亚马逊河东部地区传统伐木和减少影响伐木二十四年后的森林生物量恢复情况

IF 2.7 Q1 FORESTRY
Rodrigo Costa Pinto , Thales A.P. West , Edson Vidal
{"title":"亚马逊河东部地区传统伐木和减少影响伐木二十四年后的森林生物量恢复情况","authors":"Rodrigo Costa Pinto ,&nbsp;Thales A.P. West ,&nbsp;Edson Vidal","doi":"10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Given the mounting global concerns about mitigating climate change and curbing greenhouse gas emissions, it becomes increasingly crucial to comprehend the effects of logging techniques on biomass dynamics in tropical forests. This understanding is essential for fostering greater carbon retention and sequestration, aligning with the objectives of initiatives like REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation plus sustainable forest management and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks) and other conservation goals. In this context, this study investigated the effects of two wood harvesting methods, reduced-impact logging (RIL) and conventional logging (CL), on above-ground biomass (AGB) recovery rates 24 years after harvesting. The experimental design was based on three treatments: RIL, CL, and an unlogged control plot, situated in the municipality of Paragominas, State of Pará, in the Eastern Amazon region of Brazil. All trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) ≥25 cm, as well as all trees of commercial species with a DBH ≥10 cm, were monitored in a 24.5 ha plot within each treatment. Additionally, a 5.25 ha subplot within each treatment was designated for the monitoring of all trees with DBH ≥10 cm. The biomass data were generated from 11 measurements carried out from 1993 to 2017 (24-year period). Pre-logging AGB stocks were estimated at 181 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> in the RIL plot, 187 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> in the CL plot, and 174 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> in the control plot. One year after logging, AGB decreased by 19 % under RIL and 30 % under CL, while the control forest remained unchanged. By 13 years after harvest, the RIL plot achieved 102 % AGB recovery, while the CL plot recovered 86 % of the original pre-harvest stock. Over the 24-year post-logging period, AGB stocks recovered to 128 % in the RIL plot compared to only 90 % in the CL plot, while the control forest maintained 93 % of its original stock. The average annual ABG increment rates were 3.56 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> year<sup>-1</sup> after RIL and 2.33 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> year<sup>-1</sup> after CL. Our findings demonstrate that implementing RIL is a more effective strategy for maintaining post-logging AGB stocks and accelerating AGB recovery rates, serving as a significant mitigation measure against climate change.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36104,"journal":{"name":"Trees, Forests and People","volume":"18 ","pages":"Article 100717"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forest biomass recovery twenty-four years after conventional and reduced-impact logging in Eastern Amazon\",\"authors\":\"Rodrigo Costa Pinto ,&nbsp;Thales A.P. West ,&nbsp;Edson Vidal\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100717\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Given the mounting global concerns about mitigating climate change and curbing greenhouse gas emissions, it becomes increasingly crucial to comprehend the effects of logging techniques on biomass dynamics in tropical forests. This understanding is essential for fostering greater carbon retention and sequestration, aligning with the objectives of initiatives like REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation plus sustainable forest management and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks) and other conservation goals. In this context, this study investigated the effects of two wood harvesting methods, reduced-impact logging (RIL) and conventional logging (CL), on above-ground biomass (AGB) recovery rates 24 years after harvesting. The experimental design was based on three treatments: RIL, CL, and an unlogged control plot, situated in the municipality of Paragominas, State of Pará, in the Eastern Amazon region of Brazil. All trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) ≥25 cm, as well as all trees of commercial species with a DBH ≥10 cm, were monitored in a 24.5 ha plot within each treatment. Additionally, a 5.25 ha subplot within each treatment was designated for the monitoring of all trees with DBH ≥10 cm. The biomass data were generated from 11 measurements carried out from 1993 to 2017 (24-year period). Pre-logging AGB stocks were estimated at 181 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> in the RIL plot, 187 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> in the CL plot, and 174 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> in the control plot. One year after logging, AGB decreased by 19 % under RIL and 30 % under CL, while the control forest remained unchanged. By 13 years after harvest, the RIL plot achieved 102 % AGB recovery, while the CL plot recovered 86 % of the original pre-harvest stock. Over the 24-year post-logging period, AGB stocks recovered to 128 % in the RIL plot compared to only 90 % in the CL plot, while the control forest maintained 93 % of its original stock. The average annual ABG increment rates were 3.56 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> year<sup>-1</sup> after RIL and 2.33 Mg ha<sup>-1</sup> year<sup>-1</sup> after CL. Our findings demonstrate that implementing RIL is a more effective strategy for maintaining post-logging AGB stocks and accelerating AGB recovery rates, serving as a significant mitigation measure against climate change.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trees, Forests and People\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100717\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trees, Forests and People\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666719324002231\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trees, Forests and People","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666719324002231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于全球对减缓气候变化和遏制温室气体排放的关注与日俱增,了解伐木技术对热带森林生物量动态的影响变得越来越重要。这种理解对于促进碳的保留和螯合至关重要,符合 REDD+(降低因森林砍伐和退化所产生的排放,加上可持续森林管理以及保护和提高森林碳储量)等倡议的目标以及其他保护目标。在此背景下,本研究调查了两种木材采伐方法(减少影响采伐(RIL)和传统采伐(CL))对采伐 24 年后地上生物量(AGB)恢复率的影响。实验设计基于三种处理方法:RIL、CL 和未伐木对照地块位于巴西亚马逊东部帕拉州帕拉戈米纳斯市。在每个处理的 24.5 公顷小区内,对胸径 (DBH) ≥25 厘米的所有树木以及 DBH ≥10 厘米的所有商业树种进行了监测。此外,每个处理中还指定了一个 5.25 公顷的子地块,用于监测所有 DBH ≥10 厘米的树木。生物量数据来自 1993 年至 2017 年(24 年)期间进行的 11 次测量。伐木前,RIL 小区的 AGB 储量估计为 181 兆克/公顷-1,CL 小区为 187 兆克/公顷-1,对照小区为 174 兆克/公顷-1。采伐一年后,RIL 地块的 AGB 减少了 19%,CL 地块减少了 30%,而对照森林则保持不变。采伐后 13 年,RIL 小区的 AGB 恢复了 102%,而 CL 小区恢复了采伐前原始储量的 86%。在采伐后的 24 年中,RIL 小区的 AGB 储量恢复了 128%,而 CL 小区仅恢复了 90%,而对照森林则保持了 93%的原始储量。在 RIL 之后,ABG 的年平均增长率为 3.56 兆克/公顷-年-1,而在 CL 之后,ABG 的年平均增长率为 2.33 兆克/公顷-年-1。我们的研究结果表明,实施 RIL 是维持伐木后 AGB 储量和加快 AGB 恢复速度的更有效策略,是应对气候变化的重要缓解措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Forest biomass recovery twenty-four years after conventional and reduced-impact logging in Eastern Amazon
Given the mounting global concerns about mitigating climate change and curbing greenhouse gas emissions, it becomes increasingly crucial to comprehend the effects of logging techniques on biomass dynamics in tropical forests. This understanding is essential for fostering greater carbon retention and sequestration, aligning with the objectives of initiatives like REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation plus sustainable forest management and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks) and other conservation goals. In this context, this study investigated the effects of two wood harvesting methods, reduced-impact logging (RIL) and conventional logging (CL), on above-ground biomass (AGB) recovery rates 24 years after harvesting. The experimental design was based on three treatments: RIL, CL, and an unlogged control plot, situated in the municipality of Paragominas, State of Pará, in the Eastern Amazon region of Brazil. All trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) ≥25 cm, as well as all trees of commercial species with a DBH ≥10 cm, were monitored in a 24.5 ha plot within each treatment. Additionally, a 5.25 ha subplot within each treatment was designated for the monitoring of all trees with DBH ≥10 cm. The biomass data were generated from 11 measurements carried out from 1993 to 2017 (24-year period). Pre-logging AGB stocks were estimated at 181 Mg ha-1 in the RIL plot, 187 Mg ha-1 in the CL plot, and 174 Mg ha-1 in the control plot. One year after logging, AGB decreased by 19 % under RIL and 30 % under CL, while the control forest remained unchanged. By 13 years after harvest, the RIL plot achieved 102 % AGB recovery, while the CL plot recovered 86 % of the original pre-harvest stock. Over the 24-year post-logging period, AGB stocks recovered to 128 % in the RIL plot compared to only 90 % in the CL plot, while the control forest maintained 93 % of its original stock. The average annual ABG increment rates were 3.56 Mg ha-1 year-1 after RIL and 2.33 Mg ha-1 year-1 after CL. Our findings demonstrate that implementing RIL is a more effective strategy for maintaining post-logging AGB stocks and accelerating AGB recovery rates, serving as a significant mitigation measure against climate change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trees, Forests and People
Trees, Forests and People Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
172
审稿时长
56 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信