3.9 Article

Inter-institutional cooperation to develop a new forest hydrological approach to support sustainable forestry in Chile

期刊

BOSQUE
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 95-99

出版社

UNIV AUSTRAL CHILE, FAC CIENCIAS FORESTALES
DOI: 10.4067/S0717-92002022000200095

关键词

water resources; plantations; native forest; stakeholders; forest hydrology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forests cover 31% of the Earth's surface, playing an important role in the hydrological cycle and land protection. Chile proposes a research plan in forest hydrology to support evidence-based public policies, utilizing its capable scientific human resources.
There are more than 4 billion hectares of forests in the world, which corresponds to 31 % of the surface of our planet. In Chile, 17 million ha of forests cover the country where more than 3 million correspond to plantations. The role of vegetation cover in the dynamics of precipitation, in the generation of runoff and in the protection and conservation of degraded land is known. This cover plays an important role in the hydrological cycle and its balance, especially in the north central zone to the south. A new impulse is required in research, both from the Government and the private sector, as well as reformation to public policies, thus articulating research in forest hydrology with an imperative sense of integrality. Therefore, this document presents a proposal for the development of research in forest hydrology with an integral and decentralization approach. Highly capable scientific human capital in Chile, organized in geographically defined nuclei, would be capable of answering relevant research questions in forest hydrology that would support public policies based on scientific evidence. All this, under the auspices of a technical integrating entity to allow a fluid conversation and discussion of the actors of the forestry sector, both in research matters and in the generation of public policies from an integral and multidisciplinary perspective at the catchment level.

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

3.9
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