Silvicultural treatment effects on commercial timber volume and functional composition of a selectively logged Australian tropical forest over 48 years

Hu, Jing; Herbohn, John; Chazdon, Robin L.; Baynes, Jack; Vanclay, Jerome K.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117690

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During timber production, short harvesting cycles quickly release much of the stored carbon back into the atmosphere, negating the initial carbon sequestration. Low-intensity management of livelihood native forests, for example through selective extraction, preserves biomass by allowing long-term carbon sequestration and natural vegetation succession while also benefitting biodiversity (Crane, 2020;Hu et al, 2020;Noormets et al, 2015). Alternative livelihood measures should be supported in the interim period before harvesting, to avoid the continued conversion of forest with high carbon stocks elsewhere leading to a net emission of CO 2 .…”

Section: Aim To Maximize Biodiversity Recovery To Meet Multiple Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits

Sacco

Hardwick

Blakesley³

et al. 2021

Global Change Biology

413

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urgent solutions to global climate change are needed. Ambitious tree‐planting initiatives, many already underway, aim to sequester enormous quantities of carbon to partly compensate for anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which are a major cause of rising global temperatures. However, tree planting that is poorly planned and executed could actually increase CO2 emissions and have long‐term, deleterious impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and livelihoods. Here, we highlight the main environmental risks of large‐scale tree planting and propose 10 golden rules, based on some of the most recent ecological research, to implement forest ecosystem restoration that maximizes rates of both carbon sequestration and biodiversity recovery while improving livelihoods. These are as follows: (1) Protect existing forest first; (2) Work together (involving all stakeholders); (3) Aim to maximize biodiversity recovery to meet multiple goals; (4) Select appropriate areas for restoration; (5) Use natural regeneration wherever possible; (6) Select species to maximize biodiversity; (7) Use resilient plant material (with appropriate genetic variability and provenance); (8) Plan ahead for infrastructure, capacity and seed supply; (9) Learn by doing (using an adaptive management approach); and (10) Make it pay (ensuring the economic sustainability of the project). We focus on the design of long‐term strategies to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises and support livelihood needs. We emphasize the role of local communities as sources of indigenous knowledge, and the benefits they could derive from successful reforestation that restores ecosystem functioning and delivers a diverse range of forest products and services. While there is no simple and universal recipe for forest restoration, it is crucial to build upon the currently growing public and private interest in this topic, to ensure interventions provide effective, long‐term carbon sinks and maximize benefits for biodiversity and people.

show abstract

Section: Aim To Maximize Biodiversity Recovery To Meet Multiple Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits

Sacco

Hardwick

Blakesley³

et al. 2021

Global Change Biology

413

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In both silvicultural and restoration approaches, thinning assumes that tree growth is negatively related to tree density (Brown et al., 2019; Dwyer et al., 2010) due to competition for resources including water, light, nutrients and space (Bhandari et al., 2021; Craine & Dybzinski, 2013). Commercial thinning to liberate selected trees from surrounding competitors has been found to increase tree growth (David et al., 2019; Guariguata, 1999; Hu et al., 2020). Thinning to promote large tree vigour and enhance old growth habitat features for ecosystem restoration has been trialled in a limited range of forest types with variable effects (Hood et al., 2018; Puettmann et al., 2016; Skov et al., 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoration thinning accelerates small tree growth but may slow large tree growth in a multi‐age flood‐dependent forest

Gorrod,

White,

Bedward

et al. 2024

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large tree decline is occurring globally with critical implications for biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Restoration thinning is a potential management action to accelerate tree growth and promote large tree development in forests, yet trials have been limited and results have been mixed. We conducted a large‐scale trial to determine whether restoration thinning could accelerate the development of large trees in river red gum forests in Australia that had experienced widespread woody thickening and a decline of large trees due to long‐term commercial timber harvesting and river regulation. Thinning was conducted on 44 9‐ha plots by removing trees <40 cm diameter from around retained trees at a range of spacings. Initial tree densities ranged from ~260 to ~1860 trees per ha and 8%–86% of trees were removed by thinning. We monitored 1980 trees prior to thinning, and annually for 5 years post‐thinning. We tested the effects of thinning intensity on diameter growth of different sized trees and explored whether long‐ and short‐term water availability affected outcomes. Thinning promoted the growth of small trees <56 cm diameter, especially in drier sites during wet years. Higher thinning intensities reduced the growth rates of large trees (no smaller than 79.5 cm diameter) in wetter sites. For medium‐ and large‐sized trees, long‐ and short‐term water availability were stronger drivers of tree growth than competition due to tree density. Synthesis and applications. Restoration thinning may accelerate tree growth in young river red gum forests where all trees are small. But restoration thinning may be ineffective or detrimental in multi‐aged forests where the goal is to promote the growth rates of trees that are already medium to large in size.

show abstract

“…Silvicultural treatments are another SFM measure [17]. While the effect of silvicultural treatments on the commercial timber volume of tropical forests has been investigated in various studies [18][19][20][21][22], the effects of silvicultural practices on carbon dynamics in both commercial and non-commercial stands is not well understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of Future Crop Tree Release Treatments on Forest Carbon as REDD+ Mitigation Benefits

Gräfe¹,

Köhl²

2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable forest management activities, such as future crop tree (FCT) release treatments, became part of the REDD+ strategy to avoid carbon emissions from forests. FCT release treatments are intended to achieve increased growth of FCTs by removing competitor trees. This initially leads to a reduction of the forest carbon pool and represents a carbon debt. We estimated that the time it takes for FCTs to offset the carbon debt through increased growth on experimental sites of 10 km² in Belize, Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. We further investigated whether the costs of treatment can be compensated by the generated financial carbon benefits. An average of 2.3 FCT per hectare were released through the removal of an average of 3.3 competitors per hectare. This corresponds to an average above ground biomass (AGB) deficit of 2.3 Mg FCT-1. Assuming a 30% increase in growth, the FCT would need on average 130 years to offset the carbon loss. For carbon prices from US$ 5 to 100 Mg CO2e-1 an additional increment between 0.6 and 22.7 Mg tree-1 would be required to cover the treatment costs of US$ 4.2 to 8.4 FCT-1. Assuming a carbon price of US$ 10 Mg CO2e-1, the additional increment required would be between 5.8 and 11.4 Mg tree-1, thus exceeding the biological growth potential of most individual trees. The release of FCTs does not ensure an increase in forest carbon stocks, and refinancing of treatment costs is problematic.

show abstract

Silvicultural treatment effects on commercial timber volume and functional composition of a selectively logged Australian tropical forest over 48 years

Cited by 12 publications

References 38 publications

Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits

Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits

Restoration thinning accelerates small tree growth but may slow large tree growth in a multi‐age flood‐dependent forest

Impacts of Future Crop Tree Release Treatments on Forest Carbon as REDD+ Mitigation Benefits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About