Publication: Carbon and Biodiversity Impacts of Intensive Versus Extensive Tropical Forestry.
Carbon and Biodiversity Impacts of Intensive Versus Extensive Tropical Forestry.
| dc.contributor.author | Griscom, B.W. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Burivalova, Z. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Putz, Francis E. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:55:26Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:55:26Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/578 | |
| dc.title | Carbon and Biodiversity Impacts of Intensive Versus Extensive Tropical Forestry. | en |
| dcterms.abstract | How should we meet the demand for wood while minimizing climate and biodiversity impacts? We address this question for tropical forest landscapes designated for timber production. We model carbon and biodiversity outcomes for four archetypal timber production systems that all deliver the same volume of timber but vary in their spatial extent and harvest intensity. We include impacts of variable deforestation risk (secure land tenure or not) and alternative harvesting practices (certified reduced?impact logging methods or not).We find that low?intensity selective logging offers both the best and the worst overall outcomes per unit wood produced, depending on whether certified reduced?impact logging methods are used and whether land tenure is secure. Medium?to?high?intensity natural forest harvests and conversion to high?yield plantations generate intermediate outcomes. Deforestation risk had the strongest influence on overall outcomes. In the absence of deforestation, logging impacts were lowest at intermediate and high management intensities. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Griscom, B. W., Goodman, R. C., Burivalova, Z., Putz, F. E., 2018. Carbon and biodiversity impacts of intensive versus extensive tropical forestry. Conservation Letters, Vol.11 No.1 pp.e12362 | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2018 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | CC-BY-4.0 | en |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Tropical | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Forest disturbance, forest degradation | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Deforestation, tree cover loss | |
| fsc.subject | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.subject | Harvesting | |
| fsc.subject | Deforestation | |
| fsc.subject | Carbon stock | |
| fsc.subject | Carbon dioxide emissions | |
| fsc.subject | Tree cover loss | |
| fsc.topic.environmental | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.topic.environmental | Harvesting | |
| fsc.topic.environmental | Carbon | |
| fsc.topic.environmental | Animal biodiversity | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Public funds (government, EU funding, public research grants) | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | Yes | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Independent researcher data | |
| is.evaluation.findings | FSC-certified forestry had substantial positive effect on relative species loss for amphibians, invertebrates and mammals compared to conventional forestry, due to both only direct logging impact and cumulated effects of logging impact and deforestation, but only at low intensity logging. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Relative species loss as a result of both direct logging impact and associated deforestation was lowest for low-intensity FSC-certified forestry under secure land tenure, while highest for low intensity conventional forestry under insecure land tenure. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Cumulated carbon emissions due to direct logging impact and deforestation were lower for FSC-certified forestry compared to conventional forestry. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Carbon emissions due only to direct logging impact were lowest for FSC-certified forestry as compared to conventional forestry when logging intensity was low (approximately three times lower). | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Differences in carbon emissions due only to direct logging impact were minimal between FSC-certified forestry as compared to conventional forestry when logging intensity was medium to intense and with subsequent conversion to intensive timber plantations. | |
| is.evaluation.notes | Other interesting findings are presented in the paper | |
| is.evaluation.outcome | yes | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "We find that low-intensity certified RIL offers the best overall conservation outcomes per unit of wood produced"' | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "Our findings are clearest for climate outcomes, and are driven by the potential for forest managers with secure land tenure to resist deforestation where they have a commercial interest in future timber harvests." | |
| is.evaluation.scope | Model of biodiversity and carbon outcomes of forest management varying in terms of harvest intensity, land tenure security, and presence or absence of RIL (considered as a proxy for FSC certification). | |
| is.evaluation.significance | Statistically significant | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Modeling study - future scenario or potential effects | |
| is.evidenceType | Modeling study | |
| is.focus.products | Timber products | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 13 - Climate Action | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 15 - Life on Land | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Landscape approaches | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Carbon sequestration | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Deforestation and forest protection | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12362 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international827 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Conservation Letters |