UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN

Improving Tree Selection for Felling and Retention in Natural Forest in

Amazonia Through Spatial Control and Targeted Seed Tree Retention: A
Case Study of a Forest Management Project in Amazonas State, Brazil

Joberto Veloso de Freitas

 UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN

Improving Tree Selection for Felling and Retention in Natural Forest in

Amazonia Through Spatial Control and Targeted Seed Tree Retention: A
Case Study of a Forest Management Project in Amazonas State, Brazil

by
Joberto Veloso de Freitas

B.S. in Forest Engineer, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

M.Sc. in Forest Management, INPA, Manaus, Brazil

Supervisor:
Dr. Michelle A. Pinard

A thesis submitted to the University of Aberdeen

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Biological Sciences

Department of Agriculture and Forestry
University of Aberdeen
January 2004
 Declaration

I hereby declare that myself have performed the work presented in this thesis in the Department of
Agriculture and Forestry, University of Aberdeen, and that it has not been presented in any
previous application for a degree. All verbatum extracts have been distinguished by quotation
marks and all sources of information specifically acknowledged by reference to the authors.

Joberto Veloso de Freitas

 This Thesis is dedicated to my family,
Érica, Cristina and Daniel Yoshida de Freitas.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to many people and institutions for their support and
contributions to this study.
I am grateful to Dr. Michelle A. Pinard, my supervisor, for her help in each stage of my
PhD, friendship, patience to correct and raise questions to help me to develop my ideas, and also
for introducing and guiding me to the interfaces between tropical ecology and forest management.
I thank Valmir Oliveira, Gil Vieira, Afonso Figueiredo Filho, Paulo Contente de Barros,
José Natalino Silva and Luiz Carlos Joels, for their help and encouragement to come to the United
Kingdom. I also wish to thank A.C. Hummel, for his constant incentive and friendship.
Thanks are due to Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Dr. Hidembergue Ordozgoith da
Frota (Rector) and Dr. José Ferreira da Silva, for their support in all moments. Capes for the
scholarship, the University expenses, and support in one field trip. I thank Vanda Lucena, who
gave me good support during this study. University of Aberdeen, Duncan Rice and The Small
Grants Fund contributed to my 3th field trip to Brazil.
I am grateful to Gethal Amazonas S.A. for the opportunity and support to work at
Democracia Project. I am in debt to Marcos Oliveira and Carlos Guerreiro; Fernando Lüdke,
Ricardo Lüdke, João Ruy Ferreira, R. Maia and Joel Santos. Special thanks to Rosiney Silva, and all
forest technicians and workers, who helped me every day during the data collection in Manicoré.
This study would not have been possible without the support of Projeto Democracia
UFAM/Gethal/ProManejo. I am grateful to Sérgio Gonçalves, who shared with me the concept
and work of Democracia/ProManejo project since the beginning. I also thank Nabor Pio, Elisangela
Mota and Ulisses Cunha for their support.
I am in debt to many people who contributed significantly to the collection of data used in
this thesis: Jhansen, Jardel, Julimara, Elaine, Nory, Fernanda, Marlíbia, Edvaldo, Marlene, José
França, Clívia and Marcello. Special thanks goes to Gleison Viana, Joyson and Afonso, for their
support and friendship. Dionizio Coelho, Getúlio Pinheiro, Pedro Marinho de Carvalho, Jonas
Pereira, Sheila and Vera for their support in species identification. Dr. Rogério Gribel and Cyd
Ferreira for permission to work in INPA’s Herbarium. Isolde Ferraz , Manuel Limar Jr. and Celso
Azevedo for providing information and contributions, and Professor Michael S. Phillip for his
comments in the early stages of this study.
To the many friends I made in Aberdeen, Marcus Vinício (the first), Mahmud Sudin, Fabio
Chinaglia, Jorge and Rose Medero, Tony Greig, Guilherme Chaves and Carol Tobias. I thank
Ricardo Braun (MacRic) and Roberta Daudt for their friendship and support. My colleagues of
PhD, Didier, Kwame Adam, Kamal Sood, Georgious, Darren, Alex Malouis, Nelle, Andrew
Livingstone, Ernest Folli, Tadesse, Jamilah, Exildah and Gustavo Romero.

i
 I wish to thank Juciney, Elissa, Valéria Yoshida, and Silvia Freitas, who came to Aberdeen
to stay with my family during my field trips to Brazil, and also Sr. Antonio e D. Yolanda Therezo
for their hospitality. A very special thanks to my sister Joseliza (Jô), who took over all my problems
in Brazil, allowing me to concentrate on this study. I am extremely grateful to my parents, José and
Elizabeth, who always prized for our education.
The Very Special thanks goes to Érica, my wife, for her love and support in all moments,
and to my kids Cristina and Daniel, for their sweetness and happiness. They were with me in each
minute of this journey, and I always tried harder to finish it and make them happier. We had a
great time in Scotland!
Thanks to God.

ii
 IMPROVING TREE SELECTION FOR FELLING AND RETENTION IN NATURAL FOREST IN
AMAZONIA THROUGH SPATIAL CONTROL AND TARGETED SEED TREE RETENTION: A CASE
STUDY OF A FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT IN AMAZONAS STATE, BRAZIL

By
Joberto Veloso de Freitas
January 2004

SUMMARY

In the Brazilian Amazon, forest management for timber production is a land use option for the
conservation of the ecological values of tropical rain forests outside protected areas. An important
aspect of forest management is the promotion of natural regeneration of commercial timber
species. To explore the potential of tree selection processes that consider species requirements for
regeneration, I developed an approach to select trees to be retained as seed trees and to be felled
alternate to the current system. The study was conducted in Democracia Project, a forest
management operation owned by Gethal Amazonas Indústria de Compensados S.A. The project is
located in Manicoré, Amazonas State, Brazil and it holds a certificate for sustainable practice by
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). Fifty-five commercial species were characterised for attributes
relevant to tree selection: shade tolerance, abundance patterns, reproductive biology, spatial
distribution and vulnerability to hollowness. The alternative approach developed to retain seed
trees consisted in retaining 10-30% of trees greater than the minimum felling diameter (MFD) per
species at a scale of 100 ha blocks. Species MFDs were established based on the species’ maximum
attainable DBH; the percentage of the population to be retained was calculated based on each
species status regarding to seven attributes. The Enterprise’s approach (conventional) consisted of
10% retention (trees ≥ 45 cm DBH at the scale of annual harvest compartment (>1000 ha)). I
compared the % retention per species of conventional and alternative approaches in six blocks of
100 ha. The two methods selected a similar proportion of harvestable trees as seed trees (17%), yet
the alternative approach retained relatively more seed trees for species with more limitations for
regeneration, like rare, dioecious and wind dispersed non pioneer light demanding species. In the
study area, shade bearing species were responsible for 87% of commercial species group basal area,
suggesting that gap reduction and damage control on advanced regeneration should be the main
silvicultural strategy during the logging. The alternative approach to select trees for felling
included a harvest map designed to facilitate the protection of seed trees and potential crop trees,
as well as to facilitate the selection of the largest harvestable trees. A field rule was introduced to

iii
control the spatial variation in harvest intensity at the local scale (units of 2500 m2), aiming to
reduce large canopy openings. To quantify the impacts of conventional and alternative approaches
of tree selection for felling, I compared both residual stand conditions and timber production in 16
experimental plots of 6.25 ha. Although a maximum harvest intensity of 12 trees ha-1 was possible
according the current management plan, the conventional approach harvest intensity was on
average 10.1 trees ha-1 and the alternative, 4.4 trees ha-1. The area in logging gaps was reduced
from 28% to 15% with the introduction of the alternative approach, and well as post logging
canopy openness was reduced from 16% to 10%. In a similar way, the alternative approach was
able to reduce the impacts at ground level, from 52% to 32% and to reduce the damage on potential
crop trees (PCT) from 13% to 6%. The residual stock of trees in good condition to be harvested at
the end of this cycle was twice (15 trees ha-1) that of the conventional (8 trees ha-1) method. Timber
production from the conventional approach was on average 45.5 m3 ha-1 and from the alternative
was 24.4 m3 ha-1. However, because the alternative approach included criteria to select the ‘best’
trees, the proportion (of volume) of high valued species increased from 57.5% to 72.7% and the
volume per felled tree from 4.3 m3 to 5.5 m3, suggesting that for a given harvest intensity (trees ha-
1) the alternative approach can produce more timber. This study suggests that a compromise
between timber production and impact reduction is required to achieve sustainable forest
management. The introduction of tree selection approaches that consider species ecological
characteristics is recommended to Amazon region, as an improvement upon the reduced impact
logging guidelines and as requirement for successful forest regeneration.

iv
 RESUMO

O manejo florestal para a produção de madeira é uma opção de uso da terra que contribui para a
conservação das florestas tropicais em áreas que não são protegidas por lei. Um importante aspecto
do manejo florestal é a promoção da regeneração natural das espécies de valor comercial. Este
estudo teve como objetivo principal desenvolver um procedimento alternativo para a seleção de
árvores para o abate e retenção como porta-sementes, considerando as condições necessárias para a
regeneração natural de cada espécie. O estudo foi conduzido no Projeto Democracia, um projeto
de manejo florestal pertencente à Gethal Indústria de Madeiras Compensadas S.A. e certificado
pelo FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). O projeto se localiza em Manicoré, no Estado do
Amazonas, Brasil. Cinquenta e cinco espécies comerciais foram caracterizadas com relação a
atributos considerados relevantes para melhorar a seleção de árvores, incluindo a tolerância à
sombra, o padrão de abundância, aspectos da biologia reprodutiva, a distribuição espacial e a
vulnerabilitade à ocorrência de árvores ôcas. O procedimento alternativo que foi desenvolvido
para a retenção de árvores porta-sementes consistiu da seleção de 10 a 30% das árvores acima do
diâmetro mínimo de corte (DMC) em blocos de 100 ha. O DMC de cada espécie foi estabelecido
com base no máximo diâmetro (DAP) que a espécie atinge na área de estudo, e o número de
árvores porta-sementes de cada espécie foi calculado com base em atributos ecológicos ou
silviculturais. O procedimento convencional utilizado pela empresa consistia em selecionar um
mínimo 10% das árvores acima de 45 cm de DAP, considerando a área total do compartimento a
ser explorado (acima de 1000 ha). Comparou-se os procedimentos convencional e alternativo em
seis blocos de 100 ha cada, e os resultados mostraram que apesar dos procedimentos terem
selecionado como porta-sementes aproximadamente a mesma proporção de árvores (17%), o
procedimento alternativo foi consistente em reter proporcionalmente mais árvores porta-sementes
para espécies com mais limitações quanto à regeneração natural, como por exemplo espécies raras,
dióicas ou espécies que demandam luz e tem sementes dispersas pelo vento. Na área de estudo,
espécies tolerantes à sombra são responsáveis por 87% da área basal do grupo das espécies
comerciais, indicando que uma estratégia de condução silvicultural adequada para ser seguida
durante a exploração, seria a redução de clareiras e dos danos sobre a regeneração avançada. O
procedimento alternativo que foi desenvolvido para a seleção de árvores para o abate consistiu
basicamente da elaboração de um mapa de exploração para facilitar a proteção de árvores porta-
sementes e árvores de futuro (árvores de espécies comerciais que poderão ser exploradas na
próxima safra), e de algumas regras para controlar a variação da intensidade de corte em escala
local (unidades de 2500 m2), afim de evitar grandes aberturas no dossel. Os dois procedimentos de
seleção de árvores para o abate foram comparados quanto aos impactos sobre a floresta residual e à
produção de madeira, em 16 parcelas experimentais de 6.25 ha. Apesar de que uma intensidade

v
máxima de corte de 12 árvores ha-1 estava estabelecida como referência para os dois procedimentos
em função do atual Plano de Manejo da Empresa, a intensidade média de corte pelo procedimento
convencional foi de 10.1 árvores ha-1 e de 4.4 árvores ha-1 pelo alternativo. Os resultados revelaram
que a proporção de área com clareiras identificadas como tendo sido causadas pela exploração
florestal foi reduzida de 28% para 15% devido à introdução do procedimento alternativo, assim
como a disponibilidade de luz (abertura do dossel) foi reduzida de 16% para 10%. O procedimento
alternativo também resultou na redução dos impactos ao nível do solo, com uma redução de 52%
para 32% de áreas com qualquer tipo de distúrbio causado pela extração florestal, e na redução dos
danos sobre as árvores de futuro, de 13% para 6%. Após a exploração, o estoque residual de
árvores em boas condições para serem colhidas na próxima safra de madeira era quase o dobro nas
parcelas do procedimento alternativo (15 árvores ha-1), em comparação às parcelas do
procedimento convencional (8 árvores ha-1), considerando as 40 principais espécies comerciais do
projeto. A produção de madeira comercial pelo procedimento convencional foi maior (45.5 m3 ha-1)
do que pelo método alternativo (24.4 m3 ha-1). Entretanto, uma vez o procedimento alternativo
incluía critérios para a seleção das ‘melhores’ árvores, a proporção do volume de madeira de
espécies de alto valor comercial foi aumentada de 57.5% para 72.7%, e o volume médio por árvore
abatida aumentou de 4.3 m3 para 5.5 m3, sugerindo que para uma mesma intensidade de
exploração (árvores ha-1) o procedimento alternativo é capaz de produzir maior quantidade de
madeira. Este estudo sugere que é necessário haver um balanço entre a produção de madeira e a
redução dos impactos, para que o manejo florestal seja sustentável. A introdução de critérios de
seleção de árvores que considerem as características das espécies é recomendada para a Amazônia,
não apenas como forma de melhorar os sistemas de exploração de impacto reduzido mas como um
pré-requisito para a regeneração da floresta.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................... I

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. III

RESUMO ........................................................................................................................................................ V

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................VII

LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................................IX

LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................XI

LIST OF BOXES ........................................................................................................................................XIII

CHAPTER 1 - TREE SELECTION IN NATURAL FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE TROPICS

........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 - AIM, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THIS THESIS ....................................................................................... 2
1.3 - THE POTENTIAL IMPORTANCE OF TREE SELECTION FOR NATURAL TROPICAL FOREST MANAGEMENT
....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Yield regulation....................................................................................................................................... 3
Silviculture ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Harvesting................................................................................................................................................ 5
Biodiversity conservation ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 - DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 - STUDY SITE: DEMOCRACIA PROJECT AND THE FORESTRY
ENVIRONMENT IN THE AMAZON REGION.................................................................................... 11
2.1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 - BACKGROUND: FORESTRY AND TIMBER PRODUCTION IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON ....................... 12
Historical background.......................................................................................................................... 12
Recent advances .................................................................................................................................... 13
Trends..................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3 - DEMOCRACIA PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... 17
Site study Description .......................................................................................................................... 17
Democracia Project Forest Management System.............................................................................. 20
2.4 - DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 3 - CHARACTERISATION OF TIMBER SPECIES FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT
IN A “'TERRA-FIRME'” FOREST IN AMAZONAS, BRAZIL ........................................................... 23
3.1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 - SPECIES CHARACTERISATION AS A TOOL FOR TROPICAL FOREST MANAGEMENT .............................. 24
3.3 - METHODS ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Species occurrence in study area ........................................................................................................ 28
Species attributes for characterisation................................................................................................ 29
Species groups and priorities .............................................................................................................. 34
Data analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 36
Framework for main silvicultural strategies identification............................................................. 37
3.4 - RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 38
Forest structure and composition ....................................................................................................... 38
General characterisation ...................................................................................................................... 39

vii
 Correlations among variables ............................................................................................................. 49
3.5 - DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................... 51
Commercial species characterisation ................................................................................................. 52
Implication of species characterization for the silvicultural system .............................................. 56
Reliability of the analysis ..................................................................................................................... 60
3.6 - CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 4 - DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS FOR TREE SELECTION IN
DEMOCRACIA PROJECT......................................................................................................................... 62
4.1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 62
4.2 - TREE SELECTION PROCESSES IN TROPICAL FOREST MANAGEMENT .................................................... 63
4.3 - METHODS ............................................................................................................................................ 68
Pre-Harvest forest inventory ............................................................................................................... 68
The Conventional process for tree selection...................................................................................... 69
The Alternative process for tree selection.......................................................................................... 70
Experimental design and statistical analysis..................................................................................... 78
4.4 - RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 81
Changes in the Minimum Felling Diameters .................................................................................... 82
Tree selection for seed tree retention.................................................................................................. 83
Impact of seed tree retention on forest production .......................................................................... 94
4.5 - DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................... 95
Tree selection for retention .................................................................................................................. 95
Tree selection for felling..................................................................................................................... 103
Bases, assumptions and constraints for the alternative tree selection process ........................... 104
4.6 - CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 106
CHAPTER 5 - IMPACTS OF TREE SELECTION ON RESIDUAL FOREST AND TIMBER
PRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 107
5.1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 107
5.2 - A GENERAL VIEW ON IMPACTS CAUSED BY LOGGING ...................................................................... 108
5.3 - METHODS .......................................................................................................................................... 111
Experimental design........................................................................................................................... 111
Pre-logging measurements ................................................................................................................ 114
Harvest methods ................................................................................................................................. 114
Impacts on forest stand conditions................................................................................................... 115
Impacts on harvest activities and timber production .................................................................... 119
Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................................... 121
5.4 - RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 122
General view before logging ............................................................................................................. 122
General view of logging activities .................................................................................................... 123
Impacts on forest stand conditions................................................................................................... 124
Impacts on forest production ............................................................................................................ 131
Harvesting intensity and its spatial variation ................................................................................. 133
5.5 - DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 136
Harvest intensity ................................................................................................................................. 137
Impacts on forest conditions ............................................................................................................. 138
Impacts on timber production........................................................................................................... 142
General considerations about the two tree selection methods ..................................................... 143
5.6 - CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 145
CHAPTER 6 - SYNTHESIS, GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.......................... 146
6.1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 146
6.2 - SYNTHESIS ......................................................................................................................................... 147
Species characterisation ..................................................................................................................... 147
The alternative approach for tree selection ..................................................................................... 147
Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 149

viii
 6.3 - GENERAL DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 152
Silviculture ........................................................................................................................................... 152
Harvesting............................................................................................................................................ 154
Yield regulation................................................................................................................................... 155
Biodiversity Conservation ................................................................................................................. 155
Tree selection to improve forest management in Amazon: opportunities and constraints...... 156
6.4 - CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 159
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................. 161

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................. 181
Appendix 1: Commercial species attributes.................................................................................... 181
Appendix 2: Commercial species & characteristics for forest management............................... 183
Appendix 3: Harvest maps used for tree selection......................................................................... 184
Appendix 4: Results of logging activities presented per plot ....................................................... 188

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Number of commercial timber species in different countries. .................................................................24

Table 3.2: Abundance scores according commercial species abundance for DBH classes. ....................................31
Table 3.3: Criteria used to characterise constraints to harvest in relation to the period of fruit production. ......33
Table 3.4: Commercial species classification in groups and priorities. A lower score has higher priority. .........34
Table 3.5: Species characteristics and the scores used to determine the associations among variables for the 39
species for which complete data were available. ......................................................................................36
Table 3.6: Number of commercial species according uses and priorities (commercial value). From a total of 72
commercial species in 2001, 55 species were included in this study, representing 76.4%. ..................39
Table 3.7: Summary data for tree species in Democracia. Basal area percentages are of total basal area DBH≥5
cm (all species). Fifty-five species were considered in the species characterisation.............................40
Table 3.8: Fruit production of commercial species, expressed as frequency and its temporal relation to the
harvest season................................................................................................................................................45
Table 3.9: Characteristics of tree species in Democracia Project. Species are listed by family. Basal area is for
trees ≥ 5 cm DBH. See table footnote for definitions of scores used for the various attributes...........46
Table 3.10: Kendall-s correlation coefficients (tau-b) between pairs of species characteristics. The 39 species
characterised for all attributes were included in the analysis. Asterisks indicate a statistically
significant correlation between the corresponding variables in columns and rows, (*): p<0.05) and
(**): p<0.01. Scores and thresholds for each attribute were presented in Table 3.5. .............................50
Table 4.1: Stem quality classification and scores used to assess trees during 100% pre-harvest inventory.........70
Table 4.2: Attributes and proportions used to define number of seed trees to be retained. .................................73
Table 4.3: Summary of the characteristics for the two treatments, conventional and alternative tree selection
processes.........................................................................................................................................................78
Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics for six 100 ha stands (blocks) within the annual compartment (600 ha). Values
in brackets for average column are confidence intervals (α=0.05; N=6). Commercial species are only
those 37 considered in analysis for seed tree retention. Ecological group percentages are based only
on the 37 commercial species (100%)..........................................................................................................81
Table 4.5: Minimum Felling Diameter impacts on species harvested for veneer and sawn timber. Number of
species according to the magnitude of increase, decrease or unchanged MFD. ..................................82
Table 4.6: Comparisons between conventional and alternative process to seed tree retention for a general view
of the treatments performance. Results are presented for 37 commercial for which data were
available, and for the 22 species sharing the same minimum felling diameter (MFD) within
different tree selection process. ...................................................................................................................84
Table 4.7: Comparisons between conventional and alternative processes of seed tree retention in six 100 ha
blocks. Results are for species groups, presented for 37 species and for the 22 species sharing the
same minimum felling diameter (MFD) . t statistics with probability values correspond to paired t
tests testing null hypothesis of no difference between treatments. ........................................................86
Table 4.8: Percentage of seed tree retention per species and species silvicultural characteristics for two tree
selection process (Conventional and Alternative). The results are for 23 species, selected from
blocks where the total number of potential seed trees was at least 9. The species were sorted by
ecological attributes (recruitment, ecological groups, abundance pattern). The values in brackets are

ix
 standard deviation for the number of blocks (N of blocks). The values for NPST correspond to all
(N) blocks. ......................................................................................................................................................89
Table 4.9: Density of trees after tree selection for retention for six commercial species, excluding harvestable
trees, for Conventional (Conv) and Alternative (Alt) processes, for 4 potential minimum size of
fruiting trees. Species are grouped by maximum attainable DBH classes. T-test comparisons are
between the tree selection methods (After) ...............................................................................................92
Table 4.10: Comparisons between conventional and alternative process to seed tree retention for a general
view of the treatments performance. Results are presented for 37 species and for the 22 species
sharing the same minimum felling diameter (MFD) within different tree selection process.
Confidence interval (α=0.05) is presented are presented in brackets.....................................................94
Table 5.1: Impact of conventional logging, averages by continents. (Adapted from Sist, 2000)..........................108
Table 5.2: Description of the events recorded to evaluate canopy disturbances on transects. ............................115
Table 5.3: Description of the ground events recorded from transects within 15 experimental plots after logging
to evaluate harvest impacts on the forest floor level. .............................................................................116
Table 5.4: Codes used to assess incidental damage to trees caused by logging activities. ..................................117
Table 5.5: Summary of stand structure and density prior to logging in sixteen experimental plots (6.25 ha) for
the two tree selection treatments, conventional and alternative, in Compartment 7 – Project
Democracia. Harvestable trees are DBH ≥ MFD accordingly to the method and stem quality 1(Very
good) or 2 (Good). Potential Crop Tree (PCT) are commercial species tree DBH<MFD and stem
quality 1 or 2. ...............................................................................................................................................122
Table 5.6: Summary of harvesting results in 16 plots submitted to two tree selection processes in Democracia
Project. Results are presented for the average and confidence interval (α=0.05), for number of trees,
basal area and volume of harvested trees. ...............................................................................................123
Table 5.7: Ground disturbance due to logging activities in 15 plots subjected to one of two tree selection
methods. Values are in % of sampled area, with respective standard deviation. Undisturbed refers
to an understorey completely free of disturbance caused by logging; Disturbed refers to areas
where the understorey was disturbed by for events like machine manoeuvring, or felled crowns
and boles; Skid trail refers to the area occupied by, including the disturbed edge. Skid paths differs
from skid trails because are used to extract logging from several operational maps up to landing
areas nearby primary or secondary roads................................................................................................127
Table 5.8: Residual stock of potential crop trees in good conditions, for different tree selection methods
(Conventional and Alternative), assessed from trees in the central area (150 x 150 m) of the main
experimental plots. Good conditions refers to trees undamaged or lightly damaged. Only the main
40 commercial species were included in the analysis.............................................................................129
Table 5.9: Indicators of impact on timber production by different tree selection methods. Time presented in
hours (decimal)............................................................................................................................................131
Table 5.10: Harvest intensity calculated at different scales for two tree selection methods. Values for global
scale are the mean of 8 main plots (6.25 ha) per treatment. Operational scale is the range of harvest
intensity within plots in each treatment and control scale correspond to the scale at which trees are
selected in field, i.e., small areas of 50x50 m (quadrats). Volume for harvest intensities at control
scale were derived from average volume per tree in each treatment...................................................133
Table 5.11: Summary of possible reasons for variations in harvest intensity in each tree selection method.....143
Table 6.1: Commercial species attributes for reference. Local Code: 4 letters local code based on common
name; Use: Veneer (and plywood) production in Enterprise’s factory and Sawn timber for selling or
change in the local market; Max DBH: Species maximum attainable DBH (cm); MFD: Minimum
Felling Diameter (cm) - Con: Conventional (Enterprise’s) and Alt (Alternative) tree selection
method; Morisita Index: Calculated for spatial distribution characterisation (** F is significant at
α=0.01; and * at α=0.05; ns is non significant for departure from randoness); Diam Dist: Diameter
distribution shape: Type I (j-inverted); Type II (irregular distribution) and; Type III (small trees in
absence); Density group (Timber density): Slow (<0.5 g cm-3); medium (0.5-0.7 g cm-3); Heavy (≥0.7
g cm-3); Growth pattern (Periodic Annual Increment): Slow (<0.3 cm y-1) ; Medium (0.3-0.5 cm y-1);
Fast (1.0 cm y-1); N/a: Not available. .......................................................................................................181
Table 6.2: Commercial species according to recruitment adequacy, ecological groups and regeneration
priorities. Recruitment adequacy refers to occurrence of species in the smallest DBH class (5<15
cm); Ecological groups: Shade Bearer (can establish and survive in forest shade); NPLD - Non
Pioneer Light Demanding (can be found in shaded (gap free forest), but illumination is need for
further development); Pioneers (only establish in open sites and canopy gaps). Regeneration
Priorities: 1 (species with high priority to be promoted); 2 (species with intermediary priority to be
promoted); 3 (species for which no additional incentive should be given to their regeneration after
logging). Scores for abundance are presented as a combination of intermediate and common classes
to facilitate interpretation, and only for trees DBH 15-45 cm DBH. .....................................................183
Table 6.3: Harvest map characteristics, for Conventional and Alternative tree selection approaches. ..............184

x
Table 6.4: Stand structure and density prior to logging in sixteen 6.25 ha plots within Conventional and
Alternative methods for tree selection for felling in Compartment 7 – Project Democracia. Basal
area classes area 1) < 19.5 m2ha-1; 2) ≥ 19.5 m2ha-1. Harvestable trees are DBH ≥ MFD accordingly
to the method and stem quality 1(Very good) or 2 (Good). Potential Crop Tree (PCT) are
commercial species tree DBH<MFD and stem quality 1 or 2. ...............................................................188
Table 6.5: Harvest intensity expressed as number of trees, basal area and volume per hectare in 16 plots
submitted to two tree selection processes in Democracia......................................................................189

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Map of the Brazilian Amazon Region (top), and map of the Democracia Project area. The project
has a total area of 40,862 ha, divided in three modules: Democracia, Atininga and Matuará . In each
module a protected forest area is delimited corresponding to 5% of the total area. The total
managed area is 32,495 ha. Manicoré is the nearest city. This study was conducted within
Compartment 7 (1,315 ha). ...........................................................................................................................18
Figure 2.2: Mean monthly rainfall with confidence intervals (α=0.05) for the study area, based on 32 years
observation (1970-2002) according to Manicoré Meteorological Station................................................19
Figure 3.1: Size and shape of plots used in the sampling design for species abundance within each
experimental plot (6.25 ha). In total, 16 experimental plots were sampled. ..........................................29
Figure 3.2 Selected diameter distribution patterns used to support ecological groups delimitation, exemplified
with species presented parenthetically. Type I: Inverted J, shade bearers (Eperua oleifera); Type II:
Irregular, non -pioneer light demanders (NPLD) (Andira spp.); Type III, pioneers (Jacaranda copaia).
.........................................................................................................................................................................30
Figure 3.3: Diameter distribution expressed as the number of trees per ha in Compartment 7 of Democracia,
based on 16 plots (250x250 m). ....................................................................................................................38
Figure 3.4: Forest composition showing the six most important families as percentage of total basal area total
abundance (≥5 cm DBH trees). ....................................................................................................................39
Figure 3.5: Dendrograms for cluster analysis on microsite variables crown illumination index and forest phase
for trees DBH<5 cm (top), trees DBH 5-10 cm (middle) and trees 10-35 cm DBH (bottom). Species
codes: ANAN (Symphonia globulifera); ANVE (Andira spp.); AQUA (Minquartia guianensis); ARBR (Leg.
Mimosaceae); ARVE (Iryanthera lancifolia); BRBR (Protium heptaphyllum); BREU (Protium divaricatum); BRSU
(Trattinnickia burserifolia); BRVE (Protium grandifolium); CEHO (Erisma spp); COJA (Eperua oleifera); COMM
(Copaifera multijuga); ENCU (Scleronema micranthum); FAVA (Hymenolobium sp.); GARR (Brosimum potabile);
GUAR (Clarisia racemosa); ITAU (Mezilaurus itauba); JUPO (Hymenaea sp); LOAM (Ocotea sp1); LOUR (Ocotea
sp2); MARU (Simarouba amara); MUIP (Brosimum rubescens); MUIR (Astronium le-cointei); MURE (Brosimum
acutifolium); PAMA (Maquira sclerophylla); PARI (Parkia nitida); ROXI (Peltogyne paniculata); TABR (Cariniana
micrantha); UCUU(Virola sp.). ............................................................................................................................42
Figure 3.6: Spatial pattern for 3 commercial species, for trees ≥35 cm DBH over Compartment 7 area (1,315 ha);
(a) Brosimum parinarioides, IM=2.28 (NS); (b) Manilkara huberi, IM= 4.38 (**) and Eperua oleifera, IM=
2.35 (**). (NS) refers to non significant statistically (α=0.05); (**) refers to significant (α=0.01).........43
Figure 3.7: Abundance patterns for different DBH size classes (Adult, Young and Sapling), in terms of
number of species (a) % of basal area ≥5 cm DBH, and when combining common and intermediate
abundant species (b) for the 55 commercial tree species classified in the study...................................44
Figure 3.8: Structured view of number of commercial species distributed according to recruitment adequacy,
ecological groups and abundance patterns. Some species names are provided as example,
according to regeneration priority. Numbers of species are given for each node. Main silvicultural
strategies are presented in italic. Regeneration priority is presented only for some species, as
example. A complete list is presented in Appendix 2. .............................................................................57
Figure 4.1: Experimental 100 ha (1 km x 1 km) plots (Blocks B, C, F, G, J and K) used to compare seed tree
retention processes within Compartment 7 (1,315 ha) in Democracia Project. The streams and the
respective buffer zones (protected areas) are also presented as illustration. ........................................79
Figure 4.2: The number of species falling into distinct minimum felling diameters (MFD) and identified by
their maximum attainable DBH classes for Conventional (a) and Alternative processes (b). ..........82
Figure 4.3: Percentage of seed tree retention per species and proportion of species with no seed tree selected
(Conventional process), for different classes of number of potential seed trees. Average for all
species in 6 blocks of 100 ha.........................................................................................................................87
Figure 4.4: Stem quality as a tree attribute for seed tree selection. Values for All Trees refer to percentage of
trees per stem quality of the total number of trees as recorded during pre-harvest inventory. Values
for Seed Trees refer to how seed trees were selected within the different tree selection process

xi
 (Conventional and Alternative). Difference in letters within stem quality score represent difference
at α=0.05, identified by paired t-test...........................................................................................................90
Figure 4.5: Average distance between conspecific seed trees, before and after tree selection for retention for
alternative (ALT) and conventional (CON) processes, for different minimum threshold: 35 cm, 45
cm, minimum felling diameter (MFD) and maximum attainable diameter minus 20 cm (MDST20).
Species attaining a maximum DBH of 65 cm: Andira sp. (60cm) and Ocotea sp2 (60 cm); maximum
DBH 65-95 cm: Clarisia racemosa (70 cm) and Simarouba amara (70 cm) – dioecious species, and ;
maximum DBH > 95 cm: Eperua oleifera (100 cm) and Parkia pendula (cm). After logging values are
shown for the threshold MFD (minimum felling dameter).....................................................................93
Figure 5.1: Experimental design for the comparison of two selection methods within Compartment 7 (1,315
ha). Experimental plot dimensions were 250x250m (6.25 ha), numbered (1-16) and the treatment
assigned to each plot as presented in the map legend. Permanent preservation area refers to the
buffer area along side the streams. ...........................................................................................................113
Figure 5.2: Mean proportion of the plot area, ocuppied by gaps caused by logging activities. The proportion
was calculated dividing the transect length recorded as harvest gaps by the total transect length per
plot (6.25 ha).................................................................................................................................................125
Figure 5.3: Gaps caused by logging activities, expressed as percentage of measurements by size class (length
of transect intersected), for conventional tree selection method (CONV; N=8) and alternative (ALT;
N=7). Error bars present as standard error. .............................................................................................125
Figure 5.4 Percentage of canopy openness measurements in per canopy openness class in conventional (Conv)
and alternative (Alt) tree selection process, before (a) and after logging (b). Sample sizes before
logging were N=147 (Con) and N=126 (Alt), and after logging were N=816 (Con) and N=683 (Alt),
.......................................................................................................................................................................126
Figure 5.5: Damage to potential crop trees (PCT) of 40 species for conventional and alternative tree selection
methods, in percentage of stems per ha prior to logging. Potential crop trees are commercial stems
DBH≥35, not selected for harvesting, stem quality 1 or 2 (very good; good). Assessment was made
in the central area (150x150 m) of the main experimental areas. Damage on crown and bole were
combined within categories, moderate, severe and lightly damaged. The area assessed in
conventional treatment was 18 ha (N=8) and in the alternative process was 15.75 ha (N=7)...........128
Figure 5.6: Impacts of logging on seed trees caused for two tree selection methods (Conventional and
Alternative). .................................................................................................................................................129
Figure 5.7: Residual stand structure in areas logged according to two different tree selection methods. Data are
presented as number of stems per hectare (a) and as percentage of the number of stems prior
logging (b). Standard deviations are included to illustrate variation. Before logging data were
collected from 9.6 ha for trees DBH≥35; 2.4 ha for trees 10-35 cm DBH and; 0.48 ha for trees 5-10 cm
DBH, comprising 8 main experimental plots per treatment. After logging, only 7 plots were
measured for the alternative treatment. After logging, trees severely injured and those felled were
excluded. Confidence interval for the average (α=0.05) is presented. ................................................130
Figure 5.8: Correlation between felling intensity (HI) and harvested commercial volume (VOL) for different
tree selection methods. For the conventional (CONV), the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.99
with a regression line VOL=-19.199+HI6.39 (ANOVA F1,6=251.8; p<0.001) and for the alternative
tree selection method the Pearson coefficient was 0.98 with a regression line VOL=-5.794+HI7.044
(ANOVA F1,6=142.1; p<0.001) ....................................................................................................................132
Figure 5.9: Proportion of harvested volume, for different priorities given to commercial species, based on
commercial value and industrial use. Values are average from experimental plot of 6.25 per
treatment (N=8). corresponding to 725 felled trees. Sample standard deviations for Conventional
treat are: ± 23 (Priority 1), ±14 (Priority 2), ±4 (Priority 3), and ±11 (Priority 4); and for the
Alternative method are: ± 20 (Priority 1), ±15 (Priority 2), ±5 (Priority 3), and ±5 (Priority 4);.........132
Figure 5.10: Harvest intensity at local scale, presented as a frequency distribution for the number of trees
felled per Quadrat (units of 50x50 m) (a) and expressed as percentage, for two different tree
selection methods. Values recorded from 200 unit quadrats per treatment (50 ha)...........................134
Figure 5.11: Distance from a felled tree to the next first, second, third, fourth and fifth felled trees, expressed as
percentage of occurrences in distance classes, for conventional (a) and alternative (b) tree selection
methods. The data were recorded from 8 main plots per treatment (6.25 ha each), comprised of 727
felled trees. ...................................................................................................................................................134
Figure 5.12: The average total area in gaps within quadrats (50x50 m), for different number of felled trees
within quadrats (N=44), for conventional (N=30) and alternative tree selection approaches (N=14).
The Pearson Correlation coefficient is is r=0.836 (p<0.01), regardless of treatment...........................135
Figure 5.13: The proportional distribution of gap sizes for different harvest intensities, for (a) conventional
(n=79 gaps) and (b) alternative (n=34) tree selection methods. ............................................................135
Figure 6.1: Harvest map used by the Conventional tree selection approach. The symbols for species code, tree
number, tree location and quadra (50x50 m) are identified within the map.......................................185

xii
Figure 6.2: Harvest map used by the Conventional tree selection approach.........................................................186
Figure 6.3: Felling team Leader using the harvest map for tree selection in the field. .........................................187
Figure 6.4: Selected trees felled by the Conventional tree selection method, felling direction marked as arrows,
and skid roads planned to log extraction.................................................................................................187

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1: Summary of steps for seed tree retention following alternative approach...................................................73
Box 2: Steps to seed tree retention according to the alternative approach, as applied to Hymenolobium nitidum
in Block F. .......................................................................................................................................................74

xiii
 Chapter 1 - TREE SELECTION IN NATURAL FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE

TROPICS

1.1 - Introduction

T
he Earth Summit1 conference held in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1992 was a milestone for
tropical forest conservation, and the agreement on ‘Forest Principles’ in Agenda 21 marked
an important step toward the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types
of forests (Grayson and Maynard, 1997). Since then, a forest is viewed differently than before,
where the concept of sustainable forest management that previously focused on yields of products,
now includes a wide range of economic, social, environmental and cultural benefits at the local,
national and global levels (Söderlund and Pottinger, 2001). Consequently, ecologically sound
forest management for a variety of goods (including timber) and services is of wider interest
(Favrichon and Nguyen-The, 2001) and recognised as potentially one of the most effective way to
assure conservation in large natural forested areas (Poore and Sayer, 1991), adding value to the
protected areas.
Since Rio, numerous initiatives at national, regional and global levels have been launched
to promote sustainable forest management, in particular calls for objective criteria to evaluate the
quality of forest management as whole, and field procedures to improve forestry practices. Criteria
and Indicators (C&I) (ITTO, 1999; Prabhu and others, 1999; Deusdará Filho and Zerbini, 2001; FSC -
Forest Stewardship Council, 2003) are becoming a tool to objectively evaluate forest management.
Within the C&I, the improvement of harvesting practices through the so-called reduced impact
logging guidelines (RIL) (Pinard and others, 1995; Dykstra, 2002) is emphasised.
The emphasis on controlling incidental damage associated with logging is clearly
important for polycyclic management systems (Dawkins and Philip, 1998), however, little attention
is being given to forestry practices that promote the regeneration ability of remaining forest from
an ecological point of view, and according to silvicultural strategies compatible with the local
objectives proposed for the forest management. Although RIL serves as an important tool to reduce
damage and improve efficiency of operations, the employment of such techniques by itself is not
enough to guarantee sustainability in forest management (Putz and others, 2000b; Pinard and
others, 1995; De Graaf, 2000; Hammond and others, 2000; Leslie, 2001; Sist, 2001; Sist and others,
2003a). A more complete silvicultural system is needed to ensure adequate regeneration and stand
development for future harvestings in order to achieve sustainability.

1The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro/Brazil, June 1992 (Rio
92’).

1
 Consideration of the regenerative capacity of managed forests should begin at the first
harvest, with a wise choice of trees retained and felled. In most of the silvicultural systems
proposed in literature and practiced in the tropics, tree selection is predominantly based on
minimum felling diameters (MFD) (Dawkins and Philip, 1998; Lamprecht, 1993), and not
uncommonly a single MFD is applied for all species (Bruenig, 1996). This weakness in the
silvicultural systems has been observed by several authors in the recent years (Sist, 2001; Dupuy
and others, 1999; Wadsworth, 1997; Lamprecht, 1993; Alder, 2000; Putz and others, 2001). The
criteria used to select trees must evolve if they are expected to promote species regeneration and to
contribute to the sustainability of forest management. The development of approaches to tree
selection might consider elements of forest management systems, such as yield regulation, damage
reduction, silvicultural interventions and biodiversity conservation. A discussion of how tree
selection approaches could be related to each of these elements of forest management is presented
in this chapter.

1.2 - Aim, objectives and scope of this thesis

The aim of this thesis is to explore the potential of the tree selection process as a tool to contribute
to more sustainable silvicultural systems, in the context of silvicultural considerations. My interest
is to develop an approach to tree selection for felling and retention for polycylic forest
management systems, that takes into account the species specific characteristics and that could be
integrated into reduced impact guidelines as one component. As a case study, I use Democracia
Project, an operational forest management project, located in Manicoré district, State of Amazonas,
Brazil. The central hypothesis of this study is that the selection of trees for felling and retention
contributes to better residual forest conditions and can be used to promote conditions conducive to
the growth and regeneration of commercial tree species. The thesis contains six chapters.
This first chapter explores the importance of tree selection for forest management,
identifying how tree selection approaches could be used as tool for yield regulation, damage
reduction, silvicultural conduction and biodiversity conservation. The possibilities identified are
discussed in relation to the dominant patterns in the tropical forest management of recent years
and the limits for this study are highlighted.
The study site and its environment are presented in the second chapter. In this chapter, a
view of the current forestry activities for timber production in the Brazilian Amazon is presented,
and the activities included in the Democracia’s silvicultural system are described.
In the third chapter a characterisation of 55 commercial species currently harvested in
Democracia is presented, and the implications of the results for forest management practices are
discussed. The species are characterised based on five ecological attributes in order to identify
appropriate silvicultural interventions to stimulate their regeneration.

2
 The fourth chapter presents an approach to tree selection, developed as an alternative to
the project’s conventional system. The purpose is to include species information to retain seed trees
and to control harvest intensity at local scale to reduce canopy openings. The approach
comprehends, firstly, tree selection for retention as seed trees, and then tree selection for felling. A
comparison of % of retention per species is made between the alternative and the conventional
approach to seed tree retention currently used in Democracia project. The proposed tree selection
procedures for felling are presented, as well as the conventional.
In the fifth chapter, the impacts of logging following the alternative and conventional
approaches to tree selection are compared in a 100 ha experiment implemented in 2001.
Comparisons are made for impacts on residual stand conditions and on timber production in order
to evaluate the feasibility of adopting the new approach.
In the final chapter, I discuss the potential utility of tree selection approaches as a tool to
improve forest management systems in the Amazon region, the basic pre-requisites needed for
adoption and the main obstacles to their implementation, based on the results in previous chapters.

1.3 - The potential importance of tree selection for natural tropical forest management

Yield regulation

Forest regulation determines the what, where, when and how of timber harvesting in the managed
forest (Leuschner, 1984), and is a central concept in sustainable forest management (Alder, 2000). In
tropical moist forests, yield regulation is closely related to the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) or
prescribed yield, and the current conventional methods for their determination tend to rely on one
of two extremes of a spectrum, from extensive data on rates of growth, mortality and recruitment
at one end, or simplistic “rules-of-thumb” methods at the other (Wright, 2000). The allowable cut is
a clear specification of the average quantity of wood that may be harvested from a forest
management unit, usually annually (AAC) and expressed per unit area. There are different
methods of yield regulation, but the control by area is the simplest and it is often used in
extensively managed tropical forest, particularly those under an early phase of management
(Osmaston, 1968; Wright, 2000). A felling cycle is fixed and the forest divided into an equivalent
number of stands (compartments) and one stand is worked in turn each year. The felling cycle is
the planned interval between major felling operations in any given stand (Leuschner, 1984), a term
applied when the forest is managed in a polyclyclic system.
Once the annual allowable cut (AAC) and the felling cycle are defined, it is possible to
identify the stands (where) to be harvested each year (when). Yield regulation will then be
completed by the definition of the number of trees to be felled (what), which is controlled by felling
rules such as minimum size limits for utilisation, species to favour, silvicultural considerations and

3
logging damage control (Wright, 2000; Osmaston, 1968, Pag.171). In a wider context, the felled
trees will be logged according specified harvesting systems, such as RIL (how).
Tree selection is therefore part of yield regulation, because it provides the logic behind
decisions taken by the manager, that are translated into operational practice (felling rules), via
planning, monitoring and control (Alder, 2000). The full contribution of tree selection to yield
regulation occurs, however, when species specific dynamic patterns are used to determine the
minimum (optimum) diameter for felling to achieve sustained yield (e.g. (Alder, 1992; Nebel and
others, 2001; Vanclay, 1989; Sokpon and Biaou, 2002).

Silviculture

Despite the importance of yield regulation for timber production in forest management,
silviculture determines the methods of regeneration of the individual crops constituting the forest
(Matthews, 1989). Silvicultural systems for tropical rain forests are of two major types, monocyclic
and polycyclic. In the former, the entire marketable crop is harvested, and in the later, the harvest
is limited to only a (small) part of the usable crop (Lamprecht, 1993). The choice of the system is
determined by local conditions and management objectives, although the current trend is towards
polycyclic systems (Dawkins and Philip, 1998).
In polycyclic systems, the next crop is derived from the mixture of trees of intermediate
size at the time of the first cutting and several silvicultural treatments may be designed to tend and
promote the regeneration and growth of commercial timber species (Putz and others, 2000b), such
as liana cutting, enrichment planting, thinning for crown liberation and refinements (Vidal and
others, 1997b; Ramos and del Amo, 2003; Hutchinson, 1987; De Graaf and Poels, 1990). However,
timber felling can be regarded as a silvicultural operation in systems based on natural regeneration
(Wyatt-Smith, 1987), as the resultant canopy opening affects tree growth and regeneration (Sheil
and van Heist, 2000).
Light influences tree growth and regeneration to a high degree, and therefore is an
important tool to help silviculturists (Lamprecht, 1993; Swaine, 1996). However, to manipulate
canopy openings is not an easy task to achieve a desired forest because of the great diversity in
tropical moist forest, where a mixture of tree species of different temperaments co-occur and where
each species responds differently to the canopy opening. Furthermore, future species composition
is not only influenced by canopy opening, making the future species composition uncertain rather
than predictable. The challenge is to open the canopy enough to obtain regeneration without also
stimulating prolific growth of unwanted pioneer species, species of weeds and climbers.
Post logging silvicultural treatments may be used to promote growth and regeneration,
ranging from thinning for crown liberation in selected trees up to the so-called forest
domestication, which targets the homogenisation of products according to species and dimensions
and reducing ecosystem diversity in favour of marketable timber species (Lamprecht, 1993

4
Dickinson and others, 1996), throughout periodic refinements, for example (De Graaf, 1986;
Dawkins, 1955).
Although post logging silvicultural treatments are important to accelerate growth of
advanced commercial tree species (Silva and others, 1996; De Graaf and others, 1999), if the future
harvests matter an important silvicultural task is to maintain species ability to reproduce, thus to
guarantee seed supply. Tropical tree species ability to regenerate encompasses tree reproductive
biology, seed production and dispersal, seedling establishment (Guariguata and Pinard, 1998;
Viana, 1990), and together with ecosystem functions and ecological processes, these factors provide
the ecological basis for sustainable forestry (Hartshorn, 1995). Many of these factors remain not
studied for the majority of tropical commercial timber species (Hall, 1996). In addition, it remains a
challenge to present the available ecological information in an accessible and practical form (Sheil
and van Heist, 2000).
Retaining seed trees in harvested stands is one possible way to increase stocks (Putz and
others, 2000b) in the future, and the understanding and application of tree seed ecology can help to
refine management prescriptions (Guariguata and Pinard, 1998) by devising seed tree retention
guidelines. These guidelines could be a tree selection approach to retain seed trees taking into
account available species ecological characteristics and their occurrence in each stand and tree
attributes (size, quality, spatial distribution), and the corresponding field procedures to effectively
retain and protect seed trees could be part of the harvest system.

Harvesting

Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) is a collective term that refers to all technology available to
improve harvesting planning and logging activities (Dykstra, 2002). The main objective of RIL is to
reduce damage to residual vegetation and soil, in comparison with conventional (Conventional
Logging) methods widely practiced in the tropics (Sist, 2000; Pinard and others, 1995), although
improvements in efficiency and cost reduction may also be achieved (Barreto and others, 1998;
Holmes and others, 2002). The term Conventional Logging usually refers to forest harvesting
without planning, adequate equipments and trained teams, most of the time meaning the use of
the forest for short term, aimed solely at short term profits and without significant government
control (Pearce and others, 2003).
Literature documenting the effects of adopting RIL guidelines has grown tremendously in
the last decade (Hammond and others, 2000), and although there is a spectrum of possibilities to
apply these guidelines depending on the combination of site conditions, machinery and equipment
available, management objectives and trained teams; there are some key elements that should

5
desirably be present. As part of a tactical plan2, RIL should comprise the following elements to
achieve the proposed goals: 1) pre-harvesting inventory (100% timber inventory) with details on
the terrain and the harvestable trees; 2) climber cutting to reduce felling damage (where the
occurrence of vines and lianas justify it); 3) planning of secondary roads and landing areas to
optimise and facilitate transportation of timber from the stand; 4) planning of felling through the
establishment and implementation of tree selection criteria, field rules, and directional felling
guidelines; 6) planning of skidding through skid trail marking, opening and winching to reduce
skid trail area; and 7) teams trained in all these activities. These elements were summarized from
published documents (Pinard and others, 1995; Dykstra, 1996; Sist, 2000; Van der Hout, 1999) and
from my personal experience in this study, as important to accomplish the proposed goal of
improvements in harvesting systems, although the level of refinement and detail in each element
influences the results in impact reduction.
Somehow, a tree selection approach is always present in RIL guidelines (or in any logging
method), as the harvest output must meet the expectations at least in terms of tree species,
minimum sizes and stem quality. However, even when all the above elements are present in
harvesting methods, more refined tree selection approaches could contribute further in two ways.
Firstly, the establishment of a maximum harvest intensity (number of trees ha-1) compatible with
forest characteristics and available technology for logging extraction could help set limits to the
range of damage to the residual stand considered acceptable (Sist and others, 1998; Sist and others,
2003a). Despite the fact that harvest intensity should be defined by yield regulation criteria, it is
commonly defined exclusively in the context of harvest planning. Secondly, tree selection could
contribute to better harvesting practices through the provision of field guidelines on how
harvestable trees should be selected in the field, for example regulating harvest intensity at small
scale in order to reduce excessive canopy openings and the associated heterogeneity in the residual
stand. The observance of these field guidelines could lead to a reduction in damage to future
crops, as well as to the conservation of the ecosystem ecological functions as a whole.

Biodiversity conservation

“Biodiversity refers to the natural variety and variability among living organisms, the ecological
complexes in which they naturally occur, and the ways in which they interact with each other and
with the physical environment” (Putz and others, 2001). The role of forests as an important
repository of biological diversity was recognized during the Rio Conference, and expressed
through the Convention on Biological Diversity (Grayson and Maynard, 1997). This convention
was intended to promote conservation of biodiversity through the monitoring of its components

2Technical procedures and planning details for the harvesting operation to be carried out within the annual compartment
(Sist, 2000).

6
(e.g., (Boyle and Sayer, 1995)), and stated that the countries should identify components of
biological diversity important for their conservation and sustainable use, as well as activities
which are likely to have significant adverse effects on such conservation and sustainable use
(Grayson and Maynard, 1997). Although it is largely agreed that parks and protected areas are the
most effective way to protect biodiversity, it is also agreed that the area currently protected is too
small and biodiversity conservation in forests outside protected areas is of almost equal priority
(Putz and others, 2001), such as some tropical forested areas under management for timber
production (Poore and Sayer, 1991).
Biodiversity has various components and aspects, and different kinds and intensities of
human use affect them in different degrees (Redford and Richter, 1999). To facilitate assessment
and monitoring, the measurement of biodiversity must not be complex (Boyle and Sayer, 1995).
Putz and others (2001) used a framework for considering the effects of logging and other
management activities on the various components of biodiversity (landscapes, ecosystems,
communities, species/populations, and genes) and their attributes (structure, composition and
function). They discuss how the wide range of logging intensities, logging methods, collateral
damages and silvicultural approaches may affect biodiversity within managed forests. Using the
components and the potential deleterious impacts of forestry identified by Putz and others (2001)
as reference, and focusing on harvestable tree species, the inclusion of more refined tree selection
approaches at the time of the first harvesting could potentially contribute to biodiversity
conservation at the community, species/population and genetic levels. At community level, tree
selection could reduce negative impacts on species richness by retaining potentially reproductive
individuals of all harvestable species evenly across the whole harvested stand area, proportionally
more seed trees for rare commercial timber species, and by protecting endangered species from
harvesting. Furthermore, by controlling harvest intensity at small scales (<1 ha), tree selection
could reduce fragmentation caused by large gaps and consequently reduce the likelihood of
changes in the relative abundance of species and guilds. At species/population level, tree selection
for retention could avoid depletion of any species by ensuring the retention of individuals of rare
species, as well as protecting potential crop trees from damage during logging and therefore
reducing the premature mortality caused by disease and infections developed from the wounds.
Finally, at the gene level, a potential contribution could be to decrease harvest selection (pressure)
on rare species and only on the best formed individuals, to retain more seed trees for species with
assumed limitations for regeneration (e.g. dioecious species) and to minimize post logging distance
between reproductive conspecifics.

7
1.4 - Discussion

Despite the existence of a conceptual basis for yield regulation in natural tropical forests, the most
popular method used to control yield is the application of minimum felling diameters (MFD)
(Putz and others, 2000b) (and see Dawkins and Philip, 1998; and Poore, 1989). Generally this is
done without consideration of local conditions or species ecological or silvicultural characteristics
(Lamprecht, 1993), and the final choice of felling cycles is often arbitrary, typically in the range of
20-40 years (Vanclay, 1996; Asabere, 1987; Wright, 2000).
Yield regulation can be used as a means to achieve sustained timber yield. In this sense,
one might consider a calculated AAC as a function of felling cycle length, harvest intensity and
forest growth capacity. Yield regulation therefore, depends on growth data and some form of stand
projection (Alder, 2000) such as growth and yield modelling procedures e.g. (Alder, 1995; Vanclay,
1994) to identify the best compromise among its elements, as well as extremes that should be
avoided.
Forest modelling to support timber management in tropical forests have made important
advances in recent years as data on forest dynamics under different management regimes become
available in different countries (Silva and others, 1995; Finegan and Camacho, 1999; Köhler and
others, 2001; Gourlet-Fleury and Houllier, 2000; Higuchi and others, 1997a; De Madron and others,
2000; De Madron, 1998; Van der Hout, 2000a; Alder and others, 2002b; Sist and others, 2003b). Most
models have been developed to explore management scenarios in subsequent felling cycles, and
under different management regimes (Favrichon, 1998; Young and Muetzelfeldt, 1998), to project
species group behaviour over the time (Alder and Silva, 2000) or to support local decision making
(Atyi, 2000). One important contribution is the identification of unsustainable forestry practices
currently in place in some countries, such as a combination of high harvest intensities and short
prescribed felling cycle (e.g. Favrichon and Nguyen-The, 2001 and van Gardingen and others,
2003).
Although results from modelling contribute to our understanding of forest responses to
interventions, few examples exist where the lessons learned have been translated into field rules
for application, e.g. in Queensland forests years ago (Poore, 1989). Some simple tools for yield
regulation have been developed for tropical moist forests where neither growth data or modelling
expertise are available. For example, Alder and others (2002a) developed a modular software tool
in Microsoft Excel® (MYRLIN), where the inputs include the stand stock from static forest
inventory and simple assumptions about growth and mortality rates for species, which can be
derived from species characteristic such ecological guild and wood properties (Alder and others,
2002b). The output of MYRLIN is a harvesting model including areas and their volumes to be
harvest each year, a summary of stand table of volumes felled per years (AAC) and a graph

8
showing harvests and stand volumes per year over time. The manager, however, can define his or
her appropriate harvesting model by entering his combination for felling cycle, diameter limits
(MFD) per species, the harvest intensity and the expectation for logging damage.
One weakness of many of the forest modelling and yield regulation tools is that all
consider, at some stage, tree sizes to determine or evaluate yield regulation regimes, and the
majority focus on the total yield per unit area, rather than the sustainability at species level. Few
efforts have been made to determine the optimum MFD per species based on increment and
mortality rates (e.g. Alder, 1992; Nebel and others, 2001) which is needed to make necessary
fundamental change to current forestry practices. This information would make tree selection
processes more integrated with yield regulation methods and is required to improve current
predominant practices, of application of arbitrary minimum diameter felling systems.
MFD-based systems still persist as the most common method for controlling timber
harvest in tropical forests (Putz and others, 2001). It is widely accepted that MFD is a tree selection
method easy to implement and control (Dawkins and Philip, 1998), but it is also increasingly
accepted that as the single measure of control it is not a sufficient criterion for regulating the yield
in a selection forest (Alder, 2000), or for reducing logging damage (Sist, 2001), and that MFD can
only contribute if integrated as part of a wider silvicultural system (Lamprecht, 1993 pag. 760).
When MFD is set regardless of species characteristics, it could interrupt regeneration processes
because usually the largest and reproductive trees are targeted during logging practices. The
establishment of MFD should be a silvicultural decision by considering the species reproductive
sizes and retaining trees above this thresholds. In this respect, one justification to maintain MFD
systems could be that, for most species, the minimum reproductive size is completely unknown
(which is true) or that smaller trees also produce fruits (Appanah and Mohd, 1991). However,
available information also shows that large trees can be the best producers of fruits (Plumptre,
1995; Agyeman and others, 1999). Concerns about seed tree retention guidelines are increasing as a
relevant improvement in natural tropical forest management (Guariguata and Pinard, 1998;
Fredericksen and others, 2001; Adam and others, 2002; Adam, 2003; Sist and others, 2003a), as a
necessary complement to the role of RIL in reducing impacts to the residual stand.
The negative impacts of logging activities have attracted attention of tropical forest
managers since the 1950's when the use of heavy machinery became widespread and post logging
assessment showed that as much as 50% of residual trees could be damaged (Nicholson, 1958;
Wyatt-Smith and Foenander, 1962). The development of technologies and methods for timber
harvesting is well developed for temperate forests (e.g. Conway, 1982) and successful adaptations
to tropical forests can be achieved (e.g. FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 1974; SUDAM - Superintendência de Desenvolvimento da Amazônia, 1978; Hendrison,
1990). However, it was not before the early 1990’s that RIL started to appear in forestry literature
(Dykstra, 2001), giving new importance to logging practices in tropical forests not only because the

9
methods per se, but also because it had a legitimacy to general public and environmentalists in a
time when environmental conservation was becoming a public concern. RIL guidelines were tested
in different countries, showing that damage reduction can be up to 50% in comparison with
conventional logging practices (Sist, 2000). However, like the yield regulation methods, for various
reasons, poor logging practices still are predominant in the tropics (Putz and others, 2000a).
Nevertheless, RIL adoption is increasing, for example, amongst those Enterprises interested in
third-party forest certification (Forest Stewardship Council) (Putz and others, 2001) to access global
markets. As a harvesting method, however, RIL benefits are limited by harvest intensity as shown
by Van der Hout (1999) in Guyana and Sist and others (1998) in Kalimantan. According to these
studies, when the number of felled trees exceeds a harvest intensity of 8 trees ha-1, some indicators,
such as canopy opening and damage to residual trees caused by felling, approximates those of
conventional methods, for example neutralising the beneficial effects of directional felling (Van der
Hout and van Leersum, 1998). A further challenge is to achieve RIL objectives in large-scale
operational projects, as most of the results available are from relatively well controlled
experiments. In this case, even when harvest intensity is set at levels which retain some large
individuals, the scale in which it is expressed is also important, as it can vary substantially (e.g. 1-
17 stems ha-1, , Sist and Nguyen-The, 2002) in a scale of few metres when trees are felled in
clumps. A lack of environmental awareness among operators and supervisors (Jonkers and van
Leersum, 2000) or inappropriate payment systems (Sist, 2000) may contribute to high spatial
variation in harvest intensity.
Conservation of biodiversity of tropical forests in the future will increasingly mean
conservation in managed forests (Boyle and Sayer, 1995), but as long as unsustainable practices
predominate in the tropics, the potential will not be achieved, and the opportunity will be rejected
by many people (e.g. (Dickinson and others, 1996) and (Bawa and Seidler, 1998)). Although most
of the criteria and indicators (C&I) framework currently available (ITTO, 1999; Prabhu and others,
1999) contemplate biodiversity conservation as a criteria with respective indicators, the
development of verifiers is still limited even for the simpler ecological indicators of sustainability.
As pointed out by Jennings and others (2001), well known silvicultural techniques that ensure
prolific natural regeneration are the most practical way to prevent rapid loss of genetic diversity
within the tree component.
The development of an alternative approach to tree selection, as proposed in this thesis, is
primarily focused on the silvicultural possibilities highlighted in this chapter, such as seed tree
retention and harvest intensity control at small scale, although it certainly can contribute to
damage reduction and biodiversity conservation. It is sophisticated in the sense that it requires an
environment that is not the predominant one in natural forest management currently, i.e. the main
elements of RIL guidelines (100% pre-harvest inventory) and some information on commercial
species, but it certainly will offer an option of improvement even where RIL is in place.

10
 Chapter 2 - STUDY SITE: DEMOCRACIA PROJECT AND THE FORESTRY

ENVIRONMENT IN THE AMAZON REGION

2.1 - Introduction

T
he legal Amazon region in Brazil covers an area of 5 million squared kilometres (INPE
(Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais), 2000), corresponding to more than half of
Brazilian territory (Figure 2.1), and by 1990, 32% of all tropical forests in the world (FAO - Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1993). Despite its importance for global
climate regulation (Fearnside, 1995) and for conservation biodiversity due to its great wealth of
species (Prance and Lovejoy, 1985), timber production in Amazon region is increasing but not on a
sustainable basis. Estimates show that in 1997, timber production in the region was 28 million m3
(Smeraldi and Veríssimo, 1999), although two decades prior, they were 4.5 million m3 (Hummel,
2001). Only 10% of the timber produced is consumed in the region, 14% are exported and the great
part (76%) goes to different parts of Brazil (Smeraldi and Veríssimo, 1999).
A great part of the timber produced in the region comes from deforestation, whether
authorised or not, as well as from conventional logging activities. The official deforested area in
1996/97, calculated from satellite estimates, was 1,332,700 ha (INPE - Instituto Nacional de
Pesquisas Espaciais, 2000), but only 252,804 ha (19%) were authorised by IBAMA3 (Hummel, 2001).
The conventional logging (as described by Uhl and Vieira, 1989; Uhl and others, 1991; and
Veríssimo and others, 1995) also contributes to timber production, and Nepstad and others (1999)
estimate that in 1996/97, it influenced 10-15 thousand km2 of logged forests, leading to forest
impoverishment that cannot be detected from satellite images (Souza Jr. and others, 2003).
Traditional patterns of timber production, such as the timber extraction from varzea forests and
small scale timber production also contribute to the timber supply (Freitas and others, 2002). Only
5-7% of timber production in Amazon region is considered to originate from adequately managed
forests (Schneider and others, 2000).
There are several reasons for such an imbalance between sustainable and unsustainable
timber production, including illegal log supply from areas cleared for pasture and agriculture, low
capacity of control for government agencies over the region, and lack of financial and policy
incentives for sustainable forest management practices (Hummel, 2001). Additional obstacles to
sustainable management are these: operational forest management requires heavy investments and

3 IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis)

11
large areas of forest to be feasibly implemented, a long period of time is required for the forest to
regenerate after harvesting and the price of timber in local markets is low (Oliveira and others,
1998). Nevertheless, forest management represents the only legal way to produce timber while
maintaining other goods and services that natural forests can offer (Freitas and others, 2002) and
the development and dissemination of sound forest management practices are important potential
contributors to improve the current scenario.
The proposed objectives for this chapter are to describe the study site and the forest
management system currently in practice in Democracia project, and to identify the pattern of
Amazonian forest resource use for timber production in which the proposed tree selection
approach could be included. Firstly, I present a short description of Forestry background in the
Brazilian Amazon region focusing on timber production, highlighting the advances achieved in
recent years (a decade or so) and current trends. Secondly, a site description is presented, including
a summary of forest management activities in practice in Democracia Project. Then a short
discussion is also presented, exploring the potential use of tree selection processes to improve
forest management regionally.

2.2 - Background: Forestry and timber production in the Brazilian Amazon

Historical background

Commercial logging has been practised for more than four centuries in Amazônia, but in the
twentieth century it intensified with the establishment of saw and veneer mills alongside rivers
during the 1950s (Barros and Uhl, 1995). The concept of forest management was initially
introduced also in the 1950s, when FAO conducted the first forest inventories over a large area in
the region, mainly in Pará State ( Whitmore and Silva, 1990; Higuchi, 1994). In the 1960s
experiments in natural forest management were started by FAO in Curuá-Una (Pará State) to test a
modification of the Tropical Shelterwood System (TSS) with inconclusive results, leading research
to concentrate on polycyclic systems (selective system), since the middle of 1970s in Pará State by
EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária) in Tapajós National Forest, and in early
1980’s in Amazonas State by INPA (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia) near Manaus
(Silva and others, 1999). These two initiatives were pioneers in forest management research, and
the results have been used to establish the technical requirements in the Brazilian forest
regulations in 1991, and have seemed to inform the formulation of silvicultural systems adapted to
the Brazilian conditions (Silva and others, 1999; Higuchi and others, 1991). These silvicultural
systems suggest cutting cycles of 25-30 years, harvest intensity up to 40 m3 ha-1, harvesting
planning and application of post logging silvicultural treatments. The first forest management plan
was written for Tapajós National Forest in 1978, but it was not implemented due to lack of
competitiveness with other forms of land use (Higuchi, 1994). At least until the middle of 1980s

12
there were no areas where tropical forest management was practiced other than in research sites,
demonstration areas or pilot projects, and with only certain elements of forest management (not all
of them) (Poore, 1989 Pag. 96).
Despite the development of technical and legal support, timber production has proceeded
predominately through conventional logging, particularly after access roads linked the region to
southeast of Brazil in the late 1960’s (Uhl and Vieira, 1989). Since then, a characteristic pattern,
known as predatory exploitation because it targets only immediate profits, is reported to occur in
different parts of the region (Schneider and others, 2000). Timber frontiers are created in small
cities (e.g Stone, 1998), where there is access by road and where agriculture activities are starting in
connection with new settlements, attracting many small sawmills owned by loggers with no long-
term interest in forestry. These loggers work with farmers and settlers exploiting the timber
produced from forest converted to pastures and agriculture, sometimes even supporting the
construction of secondary roads to new timber stocks. The pattern hides a mixture of legal and
illegal deforestation, as well as legal and illegal logging in a socio-economic environment that is
difficult to control. Schneider and others (2000) referred to this pattern as the ‘boom-and-bust” cycle
(10-20 years), because in the beginning, the timber generates a rapid local revenue (boom phase),
but it is always followed by a severe decline in revenues and employment rates (bust phase) due to
impoverishment of natural resources.

Recent advances

Despite the predominance of predatory logging, important activities have been in progress since
1990s that potentially can contribute to changes. These activities are scattered throughout the
region and are related to legislation, research, education, governmental policies and environmental
movements.
For example, forest regulations have evolved to cater for different modalities (scale) of
forest management, opening opportunity for community forest management and simplified forest
management for areas up to 500 ha (IBAMA, 2002), which can contribute to decrease illegal
logging. In 1998 IBAMA launched a project (PNUD/BRA/97/044) to improve control over forest
management projects in the Amazon region (Cavalcanti, 2002). A geo-referenced database system
(SISPROF – Sistema Integrado de Monitoramento e Controle dos Recursos e Produtos Florestais)
was developed to control all information about forest management projects in the Amazon region,
a set of indicators and verifiers were developed to evaluate the quality of projects in field, and a
team of about 200 foresters were employed and trained to evaluate the projects, resulting in 1080
forest management projects visited in 2001 across the region, representing 600 thousand ha
(Cavalcanti, 2002).
The research started by EMBRAPA and INPA since the late 1970’s continues (e.g. Silva and
others, 1995; Higuchi and others, 1997a) and, in cooperation with international agencies, they have
been studying different aspects of forest management and its impacts. For example, EMBRAPA

13
has been involved in the development of a yield prediction model (Alder and Silva, 2000), in the
adaptation of RIL guidelines to the Brazilian conditions (Projeto Embrapa-CIFOR, 2000) and in
developing methods to incorporate biodiversity conservation in forest management (Kanashiro
and others, 2002). In Manaus, INPA has been involved in studies to evaluate impacts of forest
management forest ecosystem, such as the development of methods to estimate forest biomass
(Higuchi and others, 1997b), nutrient export (Ferraz and others, 1997), soil hydrology and
chemistry (Ferreira, 1997), and soil nutrients and, properties and microfauna (Mello-Ivo and others,
1997; Luizão and others, 1997; Antony, 1997). Applied research has been conducted mainly by
regional non-governmental organisations, like IMAZON (Instuto do Meio Ambiente e do Homem)
and FFT (Fundação Floresta Tropical), for example comparing various aspects of conventional and
reduced impact logging (e.g. Johns and others, 1996; Vidal and others, 1997b; Holmes and others,
2002; Pereira Jr. and others, 2002). These institutions have also been important in disseminating
reduce impact logging guidelines within the region through publications (e.g. Amaral and others,
1998; Vidal and others, 1997a) and training programs (Blate and others, 2001). Finally, a ongoing
multi-institutional project aiming to create officially a network of permanent sample plots (PSP) is
being lead by IBAMA (PNF - Programa Nacional de Florestas, 2003). The project will join PSP data
already monitored across the region, expand the network by installing new PSPs in sites under
different regimes of management and introducing a standard measurement protocol for
monitoring forest dynamics in the region. An expected outcome in the next years is to define more
reliable parameters for yield regulation to support IBAMA’s decisions.
To introduce more sustainable forestry practices, a pre-requisite is well-trained people.
Forestry education in Brazil begun in 1960’s (Couto and Dubé, 2001) in southern Brazil focused on
plantations; by the middle of 1980’s, professionals working in the Amazon were very few and not
well-trained to deal with the natural forest. Education in Forestry in the region has evolved from
only one Undergraduate course in Forestry (Pará State) and one Master course (Amazonas State) in
1985, to four undergraduate courses (Pará, Amazonas and Acre), three Master courses (Amazonas
and Pará) and two high school courses in Forestry to train technicians (Amazonas and Rondônia).
The focus of the curricula is increasingly adapted to regional conditions and is more independent
from schools of south-eastern Brazil, as more results from regional research institutions are
available.
To introduce sustainable forestry practices in such a large forested region certainly
demands much more than research and forestry education. As pointed out by several authors in
the past (e.g. Wyatt-Smith, 1987; Poore, 1989), a major constraint to sustainable forest management
is the lack of policy incentives promoting natural forest management as an environmentally sound
land use. In Brazil, in addition to evolution in forest legislation and control by IBAMA (as
described above), a milestone of federal government support for forest management was the
creation of a Secretary to deal with forests and biodiversity (Secretaria de Biodiversidade e

14
Florestas) in 1999 (MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 1999), and a national program
(Programa Nacional de Florestas – PNF) in 2000 (MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 2000) to
stimulate and to promote the sustainable use of all forests , including the management of natural
forests in the Amazon region. In Amazonas State, the local Government launched a program to
reduce deforestation (Programa Zona Franca Verde), where forest management both for timber
production and non forest timber products is one of the main priorities (Governo do Estado do
Amazonas, 2003). Although the success of this program is uncertain, it is remarkable in its contrast
to previous policies where the major focus was on agriculture in a state of 1,5 million squared
kilometres, where 95% of the area is still covered with natural forests.

Trends

In the Brazilian Amazon, there are some new events (or trends) that may, in time, to contribute
directly to more sustainable forest management practices. The first is forest management in small
areas, without heavy machinery and conducted by local communities. For example, Oliveira and
others (1998) reported a forest management system designed for small farmers and rubber tappers
in Acre State, where the felling cycle is ten years, the annual harvest intensity is 5-10 m3 ha-1, felled
trees are converted in sawn wood within the forest with chainsaws, and extracted with animals
(oxen) or animals in combination with small tractors. The forest legislation in Brazil was recently
simplified to allow communities to manage their forests in sustainable basis (IBAMA, 2002), rather
than illegally or not at all. At least 13 projects were active in 2001 (Cavalcanti, 2002). Community
based forest management presents many advantages, such as low damage to the residual stand
and the integration with non-forest timber products extraction. But the most important advantage
is the provision of additional income for local people simultaneously with forest conservation.
However, most of the experiences in the region are still experimental, and require some kind of
institutional support (research institutions or NGO’s) at least in the first years. Problems with land
tenure and social organisation may limit wider uptake.
A second trend is forest certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Forest
certification is a voluntary third-party certification of good management (Putz and others, 2000b),
aiming to promote sustainable forest practices through the evaluation of forest management
against a number of objective and unambiguous requirements (Principles and Criteria) (Ghazoul
and Hellier, 2000). It is increasingly being adopted in tropical forest countries. For example, in
Bolivia nearly 1 million hectares of production forests are certified by the FSC (Nittler and Nash,
1999). In Brazil it is increasing too, as in 1995 the area certified in the Brazilian Amazon was 80,000
ha and in 2003 was 406,000 ha (Lentini and others, 2003). The focus of forest certification is on
social and environmental aspects of forest management (Putz and Viana, 1996), and the immediate
improvements in the forest management system are the adoption of inventories, forest maps,
planning of roads, designation of annual cutting areas and the adoption of reduced impact logging
guidelines (Fredericksen and others, 2003). Forest certification is certainly a positive advance

15
towards sustainability in Amazon, but it requires initial investment and it will succeed only where
there is a market for certified products (Ghazoul, 2001), such as markets in Europe and North
America. The greatest part of timber produced (86%) in the Amazon goes to the internal market,
and because of that the forest certification may remain relevant only for those enterprises and
communities interested in the international market.
More recently, the introduction of government forest concessions for timber production in
public forests is being proposed as a promising public policy to promote silviculture in the
Amazon region (Ferraz and Motta, 2002) and to decrease illegal timber supply from timber
frontiers based on the boom-and-bust model (Schneider and others, 2000) and the illegal exploitation
in public areas. Moreover, in Brazil a large proportion of forests are on private lands, and foreign
companies are already securing huge areas (De Graaf, 2000). A proposed model is the expansion of
National Forests area, from eight to 50 million ha, in strategic locations to serve as buffer zones for
fully protected areas such as parks and reserves (Veríssimo and others, 2003). Then a concession
system would be implemented where defined management standards would be required and
enforced (e.g. RIL guidelines) and stumpage fees and tax collection would support the
administration and monitoring of the system (Veríssimo and Cochrane, 2003). The government
(Ministry of Environment) is conducting a consultation process (Guevara, 2003), but how public
forest concession might provide net economic, social and ecological benefits is still uncertain for
many people (Merry and others, 2003).

16
2.3 - Democracia Project

Site study Description

This study was conducted within the Democracia forest management project (5°45'50" S, 61°31'24"
W), located in Manicoré, a district in the State of Amazonas, Brazil. The project area is along the left
margin of Madeira River, one of the tributaries of the Solimões River (Figure 2.1).
The project is owned by Gethal Amazonas S.A. – Industria de Madeira Compensada
(hereafter, the Enterprise) and started in 1996 when it was approved by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute
for Environment and Natural Renewable Resources). The Enterprise’s factory is in Itacoatiara (a
village located on left margin of Amazonas River), where a range of plywood products is made
and sold in the Brazilian market, as well as exported to countries in Europe and North America. In
2000 the project was awarded a certificate acknowledging of sound management practices by
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
The climate is tropical, classified as Am (Köppen), with mean monthly temperatures of 24-
26°C and relative humidity of 85-90%. Annual rainfall is 2,520 mm (Confidence interval=144 mm;
α=0.05) based on records for the period 1970-2002, recorded monthly by Manicoré Meteorological
Station located approximately 20 km from the study area. The rainy season starts in October
(Figure 2.2) with rainfall peaking from January to April; a dry season typically occurs from July to
September. Soils are primarily Yellow Alic Latosols and Red-Alic Yellow Podzols aged from
Quaternary period and are included in Solimões Geological Formation (RADAMBRASIL, 1978).
The predominant vegetation type is ‘Terra-firme’ Dense Tropical Forest (Pires and Prance, 1985),
with a canopy height averaging 27 m, with emergent trees as high as 50 m, including trees of
Bertholletia excelsa H. B. K. (Lecythidaceae), Eperua oleifera Ducke; (Caesalpiniaceae), Brosimum utile
(H.B.K.) Pittier (Moraceae) and Hymenea coubaril (Caesalpiniaceae).

17
Figure 2.1: Map of the Brazilian Amazon Region (top), and map of the Democracia Project area. The project has a
total area of 40,862 ha, divided in three modules: Democracia, Atininga and Matuará . In each module a protected
forest area is delimited corresponding to 5% of the total area. The total managed area is 32,495 ha. Manicoré is the
nearest city. This study was conducted within Compartment 7 (1,315 ha).

18
 450

400 2,520 mm (CI 144 mm; 0.05)

Period: 1970-2002
350

300
Rainfall (mm)

250

200

150

100

50

0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Month

Figure 2.2: Mean monthly rainfall with confidence intervals (α=0.05) for the study area, based on 32
years observation (1970-2002) according to Manicoré Meteorological Station.

The Manicoré district comprises an area of about 53.000 km2 and, like many other districts of
Amazonas, has a tradition in non timber forest products extraction, such as Brazil nut (Bertholletia
excelsa H. B. K. - Lecythidaceae), rubber latex (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg - Euphorbiaceae) and
rosewood (Aniba roseaodora Ducke - Lauraceae), a tree species completely harvested (stem, roots,
branches and leaves) to produce the linalol, which is a product base for perfume industry.
Brazil nut collection still holds great importance for communities within and around
Democracia Project. Traditionally, communities collect the nuts during the rainy season
(January/February) and sell them to the local market. The Enterprise is taking steps to maintain
and promote the collection of Brazil nuts in logged sections of the project area by people from
communities around the project. Because the post logging environment is very different from pre-
logging conditions, the local collectors may have difficulties in gaining access to Brazil nut trees.
Thus, the Enterprise is producing maps with Brazil nut tree locations, and also is training local
people to use the maps to locate the trees. Additional steps are being taken to support projects
relating to nut storage and conservation, and to create opportunities to trade the production,
targeting an extension of FSC certification to this forest product. The community also collects
another non timber forest product, the fruits of Açaí, a palm (Euterpe sp. - Arecaceae) used to
produce a juice, that is an important dietary supplement.
In 1996 an agreement between the Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM) and Gethal
resulted in a wider project involving UFAM, IBAMA and Gethal (Freitas and others, 2003a). The
project aims to provide training and technical assistance for Enterprise staff, to disseminate forest
management activities by involving forestry students in field activities and to develop studies to

19
improve forest management systems in the region. The financial support for the Agreement
between University and Enterprise comes from ProManejo/Forest Management Promising
Initiatives, a regional project led by IBAMA. The project duration is 5 years (2000-2005).

Study area

The study was conducted within the annual compartment number 7 (Figure 2.1 and hereafter,
Compartment 7), an area of 1,315 ha of primary tropical ‘''terra-firme'’ dense forest, with trees
averaging 27 m height. The most important species are Eperua oleifera, Brosimum rubescens,
Scleronema micranthum, Brosimum potabile, Clarisia racemosa and Erisma spp, comprising 38.4% of the
abundance (n ha-1) and 45.9% of the basal area for trees ≥ 35 cm DBH within the 16 experimental
plots (6.25 ha). Bertholletia excelsa (Brazilian nut tree) is also abundant in Compartment 7 (2.7 trees
ha-1), which is an important species for the local communities and a protected species for timber
production. The soil is sandy, with 700 g of sand kg-1 (SD=± 134 g), based on samples collected
from the 16 experimental main plots. Topography is predominantly flat (86% of the area), based on
records of all trees surveyed during the pre-harvest inventory at compartment scale and also
within the experimental main plots (92% flat; SD = ±8.1%; N=16).

Democracia Project Forest Management System

The Enterprise forest management plan states the use of a polycylic management system, 25 year
cutting cycles, with selection of commercial species up to a maximum harvesting intensity of 30
m3ha-1, based on natural regeneration (Gethal Amazonas S.A., 2001). Forest management’s main
objective is to supply wood to its factory in Itacoatiara, but since some species are not appropriate
for plywood production, hard wood species are also harvested to be exchanged or sold in regional
markets.
Pre-logging activities include a 100% forest inventory (see a detailed description in
Chapter 4), climber cutting of commercial species to reduce damage, retention of 10% of trees as
seed trees, installation and measurement of permanent sampling plots (PSP) based on Alder and
Synnott (1992) (1 ha plot for each 400 ha managed forest), and harvest planning, including road
construction and harvesting maps with tree location (a detailed description is in Chapter 4).
Harvesting activities are based on RIL guidelines, and include directional felling, skid trail
planning and preparation, log skidding to landing areas using Caterpillar 525 wheel skidders
equipped with a grapple. Logs are then transported by trucks to a main landing area near to
Madeira River, from where they are transported by raft to the factory in Itacoatiara (300 km).
Planned post logging activities include damage assessment at the compartment scale and
PSP measurements. Silvicultural treatments are planned for 4 years after logging, consisting in
crown liberation of selected commercial trees by girdling unwanted species trees competing for
light. Harvest activities are inspired by Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF) methods for Reduced

20
Impact Logging (Blate and others, 2001), including a periodic training program for the Enterprise’s
teams.

2.4 - Discussion

The main objective for this chapter was to describe the study site area and the forest management
in Democracia. However, by describing how forest practices for timber production are being
conducted in the Amazon region and its recent developments, it is possible to identify the
possibilities for adoption of alternative approaches for tree selection to improve current forest
management practices.
Timber production from the bum-and-bust model or as salvage operations from authorised
deforestation is an obstacle to the success of sustainable forest management in the Amazon region.
Forest management plans have been compulsory in Brazil since the 1990s, but for years they were
more formal than real (De Graaf, 2000), and in many cases, served to support legally unsustainable
projects. For example, in 1996 a survey conducted by EMBRAPA and IBAMA in Para State,
concluded that the majority of the forest management plans were not implemented in the field
(EMBRAPA, 1996), leading IBAMA to suspend or cancel 70% of the projects in the region
(AMIGOS DA TERRA, 1997). Since then, efforts are being made to enforce forest management in
the field and to improve control, for example, by developing objective procedures for evaluating
the projects, such as the PNUD/SISPROF project described above. The inclusion of a 100% forest
inventory as compulsory activity for all modalities of forest management for timber production
(IBAMA, 2002) has helped to enforce forest management in field and to facilitate control. On the
other hand, to date the MFD for species is not specified and IBAMA accepts, as a rule of thumb, 45
cm for most of the species (Silva and van Eldik, 2000) and harvest intensity is based on the average
commercial volume within the stand. The pre-harvest inventory is the basic requirement for tree
selection approaches for felling and retention, and therefore they could be improved by the
introduction of even simple criteria such as MFD per species combined with retention proportional
to species abundance.
Democracia project is one of the few projects in the region with FSC certification. These
projects are sometimes considered to have a standard above the average. In fact, the requirements
for continued compliance with FSC’s social and ecological framework of principles and criteria
result in better structured projects. The differences between certified and uncertified projects are
associated to the harvesting systems and information control. The harvest systems are improved by
adopting RIL guidelines, specifically, a 100% pre-harvest inventory, road planning, directional
felling, maps, safety and trained workers. The information control is improved through
compulsory chain of custody used to track logs from the forest to the mill; this is usually

21
implemented with computational systems, such as databases linked to GIS4 softwares that are also
used to produce harvest maps. By controlling information at the tree level, it is possible to develop
tree selection criteria to fully achieve yield regulation, or for example to retain part of the
commercial volume for species’ continued existence (Winkler, 1997).
Pre-harvest inventories as a compulsory activity can improve control and support better
harvesting systems, as well as potentially affording improvements in tree selection in forest
management projects in the Amazon, whether or not they are certified by FSC, as well as in small
scale or within forest concessions. However, in any case, the real improvements will not come
whilst decisions regarding tree selection are based only on MFD or stand average volume to
control harvest intensity. Decisions to promote species regeneration are important to guarantee
future harvestings. In Bolivia, for example, where near 1 million ha are now certified by the FSC,
there are problems at the stand level, principally involving regeneration failures of commercial
species after logging. The problems are reported to be related to the removal of the only the best-
formed and largest stems (MFD system), leading to commercial species’ inability to replace
harvested trees due to scarcity of seed trees (Fredericksen and others, 2003).
The development of tree selection approaches that consider species characteristics as
criteria and include rules to control spatially harvest intensity could be a step forward. For
example, Martini and others (1994) showed that it is possible to gather information for many
timber species harvested in the whole Amazon region and to identify their vulnerabilities to
logging activities. In a further step and at project level, this study aims to show that it is possible to
characterize species to support decisions that consider silvicultural and ecological aspects of forest
management, through alternative approaches to tree selection.

4 GIS: Geographic Information Systems

22
 Chapter 3 - CHARACTERISATION OF TIMBER SPECIES FOR FOREST

MANAGEMENT IN A “'TERRA-FIRME'” FOREST IN AMAZONAS, BRAZIL

3.1 - Introduction

T
he timber industry in the Brazilian Amazon developed in a highly selective way, where only
the most valuable species in natural forests were utilised. Initially, it concentrated on areas of
easy access, the seasonally inundated varzea forest on the margins of the Amazon River and its
tributaries (Rankin, 1985). In Amazonas State, the industry was based on a few species used for
veneer and plywood production until the late 1980s. The most important species were Copaifera
multiga - Hayne, Ceiba pentanda (L.) Gaertner, Naucleopsis caloneura (Huber) Ducke and Virola
surinamensis (Rol.) Warb. The traditional harvesting system was reliant upon seasonal variation in
the river’s water level, trees were logged from flooded forests and transported floating, pulled by
boats for long distances up to factories located alongside the rivers (Higuchi and others, 1994). In
the early 1990s, the total timber production of the state was about 700.000 m3 and those four species
represented 90% of the timber production (Hummel, 1997).
Since the early 1990s, however, profound changes have come to the industry. Various
factors have contributed to the changes: the exhaustion of the varzea stocks of the high value
species; an increasing demand for sawn timber; a decreased demand for plywood and veneer
timber; and, improvements in law enforcement. Moreover, new industries for exporting sawn
timber have established in the region, and the few remnant plywood factories are moving to 'terra-
firme' forests and testing and promoting lesser-known species. The list of tree species harvested
and utilized by the regional industries has increased considerably. For example 40-70 species may
be commercial over a single management area (approx. 40.000 ha), as is the case in Democracia
Project in Manicoré (and see Winkler, 1997).
In many tropical regions, commercial tree species lists have expanded over the past two
decades resulting in lists of 40-100 species per region (Table 3.1); the increase in the number of
commercially accepted species could reduce the pressure on heavily exploited species and increase
the flexibility and the monetary returns of timber management (Plumptre, 1996). The increase in
number of species also implies a greater diversity of species-specific responses to harvest, thus the
silvicultural challenges to meet the objectives of sustainability will be greater and will require
ecological and silvicultural information about the commercial species if it is to meet objectives of
sustainability. This requirement for silvicultural knowledge is necessary even where harvest
intensity and damage levels are effectively controlled by guidelines such as Reduced Impact
Logging (Pinard and others, 1995).

23
 Table 3.1: Number of commercial timber species in different countries.

Number of
Region commercial timber Reference
species
Bolivia 100 (Fredericksen, 1998)
French Guiana 87 (Hammond and others, 1996)
Guyana 87 (Hammond and others, 1996)
Suriname 44 (Hammond and others, 1996)
Brazil 65 (Winkler, 1997)
Ghana 66 (Adam, 2003)

Ecological knowledge in natural forests managed using natural regeneration is important

for many reasons (Sheil and van Heist, 2000; Pinard and others, 1999; Bawa and Krugman, 1991;
Hammond and others, 1996; Viana, 1990). For example, from a silvicultural point of view, it
informs the choice of silvicultural system, which in turn promotes regeneration and growth
through treatments targeting groups of species based on their light preferences (Hutchinson, 1988;
Lamprecht, 1993). For purposes of biodiversity conservation, the understanding of species
ecology can contribute to the identification of species that are important to wildlife (Pinard and
others, 1999) or are somehow vulnerable to harvesting or fire (Martini and others, 1994; Pinard and
Huffman, 1997), and then measures can be taken to preserve or protect them, reducing risks of
extinction (Hartshorn, 1995). Independent of the motivation for the use of species information, for
implementation, the knowledge have to be translated into various rules to guide tree selection for
removal or retention during silvicultural interventions.

3.2 - Species characterisation as a tool for tropical forest management

The manipulation of canopy opening is a silvicultural tool used by foresters for many years
(Lamprecht, 1993). Therefore, species characterisation according to responses to changes in
illumination is a necessary step in developing locally relevant silvicultural interventions. Species
classification into guilds is a convenience (Sheil and van Heist, 2000) to simplify procedures. Species
characterisation based on life history parameters aims to group species based on similarities in
terms of in DBH increment, mortality and recruitment, using different mathematical procedures so
that groups may be included in forest dynamic models (Alder, 1995; Alder and Silva, 2000;
Lahoreau and others, 2002; Favrichon, 1994; Atta-Boateng and Moser Jr., 1998; Vanclay, 1994).
Species groups are commonly considered functional groups, allowing simulations of forest
behaviour over time, that provide insights into forest responses to different management
intensities or silvicultural treatments (e.g. Favrichon, 1996; Young and Muetzelfeldt, 1998) in order
to demonstrate whether harvesting is sustainable in long run (Alder and others, 2002b). Although
it is important as a tool to improve forest management, a limitation of this approach is that too few

24
data from permanent sample plots are available; this limitation has been pointed out for the
Amazon region by Silva and others (1995) and it is the case for the Democracia region.
Many approaches to species characterisation to support forest management can be found
in the literature. Guzmán (2001) classified 16 species in Lomerío (Bolivia) using a cluster analysis
on variables such as tree density (abundance), forest phase, crown illumination index, and tree
position according to topographic relief. This classification resulted in the identification of four
groups or guilds related to shade tolerance and habitat preference. Lozada and Arends (2000)
working in Venezuela, classified commercial species based on their physical association with a
palm species (Attalea maracaibensis) before and after logging, assuming the palm was a species
indicator of lighter environments. Species diameter distributions, and the importance value before
and after logging were also used, resulting in the classification of 77 of 93 species as either
pioneers, shade tolerant and nomads (light demanding).
Using species ecological information and inventory data Pinard and others (1999) were
able to classify 69 species in Lomerío (Bolivia) according to their relative timber values, importance
as food for vertebrate frugivores and species vulnerability to decline when subjected to logging.
The classification aimed to identify an appropriate forest management system and to evaluate its
compatibility with regeneration requirements of tree species that produce food for mammalian
wildlife.
Species characterisations based on available ecological information also have been made at
a regional scale to evaluate forest management implications on tree species. Mostacedo and Pinard
(2001) characterised 50 Bolivian commercial timber species according to their seed production and
ecology, and seedling ecology. The results were discussed focusing on their relevance and
implications for forest management, specifically providing guidelines for Bolivian forest managers.
Hammond and others (1996) characterised 172 timber species of Guyana, Suriname and
French Guiana according to their dispersal mode and seed size. They also estimate species
standing stock and annual harvest volume from inventories and harvest records in concessions and
exploitable reserves, and then associated the contribution of each species seed dispersal mode to
the harvested volume in each country. They found a disproportionate harvesting pattern within
dispersal modes contributing to the harvested and standing volume. For example, in Guyana 80%
of the harvested volume were from mammal dispersed species, in Suriname the prevalence (>50%)
was for bird dispersed species and in French Guiana was for wind dispersed species (>60%). The
authors suggested that species should be exploited in the relative proportion of their availability
(seed dispersal mode) to avoid altering resources for animals, which could be important to
maintain commercial species regeneration.
Also at a regional scale Martini and others (1994) summarized ecological information on
305 timber species commercially logged in the Brazilian Amazon in order to identify those that
could have their population threatened by logging pressure. They used characteristics related to

25
species ability to reproduce (long distance dispersal ability and resprout ability), growth,
geographic distribution, vulnerability to fire and abundance patterns (saplings and adults). By
relating these characteristics to the species logging pressure, they ranked each species according to
their susceptibility to logging impacts.
Species characterisation at regional scale may involve governmental bodies to enhance
species knowledge where Forestry is an important economic activity. Swaine and others (1997)
reported results of a Ghana-United Kingdom bilateral research project on the ecology of
regeneration of tree species in Ghanaian rain forest. In this case several independent studies were
conducted to generate species information on seed production, germination, environmental
influences on tree seedlings and fire effects on forest regeneration. Beyond the individual studies
results for species, the implications for Forestry in Ghana have been discussed and served to
propose government priorities of action or further research.
In the Brazilian Amazon region a project to support forest management decisions is
underway (Kanashiro and others, 2002), focusing on the development of tools for scenario analysis
and impact prediction of management on the genetic make-up of tree species potentially at risk
from commercial use and exploitation. Its relationship to species characterisation is remarkable as
this is the base for building scenario analysis, relying on information integration such as
phenology, pollination, seed dispersal, recruitment and growth into a framework in which the
individual effects of each variable on genetic diversity can be studied using sensitivity analysis.
There is a considerable body of information scattered in many ecological studies,
potentially useful for forest management (Sheil and van Heist, 2000), as well as foresters’ informal
knowledge based on field experience (Swaine, 1996) that could contribute to better informed forest
management decisions. However, at an operational scale it would be desirable to compile
information on the majority of commercial species like some of the above mentioned studies
(Pinard and others, 1999; Guzmán, 2001) so that local silvicultural strategies could be addressed for
the whole group or at least for the most important ones.
The objective of this chapter is to characterize the majority of the commercial tree species
that occur in Democracia Project area in order to identify appropriate silvicultural interventions to
stimulate the regeneration of the commercial species. Species characterization is based on
information about species ecology gathered from literature, herbarium research and from analysis
of species occurrence in the study area. Through the exercise I identify appropriate silvicultural
strategies for the most valued species and select a set of ecological parameters to be used in
decisions related to tree selection for felling and retention. The species were characterised on 5
attributes in order to support a broad analysis of species requirements and potentialities for forest
management: 1) shade tolerance; 2) spatial pattern; 3) incidence of hollowness; 4) some aspects of
the reproductive biology; and 5) abundance pattern. These aspects were selected based on their
importance and relevance to tree selection for retention and felling, as well as on their availability.

26
A total of 55 commercial species were included in the characterisation, representing 76% of the
Enterprise’s full commercial list. This species characterisation may be considered as a starting point
to silviculture in Democracia (Hutchinson, 1988), as before this study very little information was
available, including species botanical identification. The results are expected to be useful for
selection of silvicultural strategies compatible to species requirement and with the polycyclic
system currently in practice.

27
3.3 - Methods

Species occurrence in study area

To describe species abundance patterns and diameter structure, as well as the stand density, two
datasets were used. Data for trees ≥35 cm DBH were provided by 100% pre-harvest inventory at
compartment scale as described in Chapter 4; the inventory data included records for all species
with DBH≥35 cm, except palms. The inventory data were supplemented by additional sampling in
16 plots (250 x 250 m) randomly chosen over the annual harvest compartment, which was the
object of this study (Compartment 7; area of 1,315 ha), conducted in October 2000 to determine
species abundance in smaller diameter classes (10-35 cm DBH). Sampling was done in two stages.
In the first stage 16 plots (6.25) were selected in a random way, within which 3 sub plots were
selected in the second stage. All trees over 10 cm DBH (1.30 m) were recorded in the 3 sub plots
(10x50 m) randomly located along line transects, spaced evenly at 100 m (Figure 3.1). Trees with
DBH between 5.0 and 9.9 cm were measured only in the first 10x10 m subplot of each 10x50 m plot.
Each measured tree was assigned a score based on the forest phases (gap, building and mature
forest) (Whitmore, 1989) it occurred in, and its crown illumination index (sensu Clark and Clark,
1992).
Botanical identifications were made by taking samples from felled trees for identification
in a regional herbarium (INPA – National Institute for Research in Amazon, Manaus); for the
majority of species no fertile material (fruits and flowers) was available. An experienced botanist
made the identifications in INPA’s Herbarium. As the Enterprise based the species identification
in the pre-harvest inventory on common names, inconsistencies between scientific and common
names could create problems, such as attributing more than one common name to a single species
and vice-versa (e.g. Kanashiro and others, 2002). Efforts are being taken by the University of
Amazonas project (Freitas, 2003a) since 2000, aiming to improve the link between the Enterprise’s
common names and correct scientific names. Two training sessions on species identification were
provided to the inventory team and, every harvest season, at least 5 samples for botanical
identification are collected from felled trees of the most important commercial species, and taken to
the herbarium to be sure that common names are used for only a single species or scientific name.
The objective is to improve consistency in species identification, by listing the different common
names given to a particular species (and vice-versa). This will permit changes in common names
and improvements in the link between commercial and scientific names. For this study, I
established a link between common names and species identification using the, result available,
applying this link for all stages of data handling.

28
 Figure 3.1: Size and shape of plots used in the sampling design for species abundance
within each experimental plot (6.25 ha). In total, 16 experimental plots were sampled.

Species attributes for characterisation

Ecological Groups

Species were grouped according to their shade tolerance as Pioneer, Non Pioneer Light Demanding
(NPLD) or Non Pioneer Shade Bearers (NPSB) (Hawthorne, 1993). The species grouping was
initially driven by the species diameter distribution type, assuming that each ecological group is
related to a different species diameter structure (Rollet, 1979). Although there are limitations to this
approach (Whittaker, 1974), one could expect it to be reliable when the area inventoried is fairly
large and where forest conditions are primarily old growth. In this exercise, species with
individuals in all diameter classes and showing a J-Inverted shape were associated with shade
bearers’ characteristics (Figure 3.2, Type I), indicating an ability to establish their seedlings in
shade (undisturbed forest) and growth through diameter classes in this environment up to the
maturity. A pattern of absence of individuals in smaller diameter classes was associated with
pioneer species (Figure 3.2, Type III), assuming the species inability to establish their seedlings in
shade, and that adults’ existence followed gap events in the past. Non pioneer light demanding
species were associated with an intermediate pattern (Figure 3.2, Type II), in which individuals can
be found in shade forest, but often presenting an irregular abundance along diameter classes,
possibly indicating an ability to establish in shade but eventually facing high mortality in the
absence of light for further development.

29
 Type I Type II Type III

100

% of trees per ha
75

50

25

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DBH Classes (cm)

Figure 3.2 Selected diameter distribution patterns used to support ecological

groups delimitation, exemplified with species presented parenthetically.
Type I: Inverted J, shade bearers (Eperua oleifera); Type II: Irregular, non -
pioneer light demanders (NPLD) (Andira spp.); Type III, pioneers (Jacaranda
copaia).

All species were initially grouped by this criterion of diameter class distribution. However, the
final classification considered additional attributes from literature, including timber wood density
and growth rate. Although these two attributes were not available for all species, when available
they were useful to corroborate the assigned grouping. Timber wood densities (D) were gathered
from literature (Loureiro and others, 1979; Detienne and others, 1990, Fearnside, 1997; Madeiras do
Brasil, 2003; Richter and Dallwitz, 2002) and species were categorised for this attribute as having
light (D<0.5 g cm-3), medium (0.5-0.7g cm-3) and heavy (D≥0.7 g cm-3) wood density, according to
the classification used by Whitmore and Silva (1990). Species DBH periodic annual increment
(PAI) were also gathered from literature (Alder and Silva, 2000; Silva and others, 1996; Favrichon,
1994; da Silva and others, 2002), as much as possible from logged forest conditions. Whenever
growth rates were available, species were categorised in slow (PAI < 0.3 cmy-1), medium (0.3 < 0.5
cm y-1), fast (0.5-1.0 cm y-1) and very fast (PAI ≥ 1.0 cm y-1) growth, following the ranges adopted
by Alder and others (2002b) in their pan tropical species grouping. I considered low timber
density and fast growth a characteristic for more light demanding species, and heavy timber
density and slow growth characteristic of more tolerant species. These attributes are presented for
each species in Appendix 1 (Table 6.1).
Finally, the species classification described previously was corroborated by a hierarchical
cluster analysis (Kent and Coker, 1992), conducted on the median values of forest phase and crown
position variables, per species. The main purpose of this analysis was to identify groups of species

30
associated with microsites of more luminosity based on data available for trees DBH<35 cm. The
cluster analysis was made using Ward’s method and Euclidean distance for similarity analysis
(McCune and Grace, 2002). The procedure was conducted for 4 DBH ranges: trees DBH <5 cm;
trees 5-10 cm; trees 10-35 cm and for all trees < 35 cm. Only species with at least 4 individuals were
included in each analysis. The output of each analysis was a dendrogram scaled with by Wishart’s
objective function describing the amount of information remaining, and by the objective function
converted into a scale of percentage of information remaining (MJM Software, 1999). For each DBH
range Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to investigate differences between species.

Abundance Patterns

Commercial species were categorised according their abundance as rare, intermediate or

common in three different DBH ranges as described in Table 3.2. Species abundance has been used
often to classify species as common or rare (Pinard and others, 1999; Martini and others, 1994;
Fredericksen and others, 2001; Pitman and others, 2001), but different diameter ranges and
thresholds have been applied by various authors. Factors like data availability, local inventory
methods, local species occurrence, and the purpose of analysis are possible factors driving the
choices of thresholds. In this study the ranges were chosen by sorting the stand table by species
relative abundance, and then identifying adequate ranges to represent species abundance patterns
in each DBH range, as shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Abundance scores according commercial species abundance for DBH classes.

Species Abundance for DBH classes (n/ha)

Score 5<15 cm 15<45 cm DBH≥45 cm
Saplings Young Trees Adults
Rare <5 <3 < 0.5
Intermediary 5 - 20 3-5 0.5 - 2
Common ≥20 ≥5 ≥2

Spatial Patterns

The purpose of the description of spatial distribution was to identify species with a tendency for
clumping, which can be considered useful as a complement of species density characterisation
(Brower and others, 1997). Spatial distribution of 55 species DBH≥35 cm was investigated using
data over the Compartment 7 segregated in 50x50 m quadrats. The number of trees in each 50x50
quadrat over the compartment (1,315 ha) was determined for each species and then a Morisita
Index (IM) was used to classify species as gregariously, randomly or uniformly distributed (Greig-
Smith, 1983). This quadrat size was used because it is the basic area unit used to record data in
100% pre-harvest inventory, and represents the smallest unit available. Morisita Index was
calculated as:

31
 n

∑X 2
−N
IM = n i =1

N ( N − 1)

where n is the number of plots and N is the number of individuals counted on all n plots; ∑X2 is the
squares of the numbers of individuals per plot, summed over all plots. Species with IM=1.0 are
considered randomly dispersed, with IM=0 have perfectly uniform and species with IM>1.0 have an
aggregated distribution. The significance of departure from randomness was tested by
determining a calculated F value, which was then compared to a table of the F distribution with n-1
degrees of freedom (number for a numerator and a infinity for a denominator (Poole, 1974).

Reproduction

The purpose of the characterisation of species reproduction was to identify the species’ constraints
and particularities related to species regeneration that could be taken into account in silvicultural
decisions and tree selection procedures. Information about mode of seed dispersal, floral sexual
system and phenology were gathered from literature (van Roosmalen, 1985; Hammond and others,
1996; Knowles and Parrota, 1995; Mori, 1997; Ribeiro and others, 1999; Asquith and others, 1999;
Hopkins, 1986; Howe and others, 1985; Killen and others, 1993; Maues and others, 1999; Nebel,
2001; Martins, 1993; Peres, 1991; Alencar, 1998 and Lima Jr. and Barbosa, 2001), from INPA’s
Herbarium and from experienced local tree identifiers. Seed dispersal mode was categorised as
animal (zoochory), wind (anemochory) or unassisted.
The floral reproduction system was categorised as dioecious or not dioecious (including
monoeicious and hermaphrodic plants), the former applied to species known to present male and
female reproductive organs on different plants (male and female plants) and the later when they
occur in the same individual, either as separate flowers or within the same flowers (Schmidt, 2000).
Species were described according to their fruiting months, if the fruit production was annual
or less than annual and also with regards to fruiting period in relation to the harvest season. Table
3.3 presents the framework used for phenological species characterisation. The timber harvest
season in Democracia Project area is during the dry season, starting in June and ending in
November. Species fruiting periods were compared to this harvest season, and categorised as
occurring out of the season or during the harvest season. When occurring during harvest season,
fruiting production was classified as occurring 1) in the beginning 2) in the middle; or 3) at end of
harvest season. Potentially, for one valued species facing problems such as low recruitment, low
abundance, less than annual fruit production or so on, and with fruiting period just in the
beginning of the harvest season, the harvest could be delayed in order to wait for it to drop its
fruit.

32
Table 3.3: Criteria used to characterise constraints to harvest in relation to the period of fruit production.

Species’ fruiting period

During timber harvest season
Out of harvest
Beginning Middle End Out of harvest
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN
No constraints Delay
Constraint No constraint
harvest?

Incidence of stem hollowness

The occurrence of hollow logs was determined for the majority of the 55 species. In Democracia,
the Enterprise attempts to identify hollowness in several ways. Firstly, during the pre-harvest
inventory trees suspected to be hollow are tested by sound, when the species identifier hits the
stem with a large knife; trees considered hollow will not take part in tree selection for felling.
Secondly, before felling the sawyer does a cut, pushing the chainsaw blade into the stem at 90o and,
by experience, he can feel if the resistance to the saw abruptly diminishes. Then, the team leader
measures the extension of the hollow made by inserting a hook to assess the thickness of wood free
of hollow. This is compared to a value provided by the Enterprise for that species. All hollow trees
are left, and even in this case, the team records the occurrence of hollowness for the tree left
behind. I calculated the percentage of hollow trees based on project records from 3 annual
compartments harvested in 1999 and 2000 (N=12,499), considering a minimum of 25 trees per
species as sample size. Species were then classified with low vulnerability to hollowness (<5%),
with intermediate (5-15%) or high vulnerability (≥15%) based on the percentage of individuals
found to be hollow.

Dimensional variables

Species were characterised using variables related to their size in the study area, specifically the
maximum attainable DBH class and mean total height. Those variables were included in order to
facilitate the interpretation of other variables such as shade tolerance, and to identify species
restricted to the low canopy layers. The maximum attainable DBH class was derived from the
diameter distribution in the inventory data, for trees ≥35 cm DBH at compartment scale,
corresponding to the DBH class in which the cumulative abundance contained 90% of the
individuals of the species. Three scores (1-3) were assigned for this variable: score 1 for tree species
whose maximum class is 60 cm (55-64.9 cm); score 2 for tree species whose maximum DBH class is
between 60 and 90 cm (65-94.5 cm) and score 3 for tree species with maximum DBH attaining
classes over 90 cm (≥ 90 cm DBH). The reason that I derive maximum attainable diameter using
DBH classes, rather than of calculating it as 90th percentile is that in the Democracia forest
inventory in 2000, tree diameter was not measured directly by a tape, but recorded in DBH classes
by using Biltmore stick (Philip, 1994). Total heights of 648 trees, measured after felling in

33
compartment 7, were used to establish 3 total height classes. The data were normally distributed,
as supported by a Komogorov-Smirnov test for normality (p<0.01) (Kinnear and Gray, 2000). Thus,
height classes intervals were determined by the average ± the standard deviation (Table 3.4 below).

Species groups and priorities

The Species were classified as commercial or non-commercial for timber production, and then they
were further classified in 2 sub-groups according to their final use for plywood or sawmill. This
classification followed the Enterprise’s Forest Management Plan (Gethal Amazonas S.A., 2001).
Commercial species were also scored according to their priorities for Enterprise’s Forestry
Department according to 2001’ harvesting season demands (Table 3.4). The scores correspond to
species’ values in their final use. For example, a species has greater value if it is used as face veneer
rather than for core and back layers of the final product, or if it has good performance throughout
the industrial process. In a similar manner, the species used for sawn wood production were
prioritised, but in this, priorities were established based on current market demands. These
priorities are influenced by short term market forces, for example. For the purpose of this chapter,
commercial species priorities have been interpreted as a priority for felling.

Table 3.4: Commercial species classification in groups and priorities. A lower score has higher priority.

Priority Commercial Use

for Felling Veneer Saw wood
0 Species with good industrial performance,
used as face to produce a consolidated high -
valued veneer (only three species)

1 Species with good industrial performance Species with good value in regional
used as face veneer market, and currently high demanded

2 Species with good industrial performance, Species with intermediary market value
used as core or back layer and current demanded by the market

3 Species with intermediary industrial Species with low market value and low
performance, used as core or back layer current demand

4 Lesser know species being tested for veneer

production

Beyond priorities for felling, an additional classification was made to differentiate species
priorities for regeneration after logging. This classification aimed to include in the tree selection
process, the possibility of promoting the regeneration of higher value species over lesser-valued
ones, by increasing the number of seed trees to be retained. Species were scored as: 1) species with
high priority to be promoted; 2) species with intermediary priority to be promoted; and, 3) species

34
to which no additional incentive should be given to their regeneration post logging. This
classification differs from the commercial list in that only species with recognised consolidated
market value in the region or proved industrial performance for veneer production received the
maximum and intermediate scores.

35
Data analysis

To identify correlations among the main variables (species characteristics), a correlation analysis
using Kendall correlation coefficients (tau-b) for ordinal data (Kinnear and Gray, 2000) was
conducted. Table 3.5 presents the scores used in the analysis, and the meanings of scores were
presented early in this chapter. Only species with data for all attributes were included in the
analysis (N=39).

Table 3.5: Species characteristics and the scores used to determine the associations among variables for the 39
species for which complete data were available.

Characteristics Score=1 Score=2 Score=3

Adults abundance a Common Intermediate Rare

Youngs abundanceb Common Intermediate Rare
Saplings abundancec Common Intermediate Rare
Shade tolerance Shade Bearers NPLD Pioneers
Commercial Priority High Intermediary Low
Regeneration priority High Intermediary Low
Hollowness vulnerabilityd Low Intermediate High
Spatial pattern Uniform Random Gregarious
Fruiting time x Harvest Seasone Out Beginning During
Total height classf <25.37 m 25.38 - 35.41 m ≥35.41 m
Max attainable DBH classg 60 cm 70-90 cm ≥90 cm
a) Adults: trees DBH≥45 cm; abundance in n ha-1 for rare (n<0.5); intermediate (0.5-2) and
common (n≥2);
b) Youngs: trees DBH 15-45 cm; abundance in n ha-1 for rare (n<3); intermediate (3-5) and
common (n≥5);
c) Saplings: trees DBH 5-15 cm; abundance in n ha-1 for rare (n<5); intermediate (5-20) and
common (n≥20);

d) Vulnerability of hollowness: low when the species occurrence is in less than 5% of the
individuals; intermediate when in 5-15% of the individuals and high when in more than 15%
of the species individuals;
e) Fruiting time x harvest season: The relationship between the species fruiting period and the
annual harvest season. (Out) when the species fruiting period is months other than those of
the harvest season; (Beginning) when the species fruits up to the first two months of the
harvest season; and (During) when the species fruiting period is during the two months in the
middle of the harvest period (August and September);
f) Total height classes: Species total height were determined from field observations. Classes
intervals were defined based on the all species heights, as average ± one standard deviation;
g) Maximum attainable classes were defined based on species diameter structure. Species
maximum attainable diameter classes corresponded to the upper class containing more than
90% of the total number of individuals at compartment scale.

36
Framework for main silvicultural strategies identification

Once characterised, the species were grouped according three aspects potentially important to the
design of silvicultural strategies. These are the adequacy of recruitment, ecological groups, and
abundance patterns. Species recruitment adequacy was represented by the stock in smaller size
classes, in closed forest conditions, and served as reference to suggest if a particular species is able
to establish seedlings. Inadequacy in recruit sapling under closed forest conditions was identified
as a lack of individuals in the smallest DBH class (5-15 cm DBH). Species abundance scores (as
described in Table 3.2) were used but two classes, intermediate and common were combined to
facilitate interpretation. Only the abundance of stems in 15-45 cm DBH range was considered,
because this range was expected to contain advanced natural regeneration. A dichotomous key
was set up to present results and allow one to map each species position regarding these 3
attributes combinations, and therefore suggest different silvicultural strategies to promote the
group’s regeneration.

37
3.4 - Results

Forest structure and composition

The forest stand presents an average density of 543 trees ≥10 cm DBH ha-1 (CI= ± 38.7; α=0.05),
corresponding to a basal area of 24 m2 ha-1 (CI ± 1.1; α=0.05), and a volume of 254 m3 ha-1 (CI ± 13.7;
α=0.05) (excluding palms). The diameter distribution for number of trees per hectare for trees ≥ 10
cm DBH (Figure 3.3) shows a classic forests inversed-J pattern typical of tropical natural (Alder,
1995).

400

350

300

250
-1
N ha

200

150

100

50

0
10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 >=90
DBH Class (cm)

Figure 3.3: Diameter distribution expressed as the number of trees per ha

in Compartment 7 of Democracia, based on 16 plots (250x250 m).

The forest composition is expressed by families in terms of proportion of total basal area for trees
≥5 cm DBH (Figure 3.4), showing that only 6 families are responsible for 60% of the total basal area,
and Caesalpiniaceae is the dominant family, probably due to Eperua oleifera Ducke, representing
14.6% of the total stand basal area. Although Caesalpiniaceae is dominant (basal area), it is
responsible only for 4% of the total abundance (Figure 3.4).

38
 70
Basal Area
60 Abundance

50 47

% of Total
40 37

30
19
20
11 10 11 12
9 8
10 7 6 6
4 5 5 4

0
ae

e
e

s
e
e

e
e

er
ea
ea

ea
ea

a
ea
ce

ce

th
ac

ac
ac

ac
ac
ia

ra

O
an
ot

or

id

os
in

e
th

rs
p

im

al
lp

Sa

Bu
cy

ob
sa

M
Le

s
e

ry
Ca

Family

Ch
Figure 3.4: Forest composition showing the six most important families as
percentage of total basal area total abundance (≥5 cm DBH trees).

General characterisation

The Enterprise has a commercial list with 72 species (year 2001), with various uses and priorities
(Table 3.6). From this broad list, 55 (76.4%) species were selected for characterisation in this study.
The 55 focal species comprise not only the majority but certainly the most important for the
Enterprise as well as for the forest structure, as they represent 50% of total basal area for trees ≥5
cm DBH. Some species were not included because they did not occur in the Compartment 7, or
because the botanical identification was not available or was too doubtful. The Enterprise’s
commercial list included lesser known species that are harvested for testing (e.g., species priority 4
in Table 3.4). These species were not included in the present exercise in species characterisation.

Table 3.6: Number of commercial species according uses and priorities (commercial value). From a total of 72
commercial species in 2001, 55 species were included in this study, representing 76.4%.

Use Species Priority (Commercial Value)

0 (Max) 1 2 3 4 TOTAL
Veneer 3 12 16 9 4 44
Sawn 11 13 4 28
Total 3 23 29 13 4 72
Characterized species : 55 (76.4%)

39
Table 3.7: Summary data for tree species in Democracia. Basal area percentages are of total basal area DBH≥5
cm (all species). Fifty-five species were considered in the species characterisation.

Number of Basal Area Commercial Priority (number of species)

Characteristics Category
species m2 ha-1 0 1 2 3
Shade Bearers 28 (50.9%) 11.36 (43.2%) 3 (5.5%) 11 (20.0%) 7 (12.7%) 7 (12.7%)
Shade tolerance NPLD 25 (45.5%) 1.56 ( 6.0%) 8 (14.5%) 14 (25.5%) 4 ( 7.3%)
Pioneers 2 (3.6%) 0.15 ( 0.6%) 1 ( 1.8%) 1 ( 1.8%)
Animal 42 (76.4%) 8.5 (32.7%) 2 (3.6%) 17 (30.9%) 15 (27.3%) 8 (14.5%)
Wind 9 (16.4%) 0.57 ( 2.2%) 2 ( 3.6%) 6 (10.9%) 1 (1.8%)
Seed dispersal
Unassisted 1 (1.8%) 3.85 (14.8%) 1 (1.8%)
Not available 3 (5.5%) 0.16 ( 0.6%) 2 ( 3.6%) 1 ( 1.8%)
Gregarious 18 (32.7%) 8.27 (31.5%) 2 (3.6%) 4 ( 7.3%) 6 (10.9%) 6 (10.9%)
Random 35 (63.6%) 4.69 (17.8%) 1 (1.8%) 14 (25.5%) 16 (29.1%) 4 ( 7.3%)
Spatial pattern
Uniform
Not available 2 ( 3.6%) 0.12 ( 0.5%) 1 ( 1.8%) 1 ( 1.8%)
None 5 ( 9.1%) 0.74 ( 2.8%) 2 ( 3.6%) 2 ( 3.6%) 1 ( 1.8%)
0<5 18 (32.7%) 7.74 (29.4%) 3 (5.5%) 5 ( 9.1%) 7 (12.7%) 3 ( 5.5%)

Incidence of stem 5<10 7 ( 12.7%) 0.83 ( 3.2%) 3 (5.5%) 3 ( 5.5%) 1 ( 1.8%)

hollowness 10<15 3 ( 5.5%) 0.23 ( 0.9%) 1 ( 1.8%) 1 ( 1.8%) 1 ( 1.8%)
>15% 5 ( 9.1%) 0.88 ( 3.3%) 2 ( 3.6%) 3 ( 5.5%)
Not available 17 (30.9%) 2.66 (10.1%) 6 (10.9%) 7 (12.7%) 4 ( 7.3%)
<25.37 m 5 ( 9.1%) 0.51 ( 1.9%) 1 ( 1.8%) 2 ( 3.6%) 2 ( 3.6%)
25.38 - 35.41 m 36 (65.5%) 9.06 (34.5%) 2 (3.6%) 13 (23.6%) 18 (32.7%) 3 ( 5.5%)
Total Height Class
>35.41 m 3 ( 5.5%) 0.23 ( 0.9%) 1 (1.8%) 1 ( 1.8%) 1 ( 1.8%)
Not available 11 ( 20%) 3.33 (12.7%) 5 ( 9.1%) 2 ( 3.6%) 4 ( 7.3%)
60 cm 19 (34.5%) 0.51 ( 1.9%) 1 ( 1.8%) 2 ( 3.6%) 2 ( 3.6%)
70 - 90 cm 30 (54.5%) 9.06 (34.5%) 2 (3.6%) 13 (23.6%) 18 (32.7%) 3 ( 5.5%)
Max DBH Class
> 90 cm 4 ( 7.3%) 0.23 ( 0.9%) 1 (1.8%) 1 ( 1.8%) 1 ( 1.8%)
Not available 2 ( 3.6%) 3.33 (12.7%) 5 ( 9.1%) 2 ( 3.6%) 4 ( 7.3%)

40
Shade Tolerance

From the 55 species characterised in this study, 28 were classified as shade bearers, corresponding
to 51% (Table 3.7, above) of the total basal area, 25 as non pioneer light demanders (6.0% of total
basal area) and 2 species were classified as pioneer (<1% of the total basal area). The dendrograms
from cluster analysis on microsites variables are presented in Figure 3.5. The results were limited in
providing further clarification on identify species ecological groups. For all DBH ranges included
in the analysis, the majority of species are well-known shade bearers and the few light demanding
species (certain or uncertain) are mixed with shade bearers presenting no clear pattern in group
formations. The only suggested exceptions are for Simarouba amara (MARU) and Hymenolobium sp
(FAVA). Simarouba is a well-known light demanding species (Clark and Clark, 1992) and classified
as so here. Simarouba amara was recorded only with DBH<10 cm and for DBH<5 cm (Figure 3.5 –
Top) was recorded only in building or gap phase. Hymenaea sp. also showed a isolated pattern for
DBH 5-10 cm (Figure 3.5 – Middle), but it was found also in the mature phase and, differently from
Simarouba, most of the records for this species are for DBH 10-35 cm (closed forest).
Two reasons may have contributed for the limited utility of the cluster analysis. Firstly, the
data were collected only in unlogged forest, and secondly because for many species the number of
records were few. Thus, those species identified as light demanding by diameter distribution as
described above, either had only few data included in the analysis, or had none recorded at all,
impeding contrasting patterns across species requirements. The Kruskal Wallis test for each DBH
range confirmed the limited use for this analysis. The results showed that species were not
different for trees DBH<5 cm (Crown position: H=5.79; df=7; p=0.565; and Forest phase: H=8.89;
df=7; p=0.261) and for trees 5-10 cm DBH (Crown position: H=6.88; df=13; p=0.908; and Forest
phase: H=9.56; df=13; p=0.729). For trees DBH 10-35 cm there was significance for crown position
(H=87.2; df=28; p=0.908), but for forest phase all species had median one (mature forest),
suggesting that at this range trees are predominantly in closed forest (H=30.21; df=28; p=0.353).

41
Figure 3.5: Dendrograms for cluster analysis on microsite variables crown illumination index and forest phase for trees
DBH<5 cm (top), trees DBH 5-10 cm (middle) and trees 10-35 cm DBH (bottom). Species codes: ANAN (Symphonia
globulifera); ANVE (Andira spp.); AQUA (Minquartia guianensis); ARBR (Leg. Mimosaceae); ARVE (Iryanthera lancifolia); BRBR (Protium
heptaphyllum); BREU (Protium divaricatum); BRSU (Trattinnickia burserifolia); BRVE (Protium grandifolium); CEHO (Erisma spp); COJA
(Eperua oleifera); COMM (Copaifera multijuga); ENCU (Scleronema micranthum); FAVA (Hymenolobium sp.); GARR (Brosimum potabile);
GUAR (Clarisia racemosa); ITAU (Mezilaurus itauba); JUPO (Hymenaea sp); LOAM (Ocotea sp1); LOUR (Ocotea sp2); MARU (Simarouba
amara); MUIP (Brosimum rubescens); MUIR (Astronium le-cointei); MURE (Brosimum acutifolium); PAMA (Maquira sclerophylla); PARI
(Parkia nitida); ROXI (Peltogyne paniculata); TABR (Cariniana micrantha); UCUU(Virola sp.).

42
 Spatial Pattern

The majority of commercial species have a random distribution over the area (35 species,
64%), and at a compartment scale and based on 50x50 m quadrats, 18 tree species (33%)
presented gregarious pattern (Table 3.7) through Morisita Index (full results are presented in
Appendix 1). Figure 3.6 presents an example for three species, with different spatial
pattern, Brosimum parinarioides (random), Manilkara huberi (gregarious) and Eperua oleifera
(gregarious).

A B C
Figure 3.6: Spatial pattern for 3 commercial species, for trees ≥35 cm DBH over Compartment 7 area (1,315 ha);
(a) Brosimum parinarioides, IM=2.28 (NS); (b) Manilkara huberi, IM= 4.38 (**) and Eperua oleifera, IM= 2.35 (**). (NS)
refers to non significant statistically (α=0.05); (**) refers to significant (α=0.01).

Incidence of stem hollowness

In Democracia, 30 (54.5%) of commercial species have low vulnerability to hollowness (<10%

occurrence), from which 5 species show a total absence of detectable hollowness (Table 3.7)
However, for some species hollowness seems to be a problem, where on average, more than
15% of the trees selected for felling will be hollow and left (not being felled). Two of these
species have a high commercial priority and have shown a considerable percentage of
hollow trees in our available data: Manilkara huberi (31.1%; N=1249); and, Dypterix odorata
(16.37%; N=210), both sawn timber species. A less valued species also has high vulnerability
to hollowness, Brosimum rubescens (20.4%; N=427).

Tree Dimensions

Most of the focal species reach an intermediate size, in terms of total height (3.7). Species that
do not reach large DBH classes (70 cm and up), and that are in total height class 1 (<25.4 m),
are probably sub canopy species, as it is the case of Minquartia guianensis , Stryphnodendrom
guianensis and Erisma spp. On the other hand the dominant species (≥35.4 m) were Dinizia

43
 excelsa, Symphonia globulifera, and Brosimum parinarioides, all of them attaining a maximum of
95 cm DBH and only the first is a non pioneer light demanding species.

Abundance pattern

More than 70% of the 55 characterized species were classified as rare in all DBH ranges
(Figure 3.7a), but in terms of basal area, the rare species accounted for 13-28% of the total
basal area per size class (Figure 3.7 b). When combining species with a common and
intermediate abundance pattern, in terms of basal area, they accounted for about one third of
basal area.

Rare Intermediate Common Rare Comm/Interm

100 60
7.3
12.7 20.0 50
80

% of Basal Area
% of 55 species

40 21.9
60 31.6
36.7
30
90.9
40 80.0 72.7 20
27.8
20 10 18.1
13.0
0
0
5<15 (Sapling) 15<45 (Young) 45< (Adult)
5<15 (Sapling) 15<45 (Young) 45< (Adult)
DBH class (cm)
DBH class (cm)

a b
Figure 3.7: Abundance patterns for different DBH size classes (Adult, Young and Sapling), in terms of
number of species (a) % of basal area ≥5 cm DBH, and when combining common and intermediate abundant
species (b) for the 55 commercial tree species classified in the study.

44
 Reproduction

Only 9 (16.4%) species disperse their seeds by wind, all of these being non pioneer
light demanders or pioneers (except Couratari guianensis, which is a shade bearer), while 42
species (76.4%) have seeds animal-dispersed. Eperua oleifera (1.8%) has unassisted dispersal
using an explosive dehiscence. Only 11 (35.5%) species produce fruits in a period other than
harvest season (Table 3.8); For the remaining 20 (64.5%), the fruit production coincides with
harvest season.

Table 3.8: Fruit production of commercial species, expressed as frequency and its temporal relation to
the harvest season.

Time during timber harvest Season (Number of species)

Fruiting
Out Beg Middle End TOTAL % Freq/55
Frequency
Annual 3 1 4 1 9 16.4
Less than annual 8 2 8 4 22 40.0
Unknown 7 1 9 2 19 34.5
TOTAL 18 4 21 7 50
% Available/55 20.0 5.5 21.8 9.1

Three species are dioecious (5.5%), Simarouba amara (Rhoades and others, 1994), Virola
multinervia (Ribeiro and others, 1999) and Clarisia racemosa (Martins, 1993), representing
2.7% of total basal area for trees DBH≥ 5 cm. Simarouba is a valued commercial species for
the Enterprise, and a rare, non-pioneer light demanding (NPLD) species according to the
characterisation in this study, while Virola and Clarisia are shade bearers and less valued
commercially by the Enterprise.

45
Table 3.9: Characteristics of tree species in Democracia Project. Species are listed by family. Basal area is for trees ≥ 5 cm DBH. See table footnote for definitions of scores used
for the various attributes.

Interval Seed Abundance Patterns Com- Regene- Fruiting Total Max

Fruiting Sexual Basal Area Ecological Incidence of Spatial
Tree species grouped in families Fruiting Dispersal mercial ration x height DBH
period System (m2ha-1) Group Hollowness pattern
(Years) Mode ≥45cm 15<45cm 5<15cm Priority Priority harvest class class

Anacardiaceae:
Anacardium parvifolium Ducke Feb-Mar 2 1 Mon 0.0639 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 2
Astronium le-cointei Ducke Aug 1 1 Mon 0.1474 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 2
Bignoniaceae:

Jacaranda copaia (Aubl.)D.Don Jan-Feb n/a 2 Mon 0.0172 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 1

Tabebuia sp. Out n/a 2 Mon 0.0050 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 2
Bombacaceae:

Scleronema micranthum Ducke Sep-Oct 1 1 Mon 0.6550 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 1

Burseraceae:

Protium divaricatum Engl. Jan-Mar 1 1 Mon 0.0679 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

Protium grandifolium Engl. Jan-Feb n/a 1 Mon 0.8017 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
Protium heptaphyllum (Aubl). March. Feb-Apr 1 1 Mon 0.4100 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
Trattinnickia burserifolia Mart. Nov n/a 1 Mon 0.0761 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1
Caryocaraceae:

Caryocar glabrum (Aubl.) 2 1 Mon 0.0851 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 1

Caryocar villosum (Aubl.) Pers. Feb 2 1 Mon 0.1311 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 2
Celastraceae:

Goupia glabra Aubl. Aug-Sep 1 1 Mon 0.1330 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 2

Clusiaceae:

Symphonia globulifera L. Feb-Mar 2 1 Mon 0.1061 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 2

Lauraceae:

Mezilaurus itauba (Meisn.) Taub. Ex n/a n/a 1 Mon 0.3007 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 2

Me
Ocotea spp. Mar-Apr n/a 1 Mon 0.1661 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1
Ocotea spp. Mar-Apr n/a 1 Mon 0.1366 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1
Lecythidaceae:

Couratari guianensis Aublet. Aug-Sep 2 1 Mon 0.1802 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 2

46
 Interval Seed Abundance Patterns Com- Regene- Fruiting Total Max
Fruiting Sexual Basal Area Ecological Incidence of Spatial
Tree species grouped in families Fruiting Dispersal mercial ration x height DBH
period System (m2ha-1) Group Hollowness pattern
(Years) Mode ≥45cm 15<45cm 5<15cm Priority Priority harvest class class

Cariniana decandra Ducke Jun-Jul 2 1 Mon 0.1200 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

Leg: Caesalpinioidea:

Copaifera glycycarpa Ducke Aug-Sep n/a 1 Mon 0.0586 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 2

Copaifera multijuga Hayne Jul-Aug 2 1 Mon 0.0804 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2
Copaifera sp. Jul-Aug n/a 1 Mon 0.0056 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 2
Eperua oleifera Ducke Sep 1 3 Mon 3.8502 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3
Hymenaea courbaril L. Jun-Jul 1 1 Mon 0.1303 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Hymenaea sp. n/a 1 Mon 0.0871 3 3 3 1 1 3 n/a n/a 2 1
Peltogyne paniculata Benth. Mar-Aug n/a 1 Mon 0.1499 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 1
Leg: Mimosoideae:

Cedrelinga cataeniformis Ducke Oct n/a n/a Mon 0.0474 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 3

Dinizia excelsa Ducke Nov 2 2 Mon 0.0652 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2
Enterolobium schomburgkii Benth. Sep-Oct 2 1 Mon 0.0301 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2
Marmaroxylon racemosum Ducke - 2 1 Mon 0.0364 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 1
Parkia multijuga Benth Sep-Oct 2 1 Mon 0.0912 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 3
Parkia nitida Miquel Aug 2 1 Mon 0.1173 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2
Parkia pendula Willd. Benth. Ex. Walp Sep-Nov 2 1 Mon 0.0320 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3
Piptadenia suaveoloeus Miq. Feb-Sep n/a 2 Mon 0.0452 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2
Stryphnodendrom guianensis Aubl. Jun-Jul n/a 1 Mon 0.0887 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 1
Leg: Papilionoideae:

Andira spp. Nov-Dec 2 1 Mon 0.0691 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 2

Diplotropis purpurea Amsh. Aug n/a 2 Mon 0.0066 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1
Dipteryx magnifica Ducke Jun-Jul 2 1 Mon 0.0328 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2
Dipteryx odorata (Aubl.) Willd. Jul-Sep n/a 1 Mon 0.0819 3 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 2
Hymenolobium excelsum Ducke Mar 2 2 Mon 0.0396 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2
Hymenolobium modestum Ducke Jan-Feb n/a 2 Mon 0.0355 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1
Hymenolobium nitidum Benth. Mar-Jun 2 2 Mon 0.1786 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2
Hymenolobium sp. Mar-Apr 1 1 Mon 0.2447 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
Vatairea macrocarpa (Benth) Ducke Mar-Jun n/a n/a Mon 0.0344 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
Moraceae:

47
 Interval Seed Abundance Patterns Com- Regene- Fruiting Total Max
Fruiting Sexual Basal Area Ecological Incidence of Spatial
Tree species grouped in families Fruiting Dispersal mercial ration x height DBH
period System (m2ha-1) Group Hollowness pattern
(Years) Mode ≥45cm 15<45cm 5<15cm Priority Priority harvest class class

Brosimum acutifolium Huber Jul-Aug n/a 1 Mon 0.1023 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1

Brosimum parinarioides Ducke Sep-Oct 2 1 Mon 0.0550 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2
Brosimum potabile Ducke Sep-Oct 2 1 Mon 0.3723 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2
Brosimum rubescens Taub Nov-Dec n/a 1 Mon 0.5967 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2
Clarisia racemosa Ruiz & Pav. Oct-Dec 2 1 Mon 0.2941 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2
Maquira sclerophylla (Ducke) C. C. Oct n/a 1 Mon 1.3796 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1
Berg
Myristicaceae:

Iryanthera lancifolia Ducke Feb-Mar 2 1 Mon 0.2222 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 2

Virola multinervia Ducke Oct-Nov 1 1 Dio 0.3816 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 1
Olacaceae:

Minquartia guianensis Aubl. Oct-Nov 2 1 Mon 0.2493 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1

Sapotaceae

Manilkara huberi (Ducke) Chevalier Mar-Apr 2 1 Mon 0.0845 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 2

Simaroubaceae

Simarouba amara Aubl. Jan-Feb 2 1 Dio 0.0279 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Vochysiaceae:

Erisma spp. n/a n/a n/a Mon 0.0732 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 n/a 1 1

Seed dispersal mode: 1, animal; 2, wind; 3, unassisted; n/a, not available (e.g. unknown). Abundance patterns: 1, common; 2, intermediate; 3 rare. Ecological group: 1, shade
bearers; 2, non pioneer light demander; 3, pioneer. Commercial priority: 1, high; 2, intermediate; 3, low; Regeneration priority: 1, high; 2, intermediate; 3, low; Incidence of
hollowness: 1, low (<5%); intermediate (5-15%); high (≥15%); Spatial pattern: 1, uniform; 2, random; 3, gregarious. Fruiting x harvest: 1, fruiting is out of harvest season; 2,
beginning of harvest season; 3, out of harvest season. Total height class: 1, <25.4 m; 2, 25.4-35.4 m; 3, ≥35.4 m; Max (maximum) DBH class: 1, 60 cm; 70-90 cm; ≥90 cm.

48
Correlations among variables

There was a weak positive correlation between the scores of all size classes’ abundance patterns
with shade tolerance (sapling: Kc=0.390; p<0.05; , young: Kc=0.475; p<0.01 and adult trees: Kc=0.390;
p<0.050), indicating that the more shade tolerant species are more abundant (Table 3.10, next
page). This is logical, given the dominance of shade bearers in terms of density as shown in Table
3.7, and the probable absence of recent disturbance in the forest. The abundance of saplings and
young trees were also positively correlated with species of upper DBH range, suggesting the more
abundant species as adults have relatively more individuals in smaller classes, probably also
related to shade tolerance, as species in this ecological group are more abundant as adult, or
species well-suited to site conditions regenerate well. Sapling abundance was negatively correlated
with spatial pattern, suggesting that gregarious species have less abundant regeneration. Timber
value was negatively correlated with fruiting time in relation to harvest season, indicating that
many valued species fruit during the harvest season. The significant correlation between
regeneration priority and commercial priority is spurious, as the former has been assigned based
on the later.

49
Table 3.10: Kendall-s correlation coefficients (tau-b) between pairs of species characteristics. The 39 species characterised for all attributes were included in
the analysis. Asterisks indicate a statistically significant correlation between the corresponding variables in columns and rows, (*): p<0.05) and (**):
p<0.01. Scores and thresholds for each attribute were presented in Table 3.5.
Characteristics Shade Adults Youngs Saplings Total height Maximum Commercial Regeneration Hollowness Spatial
tolerance abundance abundance abundance class DBH class priority priority vulnerability pattern

Shade tolerance
Adult abundance 0.390*
Young abundance 0.475** 0.805**
Sapling abundance 0.390* 0.310 0.450**
Total height class -0.116 0.000 0.000 0.000
Maximum DBH class 0.140 0.362* 0.262 -0.080 0.118
Commercial priority 0.046 -0.214 -0.227 0.004 -0.105 -0.260
Regeneration priority 0.184 -0.068 -0.112 0.105 -0.71 -0.194 0.843**
Hollowness vulnerability -0.80 0.059 -0.102 0.117 -0.47 -0.041 0.032 -0.71
Spatial pattern -0.58 -0.045 -0.244 -0.379* 0.136 0.127 0.144 0.161 -0.116
Fruiting time x Harvest Season 0.080 0.015 -0.091 -0.297 0.000 0.197 -0.305* -0.237 0.092 0.067

50
3.5 - Discussion

The proposed objective for this chapter was to characterize the majority of commercial species in
Democracia Project area in order to identify appropriate silvicultural strategies to stimulate their
regeneration. In this discussion I will firstly discuss the results of species characterisation for the
most important variables and subsequently explore the implications for silvicultural interventions
in Democracia.
To group commercial species according commercial, technological and ecological
characteristics using available information should be a starting point for management systems
(Hutchinson, 1988). However, the practice of forest management in tropical areas usually starts by
concentrating attention on harvest activities and timber production, rather than on silviculture and
ecology. Beyond the financial incentives for a focus on exploitation, the large number of
commercial timber species for which only limited biological and ecological information is available
(Hall, 1996) also contributes to the problem. In this study, species characterisation was done for a
large number of species in a specific project, aiming to illustrate one way of how the Hutchinson’s
“departure point” for silviculture could be approached. The methodology employed to
characterise species could be applicable in many forest management projects, as the availability of
data for Democracia’s species is probably typical.
The forest in Democracia has tree densities (number of trees and basal area, all species) and
stocking rates similar to those reported from other regional surveys (Winkler, 1997; Higuchi and
others, 1985), although the composition differs. For example, the main families dominating forest
structure in Democracia were different from other work near to Manaus (Higuchi and others,
1985) and work in south and southeast of Amazonas state (includes Democracia region) (UTAM -
Instituto de Tecnologia da Amazônia, 2001).

51
Commercial species characterisation

Ecological groups

The balance between shade bearers and NPLD in terms of species richness and the predominance
of shade bearers in forest basal area suggest that the forest in Democracia is a mature forest, or at
least has been free of disturbance since a long time ago, assuming the 55 species analysed are
representative of the forest community as a whole. The dominance of shade bearers in terms of
basal area and the presence of regeneration of dominant tree species (Hartshorn, 1980) support this
assertion. The balance in number of species is probably because in mature forests, the dynamic is
driven by the gap mosaic theory and NPLD species probably reached maturity originally from
events of gap formation (Richards, 1996a).

Spatial pattern

Species distributions in tropical rain forests may be unpredictable (He and others, 1996) and
dependent on local factors such as physical features (e.g. topography, soil and water conditions) or
seed dispersal and reproductive behaviour (Hubbell and Foster, 1986; Leite, 2001). But sampling
designs and scale can also influence measures of distribution (Dale, 2000). For example, Niiyama
and others (1999) found that 30 most common species in a hill forest in Malaysia were spatially
aggregated, but the degree was dependent on quadrat sizes. In Amazon region Rossi and Higuchi
(1998) found a predominance of random patterns for six of eight studied commercial timber
species near to Manaus, for scale and thresholds similar to the present study, while Barros (1986)
studied spatial distribution for 78 tree species in Pará finding 36% of clumped, 22% with trend to
be clumped, 40% randomly distributed and 2% with a trend to uniform distribution. The
predominance of species with random spatial distribution in this study (64%) suggests that for the
majority of commercial species is difficult to combine different silvicultural strategies at small
scales, given that many species with different requirements may be growing closely. On the other
hand, eighteen species were found to have gregarious distribution in Compartment 7,
corresponding to 18% of commercial species. Species with tendency to occur in clumps poses at the
same time a constraint and an opportunity to the tree selection process. The opportunity is that for
these species at certain scale (of clumps), there will be more trees to select from, both for retention
and for felling, and the constraint is the need to control harvest intensity within the clumps.
When a high valued commercial species occurs in concentrated clumps, harvesting
activities can be concentrated on space, creating larger gaps than are desired in low impact logging,
if no additional rules are included to select trees for felling in a more uniform distribution. Van der
Hout (1999) reported this problem when comparing conventional versus reduced impact logging
in Guyana for the former treatment, where because of the gregarious distribution of the high value

52
species, Chlorocardium rodiei, the residual stand was dominated by scattered large felling gaps
connected by skid trails. In spite of the fact that the local high intensity logging may be associated
to damage on advanced regeneration, an additional problem is that Chlorocaridium is a shade
bearer, and therefore, the post-logging environment, rich in light, will put the species at a
competitive disadvantage with less valued light demander species. The development and
application of tree selection rules that control harvest intensity and avoid felling trees in clusters is
one way to avoid high local harvest intensities.
An advantage of managing clumped species could be that by delimiting the clumps, the
number of seed trees to be retained could be decreased within clumps and the residual stand still
maintains a distance between conspecifics viable for cross-pollination. Another advantage would
be the possibility to apply, locally, relevant silvicultural interventions. For example, at local scale
the canopy opening could compatible with the ecological group of the clumped species. In this
case, the clumps would be like an independent stand within the whole harvest compartment with
its own silvicultural strategies (a forest strata). In this area, the felling intensity priority could be
increased for the clumped species and decreased for others, in some cases reducing the pressure to
harvest species that are rare. Species with random spatial pattern and very low abundance may be
less suited for forest management, as the distance between conspecific after logging may be an
obstacle to reproduction, especially for those species with low numbers of advance regeneration
(NPLD) or dioecious species.
Figure 3.6 presents spatial distribution for 3 species in Compartment 7, illustrating
different situations related to spatial pattern. Brosimum parinoriodes (3.5a) is a high commercial
priority species, with very low adult abundance (n<0.5 ha-1) and a random spatial distribution. In
this case the spatial pattern does not suggest a special harvest planning, as the species will be
harvested along with many others occurring around its trees, but it does illustrate how distances
between conspecifics will become large after logging. In the case of Manilkara huberi (3.5b), a
medium commercial priority species, and also of very low average abundance, its gregarious
spatial pattern can suggest that a Manilkara’s stand could be delimited in south east part of the
compartment where tree selection would target this species, both for retention and for felling.
Additionally, seed tree retention in areas other than its stand should be increased or even
harvesting not allowed. A third situation could occur with Eperua oleifera (3.5c), a high commercial
priority shade tolerant species, which is common and also gregarious as can be seen in the figure.
Because of its high value, probably it would have a high harvest intensity where it occurs if no
spatial rules are in place to control the number of trees felled per area unit.

Vulnerability to hollowness

Incidence of stem hollowness is a constraint to timber production in natural forest managed under
a polycyclic system, particularly because of its influence over processes of tree selection for felling

53
and retention. For example, when the number of harvestable trees tested hollow is high, low
harvest intensity may result, which brings negative financial impacts. Wood wastage due hollow
stems can be as high as 73% for some species (Higuchi and others, 1997a). In Democracia, only
6.7% of the trees visited by harvest team were refused due to stem hollows (N=12,499; this study),
Nevertheless, for species with high incidence (≥15%), such as Manilkara huberi, Dypterix odorata and
Brosimum rubescens, because hollow tested trees are compulsorily left, serving as seed trees, it may
be that fewer trees need to be retained as seed trees, conferring more flexibility to tree selection for
felling (as long as this does not contribute to dysgenic selection).

Abundance pattern

Species rarity may be related to the lack of preferred habitats (fixed conditions in time and space,
such as soil and topography) or lack of conditions for successful regeneration, such as appropriate
light conditions or escape from enemies (Hubbell and Foster, 1986). Furthermore, a prevalence of
species occurring in low densities is a characteristic related to the great species diversity of tropical
forests (Hartshorn, 1980). Clearly, the thresholds used to assign species as rare or common
influences the number of species so classified. The thresholds chosen to classify species were
arbitrary, although examples from literature served as reference points. Pinard and others (1999)
classified as adult, trees ≥20 cm DBH and as rare those species with abundance <1 ha-1, in order to
identify appropriate management systems and species with importance to wildlife in Lomerío
region, Bolivia. Applying this same threshold in the data of our 55 species (but DBH≥ 15 cm), 69%
of rare species of adult trees are still classified as rare, although a similar comparison should follow
for all DBH ranges. Fredericksen and others (2001) also working in Lomerío and with trees ≥20
DBH, but for seed tree retention guidelines development, classified as rare the species with
abundance <2 ha-1. Pitman and others (2001), in contrast, adopted a definition for common species
being those with density ≥1 stem ha1 (≥10 cm DBH), however their purposes were to investigate
species distribution in scales of landscape (104 km2) and region (106 km2), comprising all upper
Amazonia Terra Firme forests. From these few examples, it is clear that approaches to species
classification by abundance are variable and reflect the purposes they were established for. In the
case of forest management, it is important to detect abundant species and species that assume
importance for forest structure, because more general silvicultural strategies can be designed for
them. On the other hand, to detect rare species is equally important to prevent their local extinction
by over harvesting. In Democracia five species are responsible for 43% of stand basal area (Eperua
oleifera, Brosimum rubescens, Scleronema micranthum, Brosimum potabile and Clarisia racemosa), and
Eperua alone accounted for 31%. In this case, only B. potabile is not a common species (15-45 cm
DBH). When considering all 55 species, the rare species in Democracia assume greater importance
in forest structure, as they represent one third of basal area, and therefore are important for forest
structure (Figure 3.7).

54
Reproduction

A prevalence of animal dispersed tree species is characteristic of neotropical forests (Janzen and
Vásquez-Yanes, 1991; Howe and Smallwood, 1982) and this pattern has been found by Hammond
and others (1996) (approximately 70%) in Guianas and Suriname, but not in Bolivia where wind
dispersed species accounted for 66% (Mostacedo and Pinard, 2001). Where animal dispersal is
prevalent, as in Democracia, animal conservation strategies assume greater importance in the
management system, even that they also may act as seed and seedling predators. The shadow area
will ultimately depend on the role the fauna plays in the seed dispersal process. In this study it was
not possible to differentiate how the animal dispersed species are distributed along animal groups,
such as small and large birds, as well as groups of mammals. By doing so, more refined
assumptions could be assumed related to the species capacity for propagule dispersal in terms of
distance, for example. Another important step may be to identify the type and degree of
dependence on animals of some commercial tree species, as harvesting pressure could treat some
animal species playing important role in seed dispersal.
To achieve a synchronism between logging and seed dispersal for selected species is
increasingly being suggested as way to promote species regeneration (Swaine, 1996; Justiniano and
Fredericksen, 2001). The lack of synchronism may be exemplified by the fact that it is not
uncommon trees filled of mature or immature fruits are felled (personal observation, in different
parts of the Amazon region). In Democracia, the harvesting schedule is constrained by many
factors, like a road availability, but mainly because all planned activities must happen during the
‘dry’ season due to impossibility for vehicle and machinery use (transport) under wet conditions
(raining). Furthermore, it would not make sense to fell trees of some species and to wait for fruiting
of others’ in the same area, doubling the effort of the harvest team in the same area, as well as of
the skid machinery and their damaging implications. However, by identifying species that produce
fruits in the beginning of the harvest season, it could be possible to delay the felling activities
locally and for few weeks until its seed rain is over in order to promote its regeneration, if the
species is important and produces fruits less than annually. Although in the case of Compartment
7 not many opportunities have arisen to put this procedure in practice, once forest inventory data
are available in GIS, it will be easier to identify species with high regeneration priorities that fruit
less than annually, and occur in clumps concentrated enough to be delimited. It would be possible
to explore this opportunity in compartments for which harvest is being planned, in order to
explore the feasibility of scheduling felling activities considering a silvicultural decision of
delaying harvesting.

55
Implication of species characterization for the silvicultural system

Based on the characterization of 55 species in this study it is possible to consider silvicultural

strategies to promote regeneration in Democracia Project. The structured view presented in Figure
3.8 is used to group species based on three 3 attributes relevant for forest management, recruitment
adequacy, ecological groups and species abundance. Furthermore, by associating species
regeneration priorities to their status in the diagram, it is possible to identify silvicultural strategies
that might be favoured given the importance of timber production and management goals. A
complete species list according to this diagram is presented in the Appendix 2 (Table 6.2). This
approach to species scoring could be used to reduce the number of species that require promotion
of regeneration beyond the minimum effort currently practiced. Some rationalization of
silvicultural intervention seems justified to balance feasibility with other aims, although this
prioritisation should not be misinterpreted as a drastic strategy of forest domestication (De Graaf,
2000; Lamprecht, 1993).

56
 Regeneration Priority
Recruitment Ecological Abundance
1 2 3
Adequacy Group Pattern
Minimise gaps Brosimum Clarisia
Rare 9
Protect advanced potabile racemosa
regeneration Shade
Bearers
Common 14 Eperua Brosimum Scleronema
23
Adequate oleifera rubescens micranthum
Recruitment
6 Parkia
Rare 6 Andira spp.
29 nitida
Canopy opening NPLD
Protect advanced Common 0
regeneration

Rare 4 Brosimum Hymenaea sp.

parinarioides
Minimise gaps Shade
Protect advanced Bearers Mezilaurus
Common 1
26 regeneration itauba
5

Inadequate Parkia Dinizia

Rare 19 Simarouba amara
Recruitment 19 pendula excelsa
NPLD
Common 0
2

Canopy opening
Protect advanced Rare 2 Goupia glabra
Pioneers
regeneration Jacaranda copaia

Common 0

Figure 3.8: Structured view of number of commercial species distributed according to recruitment adequacy, ecological groups and abundance patterns. Some species names
are provided as example, according to regeneration priority. Numbers of species are given for each node. Main silvicultural strategies are presented in italic. Regeneration
priority is presented only for some species, as example. A complete list is presented in Appendix 2.

57
In Democracia, there was a balance between species with adequate recruitment (53%) and species
with inadequate recruitment (43%), which might be expected given the balance between shade
bearers and non-pioneer light demanding species and the closed nature of the forest. However, by
further examining affiliation to ecological groups it is possible to identify five shade bearing
species with inadequate recruitment. This was not unexpected and suggests these species may be
encountering limitations in seed delivery or seedling establishment and development. Amongst
the five are Brosimum parinarioides and Cariniana micrantha, species with high priority for the
promotion of regeneration. On the other hand six NPLD species (Appendix 2, Table 6.2) presented
adequate recruitment despite having an irregular diameter distribution pattern, which may
suggest that these species will be relatively easier to manage than those NPLD with inadequate
recruitment. It may be that sampling intensity was too low to capture adequately the abundance in
the smallest classes for these species. Considering the annual compartment area (1315 ha),
sampling intensity was 0.19% for trees DBH≥10 cm and 0.04% for trees 5-10 cm DBH. Recruitment
adequacy was assessed based on the species occurrence in the first diameter classes (5-15 cm), but
more rigorously should be from permanent plots or based on more extensive inventory in the
Democracia region.
Based on the results of the present study, there are 28 shade bearing species, including the
three most important species for the Enterprise are shade bearers (Eperua oleifera, Brosimum
parinarioides and Brosimum potabile). Amongst all commercial species, Eperua is undoubtedly the
most important species for Democracia because of its high commercial value and its importance to
forest structure (14.6% of the total basal area). Eperua also fruits annually, is not vulnerable to stem
hollowness (1.26%) and shows an adequate recruitment (10 trees ha-1 for 5-15 cm DBH). However,
all of these positive characteristics in combination with gregarious pattern of distribution also
suggest that rigid harvest yield control is needed to avoid opening too much canopy during
harvests.
The importance of shade bearers to the forest structure in Democracia suggests that a
polycyclic system is appropriate and also points out that minimizing felling gap sizes during
harvest activities is an important silvicultural strategy. Furthermore, the dominance of shade
bearers suggests a heavy reliance on advance regeneration (Dawkins and Philip, 1998), implying
that not only gap reduction is important, but also control of damage during silvicultural
interventions. These silvicultural strategies may be complemented with post logging silvicultural
treatment like selected trees’ crown liberation to enhance growth throughout, as the effect of
canopy opening may be short-lived, lasting only few (3) years after logging (Silva and others,
1995).
On the other hand, 25 commercial species are light demanding (NPLD), from which 18
occur in low abundance (rare species). In order to promote their regeneration it is suggested to

58
increase the number of retained seed trees of these species. Although seed tree retention carries
uncertainties to regeneration success related to the environment conditions to seed dispersal,
germination and seedling establishment; it is the logical way to guarantee seed supply. These
species can suffer substantial reduction in population size with logging, have seeds capable to
germinate in the shade but afterwards the seedling may perish rapidly without canopy gaps
(Jennings and others, 2001). In addition to their adult scarcity and recruitment limitation, many of
these species do not have adult trees smaller than the MFD to contribute to seed supply. Despite
the fact that advanced regeneration of these species is scarce in the area, it may be expected that
they will be favoured by the changes in light availability, even under a gap reduction strategy
targeting shade-bearing species. Silva and others (1996) have been monitoring growth in Amazon
region since 1981 and they found that the rates are higher in logged forest no matter the ecological
group the species belong to, even for shade tolerant species, but this effect tends to disappear few
years after logging. In De Graaf’s experiments in Suriname to test different harvest intensities (15,
23 and 46m3/ha), twenty years after logging a study on 8 species (4 pioneers and 4 shade tolerant)
showed that climax species were more abundant than pioneers, regardless of the treatment
(Dekker and De Graaf, 2003). Despite this suggested forest resilience to disturbance, the
uncertainty on species composition after logging remains, as well as the performance of each
ecological group over time.
Within annual harvest compartments, it is also possible to favour light demanding species
and their regeneration in areas where stocking levels are relatively high. How to integrate a gap
size reduction paradigm that benefits shade bearers, with one that promotes NPLD is an important
and difficult challenge for tropical foresters (Fredericksen and Putz, 2003; Hammond and others,
2000; Gullison and others, 1996). For regeneration of some species larger disturbances or canopy
opening are required than is typically created when minimal impact logging techniques are used
and logging intensities are low. On the other hand, canopy-opening regulation is an abstract
concept in tropical forestry, as we do not know the degree of opening required to match guild
requirements, nor how best to control the opening size itself. Species composition in gaps may be
driven more by chance than by niche partitioning (Brokaw and Busing, 2000) and when the canopy
is opened up, not only will the target species (economically important species) benefit from this
increase in light availability but also the less desirable species (species with no economic value)
(Rose, 2000). A compromise could be to create gaps of intermediary sizes (300-500 m2), which
would stimulate most of the commercial species (P. Sist, personal communication).

59
Reliability of the analysis

The ecological characterisation presented in this chapter and the discussion conducted about how
to use it to support forest management represents an attempt to find practical means to include the
ecological attributes in the tree selection process. Nevertheless, It must be considered a first
attempt: the relatively large number of species involved and the limited availability of data for
some attributes, mean that one should be cautious in drawing hard conclusions from the data. I
point out the following considerations to highlight this concern:
• The data used to generate species abundance patterns came from only one harvest
compartment (1,315 ha). These scores could be revised as more data become available, for
example from permanent sample plots that are being established within the compartments;
• The species grouping into guilds was based on data from undisturbed forest and the
literature. Inclusion of other types of data, particularly from disturbed forest would bring
one more confidence in the classification;
• Phenology patterns were not gathered from systematic and long term local observation but
from regional studies and local experienced tree identifiers. A more complete approach
would be to establish field studies at least for those species whose the phenology was
pointed as a constraint to forest management;
• Botanical identification constraints are common in tropical regions (Richards, 1996b;
Kanashiro and others, 2002), especially in cases where thousands of trees are identified by
common name and the reliability relies on the quality of the identification of few trees to
serve as link between commercial and scientific names. The collection of fertile samples to
confirm species name is needed. The importance of botanical identification increases
substantially when ecological information is used, as the attributes gathered from
literature may not be associated with the species in field;
• There are attributes missing from my analysis that would be useful, but they were not
included due to their data unavailability. Data related to reproduction, data on genetics,
pollination, seed characteristics (size, weight, whether recalcitrant or orthodox) and species
ability to resprout would be helpful. Habitat associations, specifically to do with soil (i.e.
species response to scarification and nutrients) would also be helpful;
• The commercial species were not characterised according to their value for wildlife, for
example by classifying their fruits taking criteria of preferences by animal groups. This
classification would include a further axis to consider when selecting trees for retention, as
the wildlife plays an important role in seed dispersal for the commercial species as well as
contributing to the conservation values of the forest.

60
3.6 - Conclusions

The majority of the commercial species (75%) in Democracia has been characterised in ecological
aspects that may be useful for establish silvicultural strategies to promote forest regeneration after
logging. The prevalence of shade bearers in the project area and their relatively high value to the
Enterprise suggests that a polycyclic system with single tree selection is an appropriate starting
point for management. Further, minimization of felling gap size and measures to control damage
to advanced regeneration during harvest will help protect potential crop trees, as well as maintain
closed forest conditions. Both strategies are compatible with low-medium harvest intensity (e.g. 4-8
trees ha-1) (Van der Hout, 2000b), where felling clumps of trees is avoided. However, as the
number of non-pioneer light demanding species is considerable (24), some additional efforts to
promote their regeneration may be required, particularly for those species that appear to be poorly
represented by recruitment in the closed forest conditions. Data from logged forests may help to
inform decisions about prescriptions for these species (i.e., we need to know how trees respond to
the general low level of disturbance associated with selective logging). As these species potentially
benefit from increased canopy openings, an option would be to allow an increase in harvest
intensity up to a threshold, for example 10-12 tree ha1, in 50x50 m area units where NPLD seed tree
species are located. Based on the results of the characterisation in this study it is possible to
conclude that there is a considerable variability in how ecological parameters are combined across
species, suggesting that single prescription for felling and retention would not be appropriate to
apply across all species. Furthermore, the guild division alone do not work to identify species with
poor representation among advanced regeneration. Studies on species occurrence as established
regeneration are important source of information of local species. Given the species’ suitability for
regeneration based on ecological attributes, the Enterprise could drive interventions to promote
species with greater priority for regeneration.

61
Chapter 4 - DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS FOR TREE SELECTION

IN DEMOCRACIA PROJECT

4.1 - Introduction

I n natural tropical forests, where polycyclic systems are used, tree selection for felling is
commonly based on a specified minimum felling diameter (MFD) (Van der Hout, 1999) and
occasionally a proportion of trees is reserved as a source of seed or stock for the next harvest (e.g.
examples in Dawkins & Philip, 1998). The Minimum Felling Diameters are commonly based on
market demands and industry requirements. Occasionally, a proportion of the stock is retained to
guarantee the next harvest or as seed trees to favour regeneration. Rules for the retention of seed
trees commonly are based on factors other than species’ readiness to set fruit (Appanah and Mohd,
1991), like a number of trees per harvest compartment or a proportion of harvestable volume.
Despite the common practice, tree selection for felling and retention could be done to promote
sustainability.
In polycyclic management systems, tree selection refers to a set of procedures, rules or
guidelines in which trees are selected for retention or felling for a given cutting cycle, based on
criteria established to achieve the objectives of management. It is an important step of forest
management because it represents a synthesis of decisions taken to regulate yield, to plan harvest,
and to meet market demands. As part of a yield regulation process, the number of trees to be
felled and also their attributes (for example, species, stem size, and increment) contribute to the
forest allowable annual cut to achieve a sustainable yield (Osmaston, 1968). As part of the harvest
planning, tree attributes like species, size and location serve as a base for tactical and operational
planning to achieve environmentally sound harvesting practices (Dykstra, 1996), reduce damage
and increase efficiency (Sist, 2000). As part of a silvicultural system based on natural regeneration,
tree selection also assumes great importance (De Graaf, 2000) because it influences the remnant
forest structure, environment and composition, and therefore the forest regeneration capacity.
Economically, tree selection can drive the harvesting to meet the market demands and ecologically
to assure that the ecosystem integrity is maintained (Thompson and Yared, 1999).
If species ecological information is expected to be used in tropical forest management for
timber production, it certainly will be through their inclusion in the tree selection processes, and
more specifically in developing species based criteria on how to retain trees as seed sources to
promote species regeneration, and on how to select trees for felling to maintain forest structure and
integrity in the post logging stage.
Since 1990’s, Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) has been recognised as an important step in
natural tropical forest management, with its main objectives of to minimize soil disturbance,

62
impacts on wildlife, and damage to residual trees (Sist, 2000). One common component in most RIL
guidelines (e.g., Pinard and others, 1995 Sist, 2000 Van der Hout, 1999) is to conduct a 100%
inventory of commercial trees. By recording information such as tree location, impediments to
extraction, topography and fragile areas or stream buffer zones, the harvesting planning may be
conducted in a sound way so that damage is reduced and also efficiency achieved.
Considering the current widespread availability of computational systems and their
increasing use in forestry (Dykstra, 1997; De Graaf, 2000; Hammond and others, 2000), the 100%
inventory serves as the main database for a information system (Rondeaux, 1991) that can support
harvest planning, because it involves data collection and processing to provide vital information
for planning and decision-making (Garg, 2002). The use of computational systems is important
given the amount of data involved in pre-harvest inventories of hundreds of hectares, and because
it permits easily the calculation of some of the manager’s tools, like the stand table with expected
timber production per species (Hawthorne and others, 1999). In case of harvest planning, the use of
GIS (Geographic Information Systems) allows the spatial planning of the harvest infrastructure
(roads, landing areas, bridges etc), and also to produce more accurate harvest maps with the
spatial location of harvestable trees (Souza Jr, 1999). This information system can serve to improve
tree selection for retention and felling, supporting the implementation of silvicultural strategies
based on species ecological information.
The aim of the this chapter is to develop an approach to tree selection for retention of seed
trees and for felling that incorporates a range of ecological and silvicultural considerations, to serve
as an improvement upon the existing practice in Democracia Project. These ecological and
silvicultural considerations were included in the forest information system mentioned above. Once
developed, both the existing (hereafter, Conventional) and alternative approaches (Alternative)
were implemented in field. As a first stage, implementation and comparisons of the tree selection
were based on 6 blocks of 100 ha to deal with the tree selection for retention (seed trees). In a
second stage, the correspondent tree selection for felling was implemented in 16 plots of 6.25 ha
within the blocks. In this chapter, I present the tree selection and comparisons to evaluate the two
different approaches for the first stage, not including therefore the impacts of the different tree
selection process on the forest, which are presented in Chapter 5.

4.2 - Tree selection processes in tropical forest management

Criteria to select trees were presented in early practices of tropical silviculture, when Munro’s and
Brandis’ management and silvicultural principles included a minimum felling diameter, seed tree
retention and tree marking for felling (Dawkins and Philip, 1998). However, the minimum felling
diameter was the main aspect of Brandis’ principle to survive, as a practical approach to selection
(Van der Hout, 1999) in most of the silvicultural systems since then. Dawkins and Philip (1998)
presented the history of the tropical silviculture of many tropical countries and a range of

63
variations in which uniform and selective systems were used. In most of them, the minimum
diameter felling was the main criteria to select trees, proving to be adequate in some cases and
inadequate in others.
The MFD system can be used in the context of yield regulation systems (Seydack, 1995) to
estimate the MFD for maximum production when the average tree growth and mortality rates are
available (Alder, 1992; Nebel and others, 2001), or to control harvest intensity. But in most cases
MFDs are determined by market demands and political reasons (Guariguata and Pinard, 1998),
and often without any consideration for the local conditions or for the species-specific attainable
dimensions (Lamprecht, 1993) or diameter structure (Sist, 2001).
The use of MFD to select trees and regulate harvesting can be carried out in two
diametrically opposed ways, either by selection of single marked trees under strict silvicultural
rules, or by the indiscriminate removal of all merchantable timber trees of commercial species
above certain minimum utilizable size (Bruenig, 1996). Despite the usefulness of the MFD as a
practical approach for tree selection (Wadsworth, 1987), and that it is an almost universal practice
in timber exploitation to preserve immature trees for later harvests, it became clear long ago that
alone, MFD control does not ensure high productivity of future crops nor it does protect immature
trees from damage during harvest (Wadsworth, 1997). Nevertheless, MFD systems are the main
tool used in many tropical moist forest countries to secure sustained yield in wood production
(Lamprecht, 1993).
The application of MFD is receiving renewed attention in tropical silviculture, especially in
the context of RIL guidelines. For example, de Vletter (1995) reported an alternative approach,
experimentally applied to improve harvesting methods in Fiji. Where the conventional system
used a single common MFD (35 cm) for all species, the alternative approach used different MFD for
the commercial species based on their maximum attainable diameter and estimated increment
range. Prior to harvest, trees were selected and marked in the field based on species’ minimum
felling diameters and a target logging intensity, which had influence on the MFD per species. In
another example in Guyana, (Van der Hout, 1999) used the following tree selection criteria,
included in order of priority: 1) trees evenly distributed over the area; 2) trees were selected
according to their relative abundance over the plots (stands) ; 3) a differential diameter was applied
for species, based on their maximum attainable diameter and susceptibility to decay; and, 4) when
the previous criteria left choice between trees, those suppressing immature tree crops were
selected for felling. Also in the context of RIL guidelines, tree selection is gaining interface with
silvicultural rules. Sist (2001) proposed four silvicultural rules to be applied in the mixed
dipterocarp forests of Southeast Asia, aiming to keep extraction rates compatible with timber yield
capability, limit the impact of harvesting on tree species’ diversity and composition, and to reduce
impact on commercial species ecology. The proposed rules were: 1) to adopt a MFD based on stand
diameter structure, and three structures were identified; 2) to keep a minimum spacing distance of

64
35 m between harvested trees, so that it would achieve a harvest intensity of 8-9 trees ha-1; 3) to
respect single tree-felling gaps to promote and maintain post-logging species’ diversity; and 4) to
respect a maximum diameter cutting limit, of 100 cm, to limit gap size.
Montagnini and others (2001) experimented a selective system as alternative to the
minimum diameter felling prevalent in the sub-tropical forests of Misiones, Argentina. In this so
called “Uniform Spacing” method of forest harvest, trees were selected for extraction or marked for
retention according to criteria 1) species scarcity – exploitation less intense for the scarcest species;
2) species horizontal distribution – exploitation was lower in dense areas; and 3) the remaining
trees should display adequate characteristics as seed trees – straight and healthy bole, healthy
crowns and be mature trees.
More unusual criteria to select trees have also been used to match local requirements. In
South Africa, for example, Seydack (1995) developed a method to select trees for felling, where
harvestable trees were defined according signs of senility, low vigour or reduced life expectancy,
rather than by minimum felling diameters. The criteria included percentage crown dieback,
structural damage, signs of decay and were established per species and then calibrated in relation
to species-proportional turnover rates to generate the allowed harvestable number of trees per
species. Afterwards trees (DBH≥30 cm) matching criteria per species were selected for felling. In
forests of Varzea5 in the Brazilian Amazon (precisely in Amazonas State), a traditional harvesting
system involving local people (‘ribeirinhos’) consisted of felling trees during the dry season and
leaving the logs to be extracted (pulled) by boats during the rainy season, when the forest is
flooded. In this system, only low timber density species that float could be selected for harvesting
and the tree selection criteria were also unusual. A tree was selected if the local topography clearly
indicated that the log would be in a position to float when the waters rose, otherwise it could not
be possible to extract the log easily. This could be observed from the marks of the water level,
printed in the trunks of surrounding trees. A second unusual criterion was regarding the minimum
felling diameter, which was taken at the top of commercial height (visually estimated), based on
the minimum requirements in the veneer and plywood factories, and also because the DBH was
useless due to huge buttresses in some species, e.g. Ceiba pentandra (personal observation, but see
Higuchi and others, 1994).
RIL guidelines are primarily concerned with damage reduction and efficiency increase
(Barreto and others, 1998), but the tree selection process is both a component and a separate
element of RIL method, when it includes criteria for the retention of seed trees, trees of importance
for local people and more complex criteria for felling to achieve yield regulation (Jonkers and van
Leersum, 2000).

5 Varzea: Vegetation type in the Amazon region, where the area becomes seasonally flooded by the rise of water. Usually,
the term is used for rivers of muddy or whitewaters (Pires and Prance, 1985).

65
 The retention of trees as seed sources is important to provide future stocks of commercial
species selectively removed since the first harvesting, and the subject has been pointed out in this
context by several authors recently (Plumptre, 1995; Hasanbahri, 1997; Fredericksen and others,
2001; Guariguata and Pinard, 1998). When absent from the forest management system, for example
when the MFD is the sole silvicultural control, removal of larger stems can impair subsequent
regeneration due to loss of fruit and seed sources (Sheil and van Heist, 2000) and in cases where
logging is highly selective for a rare species, and seed trees are not retained, that species can
become extirpated over large forest areas (Johns, 1997).
On the other hand, when part of silvicultural system, a central problem of seed tree
retention is that despite of its ecological meaning, it is a process commonly based on attributes that
are not related to species ecology. The size of retained trees are commonly based on the minimum
felling diameter (MFD) and the number of retained trees is generally a not species-specific
proportion of the total number of trees or converted from a proportion of the stand variables
(volume, density) and, in both cases, usually without consideration of species autoecology.
Moreover, the retention guidelines tend to be quite general, for example only suggesting that seed
trees should be retained. They assume extremely variable criteria in different parts of the world.
In tropical forests of Bolivia, for example, the current practice for seed tree retention under
the new forest regulations is to reserve 20% of each cutting unit from harvest as a guarantee for
seed tree retention (Fredericksen and others, 2001), although in the past Gullison and others (1996)
reported 10% retention above MFD for mahogany (Swietenia macropylla King). In Ghana, the
retention guideline is to select 2-4 seed trees of any exploited species in each 120 ha compartment
(Swaine and others, 1997; Agyeman and others, 1999). Guidelines for marking trees in Queensland
stated that seed trees should be retained at an average spacing of 40 by 40 m (Vanclay, 1989).
Hasanbahri (1997) suggested the retention of one tree per hectare or about 100 trees of different
commercial species in every (100 ha) cutting block to manage forests in Indonesia (dipterocarp and
non-dipterocarp); and in the Amazon it was recommended a retention of 1-2 seed trees per hectare
(Projeto Embrapa/CIFOR, 2000) and 10 adult trees per species per 100 ha (Thompson and Yared,
1999).
In the Brazilian Amazon, government rules for retention of seed trees in forest
management for timber production were issued in 1995 (Portaria 048/95 IBAMA, 1995),
determining that a minimum of 10% of the total number of individuals with DBH≥ 45 cm per
species should be retained as seed trees. In 2002, this requirement was excluded from the law in
the Instruction No 4 (IBAMA, 2002), and retention became only implicit, as the statement is that the
species harvestable volume should take into account the species regeneration capacity to be
determined. According to Silva and van Eldik (2000) there are specific regulations (Instruction 1
from 8 January 1999) for Virola surinamensis, a dioecious tree species used for veneer production
and under very high pressure for harvesting in the northern part of Pará State and in the Amapá

66
State (Western Amazon). The regulations prohibit felling during the fruiting seasons and state that
the number of trees to be felled must be less than 75% of the available stock over 45 cm DBH as a
provision for seed tree retention, and the distance between seed trees must be less than 100 m.
From the above examples, it is clear that seed tree retention issues have received attention
as part of forest management systems. However, the retention rules are commonly defined by
inadequate criteria or are untested, such as that those described above, and there is a need to
consider seed tree retention rules more thoroughly, both to guarantee that seed production of
commercial species will continue after logging and to maintain residual structure.
The inadequacy of seed tree retention rules is related to a variety of aspects, but a primary
weakness is that species’ characteristics are not considered, and therefore retention may be too
stringent for the regeneration requirement of some species, while inadequate for the regeneration
of others (Fredericksen and others, 2001). But if species ecological attributes are to be used to
inform decisions about seed tree retention, questions remain about which ecological attributes are
relevant to consider and how should they be included in a tree selection process at commercial
large scale projects to determine the number of trees to be retained.
Based on species characterisation for two different tropical forests in Bolivia, (Fredericksen
and others, 2001) proposed a dichotomous key, in which species were assigned to groups, resulting
in guidelines for the number of seed trees to retain and the adequate microsite for the species
regeneration and establishment. The dichotomy considered the predominant method of
reproduction (by sprouting or by seed), the species abundance (rare or common) combined with
the species ability to produce seed crops and germinate successfully (frequent or infrequent seed
production), and species tolerance of competing vegetation (advanced regeneration stock). The
suggested guidelines were only qualitative (low/high number of seed trees required), and
although it serves as a reference to differentiate seed tree retention according species
characteristics, its application to a particular case would require further consideration.
The alternative process developed in this study attempts to tackle the question of how to
establish a logical link between species ecological information and the process of selecting trees in
tropical forest management for timber production. It includes selection for retention based on
species ecological information and selection for felling based on species MFD, the harvest map, and
guidelines to drive selection in the field.

67
4.3 - Methods

An alternative tree selection approach that incorporated a range of ecological and silvicultural
considerations was developed and implemented in field. The ecological and silvicultural
considerations were based on the current polycylic silvicultural system, and aimed to promote the
natural post logging regeneration by ensuring a seed supply and reducing damage normally
caused by logging when no specific rules are enforced in the field.
This study compared two approaches to select trees for retention as seed trees and
eventually for felling. The first (Conventional) is the approach used by the Enterprise and the
second an alternative (Alternative), developed to improve the Conventional one. Both process are
based on data from 100% pre-harvest inventory, but the Alternative approach also considered
ecological information on species ecology as described in the Chapter 3 to calculate the number of
seed trees to be retained. The study was conducted based on data from Compartment 7, which is a
1,315 ha annual harvest compartment in Democracia Project. The inventory for Compartment 7
was carried out between August and October 2000 and the harvesting in 2001 and 2002.

Pre-Harvest forest inventory

Pre-harvest inventory is described here because it is an important step for tree selection, as it
provides the main data set about species as well as tree locations. In Democracia, initially, the
annual compartments are sub-divided in parallel lines (“piques”) 50 m apart, all of them starting
from one perpendicular main line and following a specified direction (azimuth measured with
hand compass). “Piques” are opened by cutting understorey plants (shrubs and trees up to 10 cm
DBH). At each 50 m a pole is placed over the “pique” and a number is recorded, which serves
hereafter as quadrat number (“quadra”). In order to assure “piques” are parallel lines, at every 200 m
a perpendicular measure is taken to the previous one to check whether the 50 m between lines is
being respected. When a difference is found, the team makes an appropriate correction. After these
procedures the whole compartment is entirely sub-divided in 50x50 m squares (quadrats), which is
the basic unit to record tree location (x,y). This procedure allows one to locate each tree spatially,
through “pique” and “quadra” number, and its (x,y) coordinate, which vary from zero to 50 m.
Using this information, a single coordinate compartment scale based is obtained transporting tree
location to one unique origin, which is “pique” zero, “quadra” zero, “X” zero, “Y” zero (0,0). This
coordinate is used to plot commercial stock maps (see tree selection method below) or eventually
may be converted in georeferenced coordinate to be used in geographic information systems (GIS).
Each tree receives a sequentially numbered aluminium plate, fixed on the tree with a
galvanized nail. A handheld computer is used to store data for all trees DBH≥35 cm. For each tree
variables recorded include tree number, “pique” and “quadra” number, tree location (x,y

68
coordinates), species name (common code name), DBH (Diameter at Breast Height class), stem
quality classification code, a topographic position code and a visual estimate of commercial
height. Information about the terrain that could be useful to harvest planning are also recorded,
such as stream position and swamp areas. Each team is able to inventory about 16 ha per day and
at the end of each day all information is unloaded from handheld computers to a desktop
computer in the camp.

The Conventional process for tree selection

The conventional process of tree selection was entirely based on 100% pre-harvest
inventory information and the tree selection was made by handling the data in a electronic
worksheet (Excel and QuatroPro for MS Windows). Tree selection for retention and for felling
in the Conventional process was made in 2001 by the Enterprise team, completely independent of
selection according the Alternative process.

Tree selection for retention

According to the Enterprise’s forest management plan (Gethal Amazonas S.A, 2001), the
stated objective to seed tree selection is to retain spatially distributed seed trees of commercial and
potential species, in order to secure a minimum mature tree stock of those harvested species. For
any species, a minimum of 10% of total number of trees over 45cm DBH should be left as seed
trees, regarding the species’ natural distribution. Trees with any stem quality are included as
potential seed trees. Seed tree retention is made at compartment scale (compartments size usually
are 1,000-1,500 ha).
Tree selection for retention in Democracia also incorporates current Brazilian regulations
(IBAMA, 1995) for protected species (Bertholletia excelsa and Hevea brasiliensis), as well as trees near
to rivers and slopes (permanent protected areas). These rules for retention are compulsory and in
this study they were applied in both conventional and alternative processes.

Tree selection for felling

The Enterprise’s stated objectives for tree selection for felling in the forest management
(Gethal Amazonas S.A., 2001) are to support harvest planning and to inform the factory about
available commercial stock. The selection is based on the current commercial species list (all
commercial priorities), the Enterprise’s minimum felling diameters per species (7), stem qualities 1
or 2 criteria (Very Good and Good; Table 4.1) and excludes trees previously selected as seed trees.
All trees matching these criteria were included in the harvest map, as harvestable trees.

69
Table 4.1: Stem quality classification and scores used to assess trees during 100% pre-harvest inventory.

Stem
Stem
Quality Description
Classification
Score
Trees suspected to be hollow, usually assessed in field by a sound
0 (zero) Hollow
test, performed by hitting the stem with a heavy knife
Trees with very good shape, straight bole and apparently free of
1 Very Good
defects such as knots and deformities
Trees with stem suitable for wood processing, but presenting
2 Good
signs of defects
Trees with irregular stem, with defects and/or crook ness, not
3 Poor
suitable for wood processing, rejected trees

Harvest map and rules in the field

Only trees selected for felling were plotted on the harvesting map, which was printed in a (X,Y)
scatter graph (to facilitate tree location in the field). The tree number (as attached to the tree in the
field) and the species code were included (see Appendix 3, Figure 6.1). The graph was printed on
A4 size paper; the sheets usually are assembled in the field to form a whole map of the
compartment which supports diary planning and updates during the harvesting season. The
harvest map was printed to support the work based on 6.25 ha as the standard operation scale,
with a 50x50 m grid line to facilitate tree location in the field. Additional copies were printed to
support tree searching by the field teams (felling and eventually skidding activities). All trees
above 45 cm, independent of their MFD were plotted for felling and the final choice of trees was
made in the field, considering the Enterprises MFD. Additional field rules, are that the number of
trees per hectare should not exceed 12 per hectare in order to avoid large gaps, and the regulations
set by Brazilian regulations (described above).

The Alternative process for tree selection

Tree selection for retention

Tree selection for retention as seed tree aims to maintain a proportion of the total number of trees
above the minimum felling diameter as a source of seed after the logging event, taking into account
species ecological characteristics and silvicultural considerations.

Potential Seed Trees

The definition of criteria for potential seed trees is important because it influences the total number
of trees from which trees are selected for retention. Two criteria were considered, the minimum
felling diameter (MFD) and the tree stem quality. I consider as potential seed trees for selection, all
commercial tree species with DBH≥MFD and only trees with stem quality other than 3 (Poor – see
Table 4.1). Although the minimum size for seed production does not have any relation with MFD,

70
and probably many species begin to fruit at smaller sizes than that, at this stage the selection for
retention concentrated on trees that may be selected for felling. In Democracia project, the stem
quality of all trees is assessed during the pre-harvesting inventory according to 4 categories
presented in Table 4. I did not consider trees stem quality 3 (Poor) to avoid the selection of
potentially genetically weak individuals, despite the fact that poor stem quality may be only a
phenotypic character. Although trees with poor stem qualities will remain after logging and
contribute to seed production (unless eliminated by further silvicultural treatments). By excluding
them as potential seed trees, the selection is biased towards the selection of better formed trees as
seed trees. On the other hand, I did consider trees suspected to be hollow (stem quality zero; Table
4.1) as potential seed trees because hollowness is not necessarily related to the stem shape, and by
including them, more possibilities remain to select seed trees. However, stem quality was not used
when each tree was selected, and therefore it was assumed that occasionally selected seed trees
with stem quality 0 (zero; Table 4.1) were randomly chosen.

Proportion of seed tree retention per species

In the alternative process, the proportion of seed trees to be retained was calculated in reference to
species attributes and their total number of potential seed trees. I assumed that each relevant
attribute proportionally contributed to the proportion of trees to be retained. A maximum of 30%
and a minimum of 10% retention, similar to the conventional process were used.
Seven attributes were considered for each species (species characterisation in Chapter 3): 1)
shape of diameter distribution associated with shade tolerance; 2) seed dispersal mode; 3) sexual
system; 4) frequency within 100 ha stand; 5) adult rarity; 6) regeneration rarity; and, 7)
regeneration priority. These attributes were selected based on their potential relevance for the
species regeneration or silvicultural goals (species regeneration priority), and also because they
were available for the studied species in November 2001.
Diameter distribution pattern was calculated for each species based on the natural
regeneration inventory (3 plots of (10x50 m) in each of the 16 main experimental plots (250x250 m)
used for tree selection for felling (Chapter 5). It was assumed that for those species with an inverse-
J shaped distribution (Type I, as described in Chapter 3), fewer seed trees needed to be retained
than other distributions because recruitment throughout the diameter classes was expected to
replace large harvested trees. An inverse-J distribution was assumed to characterise shade tolerant
species, with advanced regeneration. For species with an irregular diameter distribution (Type II),
it was assumed that an intermediate number of seed trees was needed to be retained because of the
lack of individuals and some diameter classes makes difficult the continuous replacement of
harvested adult trees. This pattern characterised light demanding species. Finally, those
commercial species with no regeneration in smaller diameter classes (Type III) should be

71
encouraged to regenerate in the hope the more seed trees left, the more seedlings could be
established in the next years (Table 4.2).
Regarding mode of seed dispersal, seed dispersed by animals (zoochory) was assumed
more efficient (i.e., to reach appropriate spots or distant places to germinate and eventually to
establish) than wind dispersed species (anemochory), and as such requiring fewer seed trees. This
assumption was based on site characteristics, that are opposite those expected to facilitate wind
dispersed species (Turner, 2001 Richards, 1996b). Democracia is located at a low altitude (Amazon
basin), the predominant relief is flat and the dry season is short. Gravity or unassisted seed
dispersed species (autochory) were assumed to require more seed trees than wind and animal seed
dispersed species, assuming the seed dispersal is restricted to below or only very close to the
mother tree, where competition is harder as well as vulnerability to predation (Janzen, 1971).
Species not dispersed by wind (based on fruit characteristics) and with no known animal disperser
were considered dispersed by gravity (Hammond et al., 1996), as a precautionary procedure when
information was not available; only one species was found in this position. More seed trees were
left when a species was known to be dioecious, than non dioecious (Table 4.2).
Species frequencies were calculated for each 100 ha block, based on the number of 50x50 m
plots where at least one individual with DBH≥35 cm was found, and 3 frequency classes were used
(Table 4.2). The more frequent species were assumed to be more evenly distributed in the 100 ha
block and fewer seed trees were deemed necessary to retain and vice-versa.
Adult (DBH≥45 cm) and regeneration rarity (DBH 5<15 cm) were scored based on
inventory data (as described in Chapter 3) and such that more seed trees were retained when a
commercial species was rare and fewer seed trees when common. Finally, a regeneration priority
was assigned to species based on its commercial value, assuming that high valued species should
be favoured for regeneration through the retention of relatively more trees.
The maximum relative importance (proportion) given to each of the seven attributes was
arbitrary (Table 4.2), although as much as possible based on an acceptable order of importance of
each one in relation to their relevance to seed tree retention.
A gradation was introduced within each criterion regarding the amount of trees to leave:
to leave less, intermediate or more seed trees, and accordingly each situation a score was
attributed. For each species the sum of the score was calculated and afterwards transformed in to a
number of trees to be retained by multiplying the proportion obtained (10 up to 30%) by the total
number of potential seed trees. The final number was used to select trees uniformly over the 100 ha
block area. Table 4.2 presents the attributes and their scores used to drive seed tree retention.
A summary of steps to be taken to select trees as seed trees is presented in Box 1, which
could be applied to any annual harvest compartment in natural forest management projects.

72
Table 4.2: Attributes and proportions used to define number of seed trees to be retained.
How much seed trees to retain? Proportion when (%) Species
Max%: 30 Proportion
Species Attribute Less Interm More Less Int More (%)
Exampled
Diameter distribution Shape Type I Type II Type III 0 20 40 20
Seed dispersal mode Animal Wind Gravity 0 10 15 0
Sexual system Non Dioecious - Dioecious 0 - 10 0
Frequency b (%) >60 30-60 <30 0 5 10 10
Adult rarity (N ha-1) ≥2 0.5-2 <0.5 0 3 5 5

Regeneration rarity (N ha-1) 1 ≥20 5-20 <5 0 5 10 10

Regeneration priority c 3 2 1 0 5 10 0
45 %
TOTAL
(of 30%)

(a): Type I: Inverse J; Type II; Irregular number of individuals across all classes; Type II; Species with absence of individuals
in the smaller classes (see details in Chapter 3, Figure 3.2);
(b): Species frequency within 100 ha blocks – trees DBH≥35 cm : % of the number of 50x50 plots within blocks in which at
least on tree DBH≥35 cm was found;
(c) 1: High priority to be promoted; Intermediary priority; with no need for regeneration other than the minimum for less
important species;
(d): Values for Hymenolobium nitidum in Block F. 45% is the total species proportion based on its ecological characteristics
(underlined), which will be applied to the maximum species retention (30% of the number of potential seed trees).

Box 1: Summary of steps for seed tree retention following alternative approach.

Box 1
Steps for seed tree selection

1. The annual harvest compartment is divided into smaller blocks of 100 ha;
2. Tree selection for seed tree retention proceed in each block independently, as well as for each
species independently, as follows:
3. Using the available data from the 100% forest inventory, the species’ frequency is calculated at
the block scale (trees with DBH≥35 cm), and the species frequency is categorised according the
classes presented in Table 4.2;
4. Using the available data from 100% forest inventory, the number of potential seed trees is
calculated based on the attributes (DBH≥MFD; stem quality 0, 1, or 2);
5. The maximum number of seed trees for the species is calculated, based on the number of
potential seed trees and the maximum percentage of retention (30%);
6. The species ecological attributes (diameter distribution shape, seed dispersal mode, sexual
system, adult rarity and regeneration priority) are retrieved from the database and their
respective weighting for the species. The weighting will harve one of three different values for
each attribute, depending on the attribute’s contribution to retention;
7. The sum of the species’ attributes’ weights define the proportion of the 30% (e.g. step 5) to be
retained;
8. The species’ proportion is multiplied by the maximum number of seed trees calculated in item
5, resulting in the final number of seed trees to be retained for the species;
9. The trees are selected in GIS screen from all potential seed trees for the species, taken into
account the species spatial distribution;
10. The steps 3 to 9 are made for each species within the 100 ha block, and for each block within
the annual harvest compartment

73
In order to illustrate exactly how the number of seed trees is calculated, one can consider the
example of Hymenolobium nitidum in a particular 100 ha stand (Block F), where 27 potential seed
trees were found. If the maximum percentage of retention was applied (30%) 8 trees (8.1 trees
rounded) should be selected as seed trees. However, the species proportion was corrected with the
species within attribute proportions, which were dependent on the species ecological
characteristics. The species ecological characteristics as well as its regeneration priority can be
tracked in Table 4.2, following the underlined attributes within the main column “How much to
retain?”. The particular ecological characteristics of the species Hymenolobium generated its
punctuation according main column “Proportion when”, which are summarised in the column
“Species proportion” and made a total of 45%. This proportion was multiplied by the maximum
allowed percentage (30%) of the species (8.1 trees x 0.45) resulting in 4 (3.6 rounded) seed trees to
be left. This procedure was adopted to generate the seed tree number of each species in the
Compartment 7.

Box 2: Steps for seed tree retention according to the alternative approach, as applied to Hymenolobium nitidum
in Block F.

Box 2
Seed Tree Retention Steps: an example for Hymenolobium nitidum in Block F
Step Calculation and details
Species absolute frequency was 13%, therefore, its
3. The species frequency in Block F is calculated categorised in class <30%, according to Table 4.2

4. The number of potential seed trees is calculated 27 potential seed trees were found in Block F

5. The species maximum number of seed trees is 27 x 0.3 = 8.1 trees

calculated (30%)
Species
Attribute Weight
attributes
Diameter distribution Type II 20
Seed dispersal mode Animal 0
6. The species ecological attributes are retrieved,
associated with their respective weights, as shown Sexual system Non Dioecious 0
in Table 4.2 Frequency(%) <30 10
Adult rarity (N ha-1) < 0.5 5
Regeneration rarity (N ha-1) <5 10
Regeneration priority 3 0

7. The sum of species weights results proportion of the 20+0+0+10+5+10+0 = 45 %

seed trees to be retained

8. The species punctuation (proportion) is multiplied

by the number of potential seed trees, resulting in 0.45 x 8.1 = 3.6 (rounded to 4 seed trees)
the final number of seed trees to be retained

9. The trees are selected from all potential seed trees 4 trees of Hymenolobium were selected as seed trees in
Block F, from the 27 potential seed trees

74
 The scale to select seed tree selection was decreased to 100 ha blocks, instead of at
compartment scale as in the Conventional method. The reason to consider smaller stands is to
achieve a more uniform species seed tree selection within the whole compartment, by considering
their local abundance (number of potential seed trees) and distribution (frequency), therefore
representing more precisely the species importance in the local forest structure.
A series of computational programming routines was written in Microsoft Visual Fox Pro
6.0 to handle data from the main file containing the 100% pre-harvest inventory data and a
secondary file containing the species attributes, afterwards calculating the number of potential
seed trees and the number of seed trees to be retained per species. The main file (pre-harvest
inventory) was shared with a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) (ESRI-ArcView) database for
the whole compartment. Additionally to the basic routine to generate the species seed tree
numbers, as explained above with the Hymenolobium example, additional routines were included
with the following instructions, aimed at regulating the minimum number of seed trees retained
within 100 ha blocks:
(1) A minimum of 10% of seed tree retention must be achieved for each species: When the
calculated number of seed trees was less than 10% of the number of potential seed trees,
the number of seed trees was elevated to 10% retention;
(2) If one species had only one potential seed tree, this tree was automatically selected and the
species percentage of retention in this case was 100%, assuring that at least one tree greater
than MFD was left as a seed trees;
(3) If one species had between 2-19 potential seed trees, the calculated number of seed trees
was not less than 2, in order to assure that at least 2 trees were selected. When the number
of potential seed trees were greater than 19, the minimum of 10% automatically achieved
this minimum of 2 retained trees;
(4) Decimal seed tree numbers were rounded up to the next integer

Finally, the tree-by-tree selection was based on GIS (Geographic Information System),
manually on the screen. For each species, the total number of potential seed trees was searched and
retrieved to the screen as the only visible theme, and the calculated number of seed trees selected
based on species occurrence within the 100 ha block, as much as possible avoiding selection of trees
very close each other (<30 m) as well as trees very far from each other when the number of
potential seed trees was small (<10). In the main file (100% pre-harvest inventory data), selected
trees received a code to identify them as seed trees so that the next steps could be taken (selection
for felling and map plotting) considering their new attribute.

75
Tree selection for felling

Tree selection for felling aimed to set up trees that matched the following criteria: commercial
species; stem quality 1 or 2; DBH≥MFD; not selected as seed tree. All trees matching these criteria
were selected to be included in the harvest map, as (hereafter) harvestable trees. Minimum felling
diameters (MFD) were determined for each species based on industry requirements (minimum
required) and the maximum DBH attained by the species.

Minimum Felling Diameter (MFD)

Based on species diameter distribution at the Compartment 7 scale, the maximum attainable DBH
for each commercial species was determined as being the highest diameter class corresponding to
90% of the total number of individuals, and assumed to be the largest DBH each species can reach
in the area. This procedure was adopted because no growth data were available from permanent
sample plot studies nearby or for all species from regional studies. MFD for those species for which
maximum DBH were within the 55-65 cm DBH class was established as 45 cm. For those species
with maximum DBH within DBH classes between 65 and 95 cm, the established MFD was 55 cm
and for species whose maximum DBH was greater than 95 cm, the MFD was set at 75 cm.

Harvest map features

Usually harvest maps are used by forest managers at the annual compartment scale and it is the
base for harvest planning (Pinard and others, 1995), including the road network, landing areas,
skid trails and areas to preserve or where the topography constraints logging. At a smaller scale, it
is used to find trees selected for felling, improving efficiency, and avoiding wasted trees (trees
matching criteria, but left because harvest team did not see them). In this sense, the tree location
point, species code, and tree number are all that is required on the map, as in the conventional
process. However, an alternative map was designed for each 6.25 ha plot, presenting this and
additional information to potentially improve the selection process in the field. Both conventional
and alternative harvest maps are presented in Appendix 3 (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). The following
information was added in the Alternative harvest map:

Seed Trees: Seed trees were plotted to increase their apparency and therefore protect them
from felling if the team had doubts whether a tree was not included as harvestable tree in the
map by mistake or not, and also to protect them whenever possible from damage caused by
other trees felling;
Protected Species: Trees of species protected by law were plotted (Bertolletia excelsa and Hevea
brasiliensis), such that when possible, the felling team Leader could choose a felling direction to
avoid damage to these protected trees;

76
 Potential Crop Trees (PCT): Commercial species trees recorded during the 100% inventory
(DBH>35 cm) and below MFD, with stem quality 1-2 were also plotted, such that when
possible, the team Leader could select a felling direction to avoid damage to those trees.
Eventually, the map was used to plan the skid trail and because these trees were plotted the
skid trails planning could take into account their position, protecting them from damage;
DBH Range label: A symbol used to plot each harvestable tree location point was sized
according DBH range of the trees. The larger the tree DBH, the larger the symbol. This detail
allows one to take in to account the tree DBH in the tree selection sequence (see rules in the
field), potentially achieving higher volume production (m3ha-1) while respecting local harvest
intensity (n ha-1) in each 50x50 m;
Permanent Preservation Areas: A buffer zone of 30 m around each stream course, assigned by
GIS automatically. According to the Brazilian forestry laws, trees in permanent preservation
areas are not allowed to be felled.

The final selection: Rules in the field

Although this alternative tree selection is largely done by manipulating and analysing the pre-
harvest inventory database according to all criteria, some additional rules were found important to
be passed to the harvest team Leader. Instructions about each detail of the new harvest map were
explained and the following guidelines given (written) to them:
a) To cut only select trees plotted as harvestable trees (selected for felling). An exception to this
rule was allowed if a tree had been fatally damaged (felled) during the felling of another
selected tree. This allowance is a standard Enterprise procedure;
b) To respect each species MFD, by measuring the tree before felling whenever in doubt;
c) To select 3 or a maximum of 4 trees per 50x50 m area;
d) To observe the following procedure to select trees within each 50x50 m area
i) To observe spatial distribution of the trees and the DBH sized labels in order to assess
the attributes of the available tree, identifying the largest trees (DBH) of the more
valued species;
ii) To proceed felling by selecting high value species and bigger trees first;
e) To fell a maximum of 2 trees per gap (i.e. do not fell trees less than 5 meters apart from
each other in order to avoid big gaps). Exception for this rule were when no option has
been found to achieve the desirable number of trees per 50x50 area (i.e., poor stocking);
The following rules were kept from the conventional process:
1) Do not fell species protected by law;
2) Do not fell trees near to streams (permanent preservation areas);

77
1) Do try to direct felling to reduce damage to seed trees, PCTs and to facilitate skidding (note:
the rules exist although no information is plotted in the conventional harvest map, to facilitated its
implementation).
A summary of the two tree selection approaches is presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Summary of the characteristics for the two treatments, conventional and alternative tree selection
processes.

Tree selection for retention Treatments

Characteristics
Conventional Alternative
Minimum DBH1 of potential seed
45 cm MFD3
trees2
Stands up to 100 ha
Annual harvesting
Scale of selection within annual
compartment (>1000 ha)
compartment
Expected % of seed tree retention 10% 10-30%
Species ecological attribute for
No Yes
selection
Stem Quality of potential seed trees All Very poor not included
Manually on computer Manually on computer
Tree-by-tree selection method
screen screen
Minimum retention rules No Yes

Tree Selection for felling

Stem quality codes4 1 or 2 1 or 2
MFD per species 7 3
Harvest intensity control area hectare 50x50 m
Harvest map additional features No Yes

Caption:
(1) DBH: Diameter at Breast Height (1.30 m);
(2) Potential seed tree: a tree with attributes required to be a seed tree
(3) MFD: Minimum Felling Diameter;
(4) Stem quality codes: 1 – Very Good; 2 – Good

Experimental design and statistical analysis

The conventional process to select trees for retention as seed trees has been made at compartment
scale (1,315 ha), while the alternative process proposed a selection based on small areas (100 ha
stands). For the purpose of the statistical comparisons between processes to select seed trees, it was
assumed that both have selected seed trees for the whole compartment 7, but comparisons were
made based on a 600 ha sample area, constituted of 6 blocks of 100 ha each, chosen from the whole
Compartment 7 area, based on the following criteria: size area and shape (1000 x 1000 m), and
completely within the Compartment 7. Thus, there are 6 plots of 100 ha in which Alternative and
Conventional processes were compared for seed tree retention, hereafter blocks (B, C, F, G, K and
J), as shown in the Figure 4.1. Only the 37 species occurring in all 6 blocks were included in the
seed tree retention analysis and occasionally comparisons were made for 22 species sharing the

78
same minimum felling diameter in the different treatments, in order to compare treatment effects
when the potential number of seed trees is not affected by the differences in MFD.

Figure 4.1: Experimental 100 ha (1 km x 1 km) plots (Blocks B, C, F, G, J and K)

used to compare seed tree retention processes within Compartment 7 (1,315 ha)
in Democracia Project. The streams and the respective buffer zones (protected
areas) are also presented as illustration.

Comparisons between treatments were made on percentage retention (%) of the total number of
potential seed trees, as well as specified reference thresholds, and occasionally by stand variables
like number of trees, volume, proportion of species group, proportion per tree stem quality,
proportion of area and distance between conspecifics trees. The distance between trees was
calculated as the average distance between one tree and its nearest conspecific neighbour.
Because both conventional and alternative processes were compared using data from the
same 6 plots (100 ha blocks), paired t-tests were used in most of the statistical comparisons and
assumption for normality were tested for each treatment of each paired analysis using Kolmorov-
Smirnov test (Kinnear and Gray, 2000). When normality was not achieved, transformation (squared
root) was used and in this case, when normality was not achieved the treatments were compared
using non-parametric Friedman test, which can be used to compare paired treatments (Sokal and
Rohlf, 1995). For comparisons of treatment effects on different species, a split plot general linear
model was used (test of between-subjects effects), with block as a random factor and treatment as

79
a fixed factor, for the variable squared root of species percentage of retention. Tree selection for
felling was compared at 100 ha block scale, as considering the harvestable trees after seed tree
retention. The impacts of the implementation of the two processes by felling selected trees in the
field, are the subject of the Chapter 5 and at a smaller scale, but as a result of this stage of the tree
selection process.

Potential impacts of seed tree retention by MFD on different reproductive sizes

As the species minimum size of fruiting were not available in this study, and because in the
alternative approach only trees above MFD were selected, an analysis of different scenarios of
minimum fruiting sizes is presented for six species. The species were chosen to represent three
maximum attainable DBH levels, and two species chosen for each. For the six species, the stocking
it is presented at compartment scale (six 100 ha blocks), before and after seed tree selection. After
refers to density of trees excluding all harvestable trees, which at this stage were selected for
felling. For each species, the distance between conspecific was calculated in order to illustrate the
impact of each treatment. The data are present for four different minimum DBHs, considering each
one as different scenarios of trees able to produce seeds after logging. The scenarios are for trees 1)
trees ≥ 35 cm DBH fruiting (minimum threshold for the pre-harvest inventory); 2) trees ≥45 cm
fruiting (minimum DBH for seed trees proposed by the Conventional approach); 3) trees ≥ MFD
fruiting (as proposed by the Alternative approach) and; 4) hypothetically only large trees fruiting,
and by large trees I considered trees with DBH ≥ the species maximum attainable DBH minus an
arbitrary value of 20 cm (hereafter, MDST20).
With this exercise I intend to explore two aspects 1) how the seed tree selection based on
MFD may affect differently species with different diameter structure; and 2) how the Alternative
approach improved the selection by considering species-specific attributes and adopting a MFD
based on species maximum DBH.
The species analysed were: Species attaining a maximum DBH of 65 cm: Andira sp. (60cm)
and Ocotea sp2 (60 cm); maximum DBH 65-95 cm: Clarisia racemosa (70 cm) and Simarouba amara (70
cm) – dioecious species, and ; maximum DBH > 95 cm: Eperua oleifera (100 cm) and Parkia pendula
(cm). The density values after logging were compared (paired t-test) only for DBH≥MFD and
DBH≥MDST20.

80
4.4 - Results

A general view of the six 100 ha blocks used for the analysis is presented in Table 4.4. Considering
all species recorded in the pre-harvest inventory (N=161), the average tree abundance was 37.1
trees per hectare (CI = ±1.5; α=0.05) and a basal area of 10.1 m2ha-1 (CI = ±0.3; α=0.05) for trees
DBH≥35 cm. The stock of commercial species, considering only 37 species included in the
comparisons for seed tree retention, was 12.8 trees (CI = ±1.3) corresponding to a mean volume per
hectare of 59.4 m3ha-1 (CI = ±7.9). Tree volumes were estimated using a regional volume equation
(Fernandes and others, 1983). There was a variation across blocks for volume at DBH ≥ 35 cm;
Eperua oleifera was suspected to be responsible for this result because this species has relatively
more volume in Block K compared to the other blocks, especially Block B where its abundance was
the lowest (Table 4.4). A contingency table analysis confirmed that the Eperua’s volume
contribution to the total volume between blocks was significantly different (χ2=27.2; df=5;
p<0.001). In all 6 blocks the majority of the trees were non-pioneer shade bearers (75.2% ±5.2).

Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics for six 100 ha stands (blocks) within the annual compartment (600 ha). Values
in brackets for average column are confidence intervals (α=0.05; N=6). Commercial species are only those 37
considered in analysis for seed tree retention. Ecological group percentages are based only on the 37
commercial species (100%)

Block (100 ha stands within annual compartment) Average with

Variable
B C F G J K 95% C I
All species
Trees DBH ≥ 35 cm
Number of trees (N ha-1) 37.7 33.9 36.6 36.9 39.3 38.2 37.1 (±1.5)
Basal area (m2 ha-1) 10.02 9.84 9.48 10.21 10.31 10.7 10.1 (±0.3)
Commercial Species
DBh ≥ 35 cm (N ha-1) 17.0 16.6 18.6 18.5 15.8 21.0 17.9 (±1.5)
DBH ≥ 45 cm (N ha-1) 11.3 11.9 13.1 13.1 11.5 15.7 12.8 (±1.3)
Volume DBH ≥ 45 cm (m3 ha-1) 48.0 56.3 58.8 61.6 54.5 77.1 59.4 (±7.9)
Volume Eperua oleifera (m3 ha-1) 7.9 18.3 22.9 24.2 18.9 46.6 23.1 (±10.2)
Non-Pioneer Shade Bearers (% of N) 72.2 64.8 76.8 73.7 81.5 81.9 75.2 (±5.2)
Non-Pioneer Light Demanding (% of N) 25.3 31.6 19.6 23.5 17.5 16.6 22.4 (±4.5)
Pioneers (%) 2.5 3.6 3.6 2.7 1.0 1.5 2.5 (±0.9)

81
Changes in the Minimum Felling Diameters

The alternative process explicitly considered the maximum attainable DBH when assign MFDs
(Figure 4.2b), whereas the conventional approach did not (Figure 4.2a). About half of the species
(N=32 of 67) considered maintained the same MFD under the alternative as the conventional
approach. About a third (N=21 of 67) had a higher MFD under the alternative, and about 20%
(N=14) lower MFD relative to the conventional. The species that showed the greatest differences
were Eperua oleifera, Parkia pendula, and Parkia multijuga (increased from 60 to 75 cm); Peltogyne
paniculata (decreased from 60 to 45 cm) and Brosimum rubescens (decreased from 65 to 55 cm). A
comprehensive list with MFD according each tree selection process is presented in Appendix 1
(Table 6.1).

Conventional Process Alternative Process

35 35
Max DBH Classes Max DBH Classes
30 30
>= 95 cm >= 95 cm
Number of species

Number of species

25 25
65 < 95 cm 65 < 95 cm
20 20
< 65 cm < 65 cm
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
45 50 55 60 65 75 80 45 55 75
Minimum Felling Diameter (cm) Minimum Felling Diameter (cm)

a b
Figure 4.2: The number of species falling into distinct minimum felling diameters (MFD) and identified by
their maximum attainable DBH classes for Conventional (a) and Alternative processes (b).

Table 4.5: Minimum Felling Diameter impacts on species harvested for

veneer and sawn timber. Number of species according to the magnitude of
increase, decrease or unchanged MFD.

Use Changes in MFD

Magnitude Reduced Increased
5 cm 4 7
10 cm 6
Veneer
15 cm 3
Total 4 16
5 cm 8 2
10 cm 1 2
Sawmill
15 cm 1 1
Total 10 5
TOTAL 14 21
% 20.9 31.3

82
Tree selection for seed tree retention

Seed tree retention for all species

Considering the 37 commercial species, the mean number of potential seed trees identified per
block was greater in the conventional relative to the alternative tree selection method (Table 4.6),
not surprisingly as the attributes considered in the conventional were less restrictive (minimum
diameter; and stem quality 3, which was not considered in the Alternative process). As a result the
density of seed trees selected were also different, the Conventional process selecting almost twice
as many seed trees in the Alternative.
The overall % of retention, meaning the number of selected seed trees in the whole
compartment (600 ha) divided by the corresponding total number of potential seed trees, was
16.7% for the Conventional process. This result represents the Conventional process, because
usually selection is done at the annual compartment scale and it should be the same for all species.
The corresponding value for the Alternative process was (16.1%). When taken in to account the
overall percentage of retention at 100 ha blocks (n=6), the percentage retention was similar for the
two processes (t = 1.384; df = 5, p=0.225).
Considering only the 22 species sharing the same MFD in the two treatments, the number
of potential seed trees was still greater in the conventional than alternative, as well as the number
of seed trees retained. The overall percentage of retention was 20.4% for the Conventional and
17.8% for the Alternative process, and when considering the percentage of retention at 100 ha
blocks, the treatments were not statistically different (t = 1.844; df = 5, p=0.125).

83
Table 4.6: Comparisons between conventional and alternative process to seed tree retention for a general view
of the treatments performance. Results are presented for 37 commercial for which data were available, and for
the 22 species sharing the same minimum felling diameter (MFD) within different tree selection process.

Seed Tree Selection Process T-test

Result
Conventional Alternative (df=5)
37 Species
Seed Tree Retention
NPST1 (100 ha) 1275.8 (+-130.2) 718.5 (+-30.3) 8.712 (p< 0.01)
NST2 (100 ha) 213.5 (+-16.6) 121.8 (+-3.1) 9.602 (p< 0.01)
NST (N ha-1) 2.1 (+-0.2) 1.2 (+-0)
Overall Compartment % of retention 16.7 16.1
% of Retention of NPST 16.9 (+-1.8) 16.1 (+-0.3) 1.384 (p=0.225)
22 Species with equal MFD3
Seed Tree Retention
NPST (100 ha) 363 (+-31.2) 335 (+-33.6) 9.914 (p < 0.01)
NST (100 ha) 74 (+-13.5) 59.5 (+-3.2) 2.622 (p=0.047)
NST (N ha) 0.8 (+-0.1) 0.6 (+-0.1)
Overall Compartment % of retention 20.4 17.8
% of Retention of NPST 20.3 (+-2.3) 17.9 (+-0.9) 1.844 (p=0.125)

(1) NPST: Number of potential seed trees

(2) NST: Number of seed trees (effectively retained)
(3) MFD: Minimum felling diameter

Seed tree retention per species and groups

In every one of the 6 blocks, the Conventional process selected no seed trees for at least one species,
and on average, 18% of the species had no seed trees retained at the block scale (Table 4.7).
Conversely, the Alternative process selected the minimum of 10.1% retention per species in all
blocks and achieved a higher mean percentage retention per species (31.9%) than the Conventional
(20%). The maximum percentage retention per species also was greater for the alternative (100%)
than conventional (76%), meaning that the latter did not select all trees for any species,
independent of the number of potential seed trees.
When aggregating species into various groups, treatments were statistically different in
most of the cases, with the alternative tree selection approach resulting in higher percentages of
retention. The analyses are presented for ecological groups, abundance patterns, recruitment
adequacy and species priorities for regeneration. For ecological species groups, the alternative
process achieved a percentage retention of 37.1% for non pioneer light demanding species (NPLD),
which was higher than the 20% achieved by the conventional process (Table 4.7). For species
considered rare, the alternative process was higher by selecting 30.2% of the potential seed trees of
species in this group, compared to 19% in the conventional process. For species with inadequate

84
55recruitment, the alternative process achieved higher percentages of retention for all levels of
species regeneration priority.
When comparing only 22 species with similar MFD in both process, the pattern in
differences varied somewhat. For species considered to have adequate regeneration, and the shade
bearers, the two processes resulted in similar levels of retention (Table 4.7), for the NPLD (non
pioneer light demanding species) and species regeneration priority one, the average percentage
was just not different with a relatively low probability of no difference (p=0.06). In relation to
minimum retention and frequency of zero retention, the alternative process retained greater
percentage of seed trees.

85
Table 4.7: Comparisons between conventional and alternative processes of seed tree retention in six 100 ha
blocks. Results are for species groups, presented for 37 species and for the 22 species sharing the same
minimum felling diameter (MFD) . t statistics with probability values correspond to paired t tests testing null
hypothesis of no difference between treatments.
Seed Tree Retention Process t statistic
Result Conventional Alternative
(p-value)
37 Species
Number of stands with 0% seed tree 6 0
retention
Mean number of Species with 0% 18.0 (+-3.5) 0 10 (p < 0.01)
retention (%)
Retention per species (%)
Minimum 0 10.1 (+-0.1) -240.957 (p < 0.01)
Mean 20.0 (+-2.3) 31.5 (+-4.2) -6.5333 (p < 0.01)
Maximum 75.8 (+-16.1) 100.0 -2.8850 (p = 0.034)
Retention per species groups (%)
Non pioneer shade bearers 20.5 (+-1.8) 26.1 (+-3.8) -3.657 (p = 0.015)
Non pioneer light demanding 20.0 (+-4.8) 37.7 (+-6.5) -8.687 (p < 0.01)
Pioneers 15.8 (+-5.9) 32.6 (+-5.7) -3.197 (p = 0.024)
Rare species 19 (+-2.9) 30.2 (+-5.0) -9.399 (p < 0.01)
Common species 19.4 (+-2.5) 26.5 (+-6.7) -3.793 (p = 0.013)
Species with inadequate recruitment 19.5 (+-2.5) 37.1 (+-6.8) -7.326 (p = 0.001)
Species with adequate recruitment 20.5 (+-2.6) 26.8 (+-3.5) -3.286 (p = 0.022)
Species with regeneration priority 1 14.7 (+-3.3) 21.6 (+-4.4) -4.716 (p = 0.005)
Species with regeneration priority 2 26.7 (+-3.8) 34.0 (+-5.3) -5.739 (p = 0.002)
Species with regeneration priority 3 17.9 (+-2.1) 30.3 (+-4.2) -4.266 (p = 0.008)

22 Species
Stands with 0% seed tree retention (n) 6 0
Species with 0% retention (%) 30.3 (+-4.4) 0 13.5 (p < 0.01)
Retention per species (%)
Minimum 0.0 10.5 (+-0.3) -65.872 (p < 0.01)
Average 20.4 (+-1.2) 27.0 (+-3.1) -3.762 (p = 0.013)
Maximum 71.2 (+-11.7) 86.1 (+-17.7) -2.457 (p=0.057)
Retention per species groups (%)
Non pioneer shade bearers 23.4 (+-1.2) 26.9 (+-4.6) -1.598 (p = 0.171)
Non pioneer light demanding 17.2 (+-3.9) 25.7 (+-3.9) -2.435 (p = 0.059)
Pioneers 15.6 (+-5.4) 31.1 (+-5.7) -3.342 (p = 0.021)
Rare species 18.7 (+-1.9) 22.8 (+-2.5) -3.524 (p = 0.017)
Common species 25.1 (+-3.2) 37.8 (+-8.6) -3.280 (p = 0.022)
Species with inadequate recruitment 16.9 (+-1.1) 24.5 (+-2.7) -6.054 (p = 0.002)
Species with adequate recruitment 23.4 (+-1.7) 29.0 (+-4.3) -2.255 (p = 0.74)
Species with regeneration priority 1 15.1 (+-3.9) 19.5 (+-3.2) -2.457 (p = 0.057)
Species with regeneration priority 2 28.5 (+-2.9) 35.7 (+-8) -1.588 (p = 0.0173)
Species with regeneration priority 3 17.7 (+-2.7) 25.0 (+-1.9) -5.196 (p < 0.01)

Seed tree retention for individual species

Considering only the 22 species with the same MFD, the ANOVA revealed a statistically significant
effect due treatments (F=54.477; df=1;dferror=5; p<0.01), species (F=6.037; df=21; p<0.01) and the
interaction between treatments and species (F=6.779; df=21; df=1;dferror=210; p<0.01). The block
effect (random factor) was not statistically significant (F=0.849; df=5; df=1;dferror=5; p=0.569). For
eight species the difference between treatments was significantly different (36.4%) at 5% level. This

86
analysis was made considering all data available for the six blocks, assuring that the treatments
were different at species level. However, for the analysis per species that follows (Table 4.8), the
numbers of seed trees are shown pooled for blocks to diminish the effect that the low number of
potential seed trees may have on the aspect I want to point out.
One way to consider the interaction between species plus treatments is to consider how the
number of potential seed trees influenced the percentage retention, and how this differed for the
two treatments. The number of potential seed trees influenced species percentages of retention,
tending to be to be higher, when that number of potential seed trees was low. This pattern is
shown in Figure 4.3, where one can notice that for species with less than 10 potential seed trees, the
average percentage of retention was higher than when this number was greater than 20. The
pattern was held for both treatments but the relative differences among species varied. The
conventional process tended to retain similar percentages

Conventional Alternative Zero retention

50

40
% per 100 ha

30

20

10

0
<10 10<20 >20
Number of Potential Seed trees within 100 ha block

Figure 4.3: Percentage of seed tree retention per species and proportion of
species with no seed tree selected (Conventional process), for different classes
of number of potential seed trees. Average for all species in 6 blocks of 100 ha.

87
To illustrate the variability among the percentage of retention based on species ecological and
silvicultural attributes, in the alternative process, the results for 23 species (percentage of retention)
only in blocks where the number of potential seed trees was greater than 9 are presented in Table
4.8. Each species is identified according its recruitment (adequate or inadequate), ecological group
of shade tolerance, abundance pattern and regeneration priority. The results are for each treatment,
with their respective standard deviations. The minimum number of blocks and potential seed trees
(NPST) are also shown. The species were sorted according to their attributes, in a way that species
for which less seed trees were expected (Alternative method) are in the top of the table, and in the
bottom are the species with more constraints for regeneration.
The results in Table 4.8 show that the alternative tree selection process was sensitive to the
species ecological characteristics, retaining more seed trees for species with more limitations to
regeneration. For example, the species that are in the top of the table have a diameter j-inverted
diameter distribution (non pioneer shade bearers) and adequate recruitment had seed tree
percentage retention close to the minimum (10%), varying up to 12%. Amongst them was Eperua
oleifera (10.4%), the most important species in the forest structure within the experimental blocks.
Species with adequate recruitment, but light demanding (i.e., have an irregular diameter
distribution), achieved an intermediate value, ranging from 13.4% up to 16.9%. This was the case
for Parkia pendula, Andira spp., Hymenolobium nitidum and Peltogyne paniculata. Those few shade
bearer species identified as having inadequate recruitment, achieved retention rates ranging from
12.2 up to 13.5%, values slightly above the those achieved by the majority of shade bearers, which
may be due their scores on attribute regeneration rarity. Finally, a different pattern of seed tree
retention is shown by the alternative approach (bottom of the Table 4.8), ranging from 15.4 up to
25.4%. Most of the commercial species included in this interval are NPLD, which were identified as
having inadequate recruitment, are rare species and each one presents a particular limitation for
regeneration. For example, Simarouba amara (23.2%) is a dioecious species, and Piptadenia
suaveoloeus, Dinizia excelsa and Hymenolobium excelsum are wind dispersed.

88
Table 4.8: Percentage of seed tree retention per species and species silvicultural characteristics for two tree selection process (Conventional and Alternative). The results are for
23 species, selected from blocks where the total number of potential seed trees was at least 9. The species were sorted by ecological attributes (recruitment, ecological groups,
abundance pattern). The values in brackets are standard deviation for the number of blocks (N of blocks). The values for NPST correspond to all (N) blocks.

Ecological attributes based on framework % Seed tree retention Data source

Species Ecological Abundance Regeneration N of
Recruitment Tree selection process
Group Pattern Priority blocks NPST
Adeq Inad NPSB NPLD Pion Rare Common 1 2 3 Conventional Alternative
Eperua oleifera x x x x 21.8 (±4.6) 10.4 (±0.3) 6 20
Brosimum potabile x x x x 12.5 (±5.4) 11.0 (±0.4) 5 20
Hymeneae courbaril x x x x 2.6 (±2.2) 12.3 (±1.8) 4 20
Copaifera multijga x x x x 20.4(±8.6) 11.4 (±0.9) 6 20
Brosimum rubescens x x x x 8.0 (±2.2) 10.7 (±0.6) 5 20
Clarisia racemosa x x x x 9.2 (±7.5) 11.5 (±1.1) 5 20
Maquira sclerophylla x x x x 35.6 (±11.2) 12.5 (±1.9) 4 15
Couratari guianensis x x x x 22.6 (±4.6) 11.9 (±1.7) 4 16
Parkia nitida x x x x 22.4 (±10.8) 16.8 (±2.0) 2 11
Stryphnodendron guianensis x x x x 54.4 (±17.4) 16.1 (±2.5) 2 11
Andira spp x x x x 13.6 (±10.5) 16.9 (±3.9) 3 10
Hymenolobium nitidum x x x x 2.3 (±2.8) 15.5(±1.7) 3 20
Peltogine paniculata x x x x 7.2 (±4.9) 13.4 (±05) 3 20
Cariniana decandra x x x x 5.3 (±3.4) 13.5 (±0.7) 4 20
Mezilaurus itauba x x x x 8.0 (±4.4) 12.2 (±1.4) 4 20
Hymeneae sp. x x x x 39.7 (±6.2) 12.4 (±1.1) 5 20
Dypteryx odorata x x x x 16.0 (±6.1) 20.9 (±5.9) 2 11
Simaruba amara x x x x 8.0 (±9.8) 23.2 (±5.4) 4 10
Dypteryx magnifica x x x x 7.4 (±2.1) 17.2 (±0.7) 2 10
Piptadenia suaveoloeus x x x x 47.2 (±7.9) 15.4 (±2.3) 4 11
Dinizia excelsa x x x x 2.3 (±7.5) 19.5 (±3.9) 2 9
Hymenolobium excelsum x x x x 9.3 (±8.5) 25.4 (±4.6) 2 9
Goupia glabra x x x x 6.9 (±5.1) 20.3 (±1.3) 4 20

Recruitment: Adeq (Adequate), Inad (Inadequate); Ecological Group: NPSB (non pioneer shade bearer), NPLD (non pioneer light demanding), Pion (pioneer); NPST (number of potential seed trees)

89
The stem quality as an attribute for potential seed tree

Both treatments resulted in a pool of seed trees that differed in stem quality distribution from the
population (as recorded in pre-harvest inventory). Relative to the alternative process, the
Conventional process selected fewer seed trees with very good stem quality (1) (t=26.379; df=5;
p<0.01), more seed trees with good stem quality (t=-8.482; df=5; p<0.01) and with and more with
poor stem quality (t=-9.171; df=5; p<0.01). Considering the 37 species being compared in this study
for tree selection for retention, all trees above the MFD and stem quality 3 were selected as seed
trees in the Conventional Process. In the alternative process, stem quality 3 (Poor) trees were not
considered potential seed trees, and the selection by tree was independent of this tree attribute.
Therefore, the difference occurred only for stem quality 1 (Very Good) (t=-2.781;df=5;p<0.05) was
probably at random.

Figure 4.4: Stem quality as a tree attribute for seed tree selection. Values for All
Trees refer to percentage of trees per stem quality of the total number of trees as
recorded during pre-harvest inventory. Values for Seed Trees refer to how seed
trees were selected within the different tree selection process (Conventional and
Alternative). Difference in letters within stem quality score represent difference at
α=0.05, identified by paired t-test.

90
Potential impacts of seed tree retention by MFD on different reproductive sizes

Considering the six species analysed, the Alternative approach retained more seed trees in most of
the cases. The exceptions were for Clarisia racemosa considering the MFD as the minimum
reproductive size (Table 4.9) and for Eperua oleifera, considering either MFD or MDST206 as the
minimum reproductive size.
The distances between trees of conspecifics, calculated based on the stocking at different
minimum reproductive sizes and for six commercial species are presented in Figure 4.5. After
logging the distance between conspecific trees increases, but because the Alternative approach
retained more seed trees than the Conventional approach, these distances were greater in the
Conventional approach. The only exception for the density of retained seed trees was for Eperua
oleifera. For this species, more trees were retained by the Conventional approach, either for trees
above MFD or trees above MDST. However, the low percentage of retention for Eperua in the
Alternative approach was because its ecological attributes as well its abundance do not suggested
limitations for regeneration and only 10% of trees were retained. In this case, the Alternative
approach left fewer trees of Eperua, but it is noteworthy that the distances between trees of
conspecifics were not so different, specifically if we consider MDST20 as the minimum
reproductive size (Figure 4.5). After logging, this distance was 66 m for the conventional and 108 m
for the alternative approach. In case of Parkia pendula, because of the species attributes the
alternative approach retained more trees (Table 4.9), and because it is a rare species, the distances
between conspecific trees after logging were greater in the Conventional (315 m) than in the
Alternative approach (133 m). In case of intermediate size and dioecious species, Clarisia racemosa
and Simarouba amara, the Alternative approach also achieved smaller distance between conspecifics
after logging, but in the case of Simarouba, the distance between trees remained the same for
different minimum reproductive size because in four blocks all trees were harvested.

6 MDST20 (Minimum Diameter for Seed Tree). An arbitrary value to represent large trees fruiting, established as the
species maximum attainable DBH minus 20 cm.

91
 Table 4.9: Density of trees after tree selection for retention for six commercial species, excluding
harvestable trees, for Conventional (Conv) and Alternative (Alt) processes, for 4 potential minimum
size of fruiting trees. Species are grouped by maximum attainable DBH classes. T-test comparisons
are between the tree selection methods (After)

Species Maximum DBH

<65 cm 65 - 95 cm > 95 cm
Four Potential Minimum
Diameters for Seed Trees

Clarisia racemosa

Simarouba amara

Parkia pendula
Eperua oleifera
(fruiting trees) – Before and

Andira spp.

Ocotea sp2
After Seed tree Selection –
Number of Trees/100 ha
(St.Dev)

Species attributes
Max DBH1 (cm) 60 60 70 70 100 100
MFD2 (Conv) (cm) 50 45 50 45 60 60
MFD (Alt) (cm) 45 45 55 55 75 75
MDST3 (Max DBH-20) (cm) 40 40 50 50 80 80

1 - DBH ≥ 35 cm
Before logging 19 ± 4 15 ±5 106 ±32 21 ±7 456 ±288 6 ±3
After (Conv) 10 ± 4 11 ±4 45 ±19 7 ±3 231 ±144 2 ±1
After (Alt) 12 ± 4 13 ±4 71 ±21 15 ±4 328 ±222 5 ±2

2 - DBH ≥ 45 cm
Before logging 11 ±-3 5 ±2 72 ±20 15 ±7 379 ±236 5 ±3
After (Conv) 2 ±2 2 ±1 11 ±7 2 ±2 154 ±91 2 ±1
After (Alt) 3 ±2 4 ±1 37 ±9 9 ±3 251 ±170 5 ±2

3 - DBH ≥ MFD
Before logging 10 ±3 5 ±2 69 ±21 15 ±6 289 ±175 4 ±2
After (Conv) 2 ±1 2 ±1 8 ±7 1 ±2 64 ±28 1 ±1
After (Alt) 3 ±1 3 ±1 5 ±1 4 ±2 22 ±12 2 ±0
t-test (df=5) p<0.05 p<0.01 Ns p<0.01 p<0.01 p<0.05

4 - DBH ≥ MDST20
Before logging 19 ±4 14 ±5 69 ±21 15 ±6 149 ± 81 3 ±1
After (Conv) 10 ±3 10 ±4 8 ±7 1 ±2 34 ±13 1 ±1
After (Alt) 11 ±4 12 ±4 35 ±9 9 ±3 22 ±12 2 ±0.5
t-test (df=5) p<0.05 p<0.01 p<0.01 p<0.01 p<0.01 p<0.05
General patterns
MFD>MDST X x
MFD≈ MDST x x
MFD<MDST x x
(1) Max DBH: Maximum attainable DBH (cm)
(2) MFD: Minimum Felling Diameter (cm)
(3) MDST20: Minimum Diameter for Seed Tree (Max DBH minus 20 cm)

92
 Andira sp. Parkia pendula
800 800
After: ALT ALT
700 700 CON
After: CON
Distance between trees (m)

Distance between trees (m)

Before
600 Before 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
35 MDST20 45 MFD 35 cm 45 cm MFD MDST20

Minimum DBH (cm) Minimum DBH

Clarisia racemosa Ocotea sp2

800
800
After: ALT
After: ALT
700 700
After: CON Distance between trees (m) After: CON
600 Before
600 Before
Distance between trees (m)

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100
100

0
0
35 MDST20 45 MFD
35 cm 45 cm MDST20 MFD
Minimum DBH (cm) Minimum DBH (cm)

Eperua oleifera Simarouba amara

800 800
After: ALT After: ALT
700 700
After: CON After: CON
Distance between trees (m)
Distance between trees (m)

600 Before 600 Before

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
35 45 MFD MDST20 35 45 MDST20 MFD
Minimum DBH (cm) Minimum DBH (cm)

Figure 4.5: Average distance between conspecific seed trees, before and after tree selection for retention for
alternative (ALT) and conventional (CON) processes, for different minimum threshold: 35 cm, 45 cm,
minimum felling diameter (MFD) and maximum attainable diameter minus 20 cm (MDST20). Species
attaining a maximum DBH of 65 cm: Andira sp. (60cm) and Ocotea sp2 (60 cm); maximum DBH 65-95 cm:
Clarisia racemosa (70 cm) and Simarouba amara (70 cm) – dioecious species, and ; maximum DBH > 95 cm:
Eperua oleifera (100 cm) and Parkia pendula (cm). After logging values are shown for the threshold MFD
(minimum felling dameter).

93
Impact of seed tree retention on forest production

The two approaches to selection differed in terms of their impacts on harvest (Table 4.10), but the
pattern varied depending on how the analysis is focused. When the 37 species are considered, the
adoption of the alternative approach implied in a reduction of 5 m3 ha-1 (12%). However,
considering the proportion of the harvestable stock (volume or number of trees), the approaches
are not different. The difference in terms of volume may be related to differences in MFD in each
treatment, because when we consider only 22 species with the same MFD, the proportion of
harvestable stock is also similar but the absolute difference is lower (0.7 m3 ha-1; or 6%).

Table 4.10: Comparisons between conventional and alternative process to seed tree retention for a general
view of the treatments performance. Results are presented for 37 species and for the 22 species sharing the
same minimum felling diameter (MFD) within different tree selection process. Confidence interval (α=0.05) is
presented are presented in brackets.

Seed Tree Selection Process T-test

Result
Conventional Alternative (df=5)
37 Species
Impact on Harvesting
Harvestable trees (N ha-1) 7.4 (+-0.9) 6.1 (+-0.5) 2.778 (p = 0.039)
Harvestable volume (m3 ha-1) 39.7 (+-6.6) 34.8 (+-3.4) 2.742 (p = 0.041)
% of Retention of Harvestable Trees 14.4 (+-2.1) 15.4 (+-0.8) -0.891 (p = 0.414)
% of Retention of Harvestable Vol. 14.6 (+-2.3) 14.7 (+-0.7) -0.080 (p = 0.940)

22 Species with equal MFD

Impact on Harvesting
Harvestable trees (N ha-1) 2.6 (+-0.2) 2.6 (+-0.4) 0.176 (p = 0.867)
Harvestable volume (m3 ha-1) 11.4 (+-0.9) 10.7 (+-1.1) 2.466 (p = 0.057)
% of Retention of Harvestable Trees 22.1 (+-2.7) 17.0 (+-1.8) 2.720 (p = 0.042)
% of Retention of Harvestable Vol. 19.2 (+-2.3) 17.3 (+-1.7) 1.056 (p = 0.339)

94
4.5 - Discussion

The objective for this chapter was to develop an alternative tree selection approach for retention of
seed trees and for felling that incorporated ecological and silvicultural considerations as an
improvement upon the existing practice in Democracia Project. The existing process
(Conventional) was in place at the start of this study, where a 100% pre-harvest inventory was
used as the main database for selecting trees for retention and for felling, although species
characteristics were not considered. The alternative process used the same structure and steps as
the conventional, however some procedures were added to consider species ecological
characteristics when selecting seed trees and residual forest integrity when selecting for felling. A
second difference between the approaches was in regards to the scale of selection. In the
alternative, seed trees were selected on a smaller scale than the conventional, working in 100 ha
blocks, rather than at compartment scale (>1,000 ha) as in the conventional. In the following
sections, I discuss the results of the different processes and explore the implications of the
differences from a silvicultural point of view as well as its applicability.

Tree selection for retention

Both tree selection processes aimed to select a percentage of the total number of potential seed trees
to derive the number of retained trees in the field. Although for the Conventional process the
target percentage for retention was 10% of the total number of trees above 45 cm, in the case of
Compartment 7, the actual retention was 17%, which was not different from the alternative process
(16%). These percentage values refer to the compartment scale and all species, and do not reflect
differences within processes regarding minimum felling diameter (MFD) and potential seed tree
attributes. Although the proportion of retention was the same, the number of trees in the
conventional was higher (1278 per 100 ha block) than in alternative because the set of attributes
considered to potential seed trees, and it is important to notice that even species below MFD are
included in the conventional approach. When considering only species with similar MFD, not only
the proportion of retention was the same but the number of seed trees retained were similar (Table
4.4).
An estimate of overall percentage of retention serves as a guide only. By not considering
species specific retention, the guideline may be too stringent for the requirements of some species
while inadequate for the regeneration of others, as pointed out by (Fredericksen and others, 2001),
and therefore ecologically and silviculturally meaningless. In this study, the results for species

95
demonstrated neither that an overall percentage of retention reflects the same value for all species
nor that the resulting species percentage of retention was adequate in each species case.
One shortcoming of the conventional system was that it failed to retain any trees at all for
some species (Table 4.7). Indeed, when considering the 100 ha block scale, 18% of the species had
no seed trees selected, although at compartment scale only two species (Virola sp. and Diplotropis
purpurea) were in this situation (5%). The alternative approach prevented species zero retention,
and the selection at 100 ha may had several benefits. It allowed a better distribution of seed trees,
as well as considered the species occurrence at local scale because the number of seed trees is based
on total number of potential seed trees and the species frequency at 100 ha blocks.
The alternative process has not been designed to retain trees based directly on species
groups, but in individual species information. However, it was able to retain more seed trees for
species groups that were supposed to need more for one reason or another (Table 4.7). For
example, higher percentages of retention were achieved for non pioneer light demanding (37.7%)
and pioneer species (32.6%), than was for shade bearer species (26.1%) ; more seed trees were
retained for rare species (30.2%) than common species (26.5%); and for species with inadequate
recruitment (37.8%); than for species with adequate recruitment (26.8). Because the conventional
process did not consider any species information, such as ecological group, abundance or
recruitment pattern, its results when considering this type of species aggregating are of limited
usefulness.
Although percentage of potential seed trees is a convenience for the implementation of
seed tree retention rules, it is influenced by the number of potential seed trees, thus for low density
species it produces artificially high percentages of retention (Figure 4.3). For example, according to
the alternative process, the percentage retention in Block G for Dipteryx odorata was 28.6% and for
Copaifera multijuga was 11.5%, but the actual number of stems retained was 2 and 6, respectively.
The difference in number of potential seed tres (N=7 for D. odorata and N=52 in C. multijuga)
distorts the expression of retention, especially when selection is made at small scale (e.g. 100
blocks). For rare species, high percentage retention should be interpreted cautiously, and one
option to improve the selection should be in these cases implement a selection based on a
minimum number of stems per unit, rather than percentage.
Analysing the results achieved for species with a minimum number of potential seed trees
is therefore more appropriate to compare conventional and alternative processes (Table 4.8) in their
ability to consider species characteristics, avoiding the distortion mentioned above. The results
illustrated 1) that the alternative process retained more seed trees for species with more
regeneration constraints; and 2) that by not considering species characteristics the conventional
process retained an inadequate proportion for some species. Inadequacy in retention may be
assumed both when a species had no constraints to regenerate but a high percentage of seed trees

96
was retained or when a species had constraints and the percentage of retention was low. I
considered as a reference the minimum of 10% retention as planned in both treatments.
In some cases, because the conventional process did not consider any species ecological
information, it achieved inadequate retention for some species (Table 4.8). For example, Eperua
oleifera, Copaifera multijuga and Maquira sclerophila are all species with adequate recruitment and
characteristic of shade bearers, with individuals growing across all diameter classes. For these
species, retention was higher than the minimum of 10% (21.8; 20.4; and 35.6%, respectively). Eperua
and Maquira are also common species, and the latter is a low priority species to regenerate. For
these species, the retention could have been lower and probably still leave room for species
regeneration. On the other hand, for some species with constraints to regenerate, the percentage of
retention was comparatively lower than one could expect to promote their regeneration. This was
the case for example for Simarouba amara (8% seed tree retention), Dinizia excelsa (2.3%) ,
Hymenolobium nitidum (2.3%) and H. excelsum (9.3%), because they have limitations for
regeneration as showed above.
Logging activities commonly remove large trees, altering species density and spatial
distribution and therefore affecting different aspects of species reproduction and establishment. In
this study the alternative seed tree retention process considered only few aspects, primarily
because their availability for the majority of commercial species, at the time of the selection was
conducted, in 2001. Indeed, the characterisation of the majority of commercial species is a
departure point for silviculture (Hutchinson, 1988), but it is a process that demands time and field
data. The included attributes are discussed below.
The diameter distribution shape, which was used to drive species characterisation for shade
tolerance group received the greatest score to retain trees. By relating these attributes, species with
individuals absent from smaller DBH classes had more seed trees retained, and in this case pioneer
species were favoured. One could argue that commercial pioneer species will be favoured in post-
logging environments because of the high light and disturbed soil conditions, thus there is no need
to promote their regeneration. But regardless of the conducive environmental conditions, seed
must be available and for species whose seed do not have long life spans in soil seed banks nor
have large distance dispersal, the retention of adults seems necessary.
By giving importance to species diameter distributions it was possible to retain more seed
trees of non pioneer light demanding, compared to shade bearers species (Table 4.8). The species
characterisation in Chapter 3 shown that 43.3% of commercial species in Democracia are non-
pioneer light demanding, illustrating their importance for forest management, but also shown that
they represent only 6% of basal area, illustrating the need to promote their regeneration to improve
their participation in the forest structure. Forest management practices that discourage the
regeneration of shade intolerant commercial species are responsible for regeneration failures in
Bolivia (Fredericksen and others, 2003). The need for specific strategies to promote NPLD species

97
regeneration has been pointed by Whitmore and Silva (1990) and the dominant gap-reduction
strategy is inadequate for these species (Hammond and others, 1996; Fredericksen, 1998). The
retention of greater number of seed trees of NPLD species should be part of larger silvicultural
strategy to promote this group of species.
Similar to NPLD, rare species could be eliminated from forest management units, unless
attention is paid to retain healthy seed trees and in number and spatial distribution compatible to
the scale of selection. Rare species can become extirpated over large forest areas if logging is highly
selective (Johns, 1997) and post harvest environment can alter distance between conspecifics,
resulting in increasing number of isolated trees and potentially low pollination success (Ghazoul
and others, 1998) or losses in genetic variability and reductions in seed production after logging
(Guariguata and Pinard, 1998). In Democracia, more than 70% of commercial species were rare,
representing 28% of total basal area. Some rare species (adults) are more prone to be excluded from
having retained seed trees above MFD in some areas of the entire harvest compartment by the
conventional process because their commercial values. In this case, when the minimum
reproductive size is greater than those thresholds, it means that the species became unable to
produce seeds at least for a period of time after logging and locally the seed tree retention is
literally absent, repeating the inadequacy of MFD as the sole silvicultural control pointed out by
Sheil and van Heist (2000). In the alternative process this situation was prevented by retained at
least 2 trees and 1 tree when there was only one individual matching the criteria for seed trees
(100% retention). Moreover, selecting seed trees in smaller areas (up to 100 ha) is also a strategy to
achieve more even in seed tree selection.
In this study seed dispersal mode was assumed to influence the extent of effective dispersal,
where fewer seed trees were needed when dispersal was relatively good, and more when dispersal
was relatively poor. Seed dispersal mode is expected to affect the distance from the parent tree that
seeds can reach, and therefore influences their probability of escaping density-dependent mortality
(Janzen, 1970; Janzen, 1971). Several studies support this assumption, having demonstrated that
the distance achieved by different dispersal modes (anemochory, zoochory and autochory) may
vary enormously, and that although it can be as long as more than 100 m. Nevertheless, the great
majority of seeds fall within 30 m from the parent plant (Augspurger, 1986; Forget, 1989; Medjibe
and Hall, 2002; Agyeman and others, 1999), independent of the dispersal mode. Fredericksen and
others (2001) suggested that this pattern diminishes the importance of seed dispersal mode for seed
tree retention guidelines. But, in this study the favouring of wind dispersed species over animal
dispersed ones for retention was not related to the potential distance they can achieve, but because
wind dispersed species are more likely to be limited than animal dispersed, due to site
characteristics. Democracia’s relief is predominantly flat, low altitude and with absence of winds as
important natural event, all factors that reduce the effectiveness of wind dispersal. On the other
hand, it is a large continuous area, covered by primary forest, and with low human pressure (other

98
than Democracia forest management project), such as hunting or forest fragmentation, and
therefore likely to have many potential animal dispersers. In different site conditions, where the
majority of commercial species were wind dispersed, seed tree retention guidelines also considered
this attribute to suggest guidelines for seed tree retention. For example in Bolivia, where the
majority of tree species had small wind-dispersed seeds and fruit at the end of dry season,
Justiniano and Fredericksen (2001) suggested to coordinate logging activities so that trees had a
chance to disperse seeds. In Central Africa up to 70% of harvested timber trees are wind dispersed,
and even the wind direction may be considered to promote regeneration of a light demanding and
valued species of genus Entandrophragma, by increasing light downwind direction (Medjibe and
others, 2002). Although it is important to be considered in seed tree retention guidelines, seed
dispersal mode criteria in the present study may be refined when more species information is
gathered, specially about commercial species fruit and seed characteristics, as well as the set of
potential disperses in Democracia, so that a species “best” disperser can be determined
(Guariguata and Pinard, 1998), and this attribute can be weighted according to their occurrence in
that forest.
Dioecious species were assumed to need more seed trees because they will typically have
half of the dispersal ability of monoecious or hermaphroditic. Like most of the tropical tree species,
many dioecious species are pollinated by small insects, thus a reduced inter-plants distance may
propitiate the movement of these pollinators (Bawa and Opler, 1975). Ackerly and others (1990) in
old growth moist forest in Central Amazon found that the mean distance to the nearest conspecific
for five canopy tree dioecious species ranged from 48 to 100 m, while to the nearest conspecifc of
the opposite sex was 147m. In a managed forest after logging, these distance ranges will probably
be affected, and also logging may lead to inadvertent removal of an excess of either male of female
individuals (Guariguata and Pinard, 1998). Suggested guidelines are to retain twice the number of
seed trees (Fredericksen and others, 2001 Guariguata and Pinard, 1998) and maximizing male
density around female trees to increase the potential for adequate regeneration. However,
information about plant sexuality is scarce, especially for tropical trees. Furthermore, although
flower dimorphism frequently occurs (Bawa and Opler, 1975), it would be difficult to recognise
such differences in the field (Wheelwright, 2000). For dioecious species, a conservative alternative
would be to increase the number of seed trees to prevent high numbers of reproductively isolated
trees, independent of sex ratio (Crawley, 1997, but see Wheelwright and Bruneau, 1992). In this
study the alternative process did not double the seed tree number for dioecious species, but used
this attribute to retain more seed trees and the final number of retention in combination with other
species attributes showing low or high constraints to regeneration. For example, the dioecious
species Simarouba amara achieved 23.2% retention above MFD because others of its attributes also
indicated regeneration constraints (inadequate recruitment, NPLD, rare species and regeneration
priority; see Table 4.8). On the other hand, the also dioecious Clarisia racemesa achieved 11.5%

99
retention but had less regeneration constraints than Simarouba (adequate recruitment, NPSB, more
frequent, and higher number of potential seed trees), implying also less impact on distance
between seed trees after seed tree selection (Figure 4.5).
Species frequency was included as a contributing attribute in order to retain more seed
trees for species not evenly distributed over the 100 ha blocks. Only four species were in position to
have lower scores for this attribute, but not in all 100 ha blocks. Peltogyne paniculata and Clarisia
racemosa had intermediate frequency (31-60%) in one block, Brosimum rubescens in five blocks and
Eperua oleifera had low frequency in one block, intermediate in four blocks and high frequency (61-
70%) in one 100 ha block. Frequencies were determined for trees DBH≥35 cm and according to the
thresholds established for frequencies classes, but this attribute was able to be influential only for a
few species with an outstandingly even distribution and with high abundance.
And finally, regeneration priority was included in order to promote species according to
their commercial value. This concept is thought to be similar to that of forest domestication
proposed by Lamprecht (1993) and also supported by De Graaf (2000), in which the forest is
gradually transformed over time, by eliminating trees of unwanted species and promoting valued
species. An adjustment of seed tree retention is a much less radical silvicultural measure to than
domestication as conceived by Lamprecht and De Graaf. Maximum regeneration priority would be
assigned only for species that are likely to have economic value in future, by their historical market
demand and wood properties. As shown in Table 4.7, the approach to selection used in this study
was not at as effective, as species priority 1 had less percentage retention than priority 2 and 3.
However, when considering selected species, the outcome may be different. Dypterix odorata (20.9%
retention) and Dypterix magnifica (17.2%) are species whose the only attribute difference the
regeneration priority, the former having higher regeneration priority and therefore achieving
higher percentage retention than the latter. How to assign species regeneration priority, and how
much this attribute will contribute to seed tree retention, may comport the management decisions
towards its designed future forest, the alternative process serving as an additional tool to achieve
that alongside silvicultural treatments.
Seed tree retention has also the function to maintain a proportion of the best trees,
preventing an increase in trees with mis-shapen boles, early rot, and low crown individuals
(Agyeman and others, 1999). Selection practiced in Democracia preferentially harvests the largest
trees, with the best form, so that poor quality trees constitute a large proportion of the residual
population, although the impact of this dysgenic selection will be dependent on the intensity of
logging, the relative contribution of residual trees to regeneration and the extent to which
undesirable traits are genotypic rather phenotypic (Jennings and others, 2001), as a tree may be
superior phenotyipcally but not genetically (Bawa and Krugman, 1991). Stem quality is a tree
quality attribute considered in most of pre-harvest inventories, and usually it aims at the
identifying the best individuals for harvesting. In Democracia, the proportion of poor stem trees

100
recorded in pre-harvest inventory is less than 10% (Figure 4.4), but the results show that the
conventional process was biased towards the selection of these trees, as biased against the selection
of best individuals (very good stems, Figure 4.4). The alternative process adopted a compromise by
considering as potential seed trees all trees assessed as hollow trees in the pre-harvest inventory,
but not those recorded as poor stem quality. Moreover, the selection did not check stem quality of
seed trees and, by doing so, the stem quality distribution of selected seed trees did not statistically
differ from that recorded in the pre-harvest inventory (Figure 4.4).
Species regeneration in managed forest is ultimately a complex set of ecological processes
on which biotic and abiotic factors are important to consider, and because typical logging
disturbances do not mimic natural disturbances regimes, much remains to be learned about tree
regeneration in logged forests. In this study several aspects were not considered in spite their
importance for seed tree retention and species regeneration in logged forest. However, an
important issue about seed tree retention is related to the fact that usually the minimum felling
diameter (MFD) is taken as the minimum threshold for retention.
The MFD is an arbitrary reference, commonly determined by market demands and
political decisions rather than by species biology (Guariguata and Pinard, 1998), and therefore it
holds no necessary relationship with the minimum fruiting size. While scattered and incomplete,
there is evidence that trees can fruit at sizes below those typical of MFDs. Appanah and Mohd
(1991) found that smaller trees (25.5 cm) in a recently logged hill dipterocarp forest in Malaysia
could fruit while in a virgin plot the smallest fruiting tree was 53.8 cm DBH, suggesting that
logging can induce fruit production. Agyeman and others (1999) investigate fruit production in
Ghana, found most of the 75 commercial species studied can start fruiting between 20 and 40 cm
DBH, but that the percentage of trees fruiting increased with an increase in bole size. In Uganda,
Plumptre (1995) also found that although fruiting started in smaller classes, the percentage of trees
fruiting increased with DBH and also the density of seedlings increased exponentially with an
increase in the number of trees over 50 cm. An increase in fruit production with increase in size
was also suggested by Chapman and others (1992), Laurance and others (2003) and Gullison and
others (1996) . If smaller trees can fruit, they could be included for retention. If only larger trees
fruit, trees that will not act as seed trees may be incorrectly selected when MFD is below the
minimum fruiting size. If smaller trees did make reliable contributions of seeds, their inclusion as
potential seed trees could support a lower retention in largest trees to avoid impacts on forest
production (personal observation). However, the problem only would be correctly addressed if we
could know more precisely at what size each commercial species disperses significant number of
mature seeds (Swaine and others, 1997), which would permit us to consider the species minimum
and maximum seed tree diameter as a tree attribute in tree selection processes such as the one
proposed in this study.

101
Potential impacts of seed tree retention by MFD on different reproductive sizes

If the large trees were responsible for the great part of seed production after logging, the seed tree
selection based on MFD would affect differently species with different maximum attainable DBH.
The species attaining 65 cm (understorey species) would be less affected because for these species
usually the MFD is set to harvest only the very largest trees, probably leaving a stock of seed trees
in classes not selected for harvesting. The densities of seed trees for DBH≥MDST20 in this case,
even after logging, are similar to the densities before logging. One possible implication in this case
is that tree selection could consider not only trees above MFD as potential seed trees, reducing the
number of harvestable trees retained; and in this case the ecological impacts are low because more
trees at reproductive sizes are left.
The impact would be intermediate for species attaining 65-95 cm DBH because for these
species the MFD is usually set at sizes that approximately coincide with the minimum size fruiting
of large trees. In this case, the harvest pressure is on all reproductive trees, and the seed tree
retention guidelines are needed to avoid harvesting all of them.
The impact would be greatest for species attaining larger DBHs (≥100 cm) because for these
species the MFD is set at sizes lower than reproductive sizes (Conventional approach), and in the
previous case the harvest pressure is on all reproductive trees, but in this case they are the very
largest harvestable trees. However, because harvesting targets the very largest trees, there is great
possibility that all trees producing seeds are selected for felling, even when seed trees guidelines
are in place because one can assume that lower DBH trees were correctly selected as seed trees. On
the other hand, regarding to timber production, retained seed trees below the minimum
reproductive sizes would be left unnecessarily. In Chimanes (Boliva), Gullison and others ( 1996)
reported a similar situation for mahogany, as this species can attain large DBH (up to 300 cm) and
the MFD was set in 80 cm. Tree fecundity increased for trees > 80 cm DBH but peaked at 130 cm, so
that the authors suggested seed tree retention at 110 cm.
Because the species MFD were set at sizes taking into account their maximum attainable
diameter, at least in the case of trees attaining largest diameter, the Alternative approach was more
efficient in retaining seed trees. Firstly, because the minimum MFD are usually closer to the
reproductive sizes compared to the Conventional approach (Table 4.9). Secondly, because
according to the alternative approach, even for rare species some trees are retained, assuring seed
trees after logging.

Potential impacts of seed tree retention on timber production

The retention of seed trees by the alternative process would imply a reduction of yield of 5
m3 ha-1, if the proposed MFD were accepted by the Enterprise. But for species with the same MFD
the impact was not significant (<1 m3 ha-1) and, in both cases the percentage of harvestable volume
was 15-20%, which is consistent with the retention carried out in other project in Amazonas State,

102
where tree selection is also used for silvicultural purposes (De Graaf, 2000) by harvesting a
maximum of 80% of the commercial volume of each species in order to assure their existence
(Winkler, 1997).

Tree selection for felling

Minimum Felling Diameters (MFD)

The changes in the minimum diameter felling of some species were made mainly in order to relate
them to the species diameter structure (maximum attainable diameter). According to the
conventional process, 45 species (67.2%) had the minimum DBH fixed at 45 cm. According to the
Brazilian law (IBAMA, 2002), the minimum felling diameter for each species should be established
considering species ecological characteristics and their final use, although it is a common practice
to establish 45 cm DBH for all species (Silva and van Eldik, 2000).
In Democracia project, at the time of this study there were 7 MFDs (Figure 4.2) and the
industrial requirement for veneer (the Enterprise main objective) was 45 cm. Although this is
preferable than to have a unique MFD for all species, the felling diameter was much lower than the
potential size for some species and higher for others. In the former case the risk is the elimination
of the next harvest stock of some valuable commercial species or an increase in the cutting cycle
length, and in the latter to waste trees of valued species that could be harvested. Furthermore, the
forest’s diameter structure would more be complex and similar to the original if more big trees
were retained, and they could also to contribute ecologically producing food, shelter and
transportation for the wildlife. The establishment of the MFD by alternative criteria when no
information on species growth are available, or to achieve purposes other than only the yield
timber regulation, has been used by some authors (Sist, 2001; Van der Hout, 1999) and the reasons
include reducing damage by controlling harvest intensity, and maintaining timber species
population by reducing the impact of logging on their ecology. The impacts of the changes on MFD
were not widespread, as for 47.8% of the species the MFD has not been changed and for 42.8%
MFD increase in MFD was only 5 cm.

Field rules and tools to implement tree selection

The two processes had differences on tree selection for felling also regarding the harvest map and
field rules. The map used in conventional tree selection process in Democracia was driven only by
information useful to locate harvestable trees. However, there are several important details, such as
the location of features like potential crop trees, protected species, streamside buffer zones and
areas subjected to special restrictions (recreational, aesthetic, cultural, scientific and wildlife value)
(Dykstra, 1996), that when included potentially may contribute to forest management as a whole.
The harvesting map in the alternative process included features of this nature. Moreover, by

103
including the DBH size symbol, the map could potentially allow the selection of the largest trees,
as there must be a maximum number of trees to select within 50x50 m. If only the tree position is
assigned, as in the conventional process, all trees seem to be the same size, and if there is a
maximum number of trees allowed to fell it is probable that the largest trees would be left behind.
Field rules or guidelines for harvesting are present in RIL, usually related to cutting and
timber extraction in training programs and they are considered important for a successful RIL
implementation (Pinard and others, 1995). The common RIL guidelines were assumed to be in
practice in Democracia, such as directional felling, and timber extraction techniques for skidders
operators. The field rules introduced as part of the alternative tree selection process aimed basically
to control harvest intensity locally, by limiting the number of felled trees in 50x50 m (quadra
control) and the number of felled trees forming clumped gaps, as the harvest intensity is
commonly associated both with damage and gap size (Van der Hout, 2000b; Sist and others, 1998).
The relevance of these rules still demands evaluation, based on field implementation.

Bases, assumptions and constraints for the alternative tree selection process

Bases and assumptions

• The process is firstly based in the pre-harvest inventory to select tree-by-tree and to consider
species occurrence. Thus, the quality of the inventory procedures and accuracy of the data
influences the tree selection process. Particularly, the process demands as much as possible
consistency between species vernacular and scientific names;
• The process is secondly based on the ecological information about the commercial species,
which contains data from literature and occasionally from the project area, which should be
updated continuously. Data on species natural regeneration, i.e. for individuals smaller than
the pre-harvest inventory minimum DBH, potentially may come from permanent plots
regularly installed in each compartment as well as considering data from the whole project
area;
• It is assumed that the procedures in field are followed as planned, both regarding RIL
guidelines and tree selection processes.

Constraints and potential improvements

There are several ecological considerations that are of importance to consider when developing
criteria for seed tree retention. Because seed trees are retained to be the main source of seeds after
logging, all aspects related to species reproduction are potentially important to consider, as well as
those involved in the seedling establishment and the local species abundance. Guariguata and
Pinard (1998) pointed out that seed production will certainly be affected by logging and that the

104
disturbances produced do not mimic natural disturbances implying that beyond the ecological
aspects involved, how they are affected by logging also should be considered.
In this study, important aspects were not included in seed tree retention; pollination, seed
predation, seed longevity and germination were not included due their complexity and lack of
information or knowledge for timber species, both in undisturbed and disturbed forests. As
pointed out by Janzen and Vásquez-Yanes (1991), the selection of trees as seed trees in tropical
forest is substantially more complicated than simply leaving a nice large tree. However, the tree
selection for retention in this study is primarily a simplification for departure from the blind,
arbitrary and unique percentage of retention used so far.
A potential improvement should be towards tree-by-tree selection for retention, once the
number of seed trees to retain is calculated. In this study, the selection has been made manually
and proved to be a time consuming task, as 817 trees were selected for 600 ha. Moreover, the
manual selection is vulnerable to systematic errors or bias, such as poor stem quality selection.
Computational routines for automatic tree selection could include the selection of each tree at
random for high-density species, and based on a target distance between trees for low-density
species.
Both tree selection for felling and retention as proposed in this study are part of harvest
planning, ending with harvest map to drive selection in field. Field implementation is certainly a
bottleneck to overcome. Training for the observance of the field rules, as pointed out for reduced
impact logging by Pinard and others (1995) is crucial, and unexpected events in the field resulting
from forest heterogeneity and with impacts on the planned selection, also may be important for
improvements in the alternative tree selection process. In applying species attributes and their
weights contributing to seed tree retention, the approach could be calibrated to meet local
requirements or to include updates in species information, whenever available.

105
4.6 - Conclusions

The alternative process used in this study was superior to the conventional practice in several
ways. Firstly, by selecting seed trees in smaller areas (100 ha) the alternative process guaranteed
more evenly-spaced retention and avoided zero retention for species. Secondly, the alternative
process attributed species percentage retention according species characteristics, resulting in lower
percentages for species with fewer limitations for regeneration and higher percentages for species
with more limitations due their ecological profile. Thirdly, the determination of MFD based on the
species maximum attainable diameter is an alternative to retain large trees and more complexity in
the forest structure until data on species growth are available for determination based on yield
regulation systems. Fourthly, the inclusion of more information on the harvest map may help tree
selection in the field, avoiding damage to seed trees and potential crop trees, and the field rules can
contribute to the control harvest of intensity locally. The implementation of local studies to find
species reproductive size remains an important concern to improve tree selection for retention. For
the time being, to consider species diameter structure to stipulate MFD or select seed trees could be
an alternative.

106
 Chapter 5 - IMPACTS OF TREE SELECTION ON RESIDUAL FOREST AND

TIMBER PRODUCTION

5.1 - Introduction

I
n tropical rain forests managed for timber production, the impacts caused by logging influences
the quality of the forest that remains to be managed for subsequent yield cycles (Bertault and
Sist, 1995). Impacts such as incidental damage to trees, soil disturbance, and canopy openings, can
alter environmental factors and these in turn influence forest dynamics and regeneration, together
determining forest quality and the time it takes to restore the timber stock. Therefore, controlling
impact through environmentally sound harvest systems plays an important role in tropical forest
management (Dykstra and Heinrich, 1996a; Heinrich, 1995).
Reduced impact logging (RIL) guidelines have been developed to reduce disturbances to
soil and residual vegetation by at least 50% in comparison with conventional practices (Sist, 2000),
and several studies developed recently report the benefits of sound harvest systems either to
reduce impacts on residual forest or to improve efficiency in forestry activities in Asia (Pinard,
1996; Bertault and Sist, 1997; Sist and others, 1998)) , Africa (Jonkers, 2000; Agyeman and others,
1999) and Latin America (Webb, 1998; Hendrison, 1990; Van der Hout, 1999; Winkler, 1997; Johns
and others, 1996; Holmes and others, 2002).
Reduced impact logging is a collective term to designate environmentally sound harvest
systems, in which various features are included to support harvest planning and damage
reduction. These features typically include a pre-harvest inventory, climber cutting, directional
felling, road and skid trail planning, winching and training teams in all these features to achieve
the proposed objectives of damage reduction and efficiency improvement. The features included in
a harvest system, and the exact procedures adopted vary from project to project due to forest
conditions and availability of resources. Guidelines have been described in detail by several
authors in the last decade (Pinard and others, 1995; Dykstra, 1996; Sist, 2000).
Harvest tree selection is implicitly included in most sets of RIL guidelines in the sense that
information about harvestable trees’ locations and attributes (species name and DBH) is collected
with pre-harvest inventory data, and usually there are criteria to be followed by the harvest teams
in selecting trees for felling, such as a minimum diameter felling (MFD) and stem quality.
However, better integration of silviculture and harvesting through sound tree selection is
important to achieve sustainability in tropical forest management (Adam and others, 2002; De
Graaf, 2000; de Vletter, 1995; Sist, 2001) and rarely is mentioned in RIL literature (Van der Hout
and van Leersum, 1998; Jonkers and van Leersum, 2000, Sist 2001, Sist and others, 2003a). Seed tree
retention and the establishment of minimum diameter felling (MFD) based on species

107
characteristics are steps of tree selection that precede the implementation of harvesting, whilst
there are also procedures for tree selection to be implemented in field that can play a role in
reducing impacts and also contributing to the post logging silvicultural conduction.

5.2 - A general view on impacts caused by logging

To accomplish timber harvesting in managed forests a considerable infrastructure is necessary,

including construction of landing areas for log storage and roads to transport the extracted logs.
However, within effectively managed areas, the direct or immediate impacts are those
accumulated from felling trees and log extraction by powered machines, from the stump area up to
landing areas.
Studies on impacts caused by logging are used to monitor the quality of harvesting
methods and also to assess the ability of the residual forest to achieve the forest management
objectives. Research suggests that the amount of damage is related to harvest intensity, and is
dependent on local conditions (Table 5.1). In African forests the damage is comparatively low
compared to Asia, because the harvest intensity is usually less than 3 trees per hectare. In Latin
America, harvest intensity and the respective damage are intermediate, with smaller trees being
harvested compared to the other continents (Sist, 2000).

Table 5.1: Impact of conventional logging, averages by continents. (Adapted from Sist, 2000).
Logging Volume harvested
Damage % of the
Region intensity
m3 ha-1 m3 tree-1 original population
Stems ha-1
West and Central Africa 1-3 10-20 7.5 10-15
Latin America 5-7 30-50 6.7 25-40
South East Asia 7-10 80-120 11.8 50-60

Recent studies on impacts caused by logging concentrate on comparing harvesting

methods. The methods compared are usually the conventional and the reduced impact logging
(Johns and others, 1996; Pinard and others, 2000b), and in some studies the two methods are also
compared at different harvest intensities (Jonkers, 1990; Sist and others, 1998;. Van der Hout, 1999).
As most of studies show, the adoption of reduced impact guidelines may result in
significant impact reduction. In Malaysia, for example, it resulted in a reduction in stand damage
from 50% to 28% of the original stems compared to conventional practices, and soil damage from
13% to 9% (Pinard and others, 2000b); and in Indonesia, the damage reduction on residual trees
DBH≥10 cm was from 45 to 28% and the disturbed area from 28 to 13.9%. Positive results were
achieved also in Latin America, where the adoption of best logging practices led to a 32% reduction
in the total number of trees damaged per tree extracted and a reduction in disturbed area from 27

108
to 17% in Brazil (Johns and others, 1996); and a reduction of 65% in disturbed ground area and
40% reduction in the average felling gap size (Van der Hout, 2000b).
Although the adoption of sound logging practices is usually associated with impact
reduction compared to conventional practices, harvest intensity also plays an important role in
how fully best practices achieve their objectives. When more trees are harvested per unit area, the
impacts are increased so that the effect of RIL is limited. This was reported in two recent studies,
by in Indonesia by Sist and others (1998) and in Guyana by Van der Hout (2000b). In Indonesia, a
positive correlation was found between the proportion of stems damaged by felling and the
density of felled trees, suggesting that above a threshold of 8 trees ha-1 the benefit of RIL
techniques in reducing damage is limited. In Guyana, changes in harvest intensity were reported in
terms of loss of canopy cover, which was associated with logging intensity, but not with the
logging method. When the harvest intensity was 8 trees ha-1 the, mean loss of canopy was 16% for
both conventional and RIL methods, and when the harvest intensity was increased to 16 trees ha-1
RIL resulted in a greater loss of canopy cover (30.1%) than conventional logging (24.5%). A close
relationship between harvest intensity (n ha-1) and impacts was also found by Webb (1998) in
Central America (Costa Rica), for canopy cover (%) and stem damage (%). Even for relatively low
intensities, the area affected by damage is correlated with harvest intensity, as reported for Central
African Republic (Durrieu de Madron and others, 2000), where for harvest intensity ranging from
0.24 up to 3.25 trees ha-1, the area affected ranged from 4 up to 20%.
An interesting aspect related to harvest intensity is how felled trees are distributed
spatially. Although the subject is not well explored in RIL studies, it has been reported by several
authors recently. For example, Sist and others (1998) reported that harvest intensity (RIL and
conventional) ranged from 1 to 17 trees ha-1 (9-247 m3 ha-1) in an experimental study in Indonesia;
Van der Hout (1999) reported a range of 0-25 trees ha-1 in Guyana (Conventional logging) with an
average of 8.7 trees ha-1. In Guyana, harvesting in clumps is due to spatial distribution of a valued
species known as greenheart (Chlorocardium rodiei) and, although not quantified, for the same
reason felling also tends to be concentrated in clumps during harvesting of azobé (Lophira alata) in
South Cameroon (Jonkers and van Leersum, 2000).
The implications of the impacts caused by logging on the sustainability of forest
management may be diverse. When the amount of damage to residual trees is excessively high, the
stock of harvestable trees in the next harvest may be at risk, even when the harvest intensity is not
high. For example, in a study conducted in Ghana five years after logging damage, 30% of logging
wounds in the trees sampled had developed some decay and 5 species with high tendency to decay
constituted nearly 40% of current stand volume of timber trees in Ghana (Adam, 2003).
The area occupied by skid trails is linked to losses of young trees (saplings and seedlings),
as the skidding is the primary cause of mortality of small trees (10-20 cm) during logging (Bertault
and Sist, 1997). Furthermore, skidding causes soil disturbances such as compaction, mineral soil

109
exposure and a mixing of topsoil with subsoil (Pinard and others, 2000a; Whitman and others,
1997), that may affect tree regeneration after logging. For example, Pinard and others (2000a) found
that the area with soil disturbance may be less productive than areas without, in terms of
distribution patterns in biomass, species richness and sapling density even 18 years after logging.
They also found that the proportional occurrence of different types of soil disturbance is related to
harvest methods and overall may influence tree regeneration differently. In their study in
Malaysia, about 84% of the skid trail area in conventional logging plots had subsoil disturbance,
whilst in RIL areas about 62% of skid area retained topsoil and that four years after logging woody
plant regeneration on abandoned skid trails was better in RIL areas than in conventional ones, in
terms of number of stems and species richness. Some soil disturbance such as scarification,
however, may be of benefit for some commercial species, enhancing regeneration in logging gaps
associated with that type of soil disturbance (Fredericksen and Pariona, 2002; Dickinson and
others, 2000).
Although some spatial variation in harvest intensity is expected due to the inherent
variation in the distribution of mature trees in tropical rain forest, when it is too high at a small
scale, the canopy opening can be excessive. One important impact of large gaps is that pioneer
species that are not the target for regeneration in the management units dominate such gaps,
competing with commercial species (Tuomela and others, 1996; Rose, 2000), altering microclimate
conditions at the forest floor (Brown, 1993a) and increasing forest susceptibility to fire (Holdsworth
and Uhl, 1997).
Logging impact reduction is therefore a combination of at least two factors, the adoption of
environmentally sound harvest systems and harvest intensity control. When the former is in place
in absence of the later, the manager will have no guarantee that sustainability is being achieved.
The impacts caused by logging activities are influenced by tree selection procedures, as they are
related to harvest intensity (number of selected trees per ha) and the spatial distribution of felled
trees within the harvested area. In addition, although reduced impact logging is recognised
worldwide as an important tool to reduce damage, in many of the experiments cited in support of
the value of RIL, its implementation was well controlled to assure procedures were correctly
applied. In large areas of commercial operations, supervision is a third factor that is important for
reducing impacts (Crome and others, 1992). The development of tree selection procedures that
includes field rules may help to ensure effective implementation of plans.
The objective of this chapter is to compare the impacts of logging following two tree
selection methods, one where seed tree retention and spatial control over felling are priority, and
one where they are not (as described in Chapter 4). The purpose is to assess to what extent these
silviculturally important components of tree selection influence post logging forest conditions (e.g.
canopy openings, ground area disturbed, residual damage) and harvest production (e.g., volume
per hectare, per tree, work efficiency and proportion of high value species). Both treatments were

110
conducted using the Enterprises’ procedures for felling and skidding, and it is beyond this study to
analye the harvest methods per se. In Democracia, there are some elements of RIL in place: a pre-
harvest inventory; use of harvest maps to drive tree felling and extraction; chainsaw operators
receive training at least once. It is assumed that supervision of activities also is part of the system,
and the results presented here reflect the reality at the time of harvesting (Nov 2001).

5.3 - Methods

Two processes for tree selection for felling, as presented in Chapter 4 were implemented in field in
order to evaluate their impacts on forest structure and timber production. An experiment of 100 ha
was used in on annual harvest compartment in a forest management project for timber production
in Amazonas State, Brazil. Trees selected according the different process were felled in November
2001, and extracted in August 2002. During September and November 2002 a post logging
evaluation was conducted to compare the impacts of different methods. Impacts of tree selection
were assessed on forest stand conditions, on timber production and on the variation of harvest
intensity at different scales.

Experimental design

Sixteen plots of 6.25 ha (250 x 250m), hereafter main plots (Figure 5.1), were randomly located
within Compartment 7 and established after the pre-harvest inventory in 2000, considering the
planned road network (main roads) to facilitate logging from Compartment 7 and access to other
compartments. The plot size and shape were similar to the Enterprise’s operational unit for
planning felling and skidding, and to control logging activities. The two treatments for tree
selection for felling were randomly assigned to the plots after considering stratification in two
basal area classes, so that a similar forest condition could be achieved between treatments. The two
treatments are summarised as:

• Treatment 1: Conventional tree selection (CON): Harvest maps included all harvestable trees
DBH ≥ 45 cm; the Enterprise’s minimum felling diameter (MFD) was applied (See
Chapter 3 and Appendix 1 – Table 6.1); harvest intensity was defined by
management plan, not to exceed an average of 12 trees ha-1 across the
compartment; 10% of the harvestable trees per species are selected for seed trees
at compartment scale, but their location is not included in the harvest map; the
location of protected species and potential crop trees are also not included on the
map.
• Treatment 2: Alternative tree selection (ALT): Harvest maps included harvestable trees DBH ≥
MFD; MFDs based on species maximum attainable diameter; the harvest intensity
was controlled at a 50 x 50 m scale (quadra), specifying a maximum of 3 trees per

111
 quadra, not more than 2 trees per gap, and a minimum distance of 5 meter
separating trees to be harvested; harvest map included information on tree
location for seed trees, protected species, potential crop trees and also information
about the harvestable trees’ diameter. Seed trees were selected based on species
characteristics, as described in Chapter 4. Additional field rules were: only to cut
trees plotted on the map, to respect the species MFD and considering species
priority and size trees within quadrats (50x50 m) when selecting.

The conventional treatment was implemented first, and 3 of the Enterprises’ cutting teams
conducted tree selection. For the implementation of the alternative method, team leaders received
instructions about harvest regulation at local scale, as well as the alternative minimum diameter for
commercial species from the author.

112
Figure 5.1: Experimental design for the comparison of two selection methods within Compartment 7 (1,315 ha). Experimental plot dimensions were 250x250m (6.25 ha),
numbered (1-16) and the treatment assigned to each plot as presented in the map legend. Permanent preservation area refers to the buffer area along side the streams.

113
Pre-logging measurements

Prior to logging, a pre-harvest inventory provided information about all trees with DBH ≥ 35 cm,
including DBH class, stem quality, species common name and tree location within plots of 50x50
m, which are the smaller unit of control for tree location in the field (hereafter, quadrats). The pre-
harvest inventory dataset was used for seed tree selection and harvest map production. Within
each experimental main plot, 3 sub-plots of 10x50 m were established to provide information about
smaller trees (DBH 5-35 cm) before and after logging. Light availability and the percentage of area
in natural gaps were estimated along transects, as described below.

Harvest methods

The harvest methods were the same for the two treatments, and followed the Enterprise’s
standards except for tree selection. A pre-harvest inventory and climber cutting were carried out
one year before logging. The pre-harvest inventory was described in detail in Chapter 4. Briefly, all
trees with DBH ≥ 35 cm were recorded, along with DBH, stem quality, species common name,
topography code for tree position and spatial tree location. Streams and swampy areas were also
mapped and this information was used to plan primary and secondary roads. Areas alongside
rivers are not harvested.
The cutting team was composed of a leader, a chainsaw operator and an auxiliary. The
team leader was responsible for tree location and selection for felling (Appendix 3, Figure 6.4), as
well as for keeping records for the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) custody chain. Records of
each tree included DBH, tree number and felling direction, recorded with a compass to facilitate
skid trail planning. All chainsaw operators received training in directional felling, but at the time of
the experiment, the crews were not equipped with wedges. Felled trees were marked on an
operational map at the camp office, that was used to plan skid trails. The planned skid trails were
marked in field with coloured ribbon tapes to orientate skidder operators only after felling was
completed. A rubber tyre skidder (Caterpillar 525) equipped with a grapple was used for skidding
operations, from the experimental plots to landing areas nearby. Forest Technicians usually do the
operational planning in Democracia, and most of them received basic training in reduced impact
guidelines from Tropical Forest Foundation (see Blate, 1997 for details about TFF training program
in the Brazilian Amazon).

114
Impacts on forest stand conditions

The impacts of the two tree selection methods on forest structure were evaluated by comparing
stands conditions before and after logging, in terms of canopy disturbance and ground disturbance
caused by logging activities and damage to potential crop trees.

Canopy disturbances caused by logging activities

Gap occurrence

The area in natural and felling gaps was estimated using line transect sampling (Shiver and
Borders, 1996; Brower and others, 1997). Before logging, the area occupied by natural gaps was
estimated using five parallel transects (100 m each, and at least 50 m apart) within each
experimental main plot (6.25 ha). After logging, four transects (150 m each) were established, in
the central area of each main experimental plot to estimate gap area caused by logging activities.
Central was the 150 x 150 m central area of experimental plots, and this procedure was adopted to
avoid a border effect. Gap assessments followed Brokaw (1982) definition, but the size of the
openings was determined at the local level of the dominant canopy layer (e.g. Van der Hout, 1999).
The length of gap that intersected each transect were measured. The observer recorded the canopy
events vertically above the transect, as described in Table 5.2. The proportion of total transect
lengths per main plot by category of vent was determined to compare the two treatments. Thus,
transects were sub samples and pooled to generate a single value per main plot, which as the unit
of replication.

Table 5.2: Description of the events recorded to evaluate canopy disturbances on transects.
Description
Code Event
0 Closed forest The canopy was closed, like in undisturbed forests, considering the vertical
projection above the observer, when positioned on the transect line
1 Natural gap There was an role vegetation at the height of the dominant canopy layer,
apparently due to natural causes
2 Harvest gap A lack of vegetation at the level of the dominant canopy layer, with evidence
of felling or skidding, such that the cause of the gap could be attributed to
logging activities

Canopy openness

Canopy openness at 1 m height was estimated within each main plot, using a convex spherical
densiometer (Jennings and others, 1999). Before logging, canopy openness was measured on five
transects (100 m each), in 5-7 random points along each transect used for gap area estimation.

115
Canopy openness was defined as the proportion of sky hemisphere not obscured by the vegetation
when viewed from a single point (Jennings and others, 1999). After logging, a greater number of
points (15-30) were measured on four transects (150 m) established in the central part of each
experimental main plot, at least 50 m apart. Average canopy openness was calculated per
experimental main plot (6.25 ha) from the average per plot, and used for statistical comparisons.

Ground disturbance caused by logging activities

In a manner similar to that of measuring canopy disturbance, disturbances to the ground floor
were recorded related to logging activities, when they intersected the transect line, as described in
Table 5.3. The events comprised the following possibilities: undisturbed forest floor, as it is found
in pre-logging conditions; a disturbed ground floor, which included any level of disturbance
caused by felled trees (butt log or crowns), pushed trees and signs of machine manoeuvring other
than skid trails; skid trails were identified by clear sign of paths left by machine’s tyres, and the
recorded length included the disturbed border usually associated (berm). Skid paths were
recorded separately because usually they were used as primary skid trail of many operational units
(6.25 ha) during the harvesting of the whole compartment. They did not cross the experimental
plots. The proportion of area for each experimental main plot, occupied by each type of
disturbance was derived from the proportion of each event related to the total length of transects
in each plot (600 m).

Table 5.3: Description of the ground events recorded from transects within 15 experimental plots after logging
to evaluate harvest impacts on the forest floor level.
Details
Code Event
Undisturbed At the ground level, the forest was completely undisturbed by harvest activities;
0
understorey
The understorey was disturbed by harvesting activities, including felled trees
Disturbed
1 and trees fallen pushed by them, crowns on the ground, or signs of machine
understorey
manoeuvring in the area;
Refers to trails used by machinery to extract logs from the stump area, identified
by the sulks left by machinery’s tyres. Values recorded included the edge of the
2 Skid trail skid trail altering the forest floor and not only the exact trail used by the
machinery; and no distinction was made about the skid trail type (primary,
secondary or tertiary);
Refers to trails used by machinery to extract logs up to landing areas, differing
from the skid trail in that skid path serves several operational unit of 6.25 ha,
3 Skid path
and in this study the experimental plots were established as much as possible
free of skid path

Incidental damage on residual stock

An evaluation of incidental stand damage was made for potential crop trees (PCTs) in the central
area (150 x 150 m) of each main experimental plot in order to describe the impacts on trees
expected to compose the next harvesting. Potential crop trees were defined as trees of the main

116
commercial (47) species, larger than 35 cm DBH and with good stem quality (1 or 2). They were
selected from the pre-harvest inventory data, and located in field. After logging each tree was
classed as killed, damaged or not damaged at all, according to scores described in Table 5.4. The
number of potential crop trees undamaged or lightly damaged was used to comparisons of the
impact of the different tree selection methods on the residual stock of timber. Damage on crown
and bole were combined, so that trees having severe damage on crown or bole were pooled in
severely damaged category, as well as trees with moderate damage on crown or bole were pooled
in a unique class. Therefore, the lightly damaged class included only trees with light damage in
crown or bole.

Table 5.4: Codes used to assess incidental damage to trees caused by logging activities.

Code Class Description

Damage on crowns
1 Lightly damaged At least one of the main branches, but less than 1/3 of the crown were
damaged
2 Moderately More than 1/3 of the crown was damaged, with loss of main branches
damaged
3 Severely damaged Crown was completely broken or damaged

Damage to trunks
1 Lightly damaged Damage was restricted to the base of the trunk, comprising an area less
than a drawing board (33x25 cm) and was restricted to the bark;
2 Moderately Damaged area bigger than a drawing board or it penetrated the wood;
damaged
3 Severely damaged Trunk was broken, fissured or bent due to logging activities;

Impacts on seed trees

The impacts of logging on seed trees were assessed within central areas (150x150m) of
experimental plots, by checking the status of those trees selected as seed trees previously (as
described in Chapter 4). The data were the same used to assess damage to potential crop trees,
therefore, only for the 40 species occurring in the central areas of the main experimental plots.

Residual stand diameter structure

Residual stand diameter structure for all species (trees with DBH ≥ 5) cm was measured from 3 sub
plots (20x100 m) within each main plot. Trees DBH≥35 cm were measured after logging in the full
20x100 m, trees 10-35 cm DBH within 10x50 m nested subplots and trees 5-10 cm DBH within
10x10m nested subplots (Chapter 3; Figure 3.1).

117
Spatial harvest intensity variation

Harvest intensity for each treatment was calculated at three scales (global, operational and local)
for number of felled trees (n ha-1) and commercial volume (m3 ha-1). At global scale, it
corresponded to the mean value of the 8 experimental plots, which is the typical calculation for the
Enterprise to express harvest intensity (total number of felled trees divided by harvested area). At
the operational scale (6.25 ha maps, i.e. experimental plots), harvest intensity was calculated at
scale which activities are planned (skidding, for example) and controlled in terms of team
productivity. The local scale refers to the 50x50 m quadrats, the scale used for selecting trees in the
field and the scale used by the felling team leader to complete each operational unit. The
operational maps, in both treatments, presented a 50x50 m grid representing the quadrats in field,
and in the field this unit also serves for orientation, as the entire forest is subdivided in identifiable
50x50 m quadrats. Harvest intensity at this scale is presented as the range within a given
experimental plot, comprising 200 units for each treatment. Harvest intensity at local scale was
calculated as the number of trees harvested per quadrat multiplied by the average volume per
felled tree in each treatment.
In order to check differences between treatments in terms of distance between felled trees,
the distance of each felled tree within experimental plots (6.25 ha) was calculated to the nearest 5
felled trees. The mean distance per plot was calculated and these distances used to compare
treatments using Anova, for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth nearest felled trees. The
distance between felled trees and the next 5 nearest felled trees were also calculated in classes of
distances (<5 m; 5-10 m; 10-20 m; 20-35 m and ≥35 m), in terms of proportion of occurrence within
each treatment.
To explore the relationship between local harvest intensity and gap area within quadrats,
a minimum of 5 quadrats per each harvest intensity (1, 2, 3, ..,6 trees felled per quadrat) were
selected at random from the central areas of the main experimental plots per treatment. When 5
quadrats for a given harvest intensity was not available, I used the available number. Thus, for a
harvest intensity of 7 felled trees four quadrats were selected, three quadrats were selected for 8
felled trees and for 9 and 10 felled trees only one quadrat was available.
For each quadrat, the area of each gap was measured using the center point method, as
described by Van der Hout (1999). In each gap, the observer selected a point in the gap centre, and
from that point eight measures of distances to gap edge (following Brokaw (1982) definition) were
taken at 45 degrees intervals. The area of each gap was then calculated using the Gauss’ formula,
Where (xi,yi) are the coordinates of each vertices in relation to the centre point, and A is the gap
area (m2):

118
 1 n
A= ∑ xi( y i −1 − y i +1 )
2 i =1

Because I was interested in the total gap area within each quadrat, only the area of gaps falling
within quadrat was measured, thus in some cases, the measured gap area was a gap segment in
reality. All gaps crossing the perimeter of the assessed quadrat, whether caused by trees felled
outside or inside the quadrat were included. For analysis, individual gap areas (or gap segment
areas) were categorised into size classes and the class distribution per harvest intensity and per
treatment calculated. Furthermore, the average of total area in gaps per quadrat, per harvest
intensity, was calculated and presented.

Impacts on harvest activities and timber production

The impacts of the two different treatments on timber production were compared in terms of total
volume harvested, three indicators of logging efficiency achieved by felling crews, the volume per
felled tree and the percentage of total volume per species priority class (i.e., commercial value, as
described in Chapter 3). The indicators of logging efficiency were time required per felled tree,
number of trees felled per hour and volume felled per hour. The time used to generate the
indicators was recorded by the felling team leader, as a standard procedure in Democracia project
for their information system. The records were compiled at the end of each workday, and only the
time of effective work was considered in the analysis, as the objective was not to study the crew
efficiency, but the impact of the two treatments in the final production at the 6.25 ha scale. The
indicators were generated from the total time required per plot and their respective number of
felled trees, and values per plot were used in the statistical comparisons (N=8 plots per treatment).
The volume produced per hour was derived from the number of trees felled per hour multiplied
by the mean volume per felled tree for each treatment.
Volume estimates were made using two equations fitted with data collected from the felled
trees in this study, collected immediately after logging by a different team. A single equation was
used for all but one species (Erazo, 2003):
Log(Vol) = -3.80 + 1.846 x Log(DBH) + 0.840 x Log(H)
R2=0.91; N=464; ANOVA F2,461=2208.0; p<0.0001)

In this study, a volume equation was fitted for Eperua oleifera using part of data from (Erazo, 2003)
in order to improve estimates for this species. The Eperua oleifera equation was as follows:
Log(Vol) = -3.69 + 1.847 x Log(DBH) + 0.757 x Log(H)

119
 R2=0.91; N=224; ANOVA F2,221=1155.6; p<0.0001)
Where:
Vol = commercial volume (m3)
DBH = Diameter at Breast Height (cm)
H = Comercial height, measured after felling

120
Statistical analysis

Stand conditions prior to logging were compared between treatments using one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) for variables collected expressing stand density (basal and number of trees).
Comparisons between treatments for harvesting impacts (i.e., canopy disturbance, ground
disturbance, incidental damage) followed the same procedures. Analysis comparing before and
after gap openness and the effect of treatment were performed using a univariate general linear
model, with plot as a random factor, and treatment and time as fixed factors (Kinnear and Gray,
2000). Before conducting analysis, data were tested for normality (Komogorov-Smirnov test) and
for homogeneity of variances. When normality was not achieved, a logarithmic transformation was
applied (Log10 Y+C). For comparisons of percentage (proportion), data were used transformed
using an arcsin of squared root, as suggested by McCune and Grace (2002). When normality after
transformation or homogeneity of variances were not achieved, treatment comparisons were using
non parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. For all analyses of treatment differences, a significance level of
α=0.05 was used.
Canopy openness before and after logging was calculated per experimental main plot; prior
to calculating the average values, a test for spatial autocorrelation amongst points on transects was
performed. When data were autocorrelated, a sub sample of points was selected, with alternate
points along the transect being excluded (e.g., drop points 2, 4, 6, … and include points 1, 3, 5…),
and the test and the test performed again. Afterwards, the comparisons of canopy openness prior
logging were made using one-way analysis of variance.
When percentages of measures in classes of variables (e.g., canopy openness, transect length,
skid trail width, etc) are presented, a Contingency Table analyse was performed to determine if
distribution of variables were independent of tree selection treatment. The contingency table
analysis for comparison of harvest intensity within quadrats was performed only for harvest
intensities lesser than 4, which were classes common for the two treatments. The impacts of
logging on seed trees were presented as descriptive statistics only, because seed trees of some
species analysed were not found within the central areas of some plots.
For all analyse of post logging impacts to forest stand conditions, one plot was missing for
the alternative tree selection method. Plot 16 (Figure 5.1) was discarded for measurements after
logging because the Enterprise team mistakenly re-entered the plot to harvest more trees after the
experimental harvest had taken place, this invalidating post logging data for the plot.

121
5.4 - Results

General view before logging

Stand structure and stem density prior to logging was similar for the two treatment areas (Table
5.5). Basal area ranged from 16 to 24 m2 ha-1 and the maximum DBH recorded in the plots ranged
from 115 to 200 cm. Harvestable volume ranged from 14 to 101 m3 ha-1, and variability among plots
was high (CV= 44.8%). The presence of Eperua oleifera in some but not all plots was a source of
variation. The results per plot are presented in Appendix 4 (Table 6.4).

Table 5.5: Summary of stand structure and density prior to logging in sixteen experimental plots (6.25 ha) for
the two tree selection treatments, conventional and alternative, in Compartment 7 – Project Democracia.
Harvestable trees are DBH ≥ MFD accordingly to the method and stem quality 1(Very good) or 2 (Good).
Potential Crop Tree (PCT) are commercial species tree DBH<MFD and stem quality 1 or 2.

Tree Selection Treatment

Variable Unit Average (± CI α=0.05) Statistical test result
Conventional Alternative
Basal area trees DBH ≥ 35 cm m2 ha-1 20.5 ±2 19.2 ±1 F1,14= 1.70, p=0.22
Diameter structure: n 6.25 ha-1
35 – 65 cm 154.3 ±18 144.5 ±20 F1,14= 0.50, p=0.494
65 – 95 cm 69.1 ±9 69.0 ±12 F1,14= 0.00, p=0.987
≥ 95 cm 20.0 ±7 17.9 ±6 F1,14= 0.18, p=0.676
All trees DBH ≥ 35 cm 243.5 ±23 231.6 ±23 F1,14= 0.52, p=0.482
Harvestable trees: n 6.25 ha-1
All species 70.4 ±20 66.4 ±17 F1,14= 0.13, p=0.73
Eperua oleifera 22.8 ±21 15.4 ±10 F1,14= 0.59, p=0.46
PCTs 72.5 ±11 83.1 ±25 F1,14= 1.68, p=0.22
Harvestable volume m3 ha-1 59.2 ±18 46.9 ±15 F1,14= 1.08, p=0.32

122
General view of logging activities

Harvest intensity was twice in conventional approach, both in number of felled trees and in
volume (Table 5.6). The mean tree size DBH and the volume per felled tree were greater in
alternative than in conventional. The proportion of Eperua oleifera in relation to the harvested
volume varied from 0 to 84%, and the proportion of trees rejected as hollow from 0 to 33%. The
results per plot are presented in Appendix 4 (Table 6.5).

Table 5.6: Summary of harvesting results in 16 plots submitted to two tree selection processes in Democracia
Project. Results are presented for the average and confidence interval (α=0.05), for number of trees, basal area
and volume of harvested trees.

Tree Selection Treatment

Variable Unit Average (± CI α=0.05) Statistical test result
Conventional Alternative
Number of felled trees n ha-1 10.1 ±2.1 4.4 ±1.3 F1,14= 20.46, p=0.001
Basal area felled m2 ha-1 4.1 ±1.2 2.2 ±0.7 F1,14= 7.48, p=0.016
Diameter of trees felled: cm
Mean 67.0 ±3.3 77.3 ±4.1 F1,14= 14.86, p=0.002
Minimum 44.7 ±1.7 52.5 ±2.9 χ2=10.8, p=0.001
Harvested volume:
All species m3 ha-1 45.5 ±13.6 25.4 ±9.2 F1,14= 5.78, p=0.482
Volume per tree m3 tree 4.3 ±0.4 5.5±0.7 F1,14= 6.67, p=0.022
Eperua oleifera
% of harvested volume % 38.7 ±25.3 50.0 ±24.07 F1,14= 0.58, p=0.459
Volume per tree m3 tree 5.3 ± 7.6 ± F1,14= 11.29, p=0.006
Hollow trees
Number of trees m3 ha-1 10.9 ±5.0 7.4 ±3.3 F1,14= 1.9, p=0.191
% of harvestable trees % 16.7 ±8.0 12.3 ±6.6 F1,14= 1.0, p=0.330

123
Impacts on forest stand conditions

Canopy disturbance caused by logging activities and canopy openness

Canopy events

Prior to logging, the mean proportion of forest covered by natural gaps was 7.8% (SD ± 3) and 5.0
(SD ±3) for plots assigned to conventional and alternative tree selection methods, respectively.
After logging these values were 4.6% (SD ±5) and 5.0 (SD ±3), for conventional and alternative
experimental plots, respectively. The univariate ANOVA comparing treatments before and after
logging indicated no difference between treatments (F1,13=0.3; p=0.92), time (F1,13=1.15; p=0.30) or
the interaction of time and treatments (F1,13=1.3; p=0.27).
The mean proportion of the area in gaps caused by logging activities was 27.5% (SD ±12) in
the conventional and 15.2% (SD ±11) in alternative treatment, respectively, values not statistically
different (F1,13=4.7; p=0.05) (Figure 5.2). The proportion of closed forest, which excludes gaps
caused by logging as well as natural gaps and therefore reflecting the post-logging condition was
68% (SD ±10) and 79% (SD ±15) for conventional and alternative methods, also tested not
statistically different (ANOVA F1,13=3.8; p=0.073). The minimum value in the alternative method
was Plot 12 where a high percentage of natural gap areas was recorded after logging (14.8%). in
Plot 12. The distribution of gap sizes was similar in the two methods, showing (Pearson χ2=1.14;
df=4; p=0.89), and smaller lengths (<10m) were most frequent.

124
 Figure 5.2: Mean proportion of the plot area, ocuppied by gaps caused
by logging activities. The proportion was calculated dividing the
transect length recorded as harvest gaps by the total transect length per
plot (6.25 ha).

100
Conv
% of measurements

75 Alt

50

25

0
<10 10<15 15<25 25<35 >=35
Transect length (m)

Figure 5.3: Gaps caused by logging activities, expressed as percentage of

measurements by size class (length of transect intersected), for conventional tree
selection method (CONV; N=8) and alternative (ALT; N=7). Error bars present as
standard error.

125
Canopy openness

Mean canopy openness before logging was similar for plots assigned for conventional and
alternative treatments, 5.6 (SD ±2) and 5.5% (SD ±2), respectively (F1,14= 0.95, p=0.35). After
logging, mean canopy openness was greater than prior for both conventional and alternative
methods, respectively 15.5% (SD=± 5; Max=21.0; n=8 plots) and 10.2 % (SD=± 2; Max=14.8; n=7
plots). The ANOVA was significant for Treatment (F1,12=8.4; p=0.013) and Time (F1,12=37.2;
p<0.001), but not for the interaction between Treatments and Time (F1,12=2.6; p=0.13). The
distribution of canopy openness for conventional and alternative tree selection methods was not
statistically different before logging (χ2=3.5; DF=3; p<0.34) (Figure 5.4a), but after logging the
difference between treatments was highly significant (χ2=60.6; DF=4; p<0.001), indicating that the
proportion of points with less canopy opening (<10%) was greater in alternative plots and the
proportion of points with more opened canopy (≥10%) was greater in conventional plots (Figure
5.4b).

60 60
% of measurements

% of measurements

50 Conv 50 Conv
40 Alt 40 Alt
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0<5% 5<10% 10<20% 20<30% >30% 0<5% 5<10% 10<20% 20<30% >30%
Canopy openness classes Canopy openness class

a) Before logging b) After logging

Figure 5.4 Percentage of canopy openness measurements in per canopy openness class in conventional
(Conv) and alternative (Alt) tree selection process, before (a) and after logging (b). Sample sizes before
logging were N=147 (Con) and N=126 (Alt), and after logging were N=816 (Con) and N=683 (Alt),

126
Ground disturbance caused by logging activities

The ground area undisturbed by logging was greater in alternative than conventional method
(Table 5.7). The area affected by logging, other than machine traffic areas, was also greater in
conventional relative to alternative tree selection approach, but the skid trail area was similar. Skid
path occurred very rarely (small area in one plot of each treatment) Considering all categories of
ground disturbances, the two treatments were statistically different.

Table 5.7: Ground disturbance due to logging activities in 15 plots subjected to one of two tree
selection methods. Values are in % of sampled area, with respective standard deviation.
Undisturbed refers to an understorey completely free of disturbance caused by logging;
Disturbed refers to areas where the understorey was disturbed by for events like machine
manoeuvring, or felled crowns and boles; Skid trail refers to the area occupied by, including
the disturbed edge. Skid paths differs from skid trails because are used to extract logging from
several operational maps up to landing areas nearby primary or secondary roads.

Treatment
Event (%) Difference
Conv Alt
N=8 N=7
1 Undisturbed 47.3 ±15 68.0 ±8 F1,13=10.5; p=0.006
2 Disturbed 33.4 ±16 18.0 ±7 χ2=2.8; df=1; p=0.09
3 Skid trails 18.5 ±7 13.8 ±3 F1,13=2.4; p=0.14
4 Skid paths 0.7 ±2 0.1 ±0.4 F1,13=0.203; p=0.66
5 Total area disturbed 52.6 ±15 32.0 ±8 F1,13=10.5; p=0.006

127
Impacts on potential crop trees (PCT) and the residual stock

The percentage of stems of potential crop trees damaged by logging, was higher in the
conventional method (12.8%; n=353 trees; CI0.05 = ±3.4) than in the alternative method (6.4%;
N=347; CI0.05 =± 3.4) (F1,13=5.9; p=0.03). Proportionally the conventional method caused more
moderate and severe damage than the alternative (Figure 5.5), although the proportion of trees
killed was similar (F1,13=0.09; p=0.78), with values of 4.3% (SD=±4) and 3.5% (SD±=3.5) for
conventional and alternative methods, respectively.

20
Killed
% of original stems of PCT

Severely damaged
15 Moderatly damaged
Lightly damaged

10

0
Conv Alt
Tree Selection Method

Figure 5.5: Damage to potential crop trees (PCT) of 40 species for conventional and
alternative tree selection methods, in percentage of stems per ha prior to logging. Potential
crop trees are commercial stems DBH≥35, not selected for harvesting, stem quality 1 or 2
(very good; good). Assessment was made in the central area (150x150 m) of the main
experimental areas. Damage on crown and bole were combined within categories,
moderate, severe and lightly damaged. The area assessed in conventional treatment was 18
ha (N=8) and in the alternative process was 15.75 ha (N=7).

The residual number of potential crop trees in good condition in the alternative method
was twice that of the conventional method (F1,13= 20.7; p=0.001) (Table 5.8). These values represent
the retention of 39 and 69% of the original stock of PCT in good conditions for the next harvesting,
respectively for conventional and alternative methods.

128
 Table 5.8: Residual stock of potential crop trees in good conditions, for different tree selection
methods (Conventional and Alternative), assessed from trees in the central area (150 x 150 m)
of the main experimental plots. Good conditions refers to trees undamaged or lightly
damaged. Only the main 40 commercial species were included in the analysis.
Tree Selection Method
Conventional Alternative
N ha-1 7.6 15.0
Confidence interval (α=0.05) 5.7 – 9.4 11.0 - 19.1
% of pre-harvest stock 38.8 68.1

Impacts on seed trees

In both treatment areas, trees retained as seed trees overall were subjected to the impacts caused by
logging; mortality by causes apparently natural and even felling (Figure 5.6). Sixty five percent
(N=40; total number of assessed trees) of seed trees in conventional treatment were not damaged or
lightly damaged, and the corresponding value for the alternative method was 79% (N=24 trees). In
conventional treatment, 15% of seed trees were severely or moderately damaged, and the
corresponding value for the alternative treatment was 8.4%. One tree (4.2%) was killed due to
logging activities in the alternative treatment and three trees (7.5%) in the conventional. Two seed
trees (5%) were felled within conventional plots.

100
90
Post-logging fate of seed trees (%)

Felled
80
Natural Mortality
70 Killed
Severely damaged
60
Moderately damaged
50 Ligthly damaged

40 Not damaged

30
20
10
0
Conventional Alternative
Tree Selection method

Figure 5.6: Impacts of logging on seed trees caused for two tree selection
methods (Conventional and Alternative).

129
Residual stand diameter

Proportionally, the alternative approach retained more trees in all diameter classes (Figure 5.7b)
after logging. The alternative approach retained a higher proportion of the original stems (existing
before logging), in the smaller classes (<20 cm DBH), probably because in the conventional logging
the traffic of machinery was more intensive due to the higher harvest intensity. The retention of a
higher proportion of the original stems of larger trees (> 65 cm) in the alternative treatment was
probably because the harvest intensity was lower in this treatment, as a result of the tree selection
criteria.

600 100
Conv Alt Conv Alt
500
Number of stems per ha

% of original stems 75
400

300 50

200

25
100

0
0
5-10 10-20 20-35 35-65 >=65
5-10 10-20 20-35 35-65 >=65
Diameter class (cm) Diameter class (cm)

a b

Figure 5.7: Residual stand structure in areas logged according to two different tree selection methods. Data
are presented as number of stems per hectare (a) and as percentage of the number of stems prior logging (b).
Standard deviations are included to illustrate variation. Before logging data were collected from 9.6 ha for
trees DBH≥35; 2.4 ha for trees 10-35 cm DBH and; 0.48 ha for trees 5-10 cm DBH, comprising 8 main
experimental plots per treatment. After logging, only 7 plots were measured for the alternative treatment.
After logging, trees severely injured and those felled were excluded. Confidence interval for the average
(α=0.05) is presented.

130
Impacts on forest production

As expected from the different harvest intensities, the two tree selection methods led to differential
effects on timber production. Through the conventional method 77% of the total harvestable
volume was harvested whereas through the alternative 55% (F1,14=8.9; p=0.010). Considering only
operation time (tree location, felling preparation and felling), it took longer to fell a tree in the
alternative approach (16’ 12” min) relative to the conventional method (8’24” min). The number of
felled trees per hour was twice as high in conventional, compared the alternative (Table 5.9).
On the other hand, the volume felled per hour was similar between the tree selection
methods, partially because the mean volume per felled tree was greater in alternative method than
in the conventional (Table 5.6).
The commercial volume felled was correlated with harvest intensity in both treatments
(Figure 5.8, with Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.99 in the conventional (N=8; p<0.001) and 0.98
in the alternative method (N=8; p<0.001). However, the regression lines (coefficients) in each
treatment, adjusted to data presented in Figure 5.8 suggest that the alternative method was able to
produce more commercial volume, considering an intermediate harvest intensity (5-8 trees per
hectare).
The proportion of harvested volume, according to species commercial priority, is
presented in Figure 5.9. In the alternative tree selection method, the mean proportion of trees of
priority 1 (more valued species) was 72% (SD=± 19.5; N=8), while in the conventional method was
58% (SD=±24). Despite the lack of statistical difference between treatments (ANOVA, F1,14= 1.9,
p=0.186), and that the proportions were generated from different harvest intensities, it represents
an increase of 15% in volume of most valuable species, by selecting the most valuable and bigger
trees at local scale (quadrats, i.e., 50x50 m units).

Table 5.9: Indicators of impact on timber production by different tree selection methods. Time presented in
hours (decimal).

Result per treatment (Sample Standard Deviation)

Work element Conventional Alternative Difference
(ANOVA)
Time per tree (h tree-1) 0.14 (± 0.06) 0.27 (± 0.09) F1,14 = 11.1; p = 0.005
Trees per hour (tree h-1) 8.1 (± 4) 4 (± 1) F1,14 = 8.0; p = 0.014
Volume per hour (m3h-1) 34.8 (± 17) 21.9 (± 7) F1,14 = 3.9; p = 0.067

131
 80

Felled Volume (m ha )
-1
60

3
40

20 Conv

Alt

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-1
Harvest Intensity (n ha )

Figure 5.8: Correlation between felling intensity (HI) and harvested commercial volume
(VOL) for different tree selection methods. For the conventional (CONV), the Pearson
correlation coefficient was 0.99 with a regression line VOL=-19.199+HI6.39 (ANOVA
F1,6=251.8; p<0.001) and for the alternative tree selection method the Pearson coefficient
was 0.98 with a regression line VOL=-5.794+HI7.044 (ANOVA F1,6=142.1; p<0.001)
Alternative
Tree Selection method

72.7
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
Conventional

Priority 4

57.5

0 20 40 60 80 100
% of total harvested volume per class commercial priority

Figure 5.9: Proportion of harvested volume, for different priorities given to commercial
species, based on commercial value and industrial use. Values are average from
experimental plot of 6.25 per treatment (N=8). corresponding to 725 felled trees. Sample
standard deviations for Conventional treat are: ± 23 (Priority 1), ±14 (Priority 2), ±4
(Priority 3), and ±11 (Priority 4); and for the Alternative method are: ± 20 (Priority 1), ±15
(Priority 2), ±5 (Priority 3), and ±5 (Priority 4);

132
Harvesting intensity and its spatial variation

Harvest intensity at different scales

As stated previously, the mean harvest intensity computed for all experimental plots within
treatments was 10.1 trees per hectare in the conventional tree selection method, and 4.4 trees per
hectare in alternative. However, because of the high variation among plots and within the quadrats
it is useful to consider different spatial scales (Table 5.10). At scale in which the decision is made to
fell or not fell a tree ( e.g. within quadrats (50x50 m)), harvest intensity was much more variable,
with up to 40 trees per hectare within conventional plots and up to 12 trees in the alternative (Table
5.10). Conversely, in both treatments, also a nil harvest intensity occurred in some areas.

Table 5.10: Harvest intensity calculated at different scales for two tree selection methods. Values for
global scale are the mean of 8 main plots (6.25 ha) per treatment. Operational scale is the range of
harvest intensity within plots in each treatment and control scale correspond to the scale at which trees
are selected in field, i.e., small areas of 50x50 m (quadrats). Volume for harvest intensities at control scale
were derived from average volume per tree in each treatment.

Area Tree selection method

Scale Unit
(ha) Conv Alt
Global N ha-1 10.1 4.4
50
(Compartment) m3 ha-1 45.5 25.4
Operational N ha-1 6.9 - 14.2 2.1 - 7.7
6.25
(harvest map) m3 ha-1 23.5 - 72.7 7.9 - 47.9
Control N ha-1 0 - 40 0 - 12
0.25
(Quadrats) m3 ha-1 0 - 188 0 - 79.8

The distribution of the number of quadrats (Figure 5.10) per number of trees felled per quadrat
differed between treatments (χ2=20.85; df=3; p<0.001); in 12% of conventional harvested quadrats
no trees was felled, while for the alternative treatment 36% had no felling. A very high harvest
intensity of 4 or more trees felled within quadrat (i.e. ≥ 16 trees per hectare) occurred in 26.5% of
quadrats of conventional method and in 0.5% of the alternative methods quadrats, corresponding to
one quadrat where apparently a misunderstanding regarding the quadrat border due to harvest map
printing led to this unexpected outcome.

133
 80 50
Number of Quadrats (50x50 m) 70
Conv Conv

% of harvested Quadrats
Alt 40 Alt
60

50
30
40

30 20
20
10
10

0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Number of felled trees within 'Quadrats' (50x50 m) -1
Harvest Intensity at Control Scale (nha )

a b
Figure 5.10: Harvest intensity at local scale, presented as a frequency distribution for the number of trees
felled per Quadrat (units of 50x50 m) (a) and expressed as percentage, for two different tree selection
methods. Values recorded from 200 unit quadrats per treatment (50 ha).

Distance between felled trees

In the alternative tree selection method, trees felled were less clumped than in the conventional method. The
average distance to the nearest felled tree in the conventional method was 16.8 m (SD=±2) whereas in the
alternative was 27.1 (SD=±7; F1,14=14.7; p=0.02). The distance up to the next second, third, fourth and fifth
trees felled also were greater in the alternative method (Figure 5.11a), again suggesting that felled trees were
more grouped in the conventional method. In 72.1% of cases, the nearest felled tree is at less than 20 m distant
in the conventional tree selection method, while for the alternative, this is true for only 45% of cases. In the
conventional, 40.9% of the second nearest felled tree and 20% of the thirds are at less than 20 m distance from
the felled tree, while this values are respectively 14 and 3.2% for the alternative method.

Conventional Alternative

100 100

75 75
>= 35 m >= 35 m
% of records
% of records

20 - 35 m 20 - 35 m
50 10 - 20 m 50 10 - 20 m
5 - 10 m 5 - 10 m
<5m <5m
25 25

0 0
First Second Third Fourth Fifth First Second Third Fourth Fifth
Next felled tree Next felled tree

a B
Figure 5.11: Distance from a felled tree to the next first, second, third, fourth and fifth felled trees, expressed
as percentage of occurrences in distance classes, for conventional (a) and alternative (b) tree selection
methods. The data were recorded from 8 main plots per treatment (6.25 ha each), comprised of 727 felled
trees.

134
Gap area within quadrats for different harvest intensities
The total area in gaps within quadrats (50x50 m) increased proportionally to increasing of harvest intensity
(Figure 5.12). When this comparison is made between treatments, it is suggested that for harvest intensities up
to 3 trees felled within quadrats, the proportion for large gap sizes is greater in the conventional tree selection
method (Figure 5.13), except for the case of harvest intensity=2.

2500
Conventional
Alternative
2000
Total area in gaps (m )
2

1500

1000

500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-1
Harvest intensity (trees quadrat )

Figure 5.12: The average total area in gaps within quadrats (50x50 m), for different
number of felled trees within quadrats (N=44), for conventional (N=30) and
alternative tree selection approaches (N=14). The Pearson Correlation coefficient is
is r=0.836 (p<0.01), regardless of treatment.

Conventional Alternative
100 100
>1000
% of gaps per classe of gap

500-1000
% of gaps per classe of gap

75 500-1000 250-500
75
250-500 100-250
size

100-250
size

50 50 <100
<100
25 25

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -1) 10 1 2 3 -1
Harvest intensity (n trees Quadrat Harvest intensity (n ntrees Quadrat )

a b
Figure 5.13: The proportional distribution of gap sizes for different harvest intensities, for (a) conventional
(n=79 gaps) and (b) alternative (n=34) tree selection methods.

135
5.5 - Discussion

The objective for this chapter was to evaluate the impacts of two different methods of tree
selection for felling and retention, on residual forest conditions and timber production. The first
method was the conventional, exactly as it was practiced by the Enterprise teams at the time of this
study, and the alternative included field rules to control harvest intensity. Both methods were
preceded by tree selection for retention of seed trees, and the tree selection for felling presented
here considers the seed trees selected. In the discussion, the general results of logging are
discussed to point out the main differences between the two tree selection methods; then, the
impacts on forest stand conditions caused by each of them are discussed for each variable in turn;
the spatial distribution of harvest intensity described as a key differential between the two
methods; the impacts on forest timber production discussed and finally limitations and issues
related to tree selection methods tested are also discussed.
In Democracia, the main elements of reduced impact guidelines are practiced at an
operational scale. Yet it is worth pointing out that chainsaw operators were not using wedges at
the time of this study, without which directional felling is more difficult, the skidders were not
equipped with winches, and skid trails were not laid in parallel lines, demanding greater length of
skid trails and more manoeuvring in the bole zone; and the payment system included a reward
based on the number of felled trees per day. All of these measures are considered important in
reduced impact logging implementation (Van der Hout and van Leersum, 1998; Van der Hout,
1999; Pinard and others, 1995; Sist, 2000).
As showed in Table 5.5, the forest structure in the experimental plots between treatments
was similar, in terms of density (basal area and number of trees), diameter distribution and
harvestable volume. Eperua oleifera as an important species, in terms of commercial value as well as
in the forest structure of Compartment 7, represented 32% of harvestable trees in the conventional
plots and 23% in the alternative ones. This difference is probably due to differences in MFD for this
species within treatments.

136
Harvest intensity

One important difference between the two methods implemented was the resulting number of
felled trees per hectare, with the alternative method yielding 4.4 trees per hectare and the
conventional 10.1 trees per hectare. This outcome is a function of several of field rules applied
under the alternative method and the adoption of more conservative minimum felling diameters
for many species. Specifically, the rule that applied the Enterprise’s general upper limit of 12 trees
to be felled per ha to smaller units, reducing the incidence of high local intensities that
characterised the conventional selection system (Table 5.10). An example of species MFD
increasing is Eperua oleifera, as its MFD was increased from 60 cm in conventional rules to 75 cm in
the alternative. Eperua is a high demanded species, abundant and also a species with gregarious
spatial pattern (Chapter 3; Figure 3.6). Because the MFD was increased, there were areas where
trees that would be selected by the conventional method have been left, even when the field rules
were not a limitation, limiting the options of the felling crews. Although the implication for
foregone timber is potentially serious, the reasoning behind the adoption of this field rules remains
valid.
Harvest intensity in some tropical forests may be limited by a low number of marketable
species; in this case, to increase the only available options are to increase the harvested area or to
increase harvest intensity by reducing the minimum felling diameter (Adam, 2003). In Democracia,
the number of harvested species is relatively high (72), because the timber is used both for veneer
production in the Enterprise’s factory, and saw timber is sold in the regional market. It is an
advantage in relation to other regions, but when the list of commercial species is long it is
necessary to control harvest intensity and reduce harvesting impacts (De Graaf, 1986). If a harvest
intensity above 8 trees ha-1 limits the benefits of harvest planning (Van der Hout, 1999 Sist and
others, 1998), then it is expected that impacts caused by the harvest intensity in Democracia by the
conventional tree selection method will be also high.
A harvest intensity of more than ten trees per hectare is unusual for Amazonian
conditions. In studies conducted recently in the region, the number of trees felled per hectare was
usually below the harvest intensity proposed to Democracia, both in conventional (Uhl and Vieira ,
1989: 8 trees ha-1; Johns and others, 1996: 7.6 trees ha-1; Pereira Jr. and others, 2002): 6.4 trees ha-1;
but see Winkler, 1997: 16 trees ha-1), and planned logging (RIL) (Johns and others, 1996: 4.5 trees
ha-1; Pereira Jr. and others, 2002: 3.5 trees ha-1; Winkler, 1997: 6 trees ha-1). The average harvest
intensity achieved by the conventional method in this study follows Enterprise’s management plan
but that achieved by the alternative approach is far below maximum. Hollow trees limited both
methods, as much as 17% of harvestable trees were found hollow in the conventional plots and
12% in the alternative ones. However, in order to reduce damage to the residual stand and to

137
achieve the benefits of RIL, the Enterprise should consider a maximum harvest intensity of 8 trees
ha1.

Impacts on forest conditions

Canopy openings

In the present study, canopy opening from logging following the different tree selection methods
were similar and consistent with other studies in the region (Oliveira and Braz, 1995; Winkler,
1997; Johns and others, 1996) or elsewhere Van der Hout, 2000b; Sist and others, 2003b). The
differences in the distribution of canopy openness records in classes (Figure 5.4), where the
alternative tree selection method had relatively more low canopy openness (<10%) than the
conventional may be important for the residual stand, as there is a dominance of shade bearers
amongst commercial species of Democracia. Also, experience suggests that excessive canopy
opening is associated with weed invasion (Hawthorne, 1993). Although a comprehensive measure
for gap size distribution analysis is not available for from direct measurements, the proportion of
gap area achieved by each treatment, their respective harvest intensity; and the fact that field rules
to avoid clumps of felled trees was part of the alternative tree selection method; it is reasonable to
assume that the size of gaps created were smaller than in the conventional.

Ground Disturbed area

The values found for skid trail area in Democracia are high compared to many available studies.
The values for reduced impact logging are usually 4-10% of the harvested area and 8-20% for
conventional logging (Johns and others, 1996; Holmes and others, 2002; Van der Hout, 1999;
Winkler, 1997; Pinard and others, 2000b; Bertault and Sist, 1995). In Democracia, the skidders were
not equipped with winches and the machine had to pick up each log from the stump point,
demanding more skid trail length and therefore occupying a bigger area and a skid trail pattern
known as ‘chicken-foot’, rather than the ‘ herring-bone’ pattern mentioned by Zagt and others
(2000). The use of winches is fundamental to avoid excessive machine traffic in the forest. For
example, Johns and others (1996) in their study on planned logging in Amazonia, reported that the
winch allowed the skidder to remain, on average, 7m from the end of the cut bole contributing to
reduced area damaged, and when skid trail are straight and parallel, a maximum distance for
winching may achieve up to 30-50 m, although limited by log dimensions (Van der Hout and van
Leersum, 1998; Winkler, 1997).
The ground area disturbed due to logging activities was greater in conventional plots
compared with the plots by the alternative tree selection method, which in part is related to the
difference in harvest intensity, as the logging methods were the same. In Democracia’s skidding
system, the total area disturbed by machine is influenced by tree selection as tool for harvest
intensity control, because the machine must approach each stump. Furthermore, as the skidding is

138
the main cause of mortality to advance regeneration (Bertault and Sist, 1995), controlling harvest
intensity assumes great importance. The diameter structure after logging (Figure 5.7) suggests that
damage to trees of smaller sizes was reduced with the alternative approach.

Damage on potential crop trees and seed trees

The conventional tree selection method damaged 13% of the residual potential crop trees and the
alternative only 6%, representing a damage reduction of 50%. This reduction may be due to harvest
intensity difference, as it is related to damage on residual trees (Sist and others, 1998; Webb, 1998;
Durrieu de Madron and others, 2000), but the inclusion of PCT’s and seed tree position on the
harvest map may have contributed as well. Considering only the trees previously marked as seed
trees, amongst the PCT’S analysed, 79% remained undamaged in the alternative method and 65%
in the conventional. The difference was not so accentuated, but it should be interpreted with
caution because the number of trees considered was low.
One important indicator of the quality of two tree selection methods is the remaining
number of potential crop trees, expected to comprise the next harvest in 25-30 years. The results
showed that 15 PCT’s ha-1 (68% of the pre-harvest stock) were undamaged or lightly damaged after
logging in the alternative tree selection method plots. The corresponding value for the
conventional method was 7.6 trees per hectare (39% of the pre-harvest stock). These proportional
values are consistent with a study also conducted in Amazonas State (Winkler, 1997), where the
stock of remaining PCT was 72% for RIL method (6 felled trees ha-1) and 48% for the conventional
(16 felled trees ha-1).
In the present study the lower stock of potential crop trees following the conventional tree
selection method was related to a combination of several factors. Firstly, for some species the
minimum felling diameters were smaller in the conventional method than in the alternative,
resulting in a failure to retain stock for future harvests. Secondly, because no additional
procedures were attached to MFD criterion to control harvest intensity, all trees above MFD were
indeed felled, leading to harvest intensity higher and therefore the damage (lost) to residual stock
was higher. Thirdly, in the alternative tree selection method, potential crop trees and seed trees
were included in the harvest map. It is argued that directional felling brings benefit of damage
reduction but there may be conflicting priorities in terms the exact felling direction the operator
has to choose, including to facilitate skidding, to prevent damage to the bole of the tree felled, to
avoid damage on potential crop trees, to fell trees into an existing felling gap or to ensure the safety
of the felling crew (Van der Hout, 1999). The priorities for choice of felling direction may change
with the situation, as suggested by Van der Hout and van Leersum (1998), comparing studies in
Cameroon and Guyana. Furthermore, for some trees, directional felling is not easy. Directional
felling in Democracia may not have been effective at all. The crews were not using wedges; the
skid trails were not marked in the field at time of the felling (although the crews have some

139
indications about the probable skid trail location from the harvest map, based on the usual pattern)
and; a payment system based on the number of trees felled per day was in place in 2001 harvest
season, even through a maximum number of felled trees per day was established for safety reasons
and rarely achieved (40 trees day-1). However, the inclusion of PCT’s and seed trees on the map
may have contributed to their protection during skidding, rather than during the felling. The
technicians usually plan the skid trail based on the position of each felled tree, and because PCT’s
and seed trees were visible, the exact location of skid trail could consider their protection. The
technician in charge was aware of the experiment and the features included in the harvest map.
When only harvestable trees are included, as in the conventional tree selection method, there is no
easy way to plan skid trails to prevent damage to smaller commercial trees, and the skidder
operator is not able to identify any tree species that should be protected.

Spatial variation of harvest intensity

The harvest intensity in tropical forest management is often expressed as an average calculated for
large areas, such as the annual harvested compartment regardless of variation in forest types or
sites, and sometimes without the exclusion of non-harvested areas (for example, areas destined to
infrastructure and protected areas). In this case, sometimes a stated harvest intensity of 4 trees ha-1
may be considered low in an economical analysis over the whole area, but may also hide an
excessive harvest intensity variation. This variation is often more related to ecological impacts than
with economics.
The tropical rainforest’s intrinsic high degree of spatial heterogeneity (Johns, 1997) most of
the time implies variation in the spatial distribution of the mature trees eligible for felling. This
natural variation influences the harvest spatial variation in intensity, leading to parts of the forest
where harvest intensity is very high as observed for several authors (Sist and others, 1998; Van der
Hout, 1999; and see Winkler, 1997), pag. 49) and some areas without harvest, although the subject
is not well documented in available studies.
From the results it is clear that control of harvest intensity at the local scale, is one way to
reduce variation in intensity and in decrease the number of heavily damaged areas. From the
distribution of harvest intensity within quadrats (Figure 5.10) for the conventional method, a high
harvest intensity occurred in 27% of quadrats, this rate corresponds to 20 trees per hectare (5 or
more trees felled per quadrat). On the other hand, in the alternative tree only in one quadrat more
than 3 trees were felled, occasioned due to the print quality of the map (and rain) causing some
confusing about the plot border. This level of extraction is even considered high in the well stocked
dipterocarp forests of South East Asia (Sist and others, 1998; Pinard and others, 1995; Nicholson,
1958). Twelve trees per hectare is still a high intensity to keep environmentally sound harvest
systems effective (Van der Hout and van Leersum, 1998), but also shows that a previously
established field rules were successful in controlling harvest intensity at small scales.

140
 One limitation or weakness in controlling harvest intensity at the local scale was the
relatively high incidence of quadrats without felling and its overall effect of reducing yield.
Because no trees were felled in these quadrats, the constraint was not only due to the spatial rules
to avoid big gaps or the requirement for a minimum distance between felled trees, but also
probably due to the changes made to minimum felling diameter (MFD). If the MFD were the same
between treatments, probably the number of quadrats with no felled trees would be approximately
the same. Thus, an alternative to reduce the impact on forest production could be creating rules to
give more flexibility in MFD of some species. In areas where no trees are found above the MFD, a
reduction could be considered as long as the spatial rules remain.
When the number of felled trees within quadrats increases, the distance between felled
trees decreases and an expected out come could be more interlinked or large gaps. It was shown
from the results of this study that the distance between felled trees, at scale of the main
experimental plots (250x250 m), was smaller in alternative tree selection method (17 m) than in
conventional (27 m). Furthermore, the results also suggest that felled trees were less clumped in
the alternative method, because of the pattern of distances to the nearest 5 felled trees for each tree
were different between treatments (Figure 5.11). The increase in gap sizes is related to the number
of trees felled per gap (Johns and others, 1996). In their study, planned logging resulted in a
maximum of 4 trees felled per gap and gap sizes of 400 m2, whilst in the conventional logging up 9
trees felled per gap was observed and resulted in gap sizes of 1000 m2. The results in this studies
indicates that at a maximum harvest intensity of 3 felled trees per quadrat, the majority of gaps in
the alternative approach are between 250 and 500 m2 (Figure 5.13), which is compatible with the
results of Johns and others (1996) in planned logging.

141
Impacts on timber production

The differences of impacts by the two tree selection methods on timber production can be
considered from various angles. By adopting the alternative tree selection method, the timber
production was practically halved (25 m3 ha-1), compared to the conventional method (46 m3 ha-1),
and some indicators of logging efficiency also suggest a relative decrease in efficiency (the number
of trees felled per hour and time spent per tree per work day). However, the alternative method’s
values are consistent with available studies of RIL method (Van der Hout, 1999; Winkler, 1997) and
the volume felled per hour did not differ between treatments, diminishing the discrepancies
between treatments in terms logging of efficiency. One possible reason is that by selecting the
biggest trees within each quadrat, the volume per tree, achieved by the alternative method (5.5 m3
tree ha-1) was bigger than in conventional (4.3 m3 tree ha-1). This pattern is evident when treatments
are compared using the relationship between number of felled trees with the commercial volume
(Figure 5.8). Furthermore, the proportion of timber of high valued species (Priority 1) was 73% of
the total commercial volume felled in the alternative plots, whilst 58% in the conventional. This
result is relevant, because it suggests that the alternative method could assure timber quality
through simple field procedures.
The harvest intensity in the conventional method is above the average for the region of less
than 7 trees ha-1 when environmentally sound harvest systems were used, whilst the alternative
method is consistent with the regional standards (Johns and others, 1996; Pereira Jr. and others,
2002; Winkler, 1997; Oliveira and Braz, 1995). A compromise between harvest intensity and
acceptable damage on residual stand is necessary to achieve RIL benefits. The adoption of better
practices is sometimes resisted because of concern over loss in profitability (Putz and others,
2000a). However, several studies of the efficiency of the adoption of reduced impact logging show
that better practice can result in financial gains (Barreto and others, 1998; Holmes and others, 2002;
Boltz and others, 1998).

142
General considerations about the two tree selection methods

Although the resulting harvest intensity became the main difference between the two tree selection
methods, at the starting point of this study there was a maximum limit of 12 trees ha-1 for both
methods. For the conventional method this limit was stated in the forest management plan, and for
the alternative implicit in one of the field rules to select up to 3 trees within quadrats (therefore, 12
trees ha-1). In contrast with the conventional method, the harvest intensity achieved in the
alternative tree selection process was very low compared to the possible maximum of 12 trees ha-1,
when the results per plot are carefully analysed (Appendix 4, Table 6.5).
Table 5.11 summarises some possible reasons for the occurrence of low or high intensity
under the two tree selection methods compared. High intensity occurred in 50% of the plots of the
conventional tree selection method, and the reasons may have been the attributes set up for
harvestable trees (MFD, for example) and absence of field control. In this case the relevant outcome
is the impact on residual stand conditions, as showed in this study, and may be pointed out as the
conventional method weakness. From the possible reasons pointed out in Table 5.11 for the low
harvest intensity achieved in 63% of plots under the alternative tree selection method, the most
probable is a combination of higher MFD for some species and locally poor conditions. In this case,
the relevant outcome is the impact on timber production, as showed in this study, and may be
regarded as a weakness of the conventional method.

Table 5.11: Summary of possible reasons for variations in harvest intensity in each tree selection method.

Harvest Intensity (n/ha) – possible reasons

Tree selection
method Low High
(< 4 trees ha-1) (>12 trees ha-1)
- Poor stand conditions (stock, - Rich stand conditions;
hollow trees, site) - More harvestable trees;
- No rules at control scale;
Conventional
Zero plots 50% of the plots

- Poor stand conditions - Rich stand conditions (m3 ha-1)

- Higher MFD for some species - or
- Rules at control scale limiting - Well distributed harvestable trees
distance between trees and the (trees ha-1)
number of trees felled per
Alternative
quadrad;
- Higher % of seed trees

63 % of the plots Zero plots

143
 Studies assessing impacts of logging activities in Democracia were not conducted before
the present study, but it seems that harvest intensity is above most of the studies in the region
where reduced impact logging has been implemented (Winkler, 1997; Johns and others, 1996;
Pereira Jr. and others, 2002; Oliveira and Braz, 1995). There is a continuum of harvest systems
being practiced in tropical countries, ranging from the pure conventional logging still common in
the Amazon region (Uhl and others, 1991; Uhl and Vieira, 1989) up to relatively refined and well
controlled experiments (Van der Hout, 1999). In Democracia, beyond harvest intensity control, the
harvest methods could be improved by enforcing the use of wedges in directional felling,
introducing winching and optimising the skidding trail pattern, and improving supervision during
felling and skidding. Overall, this study showed that when there are detailed field procedures and
rules to select trees, the felling crew can successfully execute them. However, regular short training
sessions could be helpful to maintain standards, as well as payment system attached to impact
reduction could more effective, if the next harvest matters.
The alternative method was successful in controlling harvest intensity because of the rule
limiting the number of felled trees at local control scale (quadrats of 50x50 m). In a similar manner,
it could control harvesting intensity at a maximum of 8 trees ha-1 by establishing a maximum of 2
felled trees per quadrat, in order to be consistent with the maximum limit to retain beneficial
effects of RIL (Van der Hout and van Leersum, 1998; Sist and others, 1998). On the other hand,
when field rules are effective for controlling high harvest intensities, and seed trees are previously
retained, the MFD for some species could be more flexible to avoid an excessive number of quadrats
with no felled trees, which could be an interesting option to improve the alternative tree selection
method presented in this study.

144
5.6 - Conclusion

This study tested the introduction of criteria and field procedures to improve an existing
conventional tree selection method. The results indicated that by introducing field procedures and
rules attached to an area unit control, it is possible to control harvest intensity spatially and
therefore reduce damage on the residual stand and secure a higher timber stock for future
harvests. This, however, came at a cost. The alternative tree selection method resulted in a larger
number of quadrats (units of control scale) where no trees were felled. This seems to have happened
because for some species, the MFD was high leaving sites without harvestable stems.
The harvested volume of valuable species can be increased without exceeding the limits
allowable, by including information about tree size in the harvest map and detailing procedures to
select the best trees. When no information about trees size is included, it is difficult for the felling
crew to choose efficiently the larger trees in the field.
When harvest intensity is high at local scale, the proportion of canopy lost is proportionally
increased, as well as the proportion of larger gaps. If gap reduction is a silvicultural strategy to
conduct forest regeneration, as it is the case in Democracia, the alternative tree selection method
proposed in this study may contribute to the achievement of this goal.

145
 Chapter 6 - SYNTHESIS, GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 - Introduction

T
he aim of this thesis was to explore the potential of tree selection approaches to improve the
management of natural tropical forests for timber production. A forest management project in
the Brazilian Amazon (Amazonas State) was used as a case study for development of an alternative
approach for tree selection for felling and retention of seed trees. The work involved a general
characterisation of the majority of commercial timber species, focusing on attributes that could be
used to improve tree selection. The alternative approach to tree selection was based on pre-harvest
inventory and species characteristics data. It was conducted in two steps. Firstly, the seed trees
were selected by species proportional to the number of trees within 100 ha stands and in
consideration of ecological characteristics (i.e., attributes associated with limitations to
regeneration served to increase seed tree numbers). At this stage, a comparison with the
conventional approach adopted by the Enterprise was conducted within six 100 ha blocks.
Secondly, the remaining trees matching the criteria for harvesting were plotted on the harvest map,
and field rules were introduced to control the harvest intensity spatially. Features that could
potentially be used to reduce damage on residual trees were included in the harvest map, such as
the location of potential commercial trees (PCT’s), seed trees and trees of protected species
(Brazilian Nut trees). The harvest intensity was controlled at scale of 2500 m2, and information
about the tree size was also included on the harvest map to facilitate the selection of the largest
harvestable trees. A comparison between alternative and conventional approaches to select trees
for felling was conducted resulting in the felling of 728 trees. In Chapter 5, the impacts resulting
from the logging of these trees, by the two tree selection approaches were evaluated regarding
residual stand conditions and timber production.
The purpose of this chapter is to synthesize and discuss the main findings in this study. In
the following section I highlight the main results for each stage of development of the alternative
approach. In the General Discussion, the findings of this study are discussed considering the
potential applicability of tree selection as tool a for yield regulation, harvest control, silviculture
and biodiversity conservation. A further section discusses the relevance of this work to the
Brazilian Amazon region.

146
6.2 - Synthesis

Species characterisation

An important starting point for the development of silviculture strategies in tropical forest
management is to collect available ecological data on the commercially desirable tree species to
classify them into ecological groups; this exercise can assist in the identification of the nature of the
silvicultural treatments required to favour the majority of species (Hutchinson, 1988). The results
show that, in Democracia, the commercial species group is dominated by shade bearers (87% of the
basal area and 51% of stem numbers; for trees ≥5 cm DBH) and that these species are also
important for the forest structure as a whole (51%). The main silvicultural strategy recommended
was to reduce gaps and protect advanced natural regeneration during logging activities. To
accomplish the goal of gap reduction, a control of harvest intensity was introduced as a field rule
in such way that a maximum of 3 trees could be felled at scale of 2500 m2, which is the scale used
by harvest teams to select trees in field. In terms of number of species there is a balance between
shade bearers (51%) and light demanding species (46%), suggesting that silvicultural strategies are
also required to promote regeneration of NPLD species. The majority of NPLD species were
classified as rare species (76%) and the recommendation was to retain more seed trees of these
species.

The alternative approach for tree selection

Alder (2000) stated that “Tree selection methods involve numbering and marking individual trees,
and are likely to be increasingly emphasised, as natural forest management in the tropics becomes
more conscientious and silviculturally based”. The numbering and marking of trees referred by
Alder is becoming common in tropical forest management due to improvements in the pre-harvest
inventories to support better harvest planning and logging activities, as well as to track control as
part of the custody chain in projects certified by FSC. The alternative tree selection approach
developed in this study aimed to add the silvicultural base, as he mentioned, by retaining seed
trees of commercial species above the MFD in order to provide means for these species’
reproduction, and by introducing field rules to control harvest intensity at small scale in order to
reduce excessive canopy opening and its deleterious effects on the growing stock of shade tolerant
species.

Tree selection for retention

The results in this study showed that conventional approaches of retaining a single proportion of
trees for all species and at scale of compartment (≥1,000 ha) may not be adequate to achieve the
goal of promoting commercial species regeneration, confirming a suggestion made by Fredericksen

147
and others (2001) that this kind of guideline may be too stringent for the regeneration of some
species while inadequate for the regeneration of others. In Democracia, using the conventional
method the guideline for seed tree retention was to select 10% of commercial trees, but the results
showed that 17% of trees were retained in case of Compartment 7 and that the proportion varied
amongst species regardless their requirements. For example, for the shade bearer and common
species Eperua oleifera, 22% of the trees were retained, whilst the retention rate for Simarouba amara,
a NPLD, rare and dioecious species was 8%. Furthermore, for the latter species, no seed tree was
retained in four of the six 100 ha blocks studied, because the retention was made at compartment
scale. On the other hand, by considering the species ecological characteristics, the alternative
approach retained proportionally more seed trees for species with more limitations to regenerate
and proportionally less (but at least 10%) for species apparently with fewer limitations (Chapter 4,
Table 4.8). For the two species mentioned above, the retention was 10.4% and 23.2%, respectively,
for Eperua and Simarouba. For all commercial species seed trees under the alternative approach
were retained in all six 100 ha blocks, hence they were better distributed at a compartment scale.
The seed trees were included on the harvest map as a feature, in order to give the felling teams the
opportunity to protect them when deciding on felling direction. The results in this study showed
that the damage to seed trees was reduced from 35% to 21% in the alternative approach (Chapter 5,
Section 4.4), although this result should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of
trees and that no study was conducted to check in what proportion that damage reduction resulted
from the map use.

Tree selection for felling

To define the allowable felling intensity appears to be the first step in determining the
applicability of RIL in any forest area, but harvesting levels are highly sensitive to the spatial
distribution of commercial stems (Hammond and others, 2000). In Democracia, the maximum
harvest intensity was 12 trees ha-1 according with the current forest management plan (Gethal
Amazonas S.A., 2001). The alternative approach was designed to allow the same harvest intensity
as the conventional one, but imposed some field rules to allow at maximum of 3 felled trees within
2500 m2, in order to prevent from felling in clumps. Despite the fact that the conventional and
alternative approach had theoretically the same harvest intensity, the results showed that the
former approach achieved a mean harvest intensity of 10.1 trees ha-1 (46 m3ha-1), whilst the
corresponding value for the later was 4.4 trees ha-1 (25 m3ha-1). Two reasons were identified as
responsible for the lower harvest intensity achieved by the alternative approach: 1) the
introduction of spatial control for harvest intensity, and 2) the MFD was different for some species.
For example, for Eperua oleifera, a valued and abundant species, it was increased from 60 cm to 75
cm. The combination of these two factors resulted in higher number of 2500 m2 units (quadrats)
where no tree was felled (36%), than in the conventional approach (12%). On the other hand, the
spatial variation of the harvest intensity was higher in the conventional approach, in the range of 0-

148
40 trees ha-1 at scale of 2500 m2, while the corresponding value for the alternative approach was 0-
12 trees ha-1 (12 was the maximum planned). A high spatial variation in harvest intensity is
common in tropical forest managed for timber production (Cannon and others, 1994; Sist and
others, 1998; Van der Hout, 1999) due to irregular distribution of mature trees and lack of controls
over tree selection, causing basically two different impacts. Firstly, as mentioned previously, in
some parts of the forest no tree is felled, causing financial losses because for a given area the
number of felled trees is smaller. Secondly, in other parts of the forest the number of felled trees is
high at scale of few meters, causing an ecological impact because of excessive canopy opening. The
excessive canopy opening may create heterogeneous forest patches (Cannon and others, 1994),
with microclimate alterations (Brown, 1993b) that can trigger a proliferation of pioneer and vine
species (Hawthorne, 1993), or increase fire vulnerability (Holdsworth and Uhl, 1997), all
deleterious effects for the forest management. When MFD is the only criteria to select trees these
two situations may occur. In poor areas (low density of commercial large trees), the MFD may be
too high to allow tree selection for felling (economic impact), while in rich areas several trees above
the MFD may be available and felled within few meters (ecological impacts). Nevertheless, the
areas where high harvest intensity occurs are prone to compensate the economic impacts caused by
areas of low or nil production, while the perception for the ecological impacts may be blurred by
harvest intensities reported at large scales (e.g. Chapter 5; Table 5.10).

Impacts

Residual stand conditions

The impact of logging operations on tropical forest vegetation is reliant on two main factors, the
number of trees removed and the care taken in doing so (Johns, 1997). The number of trees
removed is the felling intensity (trees ha-1), and the care taken mentioned by Johns, probably is
related to the logging methods employed (e.g. RIL), as well as methods of tree selection used in
field. The results in this study showed that logging gaps were reduced from 28% to 15% of the
area with the introduction of the alternative approach, and average logging canopy openness (as
defined by Jennings and others (1999) was reduced from 16% to 10%. These achievements suggest
that the introduction of the alternative approach contributed to the strategy to promote shade
bearer commercial species of Democracia (Chapter 3). In a similar way, the alternative approach
was able to reduce the impacts at ground level, from 52% to 32%, with direct implications for
survival of advanced regeneration. By introducing the alternative approach, the damage to
potential crop trees (PCT) was reduced from 13% to 6% and the residual stock of trees in good
conditions to be harvested at the end of this cycle was twice (15 trees ha-1), compared with the
conventional (8 trees ha-1). Some of these trees will be lost by natural mortality and this difference
in number of trees suggests that more options will be available for the manager in the alternative
system, both for seed tree retention and for felling. The difference in the residual stock is probably

149
due to the harvest intensities resulting from the different approaches. First, the higher number of
felled trees in the conventional approach left fewer trees available for the next harvest; and
secondly, the higher number of felled trees in the conventional approach led to more damaged
trees, also contributing to a lower available stock for the next harvesting.

Timber production

It is important that forest products yield the maximum monetary return consistent with good
management (Plumptre, 1996). The results in this study showed that the timber production using
the ecologically based method to retain seed trees was 5 m3 ha-1 considering the 37 species included
in the analysis (39.7 5 m3 ha-1) , a value significantly different (T-test=2.7; df=5; p=0.041) compared
with the conventional approach. Undoubtedly, the difference between the harvest intensities of
conventional (45.5 m3 ha-1) and alternative tree selection (25.4 m3 ha-1) approaches represents the
foremost impact on timber production. Despite this, results showed that the conventional approach
was more able to generate monetary return. However, it may be that future yields will be reduced
if we consider its lower stock of PCT trees and also the inappropriateness in seed tree retention for
some species, as discussed above (Chapter 4).
Both timber production (volume ha-1) and the impacts on residual stand conditions are
proportional to the number of felled trees, and therefore some considerations on harvest intensities
from each tree selection approach could be raised to analyse the impacts on timber production:
firstly, considering the planned harvest intensity of 12 trees ha-1 (maximum), the conventional
approach was able to achieve a closer result. However, no additional criteria besides MFD was in
place to control the maximum harvest intensity at local scale, leading to a wider variation (Chapter
5; Table 5.10) and larger area in gaps (Chapter 5; Figure 5.2); secondly, conversely, the alternative
approach was able to control harvest intensity at local scale, but it was unable to cope with less
dense areas where no tree above MFD was available. Both aspects contributed to a reduction in
timber production, in terms number of felled trees. One can argue that MFD was set too high for
some species, but a different interpretation could be that more flexibility could be applied in less
dense areas, or that these areas are not ready for harvest but rather require stand improvement to
allow them to become productive for the next cycle.
Finally, despite the fact that timber production was lower in the alternative approach,
proportionally its quality was superior: the proportion of volume of more valued species was
higher (Chapter 5; Figure 5.10); and the mean volume per felled tree was higher, leading to more
timber produced for a given number of felled trees when compared with the conventional
approach (Chapter 5; Figure 5.9). Both aspects are directly related to tree selection in field, because
by following the alternative approach’s field rules the team leader selected the largest trees of the
more valued species. Finally, an important consideration is whether the harvest intensity of 46 m3
ha-1 (10 trees ha-1) is too high or that one of 24 m3 ha-1 (4.4 trees ha-1) is too low for regional patterns.
Recent studies available indicate that harvest intensity (planned logging) in the Amazon region

150
ranges 20-37 m3 ha-1 ( 3.5 - 6.0 trees ha-1) (Johns and others, 1996; Pereira Jr. and others, 2002
Winkler, 1997). The harvest intensity achieved with alternative tree selection approach is consistent
with regional results, but it is below the middle range. One way forward to increase timber
production, without increase local harvest intensity, it would be to include computational routines
in the alternative approach to identify areas (2500 m2) with no harvestable tree (e.g. forest
stratification), allowing a different approach (e.g. decreasing MFD when appropriate).
A compromise between timber production and ecological impacts is important, as
available studies elsewhere have shown that increasing harvest intensity beyond a certain limit
make it difficult to achieve the benefits of RIL (Sist and others, 1998; Van der Hout and van
Leersum, 1998). Where the management targets shade bearer species, as is the case in Democracia,
this compromise is an indicator that silviculture is been considered. Furthermore, high harvest
intensities could affect the felling cycle length and the timber production in the long run. For
example, in an experiment conducted by INPA near to Manaus (Coic and others, 1991), a harvest
intensity of 44.3 m3 ha-1 was the result of felling all trees above 40 cm DBH (16 trees ha-1) for a
commercial list of 47 species (the heaviest treatment), whilst a harvest intensity of 24.3 m3 ha-1 (5.5
trees ha-1) was achieved by felling all commercial trees above 55 cm (the lightest treatment). The
estimated felling cycle for the lightest treatment was 19 years and for heaviest was 45 years
(Higuchi and others, 1997a).

151
6.3 - General Discussion

Tree selection is an important step in forest management, because it represents in the field all
efforts taken previously to manage the forest according its own particularities, and to achieve
established goals. Although the most common criterion to select trees in the humid tropics is the
logging of trees larger than a minimum diameter (MFD) (Jennings and others, 2001; Sist, 2001), tree
selection approaches for felling and retention could be the interface between the main elements of
tropical forest management, such as silviculture, harvesting and yield regulation, as well as to
include ecological considerations required to maintain ecosystem functions and processes, as
expected by many, (e.g. (Dickinson and others, 1996 Bawa and Seidler, 1998).
One motivation for this thesis was to develop a system to include more ecological
information into forest management decisions, taking the opportunity created by the increased
adoption of RIL guidelines and its main elements (e.g. pre-harvest inventory and harvest maps).
Although there is a considerable body of potentially useful ecological information to consider in
forest management, the lack of means to translate them into real actions is a problem that remains
(Sheil and van Heist, 2000).
In this study, tree selection was used mainly in the context of silviculture, as the focus was
on seed tree retention based on the commercial species characteristics and gap reduction as an
identified silvicultural strategy to promote their regeneration. In the following discussion, I revisit
the elements of forest management presented in the first chapter, for which tree selection could
contribute to, this time relating them to this study.

Silviculture

The disturbance caused by logging is expected to increase tree seedling recruitment as a result of
canopy opening and soil disturbance (Swaine and others, 2003). However, the effects on
commercial species regeneration after logging are variable (Guariguata and Pinard, 1998) and it is
difficult to consistently predict which ecological groups will succeed. Pioneer species may increase
in abundance after logging, but mortality in the first years is high in this ecological group (Swaine
and others, 2003). Some studies show that logging may increase species richness (e.g. Magnusson
and others, 1999; Cannon and others, 1994) and with time, mature forest species abundance
returns to pre-logging levels, regardless the initial effect of logging. In an experiment in Suriname
testing different logging intensities (15, 23 and 46 m3 ha-1), Dekker and De Graaf (2003) found that
20 years after logging climax species were more abundant than pioneers in all treatments, although
the study considered only eight species.

152
 The results in this study show that all guilds apparently presented an inadequate
recruitment, however, they should be interpreted as caution because of the irregular and episodic
recruitment that characterises many of the tropical species. Additionally, further studies with
larger sample size and including sites where logging occurred years ago, as well as results from
permanent plot, would give a better indication about species and guilds recruitment in
Democracia.
Recruitment of commercial species after logging depends on availability of seeds,
especially for species without seed banks. The amount of seeds available will depend on how
much each tree produces and how many trees are left as seed trees. Fruit production is thought to
increase with tree size (Plumptre, 1995; Gullison and others, 1996) and other tree attributes may be
important. For example, Adam (2003) found that crown radius and crown volume were correlated
with seedlings and saplings number around mother trees of commercial species in Ghana. Seed
availability in space depends on the density and distribution of mother trees (Viana, 1990), but the
seed shadow area is limited by short distances the seeds are dispersed around them (see Turner,
2001). Adam (2003) also observed a significant variation in seedling and sapling recruitment
among ecological groups, studying their distribution around mother trees, suggesting that seed
tree rules need to be species specific.
The retention of seed trees based on weighted species attributes, as developed in this
study, represents one way to include ecological information in forest management decisions.
Although it is not a guarantee that all considerations about species reproduction noted above will
be sorted out resulting in “adequate” retention, this alternative approach represents a step forward
from the prevalent unique proportion applied to all species. The attributes, as well as the
importance (weight) given to each one may be changed to meet local conditions and priorities. For
example, the importance of appropriate post logging environments to promote regeneration of
light demanding species is increasingly being recognised as important yet neglected (Fredericksen
and Pariona, 2002; Agyeman and others, 1999; Gullison and others, 1996). One suggestion to
promote light demanding species would be that seed trees of NPLD should be located near roads,
rivers or skid trails to increase the likelihood of seed falling into suitable establishment sites.
Another possibility would be allow higher harvest intensities in the immediate surroundings of
NPLD seed trees to increase canopy opening and soil disturbance within the seed shadow.
Associated with this strategy would be to avoid the selection of seed trees of shade bearers in these
areas.
Seed tree retention based on species ecological requirements may be interpreted as overly
conservative and a constraint to profitability in timber production. However, guidelines could be
more qualitative than quantitative. For example, if one considers the number of seed trees retained
in Democracia under a single proportion, it may be possible to select the same number taking into
account the species characteristics, or both minimum and maximum percentages could be

153
calibrated to local conditions. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of retaining seed trees based on
species characteristics, some studies could be conducted in Democracia in the next years. They
could be designed to assess the seed availability and the seedling establish patterns, at least for
those species with more contrasting rate of retention in this study, in both conventional and
alternative areas.

Harvesting

As much research has documented previously, harvest intensity is positively correlated with
logging damage. In this study harvest intensity was reduced through tree selection criteria, starting
with numbers and distribution of retained seed trees, possibly due to differences in MFD and
certainly due to restrictions against felling more than three trees per quadrat.
Minimum felling diameters were initially introduced to control damage to the residual
stand. However, for operations where mechanisms are in place to control tree selection, the role of
MFDs as regulator becomes redundant. While it may be unworkable in many places to remove
control using MFDs, in a case like Democracia, greater flexibility over tree selection for felling
would allow for more locally appropriate felling and retention prescriptions, and might reduce the
incidence of quadrats without harvest. For example, in all quadrats (2500 m2 units) where no trees
were felled (36%), it is possible that at least 1-2 trees could have been felled if the approach was
flexible regarding MFD of some species. In this case, the timber production could have been
higher, but still the spatial variation of harvest intensity would be controlled to minimise gaps. The
care to be taken should allow a MFD variation compatible with species diameter structure,
vulnerabilities and industry requirements.
The difference in harvest intensity also may have blurred the significance of including
additional features on the harvest map, such as the PCT (Potential Crop Trees) and seed tree
location. However, the inclusion of features such as these may contribute to damage reduction
when the team is well trained to use it correctly. For example, if directional felling is in practice,
PCT and seed trees could be identified and protected, although a definition about what should be
the priorities to protect would be required (Van der Hout and van Leersum, 1998). Besides felling,
planning skid trails on maps where PCT and seed trees are plotted could also assist in reducing
damage. In his study in Santa Cruz (Bolivia), Krueger (2004) found that the pre-harvest flagging of
future crop trees with spray paint reduced damage by 20% in felling gaps and by 10% in along skid
trails, at an additional cost of US$ 0.18 ha-1. At large scale, it may be cheaper and still effective to
“flag” the features on the harvest map and to train workers to identify them in field.
Furthermore, because to include features on the map is easier, other attributes could be
included depending on local interests (Dykstra, 1996). For instance, trees of species of importance

154
for local people (Jonkers and van Leersum, 2000) like Bertolletia excelsa (Brazil Nut) or elements for
biodiversity conservation, such as old mature timber habitats (Grove, 2001) could be included.

Yield regulation

It was beyond the objectives of this study to select trees as part of a yield regulation based on
species growth and mortality rates, because such data were not available for Democracia region
and the focus was on silviculture. Regional studies could provide average rates to establish only an
approximate and total yield control in Democracia. The study near Manaus by INPA indicates a
PAI7 of 1.7 m3 ha-1 y-1 for 6 years monitoring (Higuchi and others, 1997a) and the studies in Pará by
EMBRAPA a PAI of 1.8 m3ha-1y –1 (Silva and others, 1995) for 13 years of monitoring, respectively
for groups of 47 and 61 commercial species. In both INPA’s and EMBRAPA’s studies, logging
harvested all commercial trees above a certain DBH (MFD system). Those results indicate an
anticipated felling cycle of 30-35 years for a maximum annual cut of 40 m3 ha-1, but post logging
silvicultural treatments are recommended to stimulate growth rates (Silva and others, 1995; Silva
and others, 1999).
The results in this study showed that the alternative approach was far below this harvest
intensity and the conventional slightly above, suggesting that felling cycles for the former
approach could be lower than 30 years and for the latter beyond 35 years. Both tree selection
approaches included MFD per species and seed tree retention, which are compatible with more
complex yield regulation rules for harvesting, but on the other hand associated to silviculture
(Alder, 1995). A continuous forest inventory started in Democracia in 2000 (Freitas and others,
2003b), and in few years time estimates for increment, mortality and recruitment will be available.
Then, AAC can be calculated by species and localities (Alder, 2000) and be considered more
thoroughly for incorporation into Democracia’s tree selection approach.

Biodiversity Conservation

The extent to which natural forest management might be compatible with the conservation of
biodiversity depends on several factors, like the scale and intensity of operations in both space and
time, and the geographical configuration of managed forest areas within the matrix of undisturbed,
primary forest (Bawa and Seidler, 1998). This study is concerned with interventions at stand scale
(Tactical) and how tree selection could contribute to biodiversity conservation is focused on
harvested timber species.

7 PAI: Periodic Annual Increment

155
 At the stand level, natural forest management may sustain biologically diverse forests or
create highly simplified forests depending on the intensity of logging and the management
approach (Dickinson and others, 1996). The view of over simplified forests sometimes refers to
the so-called ‘forest domestication’ as a process that often eliminates or reduces the abundance of
certain species, and changes the age and size distribution of populations (Dickinson and others,
1996), mainly throughout pre and post logging silvicultural treatments such as vine cutting and
refinements. In general, silvicultural treatments are more likely to have negative effects on
biodiversity when applied as a blanket prescription (Putz and others, 2001), like the elimination of
all individuals above certain diameter. At the time of the first harvesting, tree selection can
contribute to biodiversity conservation in a different way.
Within managed or logged forest, some tree species are more vulnerable to declines with
logging than are others. For instance, selective logging may pose a direct threat by targeting rare
species, species with limitations to regenerate or of importance to wildlife (Martini and others,
1994; Pinard and others, 1999). The common practice of using MFDs to control harvesting is a form
of blanket prescription applied at a species level. For species with few individuals at smaller sizes,
the deleterious effects are likely to be greater than for species well-represented by advance
regeneration (Jennings and others, 2001). Adopting measures to promote this species’ regeneration
is therefore important not only to secure forest management for timber production, but also for
biodiversity conservation at the local scale.
Species characterisation allows one to identify rare species and species with limitations for
regeneration (e.g. dioecious species, for example); this information can then be incorporated into
the tree selection process to reduce negative impacts on biodiversity conservation. In the
alternative approach developed here, retention levels in these groups were raised and the
distribution of retained trees was more even in space. While these rough measures cannot
guarantee species reproduction and conservation, they represent an improvement on the existing
system.

Tree selection to improve forest management in Amazon: opportunities and constraints

The need for more sustainable forestry practices in forest management for timber production in the
Amazon region is evident. The region is extremely important globally, both for biodiversity
conservation and climate regulation. Currently socio economic pressures related to logging
(Chapter 2, Section 2.2), if not guided by sustainable practices may jeopardize the regions’
ecological values. Timber production to supply national markets increased substantially in the last
decades (Hummel, 2001). Most of the timber from Amazon region is used to supply demands of
the national market with tropical timber (Smeraldi and Veríssimo, 1999), but in the next decades
the decline of stocks in forest of other continents (Higuchi, 1994) may increase exporting demand,

156
as well. Timber production in the region is associated with deforestation and conventional logging
(Hummel, 2001; Nepstad and others, 1999), but efforts to improve forestry practices through
government policies, research and forestry education increased substantially in the last decade
(Chapter 2; section 2.2).
Currently in the region great attention is being given to the improvement of harvesting,
specifically by promoting elements of reduced impact guidelines (e.g. Projeto Embrapa-CIFOR,
2000; Blate and others, 2001; Amaral and others, 1998), such as more reliable pre-harvest
inventories and planning. This represents a main opportunity for inclusion of tree selection criteria
to control harvesting and potentially to promote silviculture. At the moment, projects certified by
FSC (e.g. Democracia Project) offer more suitability to adopt alternative tree selection approaches
than those without because their practice is usually more compliant with RIL guidelines, an
information system to track logs is in place, and workers are trained. The development of more
refined criteria to select trees in these projects for dissemination in the region is as important as is
the case of RIL guidelines.
The constraints to implementation are many, including uncertainties in species
identification and unavailability of species information. The forestry sector in the Amazon region
does not currently have the capacity to identify many trees to the level of species (Kanashiro and
others, 2002). This is a basic requirement to secure that species criteria are applied correctly.
Dendrogene project, lead by EMBRAPA (Kanashiro and others, 2002) represents an important
starting point, because it encompasses the basic elements required to support initiatives of
improving tree selection approaches. The project offers regular training on species identification at
operational levels, it has been involved with development of a database with ecological
information on timber species harvested in the region (Degen, 1999) and it is promoting the use of
a software to orientate forest management decisions (Hawthorne and others, 1999).
The forest regulations in Brazil were simplified in recent years to encourage compliance by
loggers, enterprises and communities. Hummel (2001) reviewed the requirements to use forest
resources in the Brazilian Amazon until 1999, and concluded that excessive regulations and
technical requirements, in general created barriers to sustainable forest management because they
served as incentives to alternative uses such as pasture, for which the exigencies were not so tough.
On the other hand, excessive flexibility in technical requirements does not encourage best practices
where forest management is in place. For instance, the current regulations (IBAMA, 2002) do not
prescribe species MFD but recommend that it should be determined based on species ecological
characteristics and their utilisation (Article 10th). Despite that recommendation, a MFD of 45 cm for
most of the species is a common practice (Silva and van Eldik, 2000). To date, the main
requirement at stand level is the 100% pre-harvest inventory, which certainly allows more control
by IBAMA and potentially can support improvements in harvesting systems. In a similar way of
species MFD, according to IBAMA’s regulation, the harvest the intensity (volume ha-1) should be

157
established based on species natural regeneration and on the average volume derived from 100%
pre-harvest inventory (IBAMA, 2002). Forest management will not be sustainable if based only on
improved harvest practices and selection of trees above 45 cm regardless species characteristics.
Nevertheless, information about species natural regeneration below the minimum DBH used for
pre-harvest inventory may not be available for the managed stand, or even for the whole project.
In absence of information about species, decisions have to be made on how much is safe to
harvest in any particular area (Plumptre, 1996). It may be possible that to specify a maximum
allowed harvest intensity in terms of number of tress ha-1 would be more appropriate, because
number of trees is a variable easier to link with spatial rules, seed tree retention and also may
facilitate IBAMA’s control in field (by tracking stumps, for example). Moreover, studies in different
parts of the world showed that impacts are proportional to the number of felled trees (Van der
Hout, 1999; Sist and others, 1998; Durrieu de Madron and others, 2000) and that beyond a certain
number of trees, the benefits of improved harvest systems may be neutralised by high harvest
intensities (Sist and others, 1998; Van der Hout and van Leersum, 1998).
The ultimate motivation for the improvement of tree selection processes in Amazon region
is basically to ensure forest regeneration, which is fundamental to achieve sustainability. Reduced
impact logging is a necessary condition, but alone is not sufficient to guarantee sustainability in
natural tropical forest management, even in projects certified by FSC (Sist, 2001; Sist and others,
2003a; Fredericksen and others, 2003; Putz and others, 2000b).

158
6.4 - Conclusions

Tree selection approaches that consider species characteristics are important to complement the
progress achieved by reduced impact logging in the tropics, because they introduce silvicultural
criteria, negative impact reduction, yield regulation, as well as contribute to the maintenance of
forest structure.
The species characterisation in this study was useful for identifying commercial species
with apparent limitations or inadequate regeneration, and these species included representatives
from all ecological guilds. The bulk of results produced might serve to help forest management in
Democracia, calibrating the alternative approach for tree selection or identifying new criteria and
studies to support a long-term silvicultural conduction.
The results of the alternative tree selection approach indicate that the recommendations
based on species characterisation were effective as proportionally more seed trees were retained
for species with identified limitation for regeneration and compared to the conventional approach,
both gap area and damage on advanced regeneration (PCT’s) were reduced. However, the harvest
intensity was also reduced. More flexibility to fell trees below the MFD in areas with low-stocking
might increase timber production without to increase the number of large gaps.
The introduction of spatial controls for harvest intensity is a tool to reduce the occurrence
of excessively large canopy openings, resulted from connectivity between gaps, and the control
based on quadrats (units of 2500 m2) used in this study might be an option to be introduced as an
operational procedure.
Considering the results and knowledge resulted from this study, I would go forward and
make the following recommendations to improve forest management for timber production in the
Brazilian Amazon region through out tree selection methods:
• Tree selection procedures should be a required part of any harvesting planning and relevant to
silvicultural conduction in long term, according to local conditions and the species under
management;
• General and simple criteria could be implemented regionally, such a maximum number of
felled trees (n ha-1) combined with spatial rules to prevent excessive canopy openings, and the
retention of mature trees to guarantee seed supply;
• Until species information about minimum reproductive sizes (mature trees) or the optimum
felling diameter for sustained yield are available, as a measure of caution the MFD should be based
on species diameter distribution, rather than completely free of choice;
• IBAMA could support a compilation of basic ecological information for the main commercial
species currently harvested in the region, either based on regional inventories or research already

159
available, and make this information a regional reference for forest management. Suggested
information to include could be species diameter structure, a recommended MFD, growth rates
and compatible silvicultural strategies to promote their natural regeneration. The database could
be available in a web site, as well as printed on paper, and certainly it could help forest manager’s
decisions.

160
 REFERENCES

Ackerly, D. D.; Rankin-de-Merona, J. M.; Rodrigues, W. A. 1990. Tree densities and sex ratios in
breeding populations of dioecious Central Amazonia Myristicaceae. Journal of Tropical
Ecology 6: 239-248.
Adam, K. A. 2003. Tree selection in selective logging: ecological and silvicultural considerations
for natural forest management in Ghana. University of Aberdeen. PhD Thesis. 201 p.
Adam, K. A.; Pinard, M. A.; Swaine, M. D.; Freitas, J. V. 2002. Ecological considerations for tree
selection for felling and retention in tropical forests: ecological perspectives for sustainable
tropical forest management. Panama City, 29 July - 3 August. ATBC Annual meeting of the
Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation.
Agyeman, V. K.; Abu-Juam, M.; Hawthorne, W. D. 1999. Towards better forest harvesting.
Kumasi Forestry Research Institute of Ghana. 18 p.
Alder, D. 1992. Simple methods for calculating minimun diameter and sustainable yield in mixed
tropical forest. IN: Miller,F.R., Adam,K.L. (Eds.), Wise management of tropical forests.
Oxford Forestry Institute. Oxford, pag. 189-200
Alder, D. 1995. Growth Modelling for Mixed Tropical Forests. Oxford. University of Oxford.
Tropical Forestry Papers No. 30. 231 p. p.
Alder, D. 2000. Some issues in the yield regulation of moist tropical forests. Oxford. Oxford
Forestry Institute - O.F.I. Occasional Papers 52. 27p
Alder, D.; Baker, N.; Wright, H. L. 2002a. MYRLIN: Simple tools for yield regulation in natural
tropical forests. Oxford. availabe in www.myrlin.org. 59 p.
Alder, D.; Oavika, F.; Sanchez, M.; Silva, J. N. M.; Van der Hout, P.; Wright, H. L. 2002b. A
comparison of species rates from four moist tropical forest regions using increment-size
ordination. The International Forestry Review 4(3): 196-205.
Alder, D. and Silva, J. N. M. 2000. An empirical cohort model for management of Terra Firme
forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 130: 141-157.
Alder, D. and Synnott, T. J. 1992. Permanent Plots Techinques for Mixed Tropical Forest. Oxford.
University of Oxford. Tropical Forestry Paper No. 25. 124p. p.
Alencar, J. C. 1998. Fenologia de especies arboreas tropicais na Amazonia Central. IN: Gascon,C.,
Moutinho,P. (Eds.), Floresta Amazonica: Dinamica, Regeneracao e Manejo. MCT/INPA.
Manaus, pag. 25-40
Amaral, P.; Veríssimo, A.; Barreto, P.; Vidal, E. 1998. Floresta para sempre: um manual para a
produção de madeira na Amazônia. Belém IMAZON. 155 p.

161
AMIGOS DA TERRA. 1997. Garimpagem florestal: Relatório atualizado sobre a extração ilegal de
madeira na Amazônia Brasileira.São Paulo. Amigos da Terra (Friends of Earth)/Programa
Amazônia. Relatório. 77 p.
Antony, L. M. K. 1997. Influência do corte seletivo sobre a biota do solo de uma floresta de Terra-
Firme na Amazônia Oriental. IN: BIONTE - Biomassa e Nutrientes Florestais. INPA/DFID.
Manaus,
Appanah, S.and Mohd, R. A. M. 1991. Smaller trees can fruit in logged dipterocarp forests. Journal
of Tropical Forest Science 3(1): 80-87.
Asabere, P. K. 1987. Attempts at Sustained Yield Management in the Tropical High Forests of
Ghana. IN: Mergem,F., Vincent,J.R. (Eds.), Natural Management of Tropical Moist Forests:
silviculture and management, prospects of sustained utilization. Yale University. New Haven,
pag. 47-70
Asquith, N. M.; Terborgh, J.; Arnold, E.; Riveros, M. 1999. The fruits the agouti ate: Hymenaea
courbaril seed fate when its disperser is absent. Journal of Tropical Ecology 15: 229-235.
Atta-Boateng, J.and Moser Jr., J. W. 1998. A method for classfying commercial tree species of an
uneven-aged mixed species tropical forest for growth and yield model construction. Forest
Ecology and Management 104: 89-99.
Atyi, R. E. 2000. TROPFOMS, A Decision Support Model for Sustainable Management of South-
Cameroon's Rain Forests. Kribi. Tropenbos. Tropenbos-Cameroon Series 2. 202 p.
Augspurger, C. K. 1986. Morphology and dispersal potential of wind-dispersed diaspores of
neotropical trees. American Journal of Botany 73(3): 353-363
Barreto, P.; Amaral, P.; Vidal, E.; Uhl, C. 1998. Costs and benefits of forest management for timber
production in eastern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 108: 9-26.
Barros, A. C. and Uhl, C.1995. Logging along the Amazon River and estuary: Patterns, problems
and potential. Forest Ecology and Management 77: 87-105.
Barros, P. L. C. 1986. Estudo Fitossociológico de uma Floresta Tropical Úmida no Planalto de
Curuá-Una, Amazônia Brasileira. Universidade Federal do Paraná. Tese de Doutorado. 147 p.
Bawa, K. S.and Krugman, S. L. 1991. Reproductive biology and genetics of tropical trees in relation
to conservation and management. IN: Gómez-Pompa,A., Whitmore,T.C., Hadley,M. (Eds.),
Rain Forest Regeneration and Management. Unesco and The Pathernon Publishing Group.
Paris, pag. 119-136
Bawa, K. S.and Opler, P. A. 1975. Dioecism in tropical forest trees. Evolution 29: 167-179.
Bawa, K. S.and Seidler, R. 1998. Natural Forest Management and Conservation of Biodiversity in
Tropical Forests. Conservation Biology 12(1): 46-55.
Bertault, J.-G. and Sist, P. 1995. Impact de l'exploitation en foret naturelle. Bois et Forêts des
Tropiques 245: 5-14.

162
Bertault, J.-G. and Sist, P. 1997. An experimental comparison of different harvesting intensities with
reduced impact logging and conventional logging in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forest
Ecology and Management 94: 209-218.
Blate, G. 1997. Sustainable Forest Management in Brazil. Tropical Forest Update ITTO Newsletter
7(3): 14-15.
Blate, G.; Putz, F. E.; Zweed, J. C. 2001. Changing harvesting practice in the Amazon. Tropical
Forest Update ITTO Newsletter 11(2): 8-9.
Boltz, F.; Holmes, T. P.; Carter, D. R.1998. The Economics of Reduced Impact Logging in the
American Tropics: A Review of Recent Initiatives. Florida Agriculture Experiment Station
Journal.
Boyle, T. and Sayer, J. 1995. Measuring, monitoring and conserving biodiversity in managed
tropical forests. Commonwealth Forestry Review 74(1): 20-25.
Brokaw, N. V. L. 1982. The definition of treefall gap and its effect on measures of forest dynamics.
Biotropica 14(2): 158-160.
Brokaw, N. V. L. and Busing, R. T. 2000. Niche versus chance and tree diversity in forest gaps. Tree
15(5): 183-189.
Brower, J. E.; Zar, J. H.; von Ende, C. N. 1997. Field and laboratory methods for general ecology.
Boston WCB/McGraw-Hill. 251 p.
Brown, N. 1993a. The implications of climate and gap microclimate for seedling growth conditions
in a Bornean lowland rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9: 153-168.
Brown, N. D. 1993b. The implications of climate and gap microclimate for seedling growth
conditions in a Bornean lowland rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9: 153-168.
Bruenig, E. F. 1996. Conservation and Management of Tropical Rain Forests: An integrated
approach to sustainability. Wallingford, UK CAB International. 339 p.
Cannon, C. H.; Peart, D. R.; Leighton, M.; Kartawinata, K. 1994. The structure of lowland rainforest
after selective logging in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management 67:
49-68.
Cavalcanti, F. J. B. 2002. Manejo florestal sustentável na Amazônia, ano 2002. Brasília. Edições
IBAMA. Report 96 p.
Chapman, C.A.; Chapman, L. J.; Wangham, R.; Hunt, K.; Gebo, D.; Gardner, L. 1992. Estimators of
fruit abundance in tropical trees. Biotropica 24(4): 527-531.
Clark, D. A.and Clark, D. B. 1992. Life history diversity of canopy and emergent trees in a
neotropical rain forest. Ecological Monographs 62(3): 315-344.
Coic, A. R.; Higuchi, N.; Freitas, J. V. Comportamento após exploração florestal de uma floresta
densa úmida na Amazônia: Projeto de Manejo Florestal da ZF-2. INPA/CTFT. -23. 1991.
Manaus.

163
Conway, S. 1982. Logging practices: principles of timber harvesting systems. San Francisco Miller
Freeman Publications.
Couto, L. and Dubé, F. 2001. The status and practice of forestry in Brazil at the beginning of the
21st century: A review. The Forestry Chronicle 77(5): 817-829.
Crawley, M. J. 1997. Sex. IN: Crawley,M.J. (Ed.)., Plant Ecology. Blackwell Science. Oxford, pag.
156-213
Crome, F. H. J.; Moore, L. A.; Richards, G. C. 1992. A study of logging damage in upland rain forest
in North Queensland. Forest Ecology and Management 49: 1-29.
da Silva, R. P.; Santos, J.; Tribuzy, E. S.; Chambers, J. Q.; Nakamura, S.; Higuchi, N. 2002. Diameter
increment and growth patterns for individual tree growing in Central Amazon, Brazil. Forest
Ecology and Management 166: 295-301.
Dale, M. R. T. 2000. Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology. Cambridge Cambridge University
Press. 325 p.
Dawkins, H. C. 1955. The refining of mixed forest: a new objective for tropical silviculture. The
International Forestry Review 34(2): 189-191.
Dawkins, H. C. and Philip, M. S. 1998. TROPICAL MOIST FOREST SILVICULTURE AND
MANAGEMENT: A history of success and failure. Wallingford. CAB International Press. 351
p.
De Graaf, N. R. 1986. A silvicultural system for natural regeneration of tropical rain forest in
Surinam. Wageningen Agricultural University. 250 p.
De Graaf, N. R. 2000. Reduced impact logging as part of the domestication of neotropical
rainforest. The International Forestry Review 2(1): 40-44.
De Graaf, N. R.and Poels, R. L. H. 1990. The Celos Management System: A Polycyclic method for
Sustained Timber Production in South American Rain Forest. IN: Anderson,A.B. (Ed.).,
Alternatives to Deforestation: steps toward sustainable use of the Amazon Rain Forest. New
York. Columbia Press. 116-127p.
De Graaf, N. R.; Poels, R. L. H.; van Rompaey, R. S. A. R. 1999. Effect of silvicultural treatment on
growth and mortality of rainforest in Surinam over long periods. Forest Ecology and
Management 124: 123-135.
De Madron, L. D. 1998. Accroissement et mortalité des arbres en Côte-d'Ivoire. Bois et Forets des
Tropiques 258(4): 69-72.
De Madron, L. D.; Nasi, R.; Détienne, P. 2000. Accroissements diamétriques de quelques essences
en forêt dense Africaine. Bois et Forets des Tropiques 263(1): 63-80.
de Vletter, J. 1995. Natural Forest Management Pilot Project. Fiji. Fiji Forestry Department/GTZ
Regional Forestry Project South Pacific. Report 79 p.
Degen, B. DENDROBASE: Genetic System of Tropical Tree Species - User's Manual. [1b]. 1999.
Kourou, DFID-CPATU Rain Forest Silvicultural Research Project.

164
Dekker, M. and De Graaf, N. R. 2003. Pioneer and climax tree regeneration following selective
logging with silviculture in Suriname. Forest Ecology and Management 172: 183-190.
Detienne, P.; Fouquet, D.; Parant, B. 1990. Les bois Guyanais: propriétés et utilisation. Bois et Forets
des Tropiques 219(Spécial Guyane): 125-143.
Deusdará Filho, R. and Zerbini, N. J.2001. Critérios e indicadores para a sustentabilidade da
floresta amazônica: o processo de Tarapoto. Brasil Florestal 71: 42-48.
Dickinson, M. B.; Dickinson, J. C.; Putz, F. E. 1996. Natural forest management as a conservation
tool in the tropics: divergent views on possibilities and alternatives. Commonwealth Forestry
Review 75(4): 309-315.
Dickinson, M. B.; Whigham, D. F.; Hermann, S. M. 2000. Tree regeneration in felling and natural
treefall disturbances in a semidecidous tropical forest in Mexico. Forest Ecology and
Management 134: 137-151.
Dupuy, B.; Maître, H-F; Amsallen, I. 1999. TROPICAL FOREST MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES:
A review of the sustainability of forest management practices in tropical countries.Rome.
FAO/Forestry Police and Planning Division. Report 37 p.
Durrieu de Madron, L.; Fontez, B.; Dipapoundji, B. 2000. Dégats d'explotiation et de débardage en
fonction de l'intensité d'exploitation en forêt dense humide d'Afrique Centrale. Bois et Forets
des Tropiques 264(2): 57-60.
Dykstra, D.; Heinrich, R. 1996a. FAO Model Code of Forest Harvesting Practice. Rome FAO. 77 p.
Dykstra, D. 1997. Information systems in forestry. Unasylva 48(189): 10-15.
Dykstra, D. 2001. The old and new of reduced impact logging. Tropical Forest Update ITTO
Newsletter 11/2.
Dykstra, D. 2002. Reduced impact logging: concepts and issue. Kuching, Malaysia. FAO - Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific.
Dykstra, D.; Heinrich, R. 1996b. Sustaining tropical forests through environmentally sound
harvesting practices. Unasylva 43: 9-15.
EMBRAPA. 1996. Diagnóstico dos Projetos de Manejo Florsetal no Estado do Pará - Fase
Paragominas. Belém. Embrapa/CPATU - Relatório Preliminar. Report 133 p.
Erazo, N. D. C. 2003. Seleção de Equações para Estimativa do Volume de Árvores de Floresta
Primária de Terra Firme em área do Projeto Democracia+. Universidade Federal do
Amazonas/FCA/DCF. Monografia do Curso de Eng. Florestal. 65 p.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1974. Logging and log transport
in tropical high forest. Rome FAO Forestry Development Paper 18.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1993. Forest resources
assessment 1990 - Tropical countries. Rome. FAO. FAO Forestry Paper.

165
Favrichon, V. 1994. Classification des espèces arborèes en groupes fonctionnels en vue de la
réalisation d'un modèle de dynamique de peuplement en forêt guyanaise. Rev. Ecol. (Terre
Vie) 49: 379-403.
Favrichon, V. 1996. Modélisation en forêt naturelle. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 249(3. Trimestre):
23-32.
Favrichon, V. 1998. Modelling the dynamics and species composition of a tropical mixed-species
uneven-aged natural forest: effects of alternative cutting regimes. Forest Science 44(1): 113-124.
Favrichon, V.and Nguyen-The. 2001. Estimation of the harvestable potential after logging in a
lowland mixed dipterocarp forest of Kalimantan. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 13(1): 62-
75.
Fearnside, P. M. 1995. Potential Impacts of climatic change on natural forests and forestry in
Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 78: 51-70.
Fearnside, P. M. 1997. Wood density for estimating forest biomass in Brazilian Amazonia. Forest
Ecology and Management 90: 59-87.
Fernandes, N. P.; Jardim, F. C. S.; Higuchi, N.1983. Tabelas de volume para a floresta de terra firme
da Estação Experimental de Silvicultura Tropical. Acta Amazonica 13(3-4): 537-545.
Ferraz, C. and Motta, R. S. 2002. Concessões Florestis e Exploração Madeireira no Brasil. Brasília
MMA/PNF. 52 p.
Ferraz, J. B.; Higuchi, N.; Santos, J.; Biot, Y.; Marques, F.; Baker, K.; Hunter, I.; Proctor, J. 1997.
Distribuição de nutrientes nas árvores e exportação de nutrientes pela exploração selectiva de
madeira. IN: BIONTE - Biomassa e Nutrientes Florestais. INPA/DFID. Manaus,
Ferreira, S. J. F. 1997. Efeitos da exploração seletiva de madeira sobre a hidrologia e hidroquímica
do solo. IN: BIONTE - Biomassa e Nutrientes Florestais. INPA/DFID. Manaus,
Finegan, B.and Camacho, M. 1999. Stand dynamics in a logged and silviculturally treated Costa
Rican rain forest, 1988-1996. Forest Ecology and Management 121: 177-189.
Forget, P.-M. 1989. La Régéneration Naturelle D'une Espéce Autochore de La Forêt Guyanaise
Eperua Falcata Aublet (Caesalpiniaceae). Biotropica 21(2): 115-125.
Fredericksen, T. S. 1998. Limitations of low-intensity selection and selective logging for sustainable
tropical forestry. Commonwealth Forestry Review 77(4): 262-266.
Fredericksen, T. S.; Mostacedo, B.; Justiniano, J.; Ledezma, J. 2001. Seed tree retention
considerations for uneven-aged management in Bolivian tropical forests. Journal of Tropical
Forest Science 13(2): 352-363.
Fredericksen, T. S. and Pariona, W. 2002. Effect of skidder disturbance on commercial tree
regeneration in logging gaps in a Bolivian tropical forest. Forest Ecology and Management
171: 223-230.
Fredericksen, T. S. and Putz, F. E. 2003. Silvicultural intensification for tropical forest conservation.
Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1445-1453.

166
Fredericksen, T. S.; Putz, F. E.; Pattie, P.; Pariona, W.; Pena-Claros, M. 2003. Sustainable Forestry in
Bolivia: beyond planned logging. Journal of Forestry March 2003: 37-40.
Freitas, J. V.; Freitas, E. Y.; Hummel, A. C. 2002. Uso dos recursos florestais na Amazônia:
Manejando a floresta para a produção de madeira. IN: Rivas, A., Freitas, C.E.d.C. (Eds.),
Amazônia: Uma perspectiva multidisciplinar. Editora da Universidade do Amazonas.
Manaus, pag. 179-224
Freitas, J. V.; Gonçalves, S. L. F.; Oliveira, M. S. 2003a. Projeto Democracia: a promising initiative
for sustainable forest management in the Brazilian Amazon. Aberdeen. BES/ATBC. Pag. 64
Freitas, J. V.; Oliveira, M. S.; Pio, N. S.; Cunha, U. S. 2003b. Inventário Florestal Contínuo no Projeto
Democracia. São Paulo. SBS 8O. Congresso Florestal Brasileiro.
FSC - Forest Stewardship Council. 2003. FSC Principles and Criteria, and the FSC Brazilian
Initiative. Available in the internet http://www.fscoax.org/principal.htm
Garg, R. K. 2002. Forest Management Information Systems in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. The
International Forestry Review 4(3): 206-213.
Gethal Amazonas S.A. 2001. Projeto de Manejo Floresta Democracia+. Manicoré Gethal Amazonas
Indústria de Madeira Compensada S.A.1a Revisão (Fev. 2001). 273 p.
Ghazoul, J. 2001. Barriers to Biodiversity Conservation in Forest Certification. Conservation
Biology 15(2): 315-317.
Ghazoul, J. and Hellier, A. 2000. Setting critical limits to ecological indicators of sustainable tropical
forestry. The International Forestry Review 2(4): 243-253.
Ghazoul, J.; Liston, K. A.; Boyles, T. J. B. 1998. Disturbance-induced density-dependent seed set in
Shorea siamensis (Dipterocarpaceae), a tropical forest tree. Journal of Ecology 86: 462-473.
Gourlet-Fleury, S. and Houllier, F.2000. Modelling diameter increment in a lowland evergreen rain
forest in French Guiana. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 269-289.
Governo do Estado do Amazonas. Programa Zona Franca Verde - Plano de Desenvolvimento
Sustentável para o Sul do Estado do Amazonas. 2003.
Grayson, A. J. and Maynard, W. B. 1997. The Word's Forests-Rio+5: International Initiatives
towards sustainable management. Oxford Commonwealth Forestry Association. 147 p.
Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative plant ecology. Oxford. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 359 p.
Grove, S. J. 2001. Developing appropriate mechanisms for sustaining mature timber habitats in
managed natural forest stands. The International Forestry Review 3(4): 272-284.
Guariguata, M. R. and Pinard, M. A. 1998. Ecological knowledge of regeneration from seed in
neotropical forest trees: Implications for natural forest management. Forest Ecology and
Management 112: 87-89.
Guevara, R. 2003. Making concessions in Brazil. Tropical Forest Update ITTO Newsletter 13(3).

167
Gullison, R. E.; Panfil, S. N.; Strouse, J. J.; Hubbell, S. P. 1996. Ecology and management of
mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla King) in the Chimanes Forest, Beni, Bolivia. Botanical
Journal of the Linnean Society 122: 9-34.
Guzmán, R. 2001. Tree species classification in ecological guilds in the dry forest of Lomerio, Santa
Cruz, Bolivia. IN: Mostacedo,B., Fredericksen,T.S. (Eds.), Regeneración y silvicultura de
Bosques Tropicales de Bolívia. Proyecto de Manejo Forestal Sostenible (BOLFOR). Santa Cruz,
pag. 79-97
Hall, J. B. 1996. Seedling ecology and tropical forestry. IN: Swaine, M.D. (Ed.)., The Ecology of
Tropical Forest Tree Seedlings. UNESCO & The Parthenon Publishing Group. Paris, pag. 139-
159
Hammond, D. S.; Gourlet-Fleury, S.; Van der Hout, P.; ter Steege, H.1996. A compilation of known
Guianan timber trees and the significance of their dispersal mode, seed size and taxonomic
affinity to tropical rain forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 83: 99-116.
Hammond, D. S.; Van der Hout, P.; Cassels, D. S.; Zagt, R. J.; Evans, J.; Marshall, G. 2000. Benefits,
bottlenecks and uncertaintes in the implementation of reduced impact logging techniques.
The International Forestry Review 2(1): 45-53.
Hartshorn, G. S. 1980. Neotropical Forest Dynamics. Biotropica Spec. Publ. 12 (Special Issue on
Tropical Succesion): 23-30.
Hartshorn, G. S. 1995. Ecological basis for sustainable development in tropical forests. Ann. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 26(155): 175.
Hasanbahri, S. 1997. The selection of some mature commercial tree species as parent trees before
logging on the natural production forest. Biotropical Spec. Publ. 60: 73-80.
Hawthorne, W. D. 1993. Forest Regeneration After Logging: findings of a study in the Bia South
Game Production Reserve Ghana. London ODA/NRI. 52 p.
Hawthorne, W. D.; Filer, D. L.; Turnbull, D. J. 1999. Tree data management, mapping, and the
development of the TREMA software. The International Forestry Review 1(2): 87-96.
He, F.; Legendre, P.; La Frankie, V. 1996. Spatial pattern of diversity in a tropical rain forest of
Malaysia. Journal of Biogeography 23: 57-74.
Heinrich, R. 1995. Environmentally sound harvesting to sustain tropical forests. Commonwealth
Forestry Review 74(3): 198-203.
Hendrison, J. 1990. Damage-controlled logging in managed tropical rain forest in Suriname.
Wagening, the Netherlands Wagening. Agricultural University. 201 p.
Higuchi, N. 1994. Utilizaçao e manejo dos recursos madeireiros das florestas tropicais umidas. Acta
Amazonica 3/4: 275-288.
Higuchi, N.; Hummel, A. C.; Freitas, J. V.; Malinovski, J. R.;Stokes, B. J. 1994. Exploracao florestal
nas varzeas do Estado do Amazonas: selecao de arvores, derrubada e transporte. Curitiba.
UFPR/FUPEF. 192

168
Higuchi, N.; Jardim, F. C. S.; Alencar, J. C. 1985. Bacia 3 - Inventário Florestal Comercial. Acta
Amazonica 15(3-4): 327-269.
Higuchi, N.; Santos, J.; Ribeiro, R. J.; Freitas, J. V.; Vieira, G.; Coic, A. R.; Minette, L. J. 1997a.
Crescimento e Incremento de uma Floresta Amazônica de Terra Firme Manejada
Experimentalmente. IN: Biomassa de Nutrientes Florestais. INPA/DFID. Manaus, pag. 89-132
Higuchi, N.; Santos, J.; Ribeiro, R. J.; Minette, L. J.; Biot, Y. 1997b. Biomassa da parte aérea da
vegetação da floresta tropical úmida de Terra-firme da Amazônia Brasileira. IN: BIONTE -
Biomassa e Nutrientes Florestais. INPA/DFID. Manaus,
Higuchi, N.; Vieira, G.; Minette, L. J.; Freitas, J. V.; Jardim, F. C. S. 1991. Desenvolvimento Florestal:
Sistema S.E.L. (Selecao de Especies Listadas) para Manejar a Floresta Tropical Umida de Terra
Firme da Amazonia. IN: Val,A.L., Figliuolo, R., Feldberg, E. (Eds.), Bases Cientificas para
Estrategias de Preservacao e Desenvolvimento da Amazonia: Fatos e Perspectivas.
SCT/Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia. Manaus, pag. 197-206
Holdsworth, A. R.and Uhl, C. 1997. Fire in Amazonian selectively logged rain forest and the
potential for fire reduction. Ecological Applications 7(2): 713-725.
Holmes, T. P.; Blate, G. M.; Zweed, J. C.; Pereira Jr., R.; Barreto, P.; Boltz, F.; Bauch, R. 2002.
Financial and ecological indicators of reduced impact logging performance in the eastern
Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 163: 93-110.
Hopkins, H. C. F. 1986. Parkia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). New York Organisation for Flora
Neotropica. 124 p.
Howe, H.; Schupp, E. W.; Westley, L. C.1985. Early consequences of seed dispersal for a neotropical
tree (Virola surinamensis). Ecology 66(3): 781-791.
Howe, H.and Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13: 201-228.
Hubbell, S. P.and Foster, R. B. 1986. Commoneness and rarity in a neotropical forest: implications
for tropical tree conservation. IN: Soulé,M.E. (Ed.)., Conservation Biology: The Science of
Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, pag. 205-231
Hummel, A. C. Situação da atividade madeireira no Estado do Amazonas - Palestra no Encontro
97' da APEFEA/AM. 1997.
Hummel, A. C. 2001. Normas de acesso ao recurso florestal na Amazonia Brasileira: o caso do
Manejo Florestal Madeireiro. INPA/UA. Dissertação de Mestrado. 101 p.
Hutchinson, I. D. 1987. Improvement Thinning in Natural Tropical Forests: aspects and
institutionalisation. IN: Mergem,F., Vincent,J.R. (Eds.), Natural Management of Tropical
Moist Forests: silviculture and management, prospects of sustained utilization. Yale
University. New Haven, pag. 113-133
Hutchinson, I. D.1988. Points of departure for silviculture in humid tropical forests.
Commonwealth Forestry Review 67(3): 223-231.

169
IBAMA. Portaria N° 48 sobre a exploração das florestas primitivas e demais formas de vegetação
arbórea na Bacia Amazônica. 1995. Brasilia-DF, Diário Oficial No 48. 7-3-2002
IBAMA. Instrução Normativa No 4 sobre Manejo Florestal Sustentável de Uso Múltiplo na
Amazônia Legal. 2002. Brasilia-DF, Diário Oficial No 45. 7-3-2002
INPE (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais). 2000. Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica
Brasileira por satélite/Monitoring of the Brazilian Amazonian Forest by Satellite 1998-
1999.São José dos Campos. INPE/Projeto Prodes. Report 22 p.
ITTO. 1999. Critérios e Indicadores para o manejo sustentado das florestas tropicais naturais.
Yokohama. ITTO - International Tropical Timber Organization. Desenvolvimento das Polïticas
da ITTO - Serie 7. 22 p.
Janzen, D. H. 1970. Herbivores and the number of tree species in Tropical Forests. The American
Naturalist 104(940): 501-528.
Janzen, D. H. 1971. Seed predation by animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2: 465-
492.
Janzen, D. H. and Vásquez-Yanes. 1991. Aspects of tropical seed ecology of relevance to
management of tropical forested wildlands. IN: Gómez-Pompa,A., Whitmore,T.C., Hadley,M.
(Eds.), Rain Forest Regeneration and Management. Unesco and The Pathernon Publishing
Group. Paris, pag. 137-157
Jennings, S. B.; Brown, N.; Sheil, D. 1999. Assessing forest canopies and understorey illumination:
canopy closure, canopy cover and other measures. Forestry 72(1): 59-73.
Jennings, S. B.; Brown, N. D.; Boshier, D. H.; Whitmore, T. C.; Lopes, J. C. A. 2001. Ecology
provides a pragmatic solution to the maintenance of genetic diversity in sustainably managed
tropical rain forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 1-10.
Johns, A. G. 1997. Timber Production and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Rain Forests.
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 223 p.
Johns, J. S.; Barreto, P.; Uhl, C. 1996. Logging damage during planned and unplanned logging
operations in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 89: 59-77.
Jonkers, W. B. J. 1990. Vegetation structure, logging damage and silviculture in a tropical rain
foret in Suriname. Wagening, the Netherlands Wagening Agricultural University. 170 p.
Jonkers, W. B. J. 2000. Logging, damage and efficiency: a study on the feasibility of Reduced Impact
Logging in Cameroon.Wageningen. The Tropenbos-Cameroon Programme. Report 57 p.
Jonkers, W. B. J. and van Leersum, G. J. M. 2000. Loggin in South Cameroon: current methods and
opportunities for improvement. The International Forestry Review 2(1): 11-16.
Justiniano, M. J. and Fredericksen, T. S. 2001. Phenology of Timber Tree Species in a Bolivian Dry
Forest: Implications for forest management. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 12(1): 174-180.

170
Kanashiro, M.; Thompson, I. S.; Yared, J. A. G.; Loveless, M. D.; Coventry, P.; Martins-da-Silva, R.
C. V.; Degen, B.; Amaral, W.2002. Improving conservation values of managed forests: the
Dendrogene Project in the Brazilian Amazon. Unasylva 53(2)(209).
Kent, M. and Coker, P. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis: a practical approach.
Chichester John Wiley & Sons. 363 p.
Killen, T. J.; Garcia E., E.; Bechk, S. G. 1993. Guia de arboles de Bolivia. La Paz Herbario Nacional
de Bolivia & Missouri Botanical Garden. 958 p.
Kinnear, P. R. and Gray, C. D. 2000. SPSS for Windows Made Simple - Release 10. Hove
Psychology Press Ltd, Publishers. 412 p.
Knowles, O. H. and Parrota, J. A.1995. Amazonian forest restoration: a innovative system for native
species selection on phenological data and field performance indices. Commonwealth
Forestry Review 74(3): 230-243.
Köhler, P.; Ditzer, T.; Ong, R. O.; Huth, A. 2001. Comparison of measured and modelled growth on
permanent plots in Sabahs rain forests. Forest Ecology and Management 144: 101-111.
Krueger, W. 2004. Effects of future crop tree flagging and skid trail planning on conventional
diameter-limit logging in a Bolivian tropical forest. Forest Ecology and Management 188: 381-
393.
Lahoreau, G.; Picard, N.; Gourlet-Fleury, S. 2002. Grouping species to model forest dynamics: a
case study of a forest in Central African Republic. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 271(1): 89-100.
Lamprecht, H. 1993. Silviculture in the Tropical Natural Forests. IN: Pancel,L. (Ed.)., Tropical
Forestry Handbook. Springer-Verlag. Berlin, pag. 728-810
Laurance, W. F.; Rankin-de-Merona, J. M.; Andrade, A.; Laurance, S. G.; D'Angelo, S.; Lovejoy, T.
E.; Vasconcelos, H. 2003. Rain-forest fragmentation and the phenology of Amazonian tree
communities. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 343-347.
Leite, E. J. 2001. Spatial distribution patterns of riverine forest taxa in Brasília, Brazil. Forest
Ecology and Management 140: 257-264.
Lentini, M.; Veríssimo, A.; Sobral, L. 2003. Fatos Florestais da Amazônia. Belém IMAZON. 110 p.
Leslie, A. 2001. The trouble with RIL. Tropical Forest Update ITTO Newsletter 32(33).
Leuschner, W. A. 1984. Introduction to Forest Resource Management. New York John Wiley &
Sons. 298 p.
Lima Jr.M.J.V. and Barbosa, S. R. Mapa fenológico comunitário da região de Manicoré e Novo
Aripuanã - Poster Projeto Democracia - I Semana de Engenharia Florestal UA. 2001. Manaus.
Loureiro, A. A.; Silva, M. F. d.; Alencar, J. C. 1979. Essências Madeireiras da Amazônia. Manaus
CNPq/INPA. 245 p.
Lozada, J. R. and Arends, E. 2000. Classificación ecológica de especies arbóreas, con fines de
aprovechamiento forestal, en la Estación Experimental Caparo, Barinas-Venezuela. Revista
Forestal Venezuelana 44(1): 81-91.

171
Luizão, F.; Marques, F.; Biot, Y. 1997. Efeito da retirada seletiva de madeira nas concentrações de
fósforo no solo. IN: BIONTE - Biomassa e Nutrientes Florestais. INPA/DFID. Manaus,
Madeiras do Brasil. 2003. http://www.madeirasdobrasil.eng.br/.
Magnusson, W. E.; Lima, O. P. d.; Reis, F. Q.; Higuchi, N.; Ramos, J. F.1999. Logging activity and
tree regeneration in an Amazonian forest. Forest Ecology and Management 113: 67-74.
Martini, A. M. Z.; Rosa, N. A.; Uhl, C.1994. An attempt to predict which Amazonian tree species
may be threatened by logging activities. Environmental Conservation 21(2): 152-162.
Martins, L. S. S. 1993. Diocismo na Reserva Florestal Ducke. Manaus-AM. Fua/Inpa. Dissertação
de Mestrado. 111 p.
Mattews, J. D. 1989. Silvicultural Systems. Oxford Clarendon Press. 284 p.
Maues, M. M.; Macqueen, D.; Santos, L. F. C. d.; Martins, L. H. P. 1999. Biologia Floral de Anani
(Symphonia globulifera L. CLUSIACEAE). Belém. Embrapa/DFID. 35
McCune, B. and Grace, J. B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach MJM
Software Design. 300 p.
Medjibe, V. and Hall, J. S. 2002. Seed dispersal and its implications for silviculture of African
mahogany (Entandrophragma spp.) in undisturbed forest in the Central African Republic.
Forest Ecology and Management 170: 249-247.
Mello-Ivo, W.; Ferreira, S. J. F.; Biot, Y.; Ross, S. 1997. Nutrientes na solução do solo após o corte
seletivo de madeira em floresta tropical úmida de Terra-Firme ao norte de Manaus, Brasil. IN:
BIONTE - Biomassa e Nutrientes Florestais. INPA/DFID. Manaus,
Merry, F. D.; Amacher, G. S.; Pokorny, B.; Lima, E.; Scholz, I.; Nepstad, D. C.; Zweed, J. C. 2003.
Some doubts about concessions in Brazil. Tropical Forest Update ITTO Newsletter 13(3).
MJM Software. 1999. PC-ORD Version 4: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Gleneden
Beach MJM Software. 237 p.
MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Decreto No. 2972 de 26/02/99 - Artigo 9o Aprova a criação
da Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas. 1999. Brasília, Diário Oficial da União.
MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Decreto No. 3420 de 20/09/2000 - Dispõe sobre a criação do
Programa Nacional de Florestas. 2000. Brasília, Diário Oficial da União.
Montagnini, F.; Finegan, B.; Delgado, D.; Eibl, B.; Szczipanski, L.; Zamora, N.2001. Can timber
production be compatible with with conservation of forest biodiversity? Two case studies of
plant biodiversity in managed neotropical forests. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 12(1/2): 37-
60.
Mori, S. A. and Brown, J. L. 1997. Report on wind dispersal in a lowland moist forest in central
French Guiana. Brittonia 46(2): 105-125.
Mostacedo, B.and Pinard, M. A. 2001. Seed and seedling ecology of timber trees in Bolivian
Tropical Forests. IN: Mostacedo,B., Fredericksen,T.S. (Eds.), Regeneración y silvicultura de

172
 Bosques Tropicales de Bolívia. Proyecto de Manejo Forestal Sostenible (BOLFOR). Santa Cruz,
pag. 12-29
Nebel, G. 2001. Minquartia guianensis Aubl.: use, ecology and management in forestry and
agroforestry. Forest Ecology and Management 150: 115-124.
Nebel, G.; Dragsted, J.; Simonsen, T. R.; Vanclay, J. K. 2001. The Amazon flood plain forest tree
Maquira coriacea (Karsten) C.C. Berg: aspects of ecology and management. Forest Ecology
and Management 150(2001): 103-113.
Nepstad, D. C.; Veríssimo, A.; Alencar, A.; Nobre, C.; Lima, E.; Lefebvre, P.; Schlesinger, P.; Potter,
C.; Moutinho, P.; Mendoza, E.; Cochrane, M.; Brooks, V.1999. Large-scale impoverishment of
Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398: 505-508.
Nicholson, D. I. 1958. An analysis of logging damage in tropical rain forest, north Borneo. The
Malaysian Forester 21: 235-245.
Niiyama, K.; Rahman, K. A.; Iida, S.; KIMURA, K.; Azizi, R.; Appanah, S. 1999. Spatial patterns of
common tree species relating to topography, canopy gaps and understorey vegetation in a hill
dipterocarp forest at Semangkok Forest Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical
Forest Science 11(4): 731-745.
Nittler, J. B.and Nash, D. W. 1999. The certification model for forestry in Bolivia. Journal of Forestry
97: 32-36.
Oliveira, M. V. N. d.and Braz, E. M. 1995. Reduction of damage to tropical moist forest through
planned harvesting. Commonwealth Forestry Review 74(3): 208-210.
Oliveira, M. V. N. d.; Braz, E. M.; Burslen, D. F. R. P.; Swaine, M. D. 1998. Small-Scale Natural
Forest Managemeng. Tropical Forest Update ITTO Newsletter 8(1): 5-7.
Osmaston, P. C. 1968. The management of forests. London George Allen and Unwin Ltd. 384 p.
Pereira Jr., R.; Zweed, J. C.; Asner, G. P.; Keller, M.2002. Forest canopy damage and recovery in
reduced-impact logging and conventional selective logging in eastern Pará, Brazil. Forest
Ecology and Management 168: 77-89.
Pearce, D.; Putz, F. E.; Vanclay, J. K. 2003. Sustainable forestry in the tropics: panacea or folly?
Forest Ecology and Management 172: 229-247.
Peres, C. A. 1991. Seed predation of Cariniana micrantha (Lecythidaceae) by Brown Capuchin
Monkeys in Central Amazônia. Biotropica 23(3): 262-270.
Philip, M. S. 1994. Measuring Trees and Forests. Wallingford CAB INTERNACIONAL. 307 p.
Pinard, M. A. 1996. Retaining Forest Biomass By Reducing Logging Damage. Biotropica 28(3): 278-
295.
Pinard, M. A.; Barker, M. G.; TAY, J. 2000a. Soil disturbances and post-logging forest recovery on
bulldozer paths in Sabah, Malaysia. Forest Ecology and Management 130: 213-225.
Pinard, M. A. and Huffman, J. 1997. Fire resistance and bark properties of trees in a seasonally dry
forest in eastern Bolivia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13: 727-740.

173
Pinard, M. A.; Putz, F. E.; Rumíz, D.; Guzmán, R.; Jardim, A.1999. Ecological characterization of
tree species for guiding forest management decisions in seasonally dry forests in Lomério,
Bolívia. Forest Ecology and Management 113: 201-213.
Pinard, M. A.; Putz, F. E.; TAY, J.2000b. Lessons learned from the implementation of reduced
impact logging in hilly terrain in Sabah, Malaysia. The International Forestry Review 2(1): 33-
39.
Pinard, M. A.; Putz, F. E.; TAY, J.; Sullivan, T. E. 1995. Creating Timber Harvest Guidelines for a
Reduced-Impact Logging Project in Malaysia. Journal of Forestry 93(10): 41-45.
Pires, J. M.and Prance, G. T. 1985. The Vegetation Types of the Brazilian Amazon. IN: Prance,G.T.,
Lovejoy,T.E. (Eds.), Amazonia: Key environments. Pergamon Press. Oxford, pag. 109-145
Pitman, N. C. A.; Terborgh, J. W.; Silman, M. R.; Nuñez V., P.; Neill, D. A.; Cerón, C. E.; Palacios,
W. A.; Aulestia, M.2001. Dominance and distribution of tree species in upper amazonian terra
firme forests. Ecology 82(8): 2101-2117.
Plumptre, A. J. 1995. The importance of ''seed trees'' for the natural regeneration of selectively
logged tropical forest. Commonwealth Forestry Review 74(3): 253-258.
Plumptre, R. A. 1996. Links between utilisation, product marketing and forest management in
tropical moist forest. Commonwealth Forestry Review 75(4): 316-324.
PNF (Programa Nacional de Florestas). 2003 Rede de Inventário Florestal Contínuo na Amazônia
Brasileira. Projeto Versão Outurbro – Não publicado.
Poole, R. W. 1974. An introduction to quantitative ecology. New York McGraw-Hill.
Poore, D. 1989. No timber without trees: Sustainability in the tropical forests. London Earthscan.
252p p.
Poore, D. and Sayer, J. 1991. The Management Of Tropical Moist Forest Lands: Ecological
Guidelines. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge IUCN - The World Conservation Union. 78 p.
Prabhu, R., Colfer, C. J. P., and Dudley, R. G. 1999. Guidelines for Developing, Testing and
Selecting Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. Jakarta. CIFOR - Center
for International Forestry Research. The Criteria & Indicators Toolbox Series.
Prance, G. T. and Lovejoy, T. E. 1985. Introduction. IN: Prance,G.T., Lovejoy,T.E. (Eds.), Amazonia:
Key environments. Pergamon Press. Oxford, pag. 109-145
Projeto Embrapa-CIFOR. 2000. Diretrizes Técnicas para a Exploração de Impacto Reduzido em
Operações Florestais de Terra Firme na Amazônia Brasileira.Belem. CIFOR. Report 24 p.
Putz, F. E.; Blate, G. M.; Redford, K. H.; Fimbel, R.; Robinson, J. 2001. Tropical Forest Management
and Conservation of Biodiversity: an Overview. Conservation Biology 15(1): 7-20.
Putz, F. E.; Dykstra, D.; Heinrich, R. 2000a. Why Poor Logging Practices Persist in the Tropics.
Conservation Biology 14(4): 951-956.

174
Putz, F. E.; Redford, K. H.; Robinson, J. G.; Blate, G. M. 2000b. Biodiversity Conservation in the
Context of Tropical Forest Management.Washington. The Word Bank Environment
Department. Report 80 p.
Putz, F. E. and , V. 1996. Biological Challenges of Certification of Tropical Timber. Biotropica 28(3):
323-330.
RADAMBRASIL, 1978. Levantamento dos Recursos Naturais. Folha SC19, Manicore. Vol. 12,
DNPM, MME. 458 p.
Ramos, J. M. and del Amo, S. 2003. Enrichment planting in a tropical secondary forest in Veracruz,
Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 54: 289-304.
Rankin, J. M. 1985. Forestry in the Brazilian Amazon. IN: Prance,G.T., Lovejoy,T.E. (Eds.),
Amazonia: Key environments. Pergamon Press. Oxford, pag. 369-392
Redford, K. H.and Richter, B. D. 1999. Conservation of Biodiversity in a World of Use.
Conservation Biology 13(6): 1246-1256.
Rhoades, C. C.; Sanford Jr., R. L.; Clark, D. B. 1994. Gender dependent influences on soil phosporus
by the dioecious lowland tropical tree Simarouba amara. Biotropica 26(4): 362-368.
Ribeiro, J. E. L. d. S.; Hopkins, M. J. G.; Vicentini, A.; Sothers, C. A.; Costa, M. A. d. S.; Brito, J. M.
d.; Souza, M. A. D. d.; Martins, L. H. P.; Lohmann, L. G.; Assunção, P. A. C. L.; Pereira, E. d.
C.; Silva, C. F. d.; Mesquita, M. R.; Procópio, L. C. 1999. Flora da Reserva Ducke: Guia de
identificação das plantas vasculares de uma floresta de terra-firme na Amazônia Central.
Manaus DFID & INPA. 780 p.
Richards, P. W. 1996a. The Tropical Rain Forests: an ecological study. Cambridge Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, P. W. 1996b. Tree recognition in the field and the use of vernacular names. IN:
Richards,P.W. (Ed.), The Tropical Rain Forest: an ecological study. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge,
Richter, H. G. and Dallwitz, M. J. 2002. Commercial timbers: descriptions, illustrations,
identification, and information retrieval. In English, French, German, and Spanish. Version:
18th October 2002. available in the internet: http:/biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/.
Rollet, B. 1979. Application de diverses méthodes d'analyse de données à des inventaires forestiers
détaillés levés en forêt tropicale. Œcology Plantarum 14(3): 319-344.
Rondeaux, J. 1991. Management information systems: emerging tools for integrated forest
planning. Tsukuba, Japan.
Rose, S. A. 2000. Seeds, seedlings and gaps - size matters: A study in the tropical rain forest of
Guyana. Georgetown. Tropenbos-Guyana Programme. Tropenbos Guyana Series 9. 175 p.
Rossi, L. M. B. and Higuchi, N. 1998. Comparação entre métodos de análise do padrão espacial de
oito espécies árboreas na floresta tropical úmida. IN: Gascon,C., Moutinho,P. (Eds.), Floresta
Amazonica: Dinamica, Regeneracao e Manejo. MCT/INPA. Manaus, pag. 41-59

175
Schmidt, L. 2000. Guide to Handling of Tropical and Subtropical Forest Seed. Humlebaek
Danida Forest Seed Centre. 452 p.
Schneider, R. R.; Arima, E.; Veríssimo, A.; Barreto, P.; Souza Jr., C. 2000. Amazônia Sustentável:
limitantes e oportunidades para o desenvolvimento rural. Brasília Banco Mundial &
IMAZON. 58 p.
Seydack, A. H. W. 1995. An unconventional approach to timber yield regulation for multi-aged,
multispecies forests. I. Fundamental considerations. Forest Ecology and Management 77: 139-
153.
Sheil, D. and van Heist, M.2000. Ecology for tropical forest management. The International Forestry
Review 2(4): 261-271.
Shiver, B. D. and Borders, B. E. 1996. Sampling Techniques for Forest Resource Inventory. New
York Jonh Wiley & Sons. 356 p.
Silva, J. N. M.; Carvalho, J. O. P. d.;Lopes, J. C. A. 1999. Um sistema silvicultural policíclico para
produção sustentada de madeira na Amazônia Brasileira. Belém. Embrapa/DFID. 185
Silva, J. N. M.; Carvalho, J. O. P. d.; Lopes, J. C. A.; Almeida, B. F.; Costa, D. H. M.; Oliveira, L. C.
d.; Vanclay, J. K.; Skovsgaard, J. P. 1995. Growth and yield of a tropical rain forest in the
Brazilian Amazon 13 years after logging. Forest Ecology and Management 71: 267-274.
Silva, J. N. M.; Carvalho, J. O. P. d.; Lopes, J. C. A.; Oliveira, R. P. d.; Oliveira, L. C. d. 1996. Growth
and yield studies in the Tapajós region, Central Brazilian Amazon. Commonwealth Forestry
Review 75(4): 325-329.
Silva, J. N. M. and van Eldik, T. 2000. Approaches adopted towards yield regulation in Brazilian
Amazon. Oxford. Oxford Forestry Institute - O.F.I. Occasional Papers 52. 72
Sist, P.2000. Reduced impact logging in the tropics: objectives, principles and impact of research.
The International Forestry Review 2(1): 3-10.
Sist, P. 2001. Why RIL won't work by minimum-diameter cutting alone. Tropical Forest Update
ITTO Newsletter 11(2).
Sist, P.; Fimbel, R.; Sheil, D.; Nasi, R.; Chevallier, M.-H. 2003a. Towards sustainable management of
mixed diperocarp forests of Southeast Asia: moving beyond minimum diameter cutting limits.
Environmental Conservation 30(4): 364-374.
Sist, P. and Nguyen-The. 2002. Logging damage and the subsequent dynamics of a dipterocarp
forest in East Kalimantam (1990-1996). Forest Ecology and Management 165: 85-103.
Sist, P.; Nolant, T.; Bertault, J.-G.; Dykstra, D. 1998. Harvest intensity versus sustainability in
Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management 108: 251-260.
Sist, P.; Sheil, D.; Kartawinata, K.; Priyadi, H. 2003b. Reduced-impact logging in Indonesian
Borneo: some results confirming the need for new silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology
and Management 179: 415-427.

176
Smeraldi, R. and Veríssimo, A. 1999. Acertando ao alvo: consumo de madeira no mercado interno
brasileiro e promoção da certificação florestal. São Paulo Amigos da Terra - Programa
Amazônia. 41 p.
Söderlund, M. and Pottinger, A. 2001. The World's Forests Rio+8: Policy, practice and progress
towards sustainable management. Oxford Commonwealth Forestry Association. 310 p.
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry. New York W.H. Freeman and Compaty. 850 p.
Sokpon, N. and Biaou, S. H. 2002. The use of diameter distributions in sustained-use management
of remnant forests in Benin: case of Bassila forest reserve in North Benin. Forest Ecology and
Management 161: 13-25.
Souza Jr., C. 1999. The use of GIS for the planning of timber extraction in the eastern Amazon.
Tropical Forest Update ITTO Newsletter 9(2): 3.
Souza Jr., C.; Monteiro, A.; Barreto, P. 2003. Exploração madeireira na Amazônia: é possível
monitorar por satélite? Ciencia Hoje 33(197): 62-65.
Stone, S. W. 1998. Evolution of the Timber Industry Along and Aging Frontier: The Case of
Paragominas (1990-95). Wolrd Development 26(3): 443-448.
SUDAM - Superintendência de Desenvolvimento da Amazônia. 1978. Estudo da viabilidade
técnico-econômica da exploração mecanizada em floresta de terra firme na região de Curuá-
Una. Belém SUDAM/IBDF/PRODEPEF Projeto PNUD/FAO/IBDF/BRA-76/027. 133 p.
Swaine, M. D. 1996. The Ecology of Tropical Forest Tree Seedlings.340 p.
Swaine, M. D.; Agyeman, V. K.; Kyereh, B.; Orgle, T. K.; Thompson, J.;Veenendaal, E. M. 1997.
Ecology of forest trees in Ghana. London. ODA. ODA Forestry Series No7. 75 p.
Swaine, M. D.; Clarke, E. K.;Pinard, M. A. 2003. Does logging enhance tree regeneration?
Aberdeen. Oral presentation in BES/ATBC Annual meeting - Aberdeen.
Swaine, M. D. and Whitmore, T. C. 1988. On the definition of ecological species groups in tropical
rain forests. Vegetatio 75: 81-86.
Thompson, I. S. and Yared, J. A. G. 1999. Seleção de árvores: uma decisão chave no manejo
sustentável de florestas para produção de madeira em florestas de terra firme da Amazônia
Oriental. Belém. Embrapa/DFID. 252
Tuomela, K.; Kuusipalo, J.; Vesal, L.; Nuryanto, K.; Sagala, A. P. S.; Adjers, G.1996. Growth of
dipterocarp seedlings in artificial gaps: an experiment in a logged-over rainforest in South
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management 81: 95-100.
Turner, I. M. 2001. The Ecology of Trees in the Tropical Rain Forest. Cambridge Cambridge
University Press.
Uhl, C.; Veríssimo, A.; Mattos, M. M.; Brandino, Z.; Vieira, I. C. G. 1991. Social, economic, and
ecological consequences of selective logging in an Amazon Frontier: the case of Tailandia.
Forest Ecology and Management 46: 243-273.

177
Uhl, C. and Vieira, I. C. G.1989. Ecological impact of selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon: a
case of study from the Paragominas region of State of Para. Biotropica 21: 98-106.
UTAM - Instituto de Tecnologia da Amazônia. 2001. Inventário Florestal (volume e biomassa) da
região sudeste/sul do Estado do Amazonas.Manaus. UTAM. Report 76 p.
Van der Hout, P. 1999. Reduced impact logging in the tropical rain forest of Guyana: ecological,
economical, and silvicultural consequences. PhD Thesis Utrecht University. Tropenbos
Guyana Series 6.
Van der Hout, P. 2000a. Pibiri Permanent Plots: objectives, design and database
management.Utrecht. The Tropenbos-Guyana Programme. Report 73 p.
Van der Hout, P. 2000b. Testing the applicabiltiy of reduced impact logging in greenheart forest in
Guyana. The International Forestry Review 2(1): 24-32.
Van der Hout, P.and van Leersum, G. J. M. 1998. Reduced impact logging: a global panacea?
comparison of two logging studies. IN: Jonkers,W.B.J. (Ed.)., Logging, Damage and
Efficiency: A Study on the Feasibility of Reduced Impact Logging in Cameroon. The
Tropenbos-Cameroon Program. Kribi (Camerron), pag. 8-23
Van Gardingen, P. R.; McLeish, M. J.; Phillips, P. D.; Fadilah, D.; Tyrie, G.; Yasman, I. 2003.
Financial and ecological analysis of management options for logged-over Dipterocarp forests
in Indonesian Borneo. Forest Ecology and Management 183: -1.
Van Roosmalen, M. G. M. 1985. Fruits of the Guianan Flora. Wageningen Utrecht University:
Institute of Systematic Botany. 483 p.
Vanclay, J. K.1989. Modelling selection harvesting in tropical rain forest. Journal of Tropical Forest
Science 1(3): 280-294.
Vanclay, J. K. 1994. MODELLING FOREST GROWTH AND YIELD: Applications to Mixed
Tropical Forests. Wallingford CAB Internacional. 311 p.
Vanclay, J. K. 1996. Estimaging Sustainable Timber Production from Tropical Forests. Jakarta.
CIFOR. Working Paper No. 11. 17 p.
Veríssimo, A.; Barreto, P.; Tarifa, R.; Uhl, C. 1995. Extraction of a high-value natural resource in
Amazonia: the case of mahogany. Forest Ecology and Management 72: 39-60.
Veríssimo, A.; Cochrane, C.; Souza Jr., C.; Salomão, R. 2003. Priority areas for establishing national
forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 4-available online:
http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art4.
Veríssimo, A.and Cochrane, M. A. 2003. Brazil's bold initiative in the Amazon. Tropical Forest
Update ITTO Newsletter 13(3).
Viana, V. 1990. Seed and Seedling Availability as Basis Management of Natural Forest
Regeneration. IN: Anderson,A.B. (Ed.)., Alternatives to Deforestation: steps toward
sustainable use of the Amazon Rain Forest. Columbia Press. New York, pag. 99-115

178
Vidal, E., Gerwing, J. J., Barreto, P., and Johns, J. 1997a. Redução de Desperdícios na Produção de
Madeira na Amazônia. Belém. IMAZON - Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da
Amazônia. Séria Amazônia. 18 p.
Vidal, E.; Johns, J.; Gerwing, J. J.; Barreto, P.; Uhl, C. 1997b. Vine management for reduced-impact
logging in eastern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 98: 105-114.
Wadsworth, F. H. 1987. Applicability of Asian and African Silviculture Systems to Naturally
Regenerated Forests of the Neotropics. IN: Mergem,F., Vincent,J.R. (Eds.), Natural
Management of Tropical Moist Forests: silviculture and management, prospects of sustained
utilization. Yale University. New Haven, pag. 93-110
Wadsworth, F. H. 1997. Forest Production for Tropical Forest. Washington USDA - Forest Service.
Webb, E. L. 1998. Canopy removal and residual stand damage during controlled selective logging
in lowland swamp forest of northeast Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management 95: 117-
129.
Wheelwright, N. T. 2000. Sex ratios and distribution of male and female trees. IN: Nadkarni,N.M.,
Wheelwright,N.T. (Eds.), Ecology and conservation of a tropical cloud forest. xxxxxxxxx. New
York,
Wheelwright, N. T. and Bruneau, A. 1992. Population sex ratios and spatial distribution of Ocotea
tenera (Lauraceae) trees in a tropical forest. Journal of Ecology 80: 425-432.
Whitman, A. A.; Brokaw, N. V. L.; Hagan, J. M. 1997. Forest damage caused by selection logging of
mahogany (Swietenia macrophila) in northern Belize. Forest Ecology and Management 92: 87-
96.
Whitmore, T. C. 1989. Canopy gaps and the two major groups of forest trees. Ecology 70(3): 536-
538.
Whitmore, T. C. and Silva, J. N. M. 1990. Brazil rain forest timbers are mostly very dense.
Commonwealth Forestry Review 69(1): 87-90.
Whittaker, R. H. 1974. Climax concepts and recognition. IN: Tüxen,R. (Ed.)., Handbook of
Vegetation Science - Part VIII Vegetation Dynamics. Dr. W. Junk Publishers. The Hague, pag.
139-150
Winkler, N. 1997. Environmentally sound forest harvesting: testing the applicability of the FAO
Model Code in the Amazon in Brazil. Rome FAO. 78 p.
Wright, H. L. 2000. Yied determination in tropical moist forest. Oxford. Oxford Forestry Institute -
O.F.I. Occasional Papers 52. 13
Wyatt-Smith, J. 1987. Problems and Prospects for Natural Management of Tropical Moist Forests.
IN: Mergem,F., Vincent,J.R. (Eds.), Natural Management of Tropical Moist Forests:
silviculture and management, prospects of sustained utilization. Yale University. New Haven,
pag. 5-22

179
Wyatt-Smith, J. and Foenander, E. C. 1962. Damage to regeneration as a result of logging. The
Malaysian Forester 25: 40-44.
Young, A. and Muetzelfeldt, R. I. 1998. The SYMFOR tropical forest modelling framework.
Commonwealth Forestry Review 77(1): 11-18.
Zagt, R. J.; Van der Hout, P.;Parren, M. 2000. Growth and yield prediction: some experience from
Tropenbos Programme. Oxford. Oxford Forestry Institute - O.F.I. Occasional Papers 52. 34

180
 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Commercial species attributes

Table 6.1: Commercial species attributes for reference. Local Code: 4 letters local code based on common
name; Use: Veneer (and plywood) production in Enterprise’s factory and Sawn timber for selling or change in
the local market; Max DBH: Species maximum attainable DBH (cm); MFD: Minimum Felling Diameter (cm) -
Con: Conventional (Enterprise’s) and Alt (Alternative) tree selection method; Morisita Index: Calculated for
spatial distribution characterisation (** F is significant at α=0.01; and * at α=0.05; ns is non significant for
departure from randoness); Diam Dist: Diameter distribution shape: Type I (j-inverted); Type II (irregular
distribution) and; Type III (small trees in absence); Density group (Timber density): Slow (<0.5 g cm-3);
medium (0.5-0.7 g cm-3); Heavy (≥0.7 g cm-3); Growth pattern (Periodic Annual Increment): Slow (<0.3 cm y-
1) ; Medium (0.3-0.5 cm y-1); Fast (1.0 cm y-1); N/a: Not available.

Local Max DBH MFD (cm) Morisita Diam Dist Timber Growth
Species name Use
Code (cm) Con Alt Index Type Density Pattern
Anacardium parvifolium Ducke CAJU Veneer 90 45 55 0.0 ns I n/a n/a
Andira spp. ANVE Sawn 60 50 45 0.5 ns II Heavy n/a
Astronium le-cointei Ducke MUIP Sawn 70 65 55 5.4 ** I Heavy Slow
Brosimum acutifolium Huber MURE Veneer 60 45 45 1.4 ns I Medium Slow
Brosimum parinarioides Ducke AMAP Veneer 90 50 55 2.3 ns II Medium Medium
Brosimum potabile Ducke GARR Veneer 80 50 55 1.6 ** I Medium Medium
Brosimum rubescens Taub MUIR Sawn 70 50 55 1.5 ** I Heavy Medium
Cariniana decandra Ducke TABR Veneer 90 55 55 0.8 ns II n/a Slow
Caryocar glabrum (Aubl.) PIQU Sawn 110 75 75 1.1 ns II Heavy Medium
Caryocar villosum (Aubl.)Pers. PIRA Sawn 80 55 55 2.1 ** II Heavy Slow
Cedrelinga cataeniformis Ducke CEMA Sawn 130 80 75 12.4 ** II Medium n/a
Clarisia racemosa Ruiz & Pav. GUAR Veneer 70 50 55 1.3 * I Heavy Slow
Copaifera glycycarpa Ducke COCU Veneer 90 60 55 1.2 ns II Heavy n/a
Copaifera multijuga Hayne COMM Veneer 60 45 45 1.5 ns III Heavy Medium
Copaifera sp. COAN Veneer 80 50 55 15.3 ** III Medium n/a
Couratari guianensis Aublet. XURU Veneer 80 55 55 1.4 ns II Medium Medium
Dinizia excelsa Ducke ANFE Sawn 120 85 75 2.7 ns III Heavy Fast
Diplotropis purpurea Amsh. SUPR Sawn 60 45 45 0.0 ns II Heavy Slow
Dipteryx magnifica Ducke CUPI Sawn 70 55 55 54.3 ** II n/a Slow
Dipteryx odorata (Aubl.) Willd. CUMA Sawn 80 55 55 1.0 ns II Heavy Fast
Enterolobium schomburgkii Benth. FABR Sawn 80 45 55 0.0 ns II Heavy Medium
Eperua oleifera Ducke COJA Veneer 100 60 75 2.4 ** I Heavy n/a
Erisma spp. CEHV Veneer 60 50 45 15.1 ** III Medium n/a
Goupia glabra Aubl. CURA Sawn 80 60 55 2.6 ** II Heavy Medium
Hymenaea courbaril L. JATO Sawn 80 60 55 1.2 ns II Heavy Slow
Hymenaea sp. PORO Sawn 60 45 45 n/a II n/a n/a
Hymenolobium excelsum Ducke ANFA Veneer 90 55 55 0.9 ns III Heavy Slow
Hymenolobium modestum Ducke FABO Veneer 70 50 55 n/a II Heavy n/a
Hymenolobium nitidum Benth. ANPE Sawn 80 55 55 1.3 ns II Heavy n/a
Hymenolobium sp. FAVA Veneer 50 45 45 2.6 ns I Heavy n/a
Iryanthera lancifolia Ducke ARVE Veneer 70 45 55 2.4 ns I Medium Slow
Jacaranda copaia (Aubl.)D.Don PAPA Veneer 60 45 45 3.4 ns III Light Fast
Manilkara huberi (Ducke) MASS Sawn 80 60 55 4.4 ** II Heavy Medium
Chevalier

181
 Local Max DBH MFD (cm) Morisita Diam Dist Timber Growth
Species name Use
Code (cm) Con Alt Index Type Density Pattern
Maquira sclerophylla (Ducke) C. C. PAMA Veneer 50 45 45 2.6 ** I Medium Medium
Berg
Marmaroxylon racemosum Ducke ANRA Sawn 60 50 45 0.0 ns II Heavy Slow
Mezilaurus itauba (Meisn.) Taub. ITAU Sawn 90 60 55 2.3 ** I Heavy Slow
Ex Me
Minquartia guianensis Aubl. AQUA Sawn 60 50 50 0.0 ns I Heavy Slow
Ocotea sp1. LOAM Veneer 60 45 45 5.8 ** I Heavy Slow
Ocotea sp2. LOUR Veneer 60 45 45 2.0 ns I Heavy Slow
Parkia multijuga Benth PARI Veneer 110 60 75 0.6 ns II Medium Fast
Parkia nitida Miquel PARA Veneer 90 45 55 1.9 ns II Light n/a
Parkia pendula Willd. Benth. Ex. ARTU Veneer 100 60 75 0.0 ns III Heavy Slow
Walp
Peltogyne paniculata Benth. ROXI Sawn 60 45 45 4.0 ** II Heavy n/a
Piptadenia suaveoloeus Miq. FASA Veneer 70 55 55 1.7 ns III Heavy Medium
Protium divaricatum Engl. BRBR Veneer 50 45 45 15.3 ** I Medium Slow
Protium grandifolium Engl. BRVE Veneer 60 45 45 0.0 ns I n/a Slow
Protium heptaphyllum BREU Veneer 60 45 45 0.0 ns I Medium Medium
(Aubl).March.
Scleronema micranthum Ducke ENCU Veneer 60 45 45 5.11 ** I Heavy Fast
Simarouba amara Aubl. MARU Veneer 70 45 55 2.0 ns III Medium Fast
Stryphnodendrom guianensis Aubl. FAFM Veneer 60 50 45 0.0 ns III n/a n/a
Symphonia globulifera L. ANAN Veneer 80 45 55 3.3 * I Medium Medium
Tabebuia sp IIPE Sawn 90 50 55 0.0 ns III Heavy Slow
Trattinnickia burserifolia Mart.
BRSU Veneer 60 45 45 1.0 ns I Light n/a
Vatairea macrocarpa (Benth) FAAM Veneer 70 50 55 0.0 ns II Medium Medium
Ducke
Virola multinervia Ducke UCUU Veneer 60 45 45 1.2 ns I Light Slow

182
Appendix 2: Commercial species & characteristics for forest management

Table 6.2: Commercial species according to recruitment adequacy, ecological groups and regeneration priorities. Recruitment adequacy refers to occurrence of species in the
smallest DBH class (5<15 cm); Ecological groups: Shade Bearer (can establish and survive in forest shade); NPLD - Non Pioneer Light Demanding (can be found in shaded (gap
free forest), but illumination is need for further development); Pioneers (only establish in open sites and canopy gaps). Regeneration Priorities: 1 (species with high priority to
be promoted); 2 (species with intermediary priority to be promoted); 3 (species for which no additional incentive should be given to their regeneration after logging). Scores for
abundance are presented as a combination of intermediate and common classes to facilitate interpretation, and only for trees DBH 15-45 cm DBH.

Regeneration Priority
Ecological 1 2 3
Recruitment
Group
Common Rare Common Rare Common Rare
Eperua oleifera
Brosimum potabile Astronium le-cointei
Protium grandifolium Brosimum acutifolium
Copaifera multijuga Iryanthera lancifolia
Protium heptaphyllum Brosimum rubescens
Adequate Shade Hymenaea courbaril Maquira sclerophylla Couratari guianensis
Hymenolobium sp. Clarisia racemosa
recruitment Bearers Manilkara huberi Ocotea spp. Symphonia globulifera
Minquartia guianensis
Protium divaricatum Ocotea spp.
Virola multinervia
Trattinnickia burserifolia Scleronema micranthum
Andira spp.
-
Hymenolobium nitidum
Stryphnodendrom
NPLD Parkia nitida -
guianensis
- Marmaroxylon racemosum
Peltogyne paniculata

Inadequate Shade Brosimum parinarioides Anacardium parvifolium

- Mezilaurus itauba - -
Recruitment Bearers Cariniana decandra Hymenaea sp.

Diplotropis purpurea.
Dipteryx magnifica
Caryocar glabrum
Copaifera glycycarpa Enterolobium schomburgkii
Caryocar villosum.
Copaifera sp. Hymenolobium modestum
Cedrelinga cataeniformis
NPLD - Dipteryx odorata. - Parkia pendula -
Dinizia excelsa
Parkia multijuga Piptadenia suaveoloeus
Erisma spp.
Simarouba amara Tabebuia sp
Hymenolobium excelsum
Vatairea macrocarpa

Pioneers Goupia glabra

- - - - -
Jacaranda copaia

183
Appendix 3: Harvest maps used for tree selection

Copies of the harvest maps used for Conventional and Alternative approaches to tree selection are
presented in Figure X and Figure Y, respectively.
The maps are printed on A4 paper size and given to the team Leader to tree selection for
felling. The maps correspond to an operational unit of 6.25 ha (250 x 250 m), which is the same size
of the main experimental plots in this study. Table presents the features for each harvest map used
in this study.
The team Leader uses the map to locate trees, based on Quadrats identification in field (50 x
50 m grid area, presented in each map). A compass is used to orientation (Figure 6.4). The team
Leader decides which trees to cut, in turn, and usually the selection is done within Quadrats When
the tree is located, the Leader checks tree’s DBH against the species MFD, and the chain-sawn
operator check weather the tree is hollow or not. After the tree felling, the Leader records the
felling direction with a compass, and drawn it on the map to support skidding planning
afterwards (Figure 6.5).

Table 6.3: Harvest map characteristics, for Conventional and Alternative tree selection approaches.

Tree Selection Approach

Feature Details
Conventional Alternative
Printed size A4 A4
Scale ≈1:1700 ≈1:1700 1:1800 - 1:1600
Area 6.25 ha 6.25 ha 250 x 250 m
Quadra grid Yes Yes 50 x 50 m grid
Tree location (x,y coordinate) Yes Yes 0-50 m within quadrats
Species code Yes Yes 4 letters for common name
Species number Yes Yes
Tree size symbol No Yes relative to DBH class
Seed tree location No Yes
Brazilian Nut tree location No Yes
Potential Crop trees location No Yes
Roads No Yes
Streams No Yes
North direction No Yes
Permanent preservation areas No Yes
Scale is presented No Yes

184
Figure 6.1: Harvest map used by the Conventional tree selection approach. The symbols for species code, tree number, tree location and quadra (50x50 m) are identified within
the map.

185
Figure 6.2: Harvest map used by the Conventional tree selection approach.

186
Figure 6.3: Felling team Leader using the harvest map for tree selection in the field.

Figure 6.4: Selected trees felled by the Conventional tree selection method, felling direction marked as
arrows, and skid roads planned to log extraction.

187
Appendix 4: Results of logging activities presented per plot

Table 6.4: Stand structure and density prior to logging in sixteen 6.25 ha plots within Conventional and Alternative methods for tree selection for felling in Compartment 7 –
Project Democracia. Basal area classes area 1) < 19.5 m2ha-1; 2) ≥ 19.5 m2ha-1. Harvestable trees are DBH ≥ MFD accordingly to the method and stem quality 1(Very good) or 2
(Good). Potential Crop Tree (PCT) are commercial species tree DBH<MFD and stem quality 1 or 2.

Diameter Class (cm) Harvestable trees Harvestable

Basal Area Maximum Basal Area PCT
Method Plot N/6.25 ha N/6.25 ha Volume
Class DBH (cm) (m2ha-1) N/6.25ha
35-65 65 - 95 ≥ 95 TOTAL All species Eperua m3ha-1
1 1 118 55 23 196 162.3 17.24 55 19 53.9 54
3 2 126 76 14 216 180.0 21.50 63 9 45 57
6 2 150 85 36 271 145.1 22.57 106 62 101.4 78
7 1 152 64 14 230 140.0 19.48 67 1 48.4 72
Conv
11 2 143 70 35 248 159.2 21.48 88 45 91.7 72
12 2 189 89 19 298 114.3 24.00 84 38 65.7 107
13 1 170 53 7 230 140.0 18.83 43 0 27.6 64
15 1 186 61 12 259 114.6 19.25 57 8 40.2 76
Average 154.3 69.1 20.0 243.5 144.4 20.5 70.4 22.8 59.2 72.5
2 1 104 58 22 184 200.0 18.27 58 6 41.2 54
4 2 154 69 18 241 130.0 19.78 72 5 43.1 55
5 2 100 87 27 214 180.0 21.39 87 16 70.9 53
8 1 141 67 16 225 125.7 18.17 58 17 39.8 70
Alt
9 2 157 89 30 276 127.3 20.38 108 48 80.6 130
10 2 163 85 20 268 145.8 20.78 69 18 56.1 95
14 1 187 57 6 251 130.0 19.33 55 0 29.8 64
16 1 150 40 4 194 140.4 15.78 24 13 13.8 144
Average 144.5 69.0 17.9 231.6 147.4 19.2 66.4 15.4 46.9 83.1

188
 Table 6.5: Harvest intensity expressed as number of trees, basal area and volume per hectare in 16 plots submitted to two tree selection processes in
Democracia.

Diameter of trees felled Harvested Volume Number of trees tested as

Basal Area Eperua oleifera
Felled (cm) (All species) hollow
Method Plot Felled
Nha-1 % of harvested % of harvestable
m2ha-1 Mean Min m3ha-1 m3tree-1 m3tree-1 N per plot
volume trees
1 9.3 3.7 69.3 42.3 43.6 4.7 41.0 5.3 6 10.9
3 7.2 2.2 63.5 41.7 29.5 4.1 24.4 5.6 11 17.5
6 14.2 6.1 73.0 46.5 72.7 5.1 71.0 5.8 3 2.8
7 10.6 3.7 65.2 48.7 43.9 4.2 2.1 2.9 5 7.5
CON
11 13.9 6.5 72.7 43.3 72.2 5.2 72.9 6.6 18 20.5
12 12.0 5.8 69.5 46.8 53.9 4.5 70.6 5.0 15 17.9
13 6.9 2.3 61.2 44.6 23.5 3.4 0.0 - 10 23.3
15 6.9 2.6 61.4 43.3 24.7 3.6 28.2 6.2 19 33.3
Average 10.1 4.1 67.0 44.7 45.5 4.3 38.7 4.7 10.9 16.7
2 4.0 1.8 74.6 55.4 21.2 5.3 28.8 7.6 0 0.0
4 5.1 2.1 73.3 50.0 25.4 5.0 27.6 7.3 8 11.1
5 3.7 2.1 82.6 60.0 23.4 6.4 51.3 8.3 9 10.3
8 5.3 2.7 80.8 50.0 32.3 6.1 67.3 8.5 7 12.1
ALT
9 7.7 3.9 81.5 48.4 47.9 6.2 83.6 7.2 12 11.1
10 5.3 2.8 83.1 50.0 35.3 6.7 65.4 9.0 5 7.2
14 2.1 0.9 66.0 50.0 7.9 3.8 0.0 - 12 21.8
16 2.2 1.2 76.8 56.3 9.6 4.3 76.1 5.1 6 25.0
Average 4.4 2.2 77.3 52.5 25.4 5.5 50.0 6.6 7.4 12.3

189
190