Forest tree planting on
private land has faced a number of problems. The most important constraints
appear to be lack of knowledge on tree planting, difficulty in selecting
appropriate species, uncertain market prices,
lack of land and difficulty in obtaining quality seedlings (Table 16).
Table 16. Obstacles and problems faced in forest tree planting
Obstacle/problem |
Companies (n = 6) |
Individual
planters (n = 21) |
Total (n = 27) |
Lack of knowledge
on tree planting |
4 |
4 |
8 |
Difficulty in
selecting appropriate species |
4 |
2 |
6 |
Uncertain market
price |
4 |
1 |
5 |
Lack of land |
3 |
1 |
4 |
Difficulty in
obtaining quality seedlings |
3 |
1 |
4 |
Lack of market |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Labour shortage |
3 |
0 |
3 |
Note: Some respondents provided multiple answers.
Future intentions
The future of
private sector plantations in Peninsular Malaysia appears to look bleak. The
future plans of most respondents do not include forest tree planting (Table
17). Only one company plans to extend its holdings. It has planted 20 ha of
mixed tree species as buffer zones around its oil palm and rubber plantations.
It plans to plant tembusu in 2002/03, balau in 2003/04 and binuang in 2004/05.
The rest of the respondents apparently are in a wait-and-see mode. The general
view is that if the trees grow well and the timber can be sold profitably, then
most respondents would consider planting forest trees in new areas.
Table 17. Future plans to plant forest trees
Companies (n = 6 ) |
Individual
planters (n = 21) |
Total (n = 27) |
||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
With future plans |
1 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
Without future plans |
5 |
83 |
21 |
100 |
26 |
96 |
Total |
6 |
100 |
21 |
100 |
27 |
100 |
Species
choice
For the last 10 years, the
two most popular tree species have been teak and sentang. The choice was very
much influenced by the promotion of these two species by government agencies
and the private sector. Monocropping and mixed cropping are equally important.
Of the 27 respondents, 22 percent planted teak only, 22 percent sentang only
and 4 percent Maesopsis eminii only.
The remaining 52 percent had plantations composed of at least two species
(Table 18).
Table 18. Type of forest tree species planted
Type of tree |
Companies (n = 6) |
Individual
planters (n = 21) |
Total (n = 27) |
|||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
Teak only |
1 |
17 |
5 |
24 |
6 |
22 |
Senta
ng only |
1 |
17 |
5 |
24 |
6 |
22 |
Maesopsis eminii only |
1 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
Teak and oil palm |
1 |
17 |
2 |
10 |
3 |
11 |
Sentang and rubber |
1 |
17 |
6 |
29 |
7 |
26 |
Teak and banana |
0 |
0 |
1 |
24 |
1 |
4 |
Teak and tongkat
ali |
0 |
0 |
2 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
Mixed forest species |
1 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
Total |
6 |
100 |
21 |
100 |
27 |
100 |
Other than
expected high economic returns, there are three main reasons for choosing a
specific type of forest tree species for planting. Of the six companies, three
felt that the selected species were suitable for the land type. Among the 21
individual planters, seven said that RISDA advised them to plant the species.
For the individual planters, other reasons given included advice
from friends, relatives and agents who sold seedlings, and investment for
children.
Area planted
In 2002, the
total area planted with forest trees by the 27 respondents was 495 ha
comprising 448.6 ha (91 percent) by companies and 46.7 ha (9 percent) by
individuals (Table 19). An obvious characteristic of tree planting is the
pattern of mono- and mixed cultivation among the respondents. Of the total
448.6 ha managed by the six companies, 27 percent is monocropped. Individual planters on the other hand
do not appear to have a preference for either monocropping or mixed cropping
(Table 19). Teak accounts for 346.4 ha (70 percent), Maesopsis eminii for 96 ha (19 percent), sentang 44.9 ha (9
percent) and other mixed forest species 8 ha (2 percent). The individual
planters also intercropped teak with banana and tongkat ali, which is not practised
by the companies.
Table 19. Area of forest trees planted (ha)
Type of tree |
Companies (n = 6) |
Individual planters(n = 21) |
Total (n = 27) |
|||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
Teak only |
8.0 |
2 |
18.8 |
40 |
26.8 |
5 |
Sentang only |
20.0 |
4 |
4.6 |
10 |
24.6 |
5 |
Maesopsis eminii only |
96.0 |
21 |
0 |
0 |
96.0 |
20 |
Teak and oil palm |
300.0 |
67 |
8.6 |
18 |
308.6 |
62 |
Sentang and rubber |
16.6 |
4 |
3.7 |
8 |
20.3 |
4 |
Teak and banana |
0 |
0 |
7.0 |
15 |
7.0 |
1 |
Teak and tongkat
ali |
0 |
0 |
4.0 |
9 |
4.0 |
1 |
Mixed forestry
species |
8 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
8.0 |
2 |
Total |
448.6 |
100 |
46.7 |
100 |
495.3 |
100 |
Planting year and spacing
All the
respondents planted trees between 1990 and 2000 (Table 20). While one-quarter
of the individual planters planted trees between 1993 and 1995, companies only
did so in the beginning of 1996. There were two phases of planting, namely the
1993/95 period involving only the individual planters, and the 1996/2000 period
involving both individual planters and companies. No one planted in 2001.
Table 20. Planting year of forest trees (ha)
Year |
Companies (n =6) |
Individual
planters (n = 21) |
Total (n = 27) |
|||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
1993 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
1994 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
1995 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
1996 |
3 |
50 |
2 |
10 |
5 |
19 |
1997 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
14 |
3 |
11 |
1998 |
2 |
33 |
2 |
10 |
4 |
15 |
1999 |
1 |
17 |
8 |
38 |
9 |
33 |
2000 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
Total |
6 |
100 |
21 |
100 |
27 |
100 |
The
spacing selected was not uniform (Table 21). The respondents made their own
decisions with regard to the planting distance. A good example is the
individual planters who inter-cropped sentang and rubber in Malacca, encouraged
by RISDA. Even though they attended the same briefing
on forest tree planting, only two of them followed the same planting distance
of 4 x 6.4 m.
Table 21.
Planting distance practised
Planting distance (m) by respondent |
|||||||
Type of tree |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Teak only |
1.5 x 1.5 |
2.4 x 2.4 |
2.4 x 3 |
2.5 x 3.8 |
3 x 3 |
3 x 3.7 |
- |
Sentang only |
1.5 x 2.4 |
2 x 2 |
2 x 3.6 |
2.5 x 3 |
3 x 3 |
3 x 3 |
- |
Maesopsis
eminii only |
4 x 4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Teak and oil palm |
3 x 15 |
4.6 x 4.6 |
4.7 x 6.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Sentang and rubber |
2.4 x 2.4 |
2.5 x 3.2 |
2.7 x 3 |
3 x 5.5 |
3 x 6 |
4 x 6.4 |
4 x 6.4 |
Teak and banana |
2.5 x 4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Teak and tongkat
ali |
3 x 3 |
4 x 4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Mixed forest
species |
2.5 x 5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Tree densities
Tree densities varied
considerably. For single species plantations, the density was 1 696 trees/ha
for teak, 1 337 trees/ha for sentang and 625 trees/ha for Maesopsis eminii. In mixed plantations, the planting density of
teak was between 800 and 1 000 trees mixed with banana, oil palm or tongkat
ali. When mixed with rubber, the average planting density for sentang was 145
trees/ha (Table 22). Frequently, strict planting densities were not followed.
The actual planting density was also influenced by landscape features. In
low-lying areas, fewer trees were planted to avoid flooding.
Species |
Planting density
of forest trees |
Teak only |
1 696 |
Sentang only |
1 337 |
Maesopsis
eminii only |
625 |
Teak with oil palm |
889 |
Sentang with rubber |
145 |
Teak with banana |
1 000 |
Teak with tongkat
ali |
825 |
Mixed forest species* |
650 |
*Planted on buffer zones of oil palm and rubber plantations. These include light hardwood and medium hardwood (kembang semangkok, meranti sarang punai, meranti tembaga, meranti melantai, meranti rambai daun, meranti kepong, merawan siput jantan and kempas) and heavy hardwood and medium hardwood (penaga, perah, kelat and kapur).
Previous crops
Of the 27 planters, 67
percent had planted rubber before converting the current area to forest trees
(Table 23). The land of the remaining planters had been planted with oil palm
(seven percent), fruit trees (11 percent) and other crops (15 percent).
The conversion of rubber to forest trees was most obvious among the individual
planters; this can be explained by labour shortages. Forest
plantations are less labour intensive than rubber.
Table 23. Previous land use
Previous
crop |
Companies (n= 6) |
Individual
planters (n = 21) |
Total (n =27) |
|||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
Oil palm |
0 |
0 |
2 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
Rubber |
3 |
50 |
15 |
70 |
18 |
67 |
Fruit orchard |
1 |
17 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
7 |
Coconut |
1 |
17 |
2 |
10 |
3 |
11 |
Stateland forest |
1 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
Residential land |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
Total |
6 |
100 |
21 |
100 |
27 |
100 |
Terrain slope, altitude and soil type
Most plantations were established on flat or gently sloping land (Table
24). In particular, individual planters preferred land with a gradient of 15
percent or less because most of them owned fairly flat land.
Table 24. Terrain slope
Land
condition |
Companies (n = 6) |
Individual
planters (n = 21) |
Total (n = 27) |
|||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
Flat (5% or less) |
1 |
17 |
13 |
62 |
14 |
52 |
Less flat (6–15%) |
2 |
33 |
6 |
28 |
8 |
30 |
Less steep (16–30%) |
2 |
33 |
2 |
10 |
4 |
15 |
Steep (> 30%) |
1 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
Total |
6 |
100 |
21 |
100 |
27 |
100 |
Most trees were planted at low elevations (Table 25). Seventy percent of the
respondents planted on land below 100 m asl; another 22 percent planted on
land between 100 and 300 m asl. Most individual planters owned land in the lowlands. This again is related to the location of smallholdings
in lowland areas. Companies on the other hand, also planted trees above 500
m asl. This indicates that companies with widespread agricultural areas have
allocated land at high altitudes to forest tree planting.
Table 25. Altitude of plantations
Altitude (m asl
) |
Companies (n= 6) |
Individual
planters (n =21) |
Total (n = 27) |
|||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
Less than 100 m |
4 |
66 |
15 |
71 |
19 |
70 |
100–300 m |
0 |
0 |
6 |
29 |
6 |
22 |
301–500 m |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
501–750 m |
1 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
More than 750 m |
1 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
Total |
6 |
100 |
21 |
100 |
27 |
100 |
In general, forest trees are planted on three types
of soil, namely sandy loam (18 percent), laterite (41 percent) and clay (41
percent) as indicated in Table 26.
Soil type |
Companies (n = 6) |
Individual
planters (n =21) |
Total (n = 27) |
|||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
Sandy loam |
1 |
17 |
4 |
19 |
5 |
18 |
Clay |
2 |
33 |
9 |
43 |
11 |
41 |
Laterite |
3 |
50 |
8 |
38 |
11 |
41 |
Total |
6 |
100 |
21 |
100 |
27 |
100 |