| Literature DB >> 26322896 |
Lucas B Fortini1, Wendell P Cropper2, Daniel J Zarin3.
Abstract
At the Amazon estuary, the oldest logging frontier in the Amazon, no studies have comprehensively explored the potential long-term population and yield consequences of multiple timber harvests over time. Matrix population modeling is one way to simulate long-term impacts of tree harvests, but this approach has often ignored common impacts of tree harvests including incidental damage, changes in post-harvest demography, shifts in the distribution of merchantable trees, and shifts in stand composition. We designed a matrix-based forest management model that incorporates these harvest-related impacts so resulting simulations reflect forest stand dynamics under repeated timber harvests as well as the realities of local smallholder timber management systems. Using a wide range of values for management criteria (e.g., length of cutting cycle, minimum cut diameter), we projected the long-term population dynamics and yields of hundreds of timber management regimes in the Amazon estuary, where small-scale, unmechanized logging is an important economic activity. These results were then compared to find optimal stand-level and species-specific sustainable timber management (STM) regimes using a set of timber yield and population growth indicators. Prospects for STM in Amazonian tidal floodplain forests are better than for many other tropical forests. However, generally high stock recovery rates between harvests are due to the comparatively high projected mean annualized yields from fast-growing species that effectively counterbalance the projected yield declines from other species. For Amazonian tidal floodplain forests, national management guidelines provide neither the highest yields nor the highest sustained population growth for species under management. Our research shows that management guidelines specific to a region's ecological settings can be further refined to consider differences in species demographic responses to repeated harvests. In principle, such fine-tuned management guidelines could make management more attractive, thus bridging the currently prevalent gap between tropical timber management practice and regulation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26322896 PMCID: PMC4556458 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136740
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Transition matrix model used for management simulations.
x- Probability that merchantable (M) trees growing to next size class will become unmerchantable (UM) because of defects. S = survival probability, G = size class upgrowth probability, F = Fertility rate per capita; Number of DBH size classes (denoted by subscripts) are reduced for better visualization as size classes are 2.5 cm wide, except for first size class (5–9.9 cm DBH).
| T | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | UM1 | UM2 | UM3 | UM4 | UM5 | ||
|
|
| S1 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F3 | F4 | F5 | |||
|
| G1 | S2 | |||||||||
|
| G2*(1-x2) | S3 | |||||||||
|
| G3*(1-x3) | S4 | |||||||||
|
| G4*(1-x4) | S5 | |||||||||
|
| S1 | ||||||||||
|
| G1 | S2 | |||||||||
|
| G2*(x2) | G2 | S3 | ||||||||
|
| G3*(x3) | G3 | S4 | ||||||||
|
| G4*(x4) | G4 | S5 | ||||||||
Values for management criteria used in management simulations.
| Cutting cycle | Harvest intensity | MDC | Min. com. density | Seed tree quality | Max volume per harvest (m3 yr-1 ha-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 0.5 | 30 | 0 | High | - |
| 20 | 0.6 | 40 | 0.03 | Low | 1 |
| 30 | 0.7 | 50 | 1 | ||
| 40 | 0.8 | 60 | |||
| 0.9 | 70 |
* denote criteria specified by Brazilian law
Fig 1LTRE for M. paraensis demonstrating demographic differences between harvested and unharvested plots and their contributions to population growth.
Residual stand damage from monitored timber extraction in terms of basal area (m2) of trees >5 cm DBH killed by basal area (m2) of timber extracted.
| Tree fall | Transport | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.2 |
|
| 0.13 | 0 | 0.13 |
|
| 0.28 | 0 | 0.28 |
|
| 0.58 | 0.04 | 0.62 |
Fig 2Shifts in merchantable proportion under the 30 yr Brazilian legal management regime but without volume-based harvest limits.
Licania heteromorpha and P. sagotiana were not harvested during simulations.
Optimal management regimes defined by alternative sustained timber yield indicators.
* Management criteria fixed based on optimal value from analysis of all species combined.
| Optimal criteria | Management outcomes | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management optimized for | Considering | Cutting cycle | Harvest intensity | MCD | Min. com. density | Seed tree quality | Max volume per harvest | Volume of first harvest | Volume of fifth harvest | Comp. recruitment | Mean AY |
| Largest mean AY | All species | 10 | 0.5 | 50 | 0.03 | Low | 300 | 28.94 | 19.34 | 10 | 1.8 |
| Largest H5 AY | All species | 10 | 0.9 | 50 | 1 | Low | 300 | 49.91 | 21.23 | 12 | 1.55 |
| Largest H3 AY | All species | 10 | 0.5 | 40 | 0.03 | Low | 300 | 40.35 | 16.16 | 20 | 1.47 |
| Largest ranked AY and λH | All species | 10 | 0.5 | 60 | 1 | High | 300 | 15.77 | 15.02 | 4 | 1.44 |
| Legal management regime | All species | 30 | 0.9 | 50 | 0.03 | Low | 30 | 30 | 30 | 22 | 1 |
| Legal management regime | All species | 10 | 0.9 | 50 | 0.03 | Low | 10 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 1 |
| Largest ranked AY and λH |
| 10* | 0.5 | 60 | 1 | Low | 300* | 18.02 | 15.91 | 5 | 1.52 |
| Largest ranked AY and λH |
| 10* | 0.6 | 60 | 1 | High | 300* | 18.92 | 15.66 | 5 | 1.48 |
| Largest ranked AY and λH |
| 10* | 0.8 | 60 | 1 | Low | 300* | 28.84 | 14.50 | 5 | 1.48 |
| Largest ranked AY and λH |
| 10* | 0.6 | 50 | 1 | Low | 300* | 33.27 | 17.50 | 10 | 1.71 |
| Largest ranked AY and λH |
| 10* | 0.5 | 50 | 0.03 | Low | 300* | 28.94 | 19.34 | 10 | 1.8 |
| Largest ranked AY and λH |
| 10* | 0.9 | 50 | 1 | Low | 300* | 49.91 | 21.23 | 12 | 1.55 |
Differences in annualized yields (m3 yr-1 ha-1) between species-specific and general optimal management regimes under two STM indicators.
| Mean AY | H5 AY | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.03 | 0.11 |
|
| 0.02 | 0.04 |
|
| 0.05 | 0.03 |
|
| 0.01 | 0.01 |
|
| 0 | 0.14 |
|
| 0 | 0 |
| Total | 0.12 | 0.34 |
Fig 3Simulation-based spread of mean AY and λH in response to varying management criteria.