Co-benefits of sustainable forest management in biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration.

dc.contributor.authorImai, N.
dc.contributor.authorSamejima, H.
dc.contributor.authorLangner, A.
dc.contributor.authorOng, R. C.
dc.contributor.authorKita, S.
dc.contributor.authorTitin, J.
dc.contributor.authorChung, A.Y.C.
dc.contributor.authorLagan, P.
dc.contributor.authorLee, Y.
dc.contributor.authorKitayama, K.
dc.titleCo-benefits of sustainable forest management in biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration.en
dcterms.abstractSustainable forest management (SFM), which has been recently introduced to tropical natural production forests, is beneficial in maintaining timber resources, but information about the co-benefits for biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration is currently lacking.We estimated the diversity of medium to large-bodied forest-dwelling vertebrates using a heat-sensor camera trapping system and the amount of above-ground, fine-roots, and soil organic carbon by a combination of ground surveys and aerial-imagery interpretations. This research was undertaken both in SFM applied as well as conventionally logged production forests in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Our carbon estimation revealed that the application of SFM resulted in a net gain of 54 Mg C ha-1 on a landscape scale. Overall vertebrate diversity was greater in the SFM applied forest than in the conventionally logged forest. Specifically, several vertebrate species (6 out of recorded 36 species) showed higher frequency in the SFM applied forest than in the conventionally logged forest.The application of SFM to degraded natural production forests could result in greater diversity and abundance of vertebrate species as well as increasing carbon storage in the tropical rain forest ecosystems.en
dcterms.accessRightsOpen access
dcterms.bibliographicCitationImai, N., Samejima, H., Langner, A., Ong, R.C., Kita, S., Titin, J., Chung, A.Y., Lagan, P., Lee, Y.F. and Kitayama, K., 2009. Co-benefits of sustainable forest management in biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. PLoS One, 4(12), p.e8267en
dcterms.typeJournal Article
fsc.evidenceCategoryFSC impact-related
fsc.focus.forestTypeNatural Forest
fsc.issue.environmentalForest disturbance, forest deagradation
fsc.subjectCarbon stock
fsc.subjectCarbon dioxide emissions
fsc.subjectAnimal biodiversity
fsc.subjectForest disturbance
fsc.subjectForest degradation
fsc.topic.environmentalAnimal biodiversity
is.availability.fullTextFull text available
is.contributor.funderTypePublic funds (government, EU funding, public research grants)
is.contributor.memberForest Stewardship Council
is.evaluation.collectionField Measurement
is.evaluation.dataSourceGeospatial data layers
is.evaluation.findingsTha study shows that the mean carbon density was higher of 52 Mg C ha-1 in the certified forest compared to the uncertified forest. Also, it shows little difference in below-ground carbon.
is.evaluation.findingsThe authors compared the area-disturbance intensity for six years between 1985 and 2002. They looked at the amount of bare soil on satellite images, indicating recently opened crown cover, and found that the certified forest was overall (except for one year) significantly less disturbed, suggesting that the uncertified forest was subject to more habitat-disturbing logging practices.
is.evaluation.findingsThe authors found that the certified forest had a significantly higher species richness than the uncertified one, and six species showed a higher frequency in the certified forest.
is.evaluation.notesGenerally speaking, the authors only used one forest replicate for each certified and uncertified treatment (pseudo-replicated design) which limit our ability to generalize the findings. Also, they did not account for the effect of confounding factors in their analysis.
is.evaluation.notesIt is also worth noting that that they compared carbon estimates, as well as animal richness, not only between, or around, the forest management units that were harvested during the studied time period, but between the entire forest areas of Deramakot and Tangkulap. This approach is relevant to compare the medium/long-term effect of different management regimes at a spatial scale that encompasses entire forest concessions, including thus conservation areas and (the effects of) rotation periods. Yet, while this approach is not biased, the outcomes are likely influenced by the history and inherent characteristics of the forests. Also, with low sampling efforts, any effect of certification could be diluted by the proportion of the forest that is not subject to logging/management during the time period of the study. An alternative approach would be to compare the local effects of forest operations at the scale of FMUs.
is.evaluation.quotesThe authors advance that: "beneficial effects for vertebrates may have been derived from reduced intensity of logging per unit area, more localized logging operations (i.e., restricted to 2"'4 compartments per year), and more developed vegetation".
is.evaluation.quotes"contemporary landscapes in the tropics and elsewhere are dominated by degraded forests that are legally designated as timber 'production forests'. Wildlife including threatened species reside in such degraded forests. Given that strictly protected areas are rather limited in area, a pragmatic approach to conserve biodiversity including endangered mammals is to sustainably manage such production forests. SFM with reduced-impact logging applied to degraded natural forests can help to mitigate the deleterious logging impacts on the diversity of vertebrate species as well as the amount of above-ground carbon."
is.evaluation.scopeThe authors compared the carbon density and wildlife diversity between a certified forest (Deramakot) and an uncertified conventionally-logged forest (Tangkulap) in Malaysia. They estimated above and below ground carbon using satellite imagery and field sampling. Moreover, the authors investigated the frequency and species richness of large-bodied vertebrates in both forests using camera-traps.
is.evaluation.significanceStatistically significant
is.evidenceSubTypeModeling study - future scenario or potential effects
is.evidenceTypeModeling study
is.focus.productsOther forestry and logging
is.focus.sdgSDG 15 - Life on Land
is.focus.sustainIssueClimate change
is.focus.sustainOutcomeCarbon sequestration
is.focus.systemElementMandE outcomes and impacts
is.focus.systemElementMandE performance monitoring
is.identifier.schemeNameForest Stewardship Council
is.identifier.schemeTypeVoluntary Sustainability Standards
is.item.reviewStatusPeer reviewed
is.journalNamePLoS ONE