PENJARANGAN GENETIK SEBAGAI STRATEGI PENINGKATAN PRODUKSI GETAH PINUS DI PERUM PERHUTANI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29244/jkebijakan.v10i1.34631Kata Kunci:
Pinus merkusii, Roguing, Produktivitas getahAbstrak
Perum Perhutani sebagai produsen kayu jati terbesar di Indonesia telah mengalami penurunan potensi tegakan kayu sehingga memerlukan alternatif komoditas lain yang mampu menopang dari aspek finansial perusahaan. Pinus dapat dipilih sebagai alternatif komoditas yang diharapkan mampu menghasilkan peningkatan pendapatan yang cukup menjanjikan. Peningkatan produksi getah pada aspek materi genetik tanaman pinus yang dikelola harus menjadi target pokok terhadap upaya peningkatan tersebut. Pembangunan Kebun Benih Semai diharapkan menghasilkan tegakan Pinus merkusii yang memiliki getah banyak. Sampai saat ini tanaman uji Pinus merkusii bocor getah yang ditanam oleh Perum Perhutani belum mampu menghasilkan benih dalam jumlah yang cukup. Penelitian ini mengkaji strategi pemilihan penjarangan genetik berdasarkan evaluasi nilai heritabilitas, produktivitas serta peningkatan genetiknya untuk menghasilkan tindakan yang paling tepat terhadap kebun benih untuk menghasilkan benih unggul. Hasil penelitian merekomendasikan penjarangan perlu dilakukan secara bertahap pada level treeplot di dalam family. Peningkatan produksi diharapkan menjadi 60 gram/pohon/3 hari dari sebelumnya sebesar 54 gram/pohon/3 hari. Kajian ini merekomendasikan penjarangan harus segera dilaksanakan untuk menurunkan inbreeding dan memacu pembungaan sehingga dapat diperoleh jumlah benih yang optimal.
Unduhan
Referensi
Gill, J.G.S. 1988. Juvenile-mature correlations and trends in genetic variances in sitka spruce in Britain. Silvae Genetica, 35 (5–6), 189–194.
Hamzah, H., Suharjito, D., Istomo, I. 2016. Efektifitas kelembagaan lokal dalam pengelolaan sumber daya hutan pada Masyarakat Nagari Simanau, Kabupaten Solok. Risalah Kebijakan Pertanian dan Lingkungan Rumusan Kajian Strategis Bidang Pertanian dan Lingkungan, 2(2), 116-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20957/jkebijakan.v2i2.10979
Koski, V. 1982. Quantified standards for regional clonal (pine) seed orchards (in Finland). Forest Genetic Resources-Information (FAO), 11, 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023544
Lai, M., Dong, L., Yi, M., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Fu, L., Xu, X., Lei, L., Leng, C., Zhang, L. 2017. Genetic variation, heritability and genotype environment interactions of resin yield, growth traits and morphologic traits for Pinus elliottii at three progeny trials. Forest, 8 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110409
Leksono, B. 1994. Variasi genetik produksi getah Pinus merkusii Jung et de Vriese. Thesis, tidak dipublikasikan. Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Perhutani. 2018. Laporan Tahunan 2018. Perum Perhutani.
Purwanta, S., Suryanaji. 2009. Deteksi produktivitas dan kandungan getah Pinus merkusii, Pinus carribaea dan Pinus oocarpa di RPH Garahan BKPH Sempolan KPH Jember. Buletin Puslitbang, 12, 808-815.
Roberds, J.H., Strom, B.L. 2006. Repeatability estimates for resin yield measurements in three species of the Southern Pines. Forest Ecology and Management, 14, 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.005
Stansfield, W.D. 1991. Theory and Problem of Henetics (Schaum’s Outline Series). Singapore: Mc Graw-Hill Inc.
Pramudita, A., Suryanaji, S. 2021. Analisis penetapan harga kayu jati plus perhutani berdasarkan Stumpage Cost dan Willingness to Pay. Risalah Kebijakan Pertanian dan Lingkungan Rumusan Kajian Strategis Bidang Pertanian dan Lingkungan, 8(2), 53-59. https://doi.org/10.29244/jkebijakan.v8i2.28140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29244/jkebijakan.v8i2.28140
Tadesse, W., Nanos, N., Auñon, F., Alia, R., Gil, L. 2001. Evaluation of high resin yielders of Pinus pinaster Ait. Forest Genetics, 8 (4), 271-278.
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
PUBLICATION ETHICS
Jurnal Risalah Kebijakan Pembangunan Pertanian dan Lingkungan (JRKPL) is a peer-reviewed journal publishing original research to develop a coherent and respected network of landscape architecture knowledge. JRKPL committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics that clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing a scientific article in JRKPL.
As publisher of JRKPL, PSP3-LPPM IPB and PERHEPI takes its duties of guardianship all stages of publishing process and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.
Duties of Authors
An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unacceptable and constitutes unethical publishing behavior. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the manuscript and should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism are include passing off another paper as the author own paper, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper (without attribution) and claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Plagiarism detected works will be banned for further publication procedure.
The authors acknowledge that they have disclosed all and any actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Duties of the Editorial Board
Review Process
JRKPL is committed to objective and fair double-blind peer-review to prevent any actual or potential conflict of interests between the editorial and review personnel and the reviewed material. JRKPL chooses reviewers based on their expertise (whose most closely matches the topic of the paper). At least 2 reviewers are invited to evaluate a manuscript. In cases of controversy or disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review will be solicited. The JRKPL editor mediates all interaction between authors and reviewers, and the review results owned by JRKPL.
Publication Decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed JRKPL is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The final decision on article acceptance based on reviewer's opinions, suggestions, and comments. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Fair Play
JRKPL evaluates manuscripts only based on the intellectual content. No race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophies of the authors are considered in the evaluation process.
Confidentiality
JRKPL assure the confidentially of the manuscripts, actors, and other related information on the publishing process. Only corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher are allows for the information.
Disclosure
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Duties of reviewers
(1) Objectivity: Reviewer should provide written and unbiased feedback to the authors, personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewer comments should be clearly with supporting arguments indicating whether the writing is concise and relevant
(2) Expertise: Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
(3) Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewer suggest relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript,
(4) Confidentiality: Reviewer should maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
(5) Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer own research without the express written consent of the author. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Cara Mengutip
