4.4 Article

Using salvage logging and tolerance to risk to reduce the impact of forest fires on timber supply calculations

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 480-486

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2014-0434

关键词

natural disturbances; sustained yield; boreal forest; stochastic processes

类别

资金

  1. Fonds quebecois de recherche sur la nature et les technologies (FQRNT)-Programme Action concertee - Fonds Forestier
  2. NSERC-UQAT-UQAM Industrial Research Chair in sustainable forest management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is acknowledged that natural forest fires cannot and even should not be eliminated from the North American boreal forest. Forest fires produce immediate losses of wood volume, disrupt the conversion of the actual forest age structure into a target structure, and prevent planned timber supply (PTS) levels from being achieved. In this paper, we explore the extent to which periodic shortfalls in available timber under various burn rates can be mitigated through salvage logging and the tolerance of forest managers to a given level of shortfall, both as a function of forest age class structure. Simulations are done using both a deterministic and a stochastic representation of burn rate over time. Results show that the frequency of shortfall events can be reduced by salvage logging and by the introduction of measures that generate a tolerance to shortfall and that this mitigation potential is influenced by initial forest age class structure and burn rate. Results also show that even a 100% rate of salvage logging cannot fully compensate for timber losses to fire and eliminate fire-induced timber shortfalls. Furthermore, interannual burn rate variability reduces the efficiency of both mitigation measures. As the PTS is never realized under fire risk, the real cost of opting for different PTS scenarios should be estimated not from the difference in PTS but rather from the more realistic difference in realized timber harvest.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据