Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 12, Issue 7, pp 1445–1453

Silvicultural intensification for tropical forest conservation

Article

Abstract

Minimizing the deleterious environmental impacts of logging and other silvicultural treatments is the primary conservation goal in tropical forests managed for timber production. While it is always environmentally beneficial to minimize unnecessary damage, more intensive silviculture should not be discouraged in tropical forests in which regeneration and growth of commercially valuable timber species requires such treatments. Failing to regenerate commercial species may render forests more susceptible to conversion to other, more lucrative land uses. Increasing the intensity of silviculture may also decrease the total area of forest exploited for timber, thereby reducing the impacts of over-hunting, timber theft, wildfires, colonization, and conversion, which are facilitated by the increased accessibility of logged areas.

Biodiversity Deforestation Forest management Logging Silviculture Tropical forest conservation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aubreville A. 1938. FrLa forêt coloniale; les forêts de l'Afrique occidentale français. Annales Academie Sciences Coloniale 9: 1–245.Google Scholar
  2. Bawa K. and Seidler R. 1998. Natural forest management and conservation of biodiversity in tropical forests. Conservation Biology 12: 46–55.Google Scholar
  3. Bowles I., Rice R., Mittermeier R.M. and da Fonseca A. 1998. Logging and tropical forest conservation. Science 280: 1899–1900.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle T.J.B. and Sayer J.A. 1995. Measuring, monitoring, and conserving biodiversity in managed tropical forests. Commonwealth Forestry Review 74: 20–25.Google Scholar
  5. Brokaw N.V.L. 1982. The definition of treefall gap and its effect on measures of forest dynamics. Biotropica 11: 158–160.Google Scholar
  6. Bush M.B. and Colinvaux P.A. 1994. A paleoecological perspective of tropical forest disturbance: records from Darien, Panama. Ecology 75: 1761–1768.Google Scholar
  7. Buschbacher R.J. 1990. Natural forest management in the humid tropics: ecological, social, and economic considerations. Ambio 19: 253–258.Google Scholar
  8. Cannon C.H., Peart D.R. and Leighton M. 1998. Tree species diversity in commercially logged Bornean rainforest. Science 281: 1366–1368.Google Scholar
  9. Deneven W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82: 369–385.Google Scholar
  10. Dickinson M.B. and Whigham D.F. 1999. Regeneration of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) in the Yucatan. International Forestry Review 1: 35–39.Google Scholar
  11. Dickinson M.B., Dickinson J.C. and Putz F.E. 1996. Natural forest management as a conservation tool in the tropics: divergent views on possibilities and alternatives. Commonwealth Forestry Review 75: 309–315.Google Scholar
  12. Dickinson M.B., Whigham D.F. and Hermann S.M. 2000. Tree regeneration in felling and natural treefall disturbance in a semideciduous tropical forest in Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 134: 137–151.Google Scholar
  13. Fragoso J.M. 1991. The effect of selective logging on Baird's tapir. In: Mares M. and Schmidly D.J. (eds), Latin American Mammalogy: History, Biodiversity, and Conservation. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, pp. 295–304.Google Scholar
  14. Fredericksen T.S. 1998. Limitations of low-intensity selective and selection logging for sustainable tropical forestry. Commonwealth Forestry Review 77: 262–266.Google Scholar
  15. Fredericksen N.J. and Fredericksen T.S. 2002. Terrestrial wildlife response to logging and wildfire in a Bolivian tropical humid forest. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 27–38.Google Scholar
  16. Fredericksen T.S. and Mostacedo B. 2000. Regeneration of sawtimber species following selective logging in a Bolivian tropical forest. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 47–55.Google Scholar
  17. Fredericksen N.J., Fredericksen T.S., Flores B. and Rumiz D. 1999. Wildlife use of different-sized logging gaps in a Bolivian tropical dry forest. Tropical Ecology 40: 167–175.Google Scholar
  18. Frumhoff P.C. 1995. Conserving wildlife in tropical forests managed for timber. BioScience 45: 456–464.Google Scholar
  19. Frumhoff P.C. and Losos E.C. 1998. Setting priorities for conserving biological diversity in tropical timber production forests. Policy Report, The Union of Concerned Scientists and The Center for Tropical Forest Science. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 13 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Grieser Johns A. 1997. Timber Production and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Rain Forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 225 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Gullison R.E., Panfil S.N., Strouse J.J. and Hubbell S.P. 1996. Ecology and management of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla King) in the Chimanes Forest, Beni, Bolivia. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 122: 9–34.Google Scholar
  22. Hall J.B. 1996. Seedling ecology and tropical forestry. In: Swaine M.D. (ed.), Ecology of Tropical Forest Tree Seedlings. Parthenon Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  23. Hartshorn G.S. 1989. Application of gap theory to tropical forest management: natural regeneration in strip clearcuts in the Peruvian Amazon. Ecology 70: 567–569.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson S.M., Fredericksen T.S. and Malcolm J.R. 2002. Disturbance and residual stand damage following selection logging in a Bolivian tropical forest. Forest Ecology and Management 166: 271–283.Google Scholar
  25. Johns A.D. 1985. Selective logging and wildlife conservation in tropical rain-forest: problems and recommendations. Biological Conservation 31: 355–375.Google Scholar
  26. Johns A.D. 1988. Effects of selective timber extraction on rain forest structure and composition and some consequences for frugivores and foliovores. Biotropica 20: 31–37.Google Scholar
  27. Johns A.D. and Skorupa J.P. 1987. Responses of rain-forest primates to habitat disturbance: a review. International Journal of Primatology 8: 157–191.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson N. and Carbarle B. 1993. Surviving the Cut: Natural Forest Management in the Humid Tropics. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Kaimowitz D. and Angelsen A. 1998. Economic models of tropical deforestation. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  30. Lamb F.B. 1966. Mahogany of Tropical America: Its Ecology and Management. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  31. Landres P.B., Morgan P. and Swanson F.J. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179–1188.Google Scholar
  32. Laurance W.F. 2001. Tropical logging and human invasions. Conservation Biology 15: 4–5.Google Scholar
  33. Malmer A. and Grip H. 1990. Soil disturbance and loss of infiltrability caused by mechanical and manual extraction of tropical rainforest in Sabah, Malaysia. Forest Ecology and Management 38: 1–12.Google Scholar
  34. Manokaran N. 1998. Effect, 34 years later of selective logging in the lowland dipterocarp forest at Pasoh, Peninsular Malaysia and implications on present-day logging in the hill forests. In: Lee S.S., May Y.M., Gould I.D. and Bishop J. (eds), Conservation, Management and Development of Forest Resources. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  35. Mason D.J. 1996. Responses of Venezuelan understory birds to selective logging, enrichment strips, and vine cutting. Biotropica 28: 296–309.Google Scholar
  36. Mason D.J. and Putz F.E. 2001. Reducing the impacts of tropical forestry on wildlife. In: Fimbel R.A., Grajal A. and Robinson J.G. (eds), Conserving Wildlife in Managed Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Mostacedo B., Fredericksen T.S. and Toledo M. 1998. Respuestas de las plantas a la intensidad de aprovechamiento en un bosque semi-deciduo pluviestacional de la región de Lomerío, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Boletín de Sociedad Botanica Boliviana 2: 75–88.Google Scholar
  38. Myers G.P., Newton A.C. and Melgarejo O. 2000. The influence of canopy gap size on natural regeneration of Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) in Bolivia. Forest Ecology and Management 127: 119–128.Google Scholar
  39. Pinard M.A. and Putz F.E. 1996. Retaining forest biomass by reducing logging damage. Biotropica 28: 278–295.Google Scholar
  40. Pinard M.A., Howlett B. and Davidson D. 1996. Site conditions limit pioneer tree recruitment after logging of dipterocarp forests in Sabah, Malaysia. Biotropica 28: 2–12.Google Scholar
  41. Putz F.E. 1994. Towards a sustainable forest: how can forests be managed in a way that satisfies criteria of sustainability? ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization) Tropical Forest Update 4: 7–9.Google Scholar
  42. Putz F.E., Dykstra D.P. and Heinrich R. 2000. Why poor logging practices persist in the tropics. Conservation Biology 14: 951–956.Google Scholar
  43. Putz F.E., Blate G., Redford K.H., Fimbel R. and Robinson J.G. 2001. Tropical forest management and conservation of biodiversity: an overview. Conservation Biology 15: 7–20.Google Scholar
  44. Reid J.W. and Rice R.E. 1997. Assessing natural forest management as a tool for tropical forest conservation. Ambio 26: 382–386.Google Scholar
  45. Rice R.E., Gullison R.E. and Reid J.W. 1997. Can sustainable management save tropical forests? Scientific American April: 382–386.Google Scholar
  46. Robinson J.G. and Bennett E.L. 2000. Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Sayer J.A., Zuidema P.A. and Rijks M.H. 1995. Managing for biodiversity in humid tropical forests. Commonwealth Forestry Review 74: 282–287.Google Scholar
  48. Smith D.M., Larson B., Kelty C. and Ashton P.M.S. 1997. The Practice of Silviculture: Applied Forest Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Snook L.K. 1996. Catastrophic disturbance, logging and the ecology of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla King): grounds for listing a major tropical timber species on CITES. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 122: 35–46.Google Scholar
  50. Snook L.K. 1998. Sustaining harvests of mahogany from natural forests in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula: Past, present, and future. In: Primack R.B., Bray D., Galletti H.A. and Ponciano I. (eds), Timber, Tourists and Temples. Island Press, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Thiollay J.-M. 1992. Influence of selective logging on bird species diversity in a Guianan rain forest. Conservation Biology 6: 47–60.Google Scholar
  52. Terborgh J. 1992. Maintenance of diversity in tropical forests. Biotropica 24: 283–292.Google Scholar
  53. Toledo M., Licona J.C., Fredericksen T.S. and Mostacedo B. 2001. Efectos del aprovechamiento forestal en el sotobosque de Lomerío, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Documento Técnico, Proyecto Bolfor, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.Google Scholar
  54. Uhl C. and Buschbacher R. 1985. A disturbing synergism between cattle ranch burning practices and selective harvesting in the eastern Amazon. Biotropica 17: 265–268.Google Scholar
  55. Uhl C. and Kauffman J.B. 1990. Deforestation effects on fire susceptibility and the potential response of tree species to fire in the rainforest of the eastern Amazon. Ecology 71: 437–449.Google Scholar
  56. Whitman A.A., Brokaw N.V.L. and Hagan J.M. 1997. Forest damage caused by selection logging of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) in northern Belize. Forest Ecology and Management 92: 87–96.Google Scholar
  57. Whitmore T.C. 1997. Tropical forest disturbance, disappearance and species loss. In: Laurance.F. and Bierregaard R.O. (eds), Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  58. Wyatt-Smith J. 1954. Storm forest in Kelantan. Malayan Forester 17: 5–11.Google Scholar
  59. Wunder S. 2000. The Economics of Deforestation: The Example of Ecuador. Macmillan Press, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Proyecto BOLFORSanta CruzBolivia
  2. 2.Life Sciences DivisionFerrum CollegeFerrumUSA
  3. 3.Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)JakartaIndonesia
  4. 4.Department of BotanyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations