Harvesting Criteria Application as a Technical and Financial Alternative for Management of Degraded Tropical Forests: A Case Study from Brazilian Amazon

Abstract

This article addresses a case study on the application of criteria for harvesting, aiming at restoration and profitability in a degraded tropical forest in the Amazon. The objective is to provide technical and economic information to promote a truly sustainable silvicultural management system in forests with this profile and turn them into a desirable financial asset for conservation and social development. In the forest census, 85.907 trees ha−1 (100.8566 m3 ha−1) were inventoried with diameter at breast height (dbh) ≥ 25 cm, belonging to 106 commercial species. When applying the harvest criteria, 19.923 trees ha−1 (29.99 m3 ha−1), referring to 53 species, were destined for harvest. Some trees were selected by more than one criterion, totalizing 17.985 trees ha−1 by density, 1.831 trees ha−1 by compromised health, 0.212 trees ha−1 by maximum dbh, 18.933 trees ha−1 by minimum dbh, 1.385 trees ha−1 by tree stem (quality 3), and 0.080 trees ha−1 by species conservation. In all scenarios, the application of criteria for harvesting proved to be profitable with excellent cost–benefit ratios. The selection of trees with a minimum cutting diameter of 25 cm in shorter cycles tends to allow the promotion of new commercial species. The set of actions presented has the potential to favor the maintenance of biodiversity and expansion of low-density populations, health and the potential increment of the forest productivity. In addition, it is more feasible for the supply of forest products in a shorter time than provided for in Brazilian regulations; however, they must respect the specificities of the species and also of the site.

Biochar amendment did not influence the growth of two tree plantations on nutrient‐depleted Ultisols in the south Ecuadorian Amazon region

“…(2017) reported a benefit–cost ratio of 1.44 for harvesting 13‐yr‐old S. parahyba trees, and Siviero et al. (2020) reported a benefit–cost ratio >1 for the harvest of trees of different species with a DBH >25 cm to which S. parahyba contributed ∼50% of the wood volume.…”

“…It is possible that the benefit–cost ratio of our plantations would have increased if the plantations had been thinned after 5 yr of growth and if only trees with a DBH >0.25 m had been harvested after at least 8 yr of growth as recommended in the literature (Coomes et al., 2008; Jiménez Pozo, 2016; Siviero et al., 2020). However, the restrictions of our funding did not allow for these management options.…”

“…A recent study in India reported a benefit-cost ratio of 1.6 for the harvest of a G. arborea in an agroforestry system after 12 yr of growth (Mali et al, 2017), and another study in Panama reported a benefit-cost ratio of 1.72 after 10 yr of growth (Coomes et al, 2008). For an S. parahyba enrichment plantation in a degraded Amazonian forest in the State of Pará, Brazil, Schwartz et al (2017) reported a benefitcost ratio of 1.44 for harvesting 13-yr-old S. parahyba trees, and Siviero et al (2020) reported a benefit-cost ratio >1 for the harvest of trees of different species with a DBH >25 cm to which S. parahyba contributed ∼50% of the wood volume.…”

Silvicultural Management System Applied to Logged Forests in the Brazilian Amazon: A Case Study of Adaptation of Techniques to Increase the Yield and Diversity of Species Forestry

“…A forest restoration and management system proved to be viable to generate economic returns with continuous supply of wood products [11,12] and potential for the maintenance of the diversity of species forestry [13,14] as well contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change [15].…”

“…This method is conditioned to the values of the remaining basal area, the maximum intended diameter, the number of individuals per class of diameter per hectare and the choice of species to be harvested [29]. Associated with the balanced distribution model, the application of post-harvest silvicultural treatments, such as conduction of regeneration, thinning and enrichment planting, has been an alternative to recover the forest structure as well as the populations of species of interest [11,12,[30][31][32][33][34][35].…”