Balai Pelatihan Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan

Workshop tentang Rehabilitasi Mangrove

Rehabilitasi ekosistem mangrove di

Pesisir Timur Sumatera

Mohammad Basyuni
Pusat Unggulan Iptek (PUI) Mangrove
Program Studi Kehutanan, Fakultas Kehutanan
Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan 20155, Indonesia
Prof. Mohammad Basyuni, Ph.D
B.Sc, M.Sc (IPB University (1998, 2000)
Ph.D (Kagoshima University, Japan, March 2008)
JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow (University of the
Ryukyus, Apr 2008- March 2010),
Visiting Prof (2010, 2012-2015, 2019)
@ University of the Ryukyus, Japan.
Full Professor (2020-present)
Institution and department
Universitas Sumatera Utara (2000-present)
Faculty of Forestry
Department of Forestry
Center of Excellence for Mangrove (Head, 2019-present)
100 article journal dan 119 prosiding Januari 2023), h-index Scopus:
20
Section Editor: Science and Technology
Indonesia (Scopus Indexed, Sinta 1), Editor: Journal of Sylva
Indonesiana (JSI, Sinta 3), Islamic Research (DOAJ)
Why mangrove?

Figure adapted from Spalding et al (2014)

Why mangrove?

4
Figure adapted from Visualcapitalist.com
 Study plan

Mangroves are important for our life

Flint R. et al. 2018

 Study plan

Mangroves are getting lost globally.

Flint R. et al. 2018

Global mangrove loss and its drivers
(Goldberg et al. 2020)
Wilayah restorasi di Desa Lubuk Kertang (1.6 ha).
Jenis yang ditanam adalah Rhizophora apiculata
 Layout tanaman yang diamati; penanaman menggunakan seedling (A),
penanaman mengunakan propagul (B), monitoring dari bulan 6 – bulan ke 48.
A B

Kondisi lahan rehabilitasi setelah berumur 7 tahun.

Species found in the Lubuk Kertang restoration area in 2016-2022 planted with propagules
Year Observation method Species
2016-2019 Sampling Rhizophora apiculata
2019 Sensus
Acrostichum aureum, Avicennia marina, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Excoecaria agallocha, Finlaysonia
(153Jenis)
maritima, Nypa frutican, Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mukronata, Rhizophora stylosa,
Scyphiphora hydrophylacea, Sesuvium portulacastrum, Sonneratia alba, and Sonneratia
caseolaris
2020 Sensus
Acrostichum aureum, Avicennia marina, Aegiceras corniculatum, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza,Ceriops
(15 Jenis)
tagal, Excoecaria agallocha, Finlaysonia maritima, Nypa frutican, Rhizophora apiculata,
Rhizophora mukronata, Rhizophora stylosa, Scyphiphora hydrophylacea, Sesuvium
portulacastrum, Sonneratia alba, and Sonneratia caseolaris
2022 Sensus Acrostichum aureum, Avicennia marina, Aegiceras corniculatum, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Ceriops
(15 Jenis) tagal, Excoecaria agallocha, Finlaysonia maritima, Nypa frutican, Rhizophora apiculata,
Rhizophora mukronata, Rhizophora stylosa, Scyphiphora hydrophylacea, Sesuvium
portulacastrum, Sonneratia alba, S. caseolaris

Species Found in the Lubuk Kertang Restoration Area 2016-2022 Planting with Seedling
Year Observation method Species
2016-2019 Sampling
Rhizophora apiculata
2019 Sensus
(12 Jenis) Acrostichum aureum, Avicennia marina, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Excoecaria agallocha, Finlaysonia
maritima, Nypa frutican, Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mukronata, Rhizophora stylosa,
Scyphiphora hydrophylacea, Sesuvium portulacastrum, and Sonneratia alba
2020 Sensus
(13 Jenis) Acrostichum aureum, Avicennia marina, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Ceriops tagal, Excoecaria
agallocha, Finlaysonia maritima, Nypa frutican, Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mukronata,
Rhizophora stylosa, Scyphiphora hydrophylacea, Sesuvium portulacastrum, and Sonneratia alba
2022 Sensus
(13 Jenis)
Acrostichum aureum, Avicennia marina, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Ceriops tagal, Excoecaria
agallocha, Finlaysonia maritima, Nypa frutican, Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mukronata,
Rhizophora stylosa, Scyphiphora hydrophylacea, Sesuvium portulacastrum, and Sonneratia alba
Perbandingan Rata-Rata Tinggi, Diameter, Jumlah Daun dan Tebal Daun
antara Propagul dan Seedling dari Bulan ke-6 sampai dengan Bulan ke-48
 Table 3. Observation parameters.

Heigh Diameter Number of

Years Month Leaf Thickness (mm) % Alive % 0f deaths
(cm) (cm) Leaves
Planting with propagules
2016 6 50,65 0,62 0,54 19,93 92,50 7,25
2016 12 69,86 0,86 0,71 37,66 91,00 9,00
2017 18 92,09 1,62 0,64 107,80 89,75 10,25
2017 24 105,42 1,86 0,84 124,92 88,75 11,25
2018 30 123,53 2,12 1,02 144,48 88,50 11,50
2018 36 141,14 2,42 1,25 165,74 88,25 11,75
2019 42 157,36 2,82 1,41 188,77 88,25 11,75
2019 48 171,44 2,98 1,64 205,81 87,75 12,25
2019 71,60 28,40
2020 Using the census method of 6000 seedlings planted 71,83 28,17
2022 69,42 30,58
Planting with seedling
2016 6 38,19 0,48 0,60 19,93 93,25 6,75
2016 12 45,17 0,60 0,80 26,25 92,50 7,50
2017 18 58,10 1,33 0,50 104,55 92,25 7,75
2017 24 67,03 1,50 0,72 120,67 92,00 8,00
2018 30 158,40 1,81 1,15 139,63 92,00 8,00
2018 36 170,36 2,02 1,41 158,61 92,00 8,00
2019 42 184,40 2,48 0,55 228,70 92,00 8,00
2019 48 190,03 2,87 1,05 288,59 92,00 8,00
2019 79,80 20,20
2020 Using the census method of 5000 seedlings planted 84,88 15,12
2021 86,38 13,62

Note: observations when the plants are 6-48 months old, a sample of 800 seedlings were employed
Perkembangan tanaman di lahan rehabilitasi penanaman dengan propagule; (a)
saat dilakukan penanaman pada tahun 2015, (b) monitoring tahun 2016, (c)
monitoring tahun 2017, (d) monitoring tahun 2018, (e) monitoring tahun 2019, (f)
monitoring tahun 2020.
Perkembangan tanaman di lahan rehabilitasi penanaman menggunakan
seedling; (a) saat dilakukan penanaman pada tahun 2016, (b) monitoring
tahun 2016, (c) monitoring tahun 2017, (d) monitoring tahun 2018, (e)
Perkembangan rehabilitasi dari 2015 sampai 2022
Number of individuals found in planting restoration areas using
observation propagules using the census method from 2019-2022
No Seedling Sapling Tree
Species
2019 2020 2022 2019 2020 2022 2019 2020 2022
1 Acrostichum aureum 101 180 187 - - - - - -
2 Aegiceras corniculatum - 1 - - - 1 -    
3 Avicennia marina 4 1 6 5 17 6 - 5 21
4 Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 11 12 50 2 13 8 - 2 18
5 Ceriops tagal - - 5 - - - - - -
6 Excoecaria agallocha 7 5 4 9 2 - - 8 12
7 Finlaysonia maritima 77 90 160 - - - - - -
8 Nypa frutican - - 4 3 3 3 - 3 3
9 Rhizophora apiculata 891 227 322 2334 2945 2293 71 960 1871
10 Rhizophora mucronata 8 1 15 8 21 15 - 3 21
11 Rhizophora stylosa 241 237 98 316 252 206 1 266 252
12 Scyphiphora 6 7 17 20 12 - - 11
hydrophyllacea 70
13 Sesuvium portulacastrum 78 139 120 - - - - - -
14 Sonneratia alba 858 160 998 802 1433 969 43 465 1433
15 Sonneratia caseolaris - - - 2 - - 2 2  
  Total 2282 1060 2039 3495 4814 3527 117 1714 3675
jumlah individu yang ditemukan di lahan restorasi penanaman menggunakan
seedling pengamatan dengan metode sensus dari tahun 2019-2022
No Species Seedling Sapling Tree
2019 2020 2022 2019 2020 2022 2019 2020 2022
1 Acrostichum aureum 21 26 41 - - - - - -
2 Avicennia marina 10 2 8 9 16 14 1 2 2
3 Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 15 18 61 2 24 18 - 1 -
4 Ceriops tagal - - 2 - - - - - -
5 Excoecaria agallocha - - - 13 13 11 - - 2
6 Finlaysonia maritima 9 25 39 - - - - - -
7 Nypa frutican - - 3 - - - 11 11 11
8 Rhizophora apiculata 621 714 339 3259 3040 2061 10 449 1996
9 Rhizophora mucronata 10 1 - 25 19 19 - 4 4
10 Rhizophora stylosa 62 66 115 271 387 262 1 79 118
11 Scyphiphora 13 11 77 65 31 1 1 34
hydrophyllacea 27
12 Sesuvium 10 28 - - - - - -
portulacastrum 40
13 Sonneratia alba 745 133 234 880 1252 769 221 592 1026
  Total 1516 1024 4541 4816 3185 247 1141 3194
Hasil kegiatan rehabilitasi sudah mengahsilkan bua proapgul dan semai
Planting of vegetation structures with propagules
Seedling Sapling Tree
Indeks
2019 2020 2022 2019 2020 2022 2019 2020 2022

Keanekaragaman (H’) 1.43 1.86 1.67 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.78 1.05 1.13

Keseragaman (E) 0.60 0.75 0.67 0.41 0.39 0.43 0.56 0.48 0.51

Dominansi (D) 0.31 0.17 0.29 0.51 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.41 0.38

Planting of vegetation structures with Seedling

Seedling Sapling Tree
Indeks
2019 2020 2022 2019 2020 2022 2019 2020 2022

Keanekaragaman (H’) 1.12 1.11 1.75 0.86 0.98 0.99 0.43 0.98 0.86

Keseragaman (E) 0.48 0.48 0.76 0.41 0.47 0.47 0.24 0.47 0.48

Dominansi (D) 0.41 0.50 0.23 0.55 0.47 0.48 0.81 0.43 0.50
 Intensity of pest attack on mangrove stands
Planting year Plot Number of plants Pest Attack Intensity (%) Category
1 92 6.52 Small
2 83 7.23 Small
2015
3 94 11.70 Small
4 85 4.70 Small
1 93 2.15 Small
2 90 5.55 Small
2016
3 88 6.81 Small
4 94 3.19 Small

Hama pada plot penanaman penanaman tahun 2015 dan 2016: (A) ulat hijau bertanduk, (B) ulat
kantung, (C) semut rangrang, (D) kepompong famili Lepidoptera, (E) Famili gastropoda, (F) kepiting.
 Soil texture of mangrove rehabilitation land in Lubuk Kertang
  Soil texture

Clay Dust Sand

Propagul 87,22 9,29 3,49
Seedling 80,28 15,06 4,65

Analysis of chemical properties of soil for planting rehabilitation in 2015

Parameters Unit Standart value Rehabilitation Land Description
pH 4.5-5.5 4.850 Sour
N-total % 0.10-0.20 0.107 low
Na me/100g >1.0 8.540 Very high
K me/100g 0.3-0.5 0.540 Medium
Mg me/100g 2.1-8.0 3.310 High
Ca me/100g <2 1.140 Very low
KTK me/100g 5-16 8.200 Low
Salinitas Ppm 20-45 21,260 Very high

Analysis of chemical properties of soil for planting rehabilitation in 2016

Parameters Unit Standart value Rehabilitation Land Description
Ph 4.5-5.5 5.000 Sour
N-total % 0.10-0.20 0.110 low
Na me/100g >1.0 10.700 Very high
K me/100g 0.6-1 0.690 Very high
Mg me/100g 2.1-8.0 3.790 High
Ca me/100g <2 1.580 Very low
KTK me/100g 17-24 11.060 Medium
Salinitas mS/cm 20-45 28,670 Very high
 Soil carbon on land rehabilitated by planting using propagules and
seedling
Relationship of Height, Diameter, Above Ground Biomass,
Underground Biomass, Number of Leaves and Leaf hickness (A)
planting with propagules; (B). Planting with Seeds
Video proses rehabilitasi di Desa Lubuk Kertang, Langkat
Kesimpulan
• Regenerasi hutan restorasi di desa Lubuk Kertang ini berhasil
karena bertambahnya jumlah individu dan jenis yang
ditemukan saat pengamatan secara sensus saat tanaman
berumur lima tahun. Jumlah jenis yag ditemukan adalah 15
jenis ditanam dengan propagul, 13 jenis dengan seedling.
• Potensi karbon tersimpan di lahan rehabilitasi saat tanaman
berumur 7 tahun adalah 53,73 ton/ha (ABC) dan 10,75 ton/ha
(BGC) dengan persentasi pertumbuhan mencapai 87,75%
penanaman dengan propagule dan 92,00% penanaman
dengan seedling.
 Current mangrove area and distribution in Indonesia

Basyuni, Sasmito, Analuddin, Ulqodry, Saragi-Sasmito, Eddy, Milantara. 2022. Chapter 16. Mangrove Biodiversity, Conservation, Roles for Livelihood in Indonesia, Springer.
Historical mangrove loss (2001-2020)

Basyuni, Sasmito, Kridalaksana, Saragi-Sasmito, Lovelock, Murdiyarso. Nat Ecol Evo. DOI:10.1038/s41559-022-01926-5
Learning from past to guide present rehabilitation

Basyuni, Sasmito, Kridalaksana, Saragi-Sasmito, Lovelock, Murdiyarso. Nat Ecol Evo. DOI:10.1038/s41559-022-01926-5
Learning from past to guide present rehabilitation

Basyuni, Sasmito, Kridalaksana, Saragi-Sasmito, Lovelock, Murdiyarso. Nat Ecol Evo. DOI:10.1038/s41559-022-01926-5
The distribution of mangrove loss area (in ha)
between 2001 and 2020 in Indonesia

Basyuni, Sasmito, Kridalaksana, Saragi-Sasmito, Lovelock, Murdiyarso. Nat Ecol Evo. DOI:10.1038/s41559-022-01926-5
Distribusi luas hutan mangrove yang hilang (dalam hektar) antara tahun 2001 dan 2020 di Indonesia dan proporsinya dalam tipologi biogeomorfologi yang
berbeda, pemicu kehilangan (jenis penggunaan lahan), status lahan hutan, dan skenariyang teridentifikasi (rendah, sedang dan tinggi).o peluang restorasi
 Previous rehabilitation/restoration
Considered factors to assess mangrove restoration
area potential and priority:
• Historical mangrove loss area and location
• Current land cover
• Biogeomorphology factors
• Land status

KLHK. 2021. https://geoportal.menlhk.go.id/webgis/index.php/en/map/interactive-

map
Mengapa ekosistem
mangrove pesisir timur
Sumatera
Where to restore?
Considered factors to assess mangrove restoration
area potential and priority:
• Historical mangrove loss area and location
• Current land cover
• Biogeomorphology factors
• Land status

Giri et al. 2011. Global Eco & Biogeo; Hansen et al. 2014. Science.

Worthington et al. 2020. Scientific Reports.

KLHK. 2021. https://geoportal.menlhk.go.id/webgis/index.php/en/map/interactive-map

41
Goldberg et al. 2021. Global Change Biology.
Where to restore?

42
Basyuni, Sasmito, Kridalaksana, Saragi-Sasmito, Lovelock, Murdiyarso. Nat Ecol Evo. DOI:10.1038/s41559-022-01926-5
Where to restore
• https://springernature.figshare.com/articles/dataset/
Indonesia_mangrove_restoration_potential_area_by_region/
19636458
Lokasi dan biaya peluang restorasi
• Program restorasi hutan mangrove memiliki peluang lebih besar
untuk berhasil bila dilaksanakan di daerah yang sebelumnya
telah ditumbuhi pohon mangrove.
• Lokasi seperti ini telah mengalami deforestasi dan degradasi
dan mungkin berada di bawah pengelolaan pemerintah atau
kepemilikan swasta. Lokasi ini telah mengalami konversi hutan
menjadi penggunaan lahan lain, termasuk budidaya perairan,
tanaman atau perkebunan.
Pemetaan dan analisis kawasan potensial untuk rehabilitasi mangrove

• Potensi restorasi mangrove skala nasional dinilai menggunakan

proses overlay analisis silang dan menggunakan data sekunder
berbasis spasial seperti yang dijelaskan pada bagian dataset di
atas. Kami menetapkan berbagai skenario (rendah, sedang, tinggi)
yang menunjukkan tingkat pemulihan di seluruh faktor (tipe
penggunaan lahan, status lahan hutan nasional, dan pengaturan
biogeomorfik) untuk setiap piksel yang teridentifikasi seperti yang
dijelaskan pada Misalnya, pemukiman yang menggantikan
mangrove memiliki potensi dan skenario restorasi yang rendah
karena mungkin tidak layak untuk direhabilitasi dibandingkan
dengan tipe penggunaan lahan mangrove yang telah dideforestasi.
• Untuk faktor status lahan hutan nasional, mangrove yang dikonversi
dan terdegradasi di dalam kawasan hutan lindung dan hutan produksi
dianggap sangat dapat dipulihkan karena kepemilikan tanah
pemerintah yang sah daripada kawasan di bawah alokasi penggunaan
lahan lain (APL), yang mungkin dimiliki oleh sektor swasta. Kami
selanjutnya mendefinisikan tingkat skenario restorasi mengikuti variasi
stok karbon antara beberapa pengaturan biogeomorfik yang disusun di
97 set data mangrove yang tidak terganggu di Indonesia.
• Tingkat potensi restorasi untuk setiap faktor kemudian diringkas dan
disajikan menjadi tiga skenario peluang restorasi (rendah, sedang,
tinggi) dengan pendekatan skenario yang lebih buruk dianggap
memberikan hasil analisis konservatif. Analisis spasial ini dilakukan
melalui operasi analisis spasial berbasis cloud menggunakan Google
Earth Engine dengan tata letak peta final yang dikembangkan
menggunakan perangkat lunak QGIS open source.
Prioritas Restorasi Propinsi Riau dan Kep. Riau
Prioritas Restorasi di Propinsi Sumut
Prioritas Restorasi di Sumsel
Prioritas Restorasi di Propinsi Aceh
Carbon emissions-removals by loss-regeneration
• Mangrove loss and
conversion between 2001-
2020 have generated 396 Mt
CO2-eq

• Annual emissions rates of

19.8 Mt CO2-eq yr-1.

• 60% of 2010’s FOLU

emissions level

• 55% of 2030 FOLU emissions

level
Sasmito et al.

51
 The way forward of rehabilitation
A successful mangrove rehabilitation program can directly contribute to
• reducing poverty (SDG 1),
• maintaining food security and livelihoods (SDG 2), thereby increasing the
health and well-being of 71 million coastal people
• improving coastal water quality (SDG 6);
• contributing to emissions reduction (SDG 13) and
• providing habitat for fish and other biodiversity (SDG 14).
• Mangrove rehabilitation contributions to SDG 1 and 2 are particularly relevant
as the current rehabilitation program is delivered as Cash for Works activities
under the National Economic Recovery strategy (PEN) as part of the social
welfare payments to alleviate economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
Basyuni, Sasmito, Kridalaksana, Saragi-Sasmito, Lovelock, Murdiyarso. Nat Ecol Evo. DOI:10.1038/s41559-022-01926-5
Key mangrove management policies and relevant
international environmental agenda between 1990
and 2030

Basyuni, Sasmito, Kridalaksana, Saragi-Sasmito, Lovelock, Murdiyarso. Nat Ecol Evo. DOI:10.1038/s41559-022-01926-5
Field research data matter
Summary
• Mangrove has potential for climate change
mitigation strategies in Indonesia
• Mangrove recovery is achievable through
rehabilitation/restoration and acts as natural
carbon removals
• Gaps are occurred in the past
rehabilitation/restoration (e.g., area
identification, approaches, costs analysis,
monitoring, land status)
• Field data matter for supporting policies
55
Summary
• Gaps are occurred in the previous rehabilitation/restoration (e.g., area
of increase, approaches, costs analysis, monitoring, land status)
• Assessment of mangrove rehabilitation/restoration area are required
to consider multiple factors (e.g., biogeomorphology, mangrove loss
area location, land cover type, land status)
• Defining area and location for mangrove rehabilitation/restoration
remains open question.
• We have identified key factors that determine land available for
mangrove rehabilitation, the success of mangrove rehabilitation is not
necessarily assured because of the limited involvement of sub-
national mangrove working groups.
 Acknowledgements
This work was part of the Newton Fund project MOMENTS and supported by a research grant from
the Indonesian Science Fund, and Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education, and Natural
Environment Research Council (DIPI/LPDP​/NERC Grant Number NE/P014127.1). We thank Alejandra
Voivides, Thorsten Balke, Yuntha Bimantara, Nguyen Thi Kim Cuc, Bejo Slamet, Nurdin Sulistiyono,
Rizka Amelia, Sigit D. Sasmito, Catherine Lovelock, Daniel Murdiyarso, Age Kertalaksana, and Meli
Saragi-Sasmito.

I also am grateful to organizing committee of The 13th IMT-GT UNINET BIOSCIENCE International
Conference 2022 for this invitation and providing travel fee and accommodation.
Terima Kasih