisms, advantages, and practical applications,” Sustain., vol. 16, no. 17, pp. 1–18, 2024, doi: 10.3390/su16177620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177620
    7. M. W. Trinugroho, S. S. Arif, S. Susanto, B. D. A. Nugroho, and A. Prabowo, “Changes in Rainfall Pattern in Bengawan Solo Sub-Watershed,” Sains Tanah, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 249–260, 2022, doi: 10.20961/stjssa.v19i2.61640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/stjssa.v19i2.61640
    8. I. W. S. Dharmawan et al., “Implementation of soil and water conservation in Indonesia and its impacts on biodiversity, hydrology, soil rrosion and microclimate,” Appl. Sci., vol. 13, no. 13, pp. 1–17, 2023, doi: 10.3390/app13137648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app13137648
    9. A. Santoro, M. Venturi, R. Bertani, and M. Agnoletti, “A review of the role of forests and agroforestry systems in the fao globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS) programme,” Forests, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 1–21, 2020, doi: 10.3390/F11080860. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080860
    10. S. Singh and G. Singh, Agroforestry for sustainable development: Assessing frameworks to drive agricultural sector growth, vol. 26, no. 9. Springer Netherlands, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10668-023-03551-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03551-z
    11. H. Mugiyo et al., “Evaluation of land suitability methods with reference to neglected and underutilised crop species: A scoping review,” Land, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–24, 2021, doi: 10.3390/land10020125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020125
    12. D. Kalfas, S. Kalogiannidis, F. Chatzitheodoridis, and E. Toska, “Urbanization and land use planning for achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs): A case study of Greece,” Urban Sci., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2023, doi: 10.3390/urbansci7020043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7020043
    13. A. R. P. Mascarenhas, M. S. V. Sccoti, R. R. De Melo, F. L. D. O. Correâ, E. F. M. De Souza, and A. S. Pimenta, “Quality assessment of teak (Tectona grandis) wood from trees grown in a multi-stratified agroforestry system established in an Amazon rainforest area,” Holzforschung, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 409–418, 2021, doi: 10.1515/hf-2020-0082. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2020-0082
    14. L. Chaiya et al., “Enhancing teak (Tectona grandis) seedling growth by rhizosphere microbes: A sustainable way to optimize agroforestry,” Microorganisms, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1–16, 2021, doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9091990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9091990
    15. D. Maharani et al., “Intercropping tuber crops with teak in gunungkidul regency, Yogyakarta, Indonesia,” Agronomy, vol. 12, no. 449, pp. 1–20, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020449
    16. A. Keerthika et al., “Multistrata agroforestry systems: Spatial and temporal utilization of resources for higher production and better income,” in Agroforestry Solutions for Climate Change and Environmental Restoration, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 33–61. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-5004-7_2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-5004-7_2
    17. R. Singh, M. D. Behera, P. Das, J. Rizvi, S. K. Dhyani, and C. M. Biradar, “Agroforestry suitability for planning site-specific interventions using machine learning approaches,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1–17, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14095189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095189
    18. D. L. Wotlolan, J. H. Lowry, N. A. Wales, and K. Glencross, “Land suitability evaluation for multiple crop agroforestry planning using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis: A case study in Fiji,” Agrofor. Syst., vol. 95, no. 8, pp. 1519–1532, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10457-021-00661-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00661-3
    19. B. Moreira et al., “Intercropping systems: An opportunity for environment conservation within nut production,” Agric., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 1–24, 2024, doi: 10.3390/agriculture14071149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14071149
    20. N. K. Jain, R. A. Jat, R. S. Yadav, and H. N. Meena, “Conservation agriculture practices improves productivity and sustainability of peanut (Arachis hypogaea)-based cropping systems,” Indian J. Agric. Sci., vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 164–169, 2021, doi: 10.56093/ijas.v91i1.110956. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i1.110956
    21. G. Rusmayadi and S. Safruddin, “Effect of soil pH variation on peanut plant growth,” West Sci. Agro, vol. 2, no. 02, pp. 63–69, 2024, doi: 10.58812/wsa.v2i02.944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58812/wsa.v2i02.944
    22. L. M. Rachman, F. Hazra, D. P. T. Baskoro, R. Riskawati, and S. K. Putri, “Improvement of suboptimal soil productivity to growth and production of groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.),” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2021, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/807/4/042072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/807/4/042072
    23. F. M. Moghim, A. Karimi, M. Bagheri-Bodaghabadi, H. Emami, and V. Duraisamy, “Evaluation of soil quality and land suitability in different management systems,” Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2024, doi: 10.1080/03650340.2023.2298851. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2023.2298851
    24. A. A. El Baroudy et al., “Modeling land suitability for rice crop using remote sensing and soil quality indicators: The case study of the nile delta,” Sustain., vol. 12, no. 22, pp. 1–25, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12229653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229653
    25. M. A. E. AbdelRahman, A. M. Saleh, and S. M. Arafat, “Assessment of land suitability using a soil-indicator-based approach in a geomatics environment,” Sci. Rep., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22727-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22727-7
    26. K. Choudhary, M. S. Boori, W. Shi, A. Valiev, and A. Kupriyanov, “Agricultural land suitability assessment for sustainable development using remote sensing techniques with analytic hierarchy process,” Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ., vol. 32, p. 101051, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.rsase.2023.101051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2023.101051
    27. R. Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi, K. Nabiollahi, L. Rasoli, R. Kerry, and T. Scholten, “Land suitability assessment and agricultural production sustainability using machine learning models,” Agronomy, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1–20, 2020, doi: 10.3390/agronomy10040573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040573
    28. M. M. Rahman and G. Szabó, “Sustainable urban land-use optimization using GIS-based multicriteria decision-making (GIS-MCDM) approach,” ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1–22, 2022, doi: 10.3390/ijgi11050313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11050313
    29. M. T. S. Budiastuti, D. Purnomo, H. Hendro, U. Sudjianto, and B. Gunawan, “Rehabilitation of critical land by Implementing complex agroforestry at the prioritized subwatersheds in the Muria Region,” Sains Tanah, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 63–70, 2020, doi: 10.20961/stjssa.v17i1.37704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/stjssa.v17i1.37704
    30. V. C. Y. Sumule, U. Arsyad, B. Bachtiar, and Wahyuni, “Compatibility of land use with spatial patterns of the Saddang Hulu Subwatershed,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2020, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/575/1/012130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/575/1/012130
    31. A. Regassa, K. Kibret, Y. G. Selassie, A. Kiflu, and W. Tena, “Soil Properties,” 2023, pp. 111–156. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-17012-6_7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17012-6_7
    32. M. C. Ogwu, E. F. Ahuekwe, D. Balogun, Z. Kwarpo, K. A. Shittu, and S. C. Izah, “Methods for Assessing Soil Physicochemical and Biological Properties,” in Sustainable Soil Systems in Global South, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 49–82. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-5276-8_2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-5276-8_2
    33. N. M. Trigunasih, I. W. Narka, and M. Saifulloh, “Measurement of soil chemical properties for mapping soil fertility status,” Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1381–1390, 2023, doi: 10.18280/ijdne.180611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/ijdne.180611
    34. S. Dey, S. Botta, R. Kallam, R. Angadala, and J. Andugala, “Seasonal variation in water quality parameters of Gudlavalleru Engineering College pond,” Curr. Res. Green Sustain. Chem., vol. 4, no. December, pp. 1–15, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.crgsc.2021.100058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crgsc.2021.100058
    35. M. I. Habibie, R. Noguchi, M. Shusuke, and T. Ahamed, Land suitability analysis for maize production in Indonesia using satellite remote sensing and GIS-based multicriteria decision support system, vol. 86, no. 2. Springer Netherlands, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10708-019-10091-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10091-5
    36. M. A. Köseoglu and H. E. Arici, “How do we determine content boundaries in systematic review studies of management research?,” J. Scientometr. Res., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 609–620, 2023, doi: 10.5530/jscires.12.3.059. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.12.3.059
    37. S. Benti, H. Terefe, and D. Callo-Concha, “Managing the challenges of competing interests of different regions in setting the boundaries of neighboring urban areas: the case of Addis Ababa city administration and oromia regional state, Ethiopia,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 1–12, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11024
    38. S. A. Bhat, I. Hussain, and N.-F. Huang, “Soil suitability classification for crop selection in precision agriculture using GBRT-based hybrid DNN surrogate models,” Ecol. Inform., vol. 75, p. 102109, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102109
    39. S. Sengupta, S. Mohinuddin, M. Arif, B. Sengupta, and W. Zhang, “Assessment of agricultural land suitability using GIS and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process approach in Ranchi District, India,” Geocarto Int., vol. 37, no. 26, pp. 13337–13368, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10106049.2022.2076925. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2076925
    40. K. C. T. Duho, D. M. Duho, and J. A. Forson, “Impact of income diversification strategy on credit risk and market risk among microfinance institutions,” J. Econ. Adm. Sci., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 523–546, May 2023, doi: 10.1108/JEAS-09-2020-0166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-09-2020-0166
    41. S. M. Al Naimi, “Economic diversification trends in the gulf: The case of Saudi Arabia,” Circ. Econ. Sustain., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 221–230, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s43615-021-00106-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00106-0
    42. K. R. Ramesh et al., “Influence of eucalyptus agroforestry on crop yields, soil properties, and system economics in southern regions of India,” Sustain., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1–20, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15043797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043797
    43. P. K. R. Nair, B. M. Kumar, and V. D. Nair, “Multipurpose Trees (MPTs) and Other Agroforestry Species,” in An Introduction to Agroforestry, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 281–351. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-75358-0_13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75358-0_13
    44. J. Bayala and I. Prieto, “Water acquisition, sharing and redistribution by roots: applications to agroforestry systems,” Plant Soil, vol. 453, no. 1–2, pp. 17–28, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11104-019-04173-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04173-z
    45. M. A. Arshad et al., “Navigating synergies: A comprehensive review of agroforestry system and agronomy crops,” Haya Saudi J. Life Sci., vol. 9, no. 04, pp. 97–113, 2024, doi: 10.36348/sjls.2024.v09i04.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36348/sjls.2024.v09i04.003
    46. S. Fahad et al., “Agroforestry systems for soil health improvement and maintenance,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 22, pp. 1–25, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su142214877. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214877
    47. R. Purwaningsih, J. Sartohadi, and M. Anggri, “Trees and crops arrangement in the agroforestry system based on slope units to control landslide reactivation on volcanic foot slopes in Java, Indonesia,” Land, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1–18, 2020, doi: 10.3390/LAND9090327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090327