8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
1/20
Effects of light and drought treatment on two species ofDryobalanops
09B3047
Muhd Zulhilmi bin Hj Ali
14thMay 2013
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
2/20
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
3/20
Main aim: Investigate the effects of different
light and drought treatments on seedling
growth and survival ofDryobalanops beccariiandDryobalanops rappa.
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
4/20
150 seedlings of eachDryobalanopsspecies from forestrydepartment
Left for acclimatization for one month in a plant house withshades of two layered nettings.
Watered daily, exposed to ambient temperature andhumidity but without any fertilizer
80 of each species is then chosen, 50 for light and 30 fordrought
Measurements were taken monthly from Sept 2012 until
Feb 2013. Monthly measurements taken were seedling height,
diameter, no. of leaves and survival. Other measurementsinclude monthly rainfall, relative humidity, air temperature
and PAR.
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
5/20
Two factorial experiment
10 seedlings per replicates per treatment arranged in blocks
of 2 by 5 with 30 cm spacing between the pots
5 different treatments of light:-
A. Full light treatment
B. One layer of shade
C. Two layers of shade
D. Three layers of shade
E. Three layers of shade top, 2 layers side 3 different treatments of drought:-
1. High frequency watering
2. Medium frequency watering (once a week)
3. Low frequency watering (once every two weeks)
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
6/20
XD. beccarii
D. rappa
Red boxLight treatmentBlue boxDrought treatment
AFull light BOne layer shade C2 layers shade
D3 layers shade E3 layers shade top and 2 layers side
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
7/20
During initial harvest (Sept 2012), about 15seedlings of each species were taken. Non-destructive measurements taken and these
seedlings were separated into roots, stems andleaf fractions. Fresh soil from seedling pots were used to
measure soil PH while remaining soil was airdried and used to measure nutrients.
Final harvest (Feb 2013) procedure similar exceptthat all the seedlings in the study were harvestedinstead.
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
8/20
RGR = (loge W2loge W1) / (t2t1) (1)
where W2and W1is final and initial, t2t1 is 5
months Statistical analysisR 2.15.2 (R Development
Core Team, 2012)
All RGR values were log10
if assumptions
violated
Two-way ANOVA
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
9/20
D. rappa shows significant
productivity in height and diameter
compared toD. beccarii
D. beccarii shows a significant
difference in RGRleaves
Treatment D ofD. rappashows
significant difference between other
treatments especially on RGRdiameter
and RGRheight Treatment A of RGRleavesofD.
beccariishows significant
difference when compared to other
treatments and alsoD. rappa
Treatment
RGR
Diameter,mm
mm
1
month1
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
A B C D E
D.Beccarii
A B C D E
D.Rappa
Treatment
RGR
Height,cm
cm
1
month
1
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
A B C D E
D.Beccarii
A B C D E
D.Rappa
Treatment
Numberofleavesmonth1
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
A B C D E
D.Beccarii
A B C D E
D.Rappa
Treatment
RGR
Biomass,g
g1
month1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
A B C D E
D.Beccarii
A B C D E
D.Rappa
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
10/20
Significant differences betweenspecies exist in all the
parameters except for RGRheight D. rappa shows a significant
growth in RGRdiameteras
opposed toD. beccariialthough low water treatment of
D. rappa shows similar rangeto that ofD. beccarii
RGRleaves andRGRbiomassis
marginally significant Mid watering treatment of
RGRbiomass ofD. beccariishows significantly lower valuethan high and low watering
treatment but such patterns donot exist inD. rappa
Treatment
RGR
Diameter,mm
mm
1
month1
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
Hi gh Medi um Low
D.Beccarii
Hi gh Medi um Low
D.Rappa
Treatment
RGR
Height,cm
cm
1
month1
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
High Medium Low
D.Beccarii
Hi gh Medi um Low
D.Rappa
Treatment
Numberofleavesmonth1
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
Hi gh Medi um Low
D.Beccarii
Hi gh Medi um Low
D.Rappa
Treatment
RGR
biomass,g
g1
month
1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Hi gh Medi um Low
D.Beccarii
Hi gh Medi um Low
D.Rappa
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
11/20
Parameters Treatment SpeciesTreatment x Species
interactionRGRdiameter < 0.001*** < 0.001*** < 0.01**
Light
treatmentsRGR
height 0.041* 0.107 0.318
RGRleaves 0.062 < 0.001*** < 0.01**RGRbiomass 0.327 0.440 0.315RGRdiameter 0.2545 < 0.01** 0.175
Drought
treatmentsRGRheight 0.184 0.649 0.203
RGRleaves 0.608 0.048* 0.697RGRbiomass 0.6861 0.045* 0.037*
Most significant difference
found in RGRdiameter
between treatments, species
and treatment x species RGRleavesbetween two
species in light shows a
very significant difference
in light treatment too
Drought treatments doesntshow much difference
except for RGRdiameter
between species
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
12/20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A B C D E
D. Beccarii
D. Rappa
In light,D. rappashows highertolerance with treatment C showinghighest % survival
D. beccarii shows lower survivalthroughout when compared toD.
rappa In drought,D. rappaagain shows
high tolerance level (>80% in alltreatments)
D. beccariidoesnt seem to show a
high tolerance level to droughtwhere mortality rate is
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
13/20
D. rappaseems to possess the ability to invest growth in stem diameter
despite being short when compared toD. beccarii.
D. rappa also showed greater productivity in stem height growth but
prioritizes more energy into increasing girth than vertical growth
D. beccariiinvests in increasing the number of leaves. The leaves ofD.beccariiare smaller but abundant, branches produced are also more in
numbers and much longer
Treatment A ofD. beccariishows a significance in RGRleaves due to
similarity toD. aromaticaa shade tolerant species (Saw, 2003). Being
shade tolerant meaning that living in full light actually hinders theirgrowth, reduces overall leaf number, decreases photosynthetic activity
which leads to slow growth
D. rappaunder treatment E shows a poor performance as treatment E
closely resembles forest canopy. Between treatment D and E,D. rappa
shows significant difference in RGRdiameter
and RGRheight
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
14/20
Treatment C seems to have the most suitable environment for
both species to grow althoughD. rappahas a higher
survivability
D. rappa overall shows a strong resiliency towards the
varying treatments of light be it under direct sunlight orsimulated canopy
Throughout the study,D. rappaalso shows bigger leaves
which belongs to characteristics of light-demanding species
(Brown and Whitmore, 1992) D. beccarii shows similar abilities to that of Shoreaby
investing energy in leaf production instead of height or
diameter. Perhaps,D. beccariimight as well invest in
increasing root mass though this needs to be further studied
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
15/20
Drought seems to have no effect on RGRheight
However, significant differences between the RGR
diameter, leaves and biomass implies that under
drought conditions both species are able to allocateenergy to grow vertically
Increasing height is viable as increase in girth would
mean that it has to catch up by increasing the ability
to store water and biomass Most similar studies shows relation between drought
and allocation of dry mass to roots however this was
out of scope of the current study
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
16/20
D. rappa has a high rate of survivability that doesnt fall
below 80% even at low watering treatment. This makes sense
asD. rappa is a drought-tolerant species (Chua, 2003)
D. beccariishows poor performance towards water stress byobserving the low % survivals. Its obvious since they are
sensitive to water deficit as stated by Guhardja (2000)
Anomality inD. beccariiwhere in this study the medium
watering treatment shows the lowest survival when its
supposed to be low watering treatment. Throughout the
study, rain was not completely excluded from study sites
hence low watering treatment might just receive some extra
rainfall.
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
17/20
Time frame is too short for a tree study.
Dipterocarpaceae family are known to be slow
growing trees (Ashton, 2002) Study site is an open, disturbed area.
Natural phenomena such as strong winds
during final months of 2012 dislocated the
seedlings a few times. This hinders their
growth and may induce stress which results in
poor growth
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
18/20
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
19/20
D. rappaoverall has shown strong tolerancetowards the two treatments especially drought
D. beccarii is the less resilient, but has shownsuccess in investing towards the production ofleaves
Various growth strategies exist even in these
two close species Long-term study where time frame of 5
months is not enough to give out a moresignificant finding.
8/13/2019 Zulle FYP Presentation
20/20
Id like to give my greatest gratitude to my
supervisor Dr. Rahayu, and co-supervisor Dr.
Faizah for their endless support Huge thanks for the technicians Shahidah,
Teng Wei and Redzuan.
Lastly, to the people who helped me
throughout with the laborworks.