CIFOR-ICRAF aborda retos y oportunidades locales y, al mismo tiempo, ofrece soluciones a los problemas globales relacionados con los bosques, los paisajes, las personas y el planeta.

Aportamos evidencia empírica y soluciones prácticas para transformar el uso de la tierra y la producción de alimentos: conservando y restaurando ecosistemas, respondiendo a las crisis globales del clima, la malnutrición, la pérdida de biodiversidad y la desertificación. En resumen, mejorando la vida de las personas.

CIFOR-ICRAF produce cada año más de 750 publicaciones sobre agroforestería, bosques y cambio climático, restauración de paisajes, derechos, políticas forestales y mucho más, y en varios idiomas. .

CIFOR-ICRAF aborda retos y oportunidades locales y, al mismo tiempo, ofrece soluciones a los problemas globales relacionados con los bosques, los paisajes, las personas y el planeta.

Aportamos evidencia empírica y soluciones prácticas para transformar el uso de la tierra y la producción de alimentos: conservando y restaurando ecosistemas, respondiendo a las crisis globales del clima, la malnutrición, la pérdida de biodiversidad y la desertificación. En resumen, mejorando la vida de las personas.

CIFOR–ICRAF publishes over 750 publications every year on agroforestry, forests and climate change, landscape restoration, rights, forest policy and much more – in multiple languages.

CIFOR–ICRAF addresses local challenges and opportunities while providing solutions to global problems for forests, landscapes, people and the planet.

We deliver actionable evidence and solutions to transform how land is used and how food is produced: conserving and restoring ecosystems, responding to the global climate, malnutrition, biodiversity and desertification crises. In short, improving people’s lives.

Harvesting intensity versus sustainability in Indonesia

Exportar la cita

In East Kalimantan (Indonesia), impacts of conventional and reduced-impact logging (RIL) on forest ecosystems were compared on the basis of pre- and post-harvesting stand inventories. There was a positive and significant correlation between the proportion of trees damaged by felling and the density of trees felled. Logging intensity ranged from 1 to 17 trees ha- (9--247 m3 ha-1) and averaged 9 trees ha-1 (86.9 m3 ha-1). The study has shown that with RIL techniques, logging damage on the original stand can be significantly reduced by 50% compared with conventional logging. However, this 50% reduction in logging damage, was dependent on the felling intensity. With a felling intensity of 8 stems ha-1 or less, RIL techniques only damaged 25% of the original tree population whereas 48% were damaged with conventional techniques. Above this felling intensity (i.e. 8 stems ha-1), the effectiveness of RIL in limiting forest damage was significantly reduced, mainly because of the increasing felling damage. Moreover, the removal of all harvestable timber trees, leaving only few potential crop trees, will result in a seriously depleted residual stand. Because of the high damage involved by high felling intensity, leaving few potential crop trees, and the yield capacity of the remaining stand, acceptable harvesting volume will not be reached within the felling rotation of 35 years. It is concluded that silvicultural system based on diameter limit alone, as is the Indonesian system (TPTI), cannot be compatible with sustainability and more sophisticated harvested-selection rules are needed.
    Año de publicación

    1998

    Autores

    Sist, P.; Nolan, T.; Bertault, J-G.; Dykstra, D.P.

    Idioma

    English

    Palabras clave

    harvesting, sustainability, tropical forests, selective felling, damage, logging effects, silvicultural systems, planning

    Geográfico

    Indonesia

Publicaciones relacionadas