4.7 Article

Enrichment planting in logging gaps with Schizolobium parahyba var. amazonicum (Huber ex Ducke) Barneby: A financially profitable alternative for degraded tropical forests in the Amazon

Journal

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 390, Issue -, Pages 166-172

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.01.031

Keywords

Silvicultural systems; Cecropia spp.; Cost-benefit analysis; Lamination; Roundwood; Sawnwood

Categories

Funding

  1. FAPESPA (Para state, Brazil) [FAPESPA/ICAAF 014/2008]
  2. Embrapa Eastern Amazon
  3. Arboris Group

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conservation of degraded forests is a challenging issue in the tropics, since the maintenance of environmental services and economic demands must be conciliated. Environmental services must be conserved while degraded tropical forests are demanded to be competitive against more financially profitable land uses as crop fields and pastures. The objective of this study was to evaluate productivity and financial profitability of enrichment planting in degraded forests. Seeds of Schizolobium parahyba var. amazonicum were planted in logging gaps of a 108-ha degraded forest in southeast Para (Brazil) in February 1995 (average = 91.7 seeds ha(-1) and 15.3 seeds gap(-1)). After 13 years (2008), S. parahyba presented a volume increase of 3.1 m(3) ha(-1) yr(-1) for individuals >= 25 cm in DBH. More than 30% of the planted seeds were able to germinate, establish, and grow up to sizes >= 25 cm in DBH. A cost-benefit analysis through Net Present Value (NPV) and a sensitivity analysis with different interest rates were performed to compare financial profitability of the treated and control area under roundwood and laminated plus sawnwood production. Enrichment planting using S. parahyba seeds presented higher NPVs in the treated than in control area for all simulations, except roundwood under interest rate of 9% per year. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available