Different perspective on biodiversity: high conservation value or high cultivation value

High biodiversity tends to lead the public, including experts, towards one definite direction, namely conservation. Then came the idea of the need to identify areas with high biodiversity for conservation. Furthermore, any area with high biodiversity must be conserved and should not be cleared for cultivation. However, after being protected, how to use high biodiversity for public welfare is not done immediately, even never. In fact, many conservation areas have been damaged, even some conservation areas have undergone a total change in function. Using the same logic, cultivation is directed to areas with low biodiversity, unless the area has been designated as a conservation area. Once designated as a conservation area, whatever the circumstances, the status of the conservation area must be maintained as a conservation area. Based on the literature survey and its synthesis, this paper discusses the weaknesses and dangers of such a logic line. We need to understand biodiversity from different perspectives with different implications as well. High biodiversity does not necessarily lead merely to conservation, but can also lead to cultivation. Conversely, low biodiversity does not always have to lead to cultivation, but in certain cases it must be directed to conservation.


Introduction
In general, high biodiversity tends to lead the public, including experts, towards one definite direction, namely conservation.Then came the idea of the need to identify areas with high biodiversity for conservation.Furthermore, any area with high biodiversity must be conserved and should not be cleared for cultivation.However, after being protected, how to use high biodiversity for public welfare is not done immediately.In fact, many conservation areas have been damaged, even some conservation areas have undergone a total change in function.Using the same logic, cultivation is directed to areas with low biodiversity, unless the area has been designated as a conservation area.Once designated as a conservation area, whatever the circumstances, the status of the conservation area must be maintained as a conservation area.This paper will discuss the weaknesses and dangers of such a logic line.That is what motivated the writing of this paper.We need to understand biodiversity from different perspectives with different implications as well, particularly in conservation policy making.
The dynamics of biodiversity in a landscape depend on the development or evolution of the landscape.Vegetation succession is only a part of landscape evolution.The development of soil as a root medium is

Landscape evolution
There are several concepts and models of soil formation each with its strengths and weaknesses [1].Since our goal is to enrich the interpretation of biodiversity by including soil as a factor that strongly influences biodiversity and is influenced by biodiversity, both of which evolve in a landscape, we use landscape evolution as a vehicle to achieve our goal.More precisely, we use the basic theory of soil formation that is influenced by parent material, climate, relief, organisms, and time, but in the context of landscape evolution.
The conceptual model we use is as shown in Figure 1.Except for climate, other soil-forming factors depend on time.Climate is assumed to be constant over time and is not affected by other soil-forming factors.Instead, climate acts on parent material, relief, organisms, and the soil formed.Furthermore, there is a reciprocal relationship between organisms and the soil.The most important message that this conceptual model is trying to convey is that vegetation succession does not stand alone, but is closely tied to the evolution of the landscape where it is located.Thus, biodiversity can be used as an indicator of the evolutionary level of the landscape in question, which is expected to have practical value in efficient and at the same time environmentally friendly land use planning.

Figure 1. Soil Formation Model
With time, soil develops from rock (parent rock), parent material (horizon C), young soil (horizon A), mature soil (horizon A and B), and old soil (horizon A and B are highly differentiated) [2].The meaning of young and old soil is not only determined by age in terms of years, but is more determined by the characteristics of the soil in question.Based on the formationof the horizon, the order of soil development is the C horizon, AC horizon, and ABC horizon.Through weathering processes, whether physical, chemical, or biological, plant nutrients bound in rocks and parent material are released and become available to plants.Over time, the soil solum formed becomes thicker and the layer differentiation becomes clearer as a result of the leaching process; clay and nutrients are transferred from the top layer to the bottom layer and finally leave the soil solum.
With time, the landform of an area develops into a landform with a flatter surface; areas with steep slopes are eroded so that they become less steep with lower elevations.Soil on steep slopes isgenerally thinner than soil on moderate slopes and they are usually grouped as young soils.The less steep slopes make the erosion rate slower and water infiltration into the soil higher.The infiltration water moves to the lower soil layers, called percolation water, carrying small materials such as clay and nutrients.This movement of material from the top soil layer to the lower soil layeris referred to as the leaching process.Thus, as the slope becomes less steep, the rate of soil erosion decreases, while the leaching rate increases.
With the passage of time, plants undergo changes, from pioneer species (lichen, small annual plants, grasses), intermediate plants (grasses, shrub, shade-intolerant trees), and climax plants (shed-tolerant trees).The number of plant species present is also increasing until it reaches the highest diversity.In Indonesia, tropical rain forests are seen as forests that have reached a climax.In the process of reaching the climax, the composition and diversity of plants undergoes changes.Will this biodiversity last forever?One thing that needs to be realized is that the succession processin the wet tropics involving so many species is the most complicated succession process [3].
The development of soil is a crucial aspect of primary succession [4].Primary succession begins in barren areas, such as on bare rock exposed by a retreating glacier.The first inhabitants are lichens or plants-those that can survive in such an environment.The subsequent process of soil formation is also influenced by the vegetation that grows on it.So, there is a reciprocal influence between the soil formed and the vegetation growing on it.Over hundreds of years these "pioneer species" convert the rock into soil that can support simple plants such as grasses.These grasses further modify the soil, which is then colonized by other types of plants.Each successive stage modifies the habitat by altering the amount of shade and the composition of the soil.The final stage of succession is a climax community, which is a very stable stage that can endure for hundreds of years.
The types of soil and the rates at which they form are critical in determining the rates and trajectories of primary seres as well as their community and ecosystem properties [4].This paper adopts the view that soil development as a one-way process in which soil thickness, horizonation, and vertical anisotropy increases steadily with time [5].Soil development allows changes in soil order over time, for example the transformation from Oxisols to Spodosols [6].Transformation from ultisol to spodosol is also possible [7].
Does succession stop when biodiversity has reached its maximum?Of course not, the succession goes on.The process of weathering in the soil and leaching of the products of weathering continues.Considering that the physiography of the area is getting flatter, the leaching process is more dominant than erosion.As a result, the topsoil is getting poorer in nutrients, so thatonly deep-rooted plants can reach soil layers containing rich nutrients.Meanwhile, shallow rooted plants will slowly die.In other words, once it reaches its peak, biodiversity will decrease over time.Even at sites where the soil is very old, which is characterized by very low nutrient content, the biodiversity is also very low.
Soil changes may continue long after vegetation change is no longer apparent [4].At this point the question arises, is the vegetation called the climax with the maximum biodiversity level still continuing its succession to the next stage with lower biodiversity?We suggest that the succession process is still ongoing and its biodiversity is decreasing along with the decline in soil fertility due to weathering and leaching processes that last for a very long period of time.Climax vegetation with high biodiversity serves as a mechanism to inhibit, but not to stop, the process of soil depletion.Thus, high biodiversity may be found on soils with high fertility (younger soils) and low (older soils) but with differentfunctions.
A relatively constant climate for a very long period of time plays an important role in the process of erosion and soil formation.In general, the process of rock weathering and soil formation in hot and humid climates, such as in Indonesia in general, runs faster than the process of rock weathering and soil formation in cold and dry climates.In other words, the process of soilformationin hot and humid climates runs faster than the process of soil formation in cold and dry climates.Therefore, soils in wet tropical forests are generally old soils, which are characterized by high acidity (low pH) and red soil color due to high oxidized iron content [8].
It was suggested that the upper 40 cm of soil is most important for vegetation growth inAlfisols, but in Ultisols and Oxisols deeper horizons significantly influence vegetation growth rates [9].This is easy to understand because Alfisols have higher nutrient content, especially bases, than Ultisols and Oxisols.Accumulation of vegetation biomass increased soil fertility and improved soil physical structure in Alfisols but did not completely compensate for the nutrient losses in Ultisols and Oxisols; however, it significantly reduced the rate of nutrient loss.Moreover, [10] state that some of the most species-rich plant communities occur on ancient, strongly weathered soils, whereas those on recently developed soils tend to be less diverse.Here, the role of the time factor is clearly more dominant in building biodiversity.
There is often a less intuitive relationship between soil fertility and biodiversity.In [11], Davis and Richards (1933)(1934) found that in wet seasonal low-land Guyana, species richness peaked in mixed forest on moderately low-nutrient yellow sand Ultisols, and was somewhat lower on richer alluvial loams, and much lower on the acid, nutrient-poor Spodosols.It is clear here that there is a combination of different factors at work, namely time and fertility.Alluvial soils are clearly young soils, Ultisols soils are much older mature soils, and Spodosol soils are very old soils in which all weatherable minerals have completely been weathered and are generally very poor in nutrients.It was found that tree species richness was inversely related to concentration levels of K, Ca, and P, CEC, and soil fertility index [12].Therefore, higher tree species richness tended to be found on sites with lower soil fertility, which is the complete opposite of temperate forests.Likewise with [13] who found the large increase in plant α-diversity, β-diverity, and the extreme species turnover associated with declining soil fertility.
Studying the development of soils and ecosystems through direct observation is impossible given that the process of soil formation takes hundreds to thousands of years.For this reason, long-term soil chronosequence is recognized as an invaluable model system for the study of longterm ecosystem development and the response of plant species diversity to pedogenic changes [10,14,15,16].Soil chronosequences are space-for-time substitutions, comprising series of soilsderived from the same parent material but with differing periods of soil formation [17,18].
Studies using soil chronosequences have shown that long-term soil development results in characteristic shifts in soil properties, including declining pH and phosphorus (P) concentrations, and corresponding shifts in plant communities and plant species diversity [19,20,21,22,23].It was suggested that forests in Southeast Asia are typically dominated by dipterocarps growing on acidic Ultisols from relatively young parent material [24].The removal of base cations from the surface soil due to leaching and uptake by dipterocarp trees result in intensive acidification and accumulation of exchangeable Al 3+ , which is toxic to most plants.We know that dipterocarps are an important plant species in humid tropical forests, which are climax forests.This means that it takes a very long time.This is in accordance with the soil formed, namely acidicUltisol.
In summary, the relationship between soil, biodiversity, and time is as follows: (i) With time, soil fertility (available nutrients) increases and then decreases.Meanwhile, soil solum increases and is relatively constant at a certain thickness.(ii) With time, plant biodiversity increases and then decreases along with changes in soil fertilityand increasing soil solum.(iii) The more fertile the soil, the more species that can grow on it.(iv) The deeper the soil solum, the more species that can grow on it.(v) The peak of soil fertility comes before the peak of plant biodiversity.There are periods in which biodiversity is still increasing but soil fertility has decreased.Now, let's see how secondary succession in the wet tropics takes place.Many tropical forests are cleared, cultivated for one to three years, and then abandoned.These areas were rapidly recolonized through secondary succession [25,26], so secondary forest developed in these areas aftera few years.Secondary forests of different ages generally have different species compositions [27].The variations in species composition are related to changes in environmental conditions as succession progresses and to differences among species in terms of their requirements for survival, and to several other factors.Moreover, within 30 years of secondary succession, primary tree species, such as Shorea parvifolia and Pentace laxiflora, have replaced pioneer tree species, such as Macaranga spp [28].
Disturbances to primary forests, such as harvesting and deforestation, will reduce biodiversity, either partially or totally [29,30,31].Can the lost species not come back?Is there a chance for the lost species to reappear in secondary succession?Caution is still very necessary, but excessive anxiety, especially to the point of paranoia, is probably unnecessary.For this reason, a more careful and detailed study is still very much needed and needs to be done immediately to compensate for changes that are running very fast.[29] suggest that natural resilience should be taken into account in making predictions about species extinction or biodiversity loss.However, natural resilience has a limit which must not be exceeded if permanent damage is to be avoided [32].The general statement that tropical forests are fragile and that damage is irreversible should be avoided [32].
When plant communities have evolutionary time to adapt to soil conditions, those on richer soils will have higher diversity than those on poor soils.When we speak of high diversity on rich soils, we refer to an ecosystem where there has been time for species to immigrate or to adapt, Thus the number of plant species on highly weathered soils of the lowland rain forest ofthe upper Rio Negro in Venezuela is lower than those found on younger, richer soils of Ecuador [34].
Biodiversity of vegetation in many places increases rapidly after being disturbed [26].Biodiversity of vegetation in many places increases rapidly after disturbance.Even in some places,the biodiversity of vegetation in terms of the number of species can match its original condition in only 10-30 years.Indeed there are those who need up to 90 years to be able to resemble the initial conditions.As indicated by [35], number of species increased during the earlystages of succession, with stands twenty to forty years old having a species richness similar tothat found in mature forests.In addition, [36] showed that secondary forests in this region take much more than 40 yearsto recover the structure of old-growth forests.On the contrary, there are also those who show a decline in vegetation biodiversity over time after a disturbance, such as [37] who conducted research in northern Thailand and [38] who conducted research in dry forests in Egypt.The two conflicting results require additional data to be able to ascertain the factors that determine the rise or fall of vegetation biodiversity over time after disturbance.We suspect that the soil condition determines which trend will occur.
In a secondary succession study on degraded soils in India, [39] found that by year 50 shrubs and secondary tree species growing in nucleated clumps became dominant.Indeed, in that time period there have been no signs of convergence with the original vegetation.However, presence of fivemature primary forest species found in the clumps indicates a fast rate of secondary succession, considering that grazing and resource removal occurred in the sites.

High conservation value vs high cultivation value
Based on the description in the previous section, the interpretation of high and low biodiversity does not have to be singular and needs to be done more carefully.High biodiversity does not necessarily mean high conservation value, but can also be interpreted as high cultivation value.If high biodiversity is found on young soil sites, then high biodiversity means high cultivation value.High biodiversity is an indicator of the wide suitability of the site for various plant species.On the other hand, if highbiodiversity is found in sites with old soils, then high diversity means high conservation value.It is indeed difficult to distinguish the two.More in-depth research needs to be done covering very long period of time [2,40].The chronosequence approach may be helpful [16].One of the variables that can potentially be used to differentiate between the two is the easily weathered mineral content in the soil, i.e. the lower the content the older the soil.
On the other hand, low biodiversity, whether natural or not, does not automatically become worthyof cultivation.Sites with low biodiversity naturally show a narrow degree of suitability for plant species, while if the low biodiversity is the result of disturbance then we need to know whether the siteis suitable for cultivation.It is possible that the low biodiversity comes from ecosystems that naturally have low biodiversity, which means that they have a narrow range of suitability for cultivation.If thesite is not suitable for cultivation, then granting a cultivation permit for such a site would be a waste of very scarce investment resources.There is a lot of evidence in the field that shows that there is a cultivation permit for such a site.After the natural vegetation was cleared, it turned out that the existing soil could not support productive cultivation.The damage to the ecosystem that occurs is most likely permanent.

Discussion
From the practice of using areas that have been running so far, there is an impression that the designation of conservation areas is definitely correct, while the designation of cultivated areas may still contain errors.The status of the conservation area has never been questioned regardless of the circumstances of the conservation area, while the status of the cultivation area can still be questioned at any time.Of course the reality is not like that, because both must contain the possibility of being wrong.Maintaining the statusof a conservation area that has been totally damaged as a conservation area is actually an irrational act; conservation goals are not achieved, while economic benefits are absent.
The phrase 'must be protected' is immediately interpreted as not to be cultivated.The most common case is in the area of riverbanks.In opening a new agricultural area, the riverbank area is automatically removed from the cultivation area.In fact, even the cultivation area must be protected from damage even though there are no rules that mention this.Making a terrace on a sloping site is a form of protection for the site from the danger of erosion.However, it is almost certain that carrying out agricultural cultivationin the riverbank area is seen as a violation of the rules even though the agricultural cultivation activity concerned has implemented protective measures in carrying out its agricultural cultivation.If the phrase 'must be protected' is interpreted as no permanent activity in the riverbank area, then many people mustbe removed from the area.Such an interpretation is almost certainly impossible to implement consistently.In the High Conservation Value (HCV) study, the riverbank area is definitely categorized as one of the HCVs, generally HVC 4. In fact, the local community has long used the riverbank area as agricultural landbecause it is the most fertile and the easiest to reach by water transportation.That is, the area along the river is also a high cultivation value.Has there been a misinterpretation?
The HCV approach aims to protect critical environmental and social values in production landscapes, and is a common feature of many voluntary certification schemes [41].What is meant by critical environmental values is less clear.There is a tendency that any high biodiversity site should be protected.Does high biodiversity make the site containing it so critical that it must be protected?On the other hand, high diversity also indicates that the site has wide suitability for a wide variety of plants.That the site with high biodiversity must be maintained is no longer debatable.But the protection is not because the site in question is critical, but because the biodiversity itself should not decrease.So, the problem is not protecting all high biodiversity sites, but how to clear land for cultivation withoutreducing overall biodiversity.
According to data from the RSPO (roundtable on sustainable palm oil), as of 2019, 237,501 ha of HCV areas have been identified from oil palm plantations owned by its members worldwide, of which 36% are in Indonesia.There is no information on the extent of each type of HCV, especially HCV 1, 2, and 3 which are closely related to biodiversity.Furthermore, the RSPO also reports that as of 2019, of the 1,647,779 ha of new planting area subject to the New Planting Procedure (NPP), there are 307,306 ha of HCV area of various types that will not be cleared for oil palm plantations.So far, there have been no studies comparing biodiversity among sites proposed as HVC.If several HCV sites have identifiable biodiversity, then do all the sites need to be conserved?As an initial stage, the Land Surface Phenology (LSP) approach can be used to classify HCV sites.This procedure is based on the close relationship between floristic similarity and the similarity in LSP that was recently developed and successfully applied to assess diversity patterns [42].Unfortunately, the application of LSP in humid tropical forests has received less attention [43].In addition, this technique also contains weaknesses that can lead to misinterpretation [44].
Perhaps what [45] said is true, that there is no substitute for natural tropical forests, so that natural tropical forests need to be protected.The question is, should all tropical natural forests in Indonesia remain intact and should not be cleared forever?People who live in areas that are no longer forested are likely to have no objections, but what about people who live in forest areas all around them?Where should they develop their economy?We can argue that the forest around them is the engine of their economy.But reality shows that the poorest villages are mostly located in or near forests.Voicing anti-deforestation from the middle of the city is very unfair.After being protected for so long, what's the next step?This follow-up is never clear, except for discourse from one seminar place to another, at the top it only becomes a scientific paper that is difficult for policy makers and the general public to understand.
Biodiversity or conservation experts in general need to have a moral responsibility to make efficient use of resources.Why should a new conservation area be added if the addition does not increase its own conservation value.The addition of conservation areas like this is clearly a form of wasting resources which closes the opportunity for more beneficial uses for the welfare of the community.The efficient use of scarce natural resources must remain the principle of resource use.Conservation areas that do not actually have conservation value anymore should be set aside from the conservation area.In this way, conservation and cultivation became equal.So far, changes in allocation have almost always been in one direction, namely the area planned for cultivation becomes the area that must be conserved and never vice versa.Let's look at an example of a hypothetical case as shown in Figure 2. Initially, in a landscape that is still covered by primary forest, the increase in the observed area from zero to x̄is accompanied by an increase in biodiversity.However, increasing the area for further observation does not increase biodiversity.In a case like this, should the entire landscape in question be conserved?If the choice is like this, then actually biodiversity becomes less meaningful because what is needed is only the ability to determine whether a forest is still a primary forest or not, which does not require advice from a biodiversity expert.On the other hand, if the area reduction, which is then allocated for other purposes, can be done, then the next question is whichpart should be set aside for these other uses.In this case, biodiversity experts need to collaborate with other experts who understand the terms of the other uses.For example, the other use is agricultural cultivation, so soil experts may be able to help select the most suitable area for the development of the cultivation in question.Referring to [10], actually biodiversity experts and soil experts can work together in allocating land use efficiently and environmentally friendly.Another hypothetical case that is also frequently encountered in the field is the case as illustrated in Figure 3. Say there are four sites (A, B, C, and D) where biodiversity has been identified.Of the species contained in the four sites can be mapped as follows: 1) The species contained in site A are different from the species contained in sites B, C, and D, 2) All species contained in site C are also found in site B, and 3) Some of the species in site D are the same as some of the species in site B. The question is whether site C still needs to be maintained, given that species loss at site C does not reduce total biodiversity.It is certain that site D should still be maintained.Indeed, in terms of species contained there are intersections with species contained in site B, but these species are generally scattered throughout the site.Setting aside areas within the site occupied by the same species as those in site B is a very impractical step.Thus, the general assertion that large-scale conversion of tropical forests to monoculture oil palm plantations causes dramatic loss of biodiversitycan be avoided because it is as if any conversion of tropical forests definitely results in biodiversity loss [46,47].

Figure 3. Biodiversity set
To protect conservation areas from the threat of destruction requires costs.Too eager to expand conservation areas that are not matched by the provision of an adequate budget at arate equal to or higher than the rate of expansion of conservation areas will cause the cost of conservation per unit area to decrease.Thus, in general, the effectiveness of conservation implementation per unit is likely to decrease as well.As a result, the relative threat to the conservation area actually increases, which in turn threatens the achievement of the goal of expanding the conservation area itself.Moreover, the effectiveness of maintaining a fragmented piece of natural forest among cultivated plants has not been proven to be a reliable conservation strategy [46].Meanwhile, [48] and [47] found that maintaining islands of trees between oil palm plantations could increase oil palm production.It is argued that the decline in production resulting from a reduction in the oil palm population can be compensated for by an increase in productivity.Furthermore, [49] suggest that maintaining non-oil palm vegetation in the areas adjacent to plantations and promoting weedy strips within the plantations are potentially effective management tools for conserving and developing biological control in oil palm in the future.Although it is widely considered that biocontrol plays a major role in crop production elsewhere, [50] were unable to demonstrate this relationship in their research on oil palm plantations.Although it has not shown convincing results, such studies deserve deep appreciation.
Biodiversity conservation does not rest on economic considerations alone, but is also rooted in ethical, cultural, aesthetic, and social factors [51].By maintaining an area of x ¯for conservation and opening up the rest or removing site C as a conservation area, are ethics and aesthetics not violated?A common problem encountered is that people easily convey the norms that must be followed, but have difficulty in applying these norms in the real world.When talking about conservation, it is as if he is part of the area that must be conserved, but in reality he is enjoying a comfortable life in the city, even in the most polluted city.

Research and policy implication
By using different perspectives in looking at diversity, there are several implications for policy and research, namely: (i) Not all sites with low natural biodiversity must be cleared for cultivation, some parts need to be conserved.There is a lot of evidence showing that the heath forest ecosystem has a lower level of biodiversity than the humid tropical forest ecosystem in general and generally has a flat area, but is very unproductive when used as a cultivation area [52].The soil is generally Spodosol.Plantation forest and oil palm plantations established in former heath forest ecosystems generally fail.The damage to the heath forest ecosystem is most likely irreversible.(ii) Not all sites with naturally high biodiversity must be conserved because high biodiversityis a sign of the wide suitability of the site for various cultivation options and have a higher chance of being able to recover to its initial condition if needed.That there are areas of high biodiversity that need to be conserved is undeniable, but conserving all sites of high biodiversity is an unrealistic act.(iii) Land rehabilitation programs with costly replanting may not be necessary.The existing budget should be used to resolve tenure conflicts that are known to be the cause of land not being managed properly.As demontrated by [53], that one restoration strategy for tropical forest in abandoned pastures is simply to protect the areas from fire, and allow natural regeneration to produce secondary forest.This strategy will be most effective if remnant forest (i.e., seed sources) still exist in the landscape and soils have not been highly degraded.(iv) Research on secondary succession with observational plots representing a wide variety of circumstances should be encouraged.In fact, the forerunner of data collection in this direction has been required by the government for natural forest concession holders, but my experience observing the data that has been collected has led me to conclude that the data isvery hard to believe, not to say the data is garbage.Practitioners of restoration are frequently not aware of the practical uses of succession concepts in planning and in setting targets [54].Unfortunately, it has not been prominent among practitioners of restoration.For certain purposes, the restoration activities required may only protect the site from disturbance and the rest of the process is left to the plant succession mechanism.

Conclusion
Conversion of natural forest has an impact on the decline in biodiversity in the converted site is a certainty.This approach is generally adopted, which then results in the claim that conversion of natural forests causes biodiversity loss.Such statements do not require any research and expertise and therefore have no meaning whatsoever.In order to maintain biodiversity at the site concerned, there is only one choice, namely not to convert the forest growing on the site.A more meaningful statement is a statement that can answer whether conversion of natural forests at a site reduces total biodiversity in all ecosystems?
High biodiversity does not necessarily lead to conservation, but it can also lead to cultivation.Conversely, low biodiversity does not always have to lead to cultivation, but in certain cases it must be directed to conservation.The expansion of conservation areas without being matched by the ability to provide adequate budget to maintain and manage them actually increases the relative threat to all conservation areas and creates inefficiency in land use.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Relationship between land area (x) and biodiversity (y)