Evaluating potential timber species at the Tapajos National Forest in Para state, Brazil, 28 years after logging
Keywords:
Annual increment, first cutting cycle, forest recovering after logging.Abstract
The stock of timber species was evaluated in a 64 ha experimental area 28 years after logging. The study was carried out in the Tapajos National Forest, state of Para, Brazilian Amazon. The study area was logged in 1979 and tree species were measured from 1981 to 2007 in 36 permanent sample plots. In 2007 tree species were classified in three groups: commercial timber (MC); potentially commercial timber (MP); non-commercial timber (MS). During that period all trees with DBH>5cm were measured. In 2007, 28 years after logging 9,859 trees from 239 species were recorded. Considering the species groups 35.5% belong to MC, and from these only 53% are available for harvesting, representing a timber volume of 75.5m3 ha-1. In 2007 some species as Carapa guianensis and Virola michelii had higher timber volume than before logging but other species as Astronium lecointei and Manilkara huberi had timber volume lower in 2007. In the end of the studing period, 28 years after logging, the timber volume was recovered but the harvested species did not recuperated their original basal area. Even with the high intensity of harvest occurred in the area but considering the timber volume in 2007 of those species that were not harvested in 1979, a second cutting mainly for those species could be admissible now.
doi: 10.4336/2010.pfb.30.64.265
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF FORESTRY RESEARCH reserves the right to correct grammar, improve clarity, and impose PFB standard although respecting the author's style.
Final proof version will be sent to the correspondence author.
Published papers will become property of the BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF FORESTRY RESEARCH.
Published papers may be used by the authors, without previous PFB authorization, allowed when source is cited.
Any mention of trademarks or methods do not imply in its recommended by the Editorial Committee.
The authors are the exclusive responsible for opinions and concepts developed in the manuscript.