Cited by 59Forest ecology and managementForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Canopy dynamics in unlogged and logged forest stands in the eastern Amazon

Schulze, Mark, Zweede, Johan·2006·Forest Ecology and Management

Abstract

Selective logging of tropical forests damages residual trees and creates canopy openings throughout the stand. In the Amazon, reduced-impact logging results in significantly less damage than conventional unplanned logging; yet either logging method leads to substantial fragmentation of the forest canopy. Increased mortality rates of trees damaged in logging have been documented. In this paper, we investigate the effect of logging disturbance on treefall rates.Using repeat inventories of canopy trees (≥35 cm dbh) in six large (≥50-ha) forest stands at two sites in the eastern Amazon, we measured mortality rates in three treatment classes: unlogged, conventionally logged (CL) and logged using reduced-impact methods (RIL). At least 3000 trees were mapped and inventoried per stand prior to timber harvests. In the second inventory, 3 years after harvests in the logged stands, all trees were located and scored as living, standing dead, uprooted or broken.We found significantly higher overall mortality rates for trees in logged forest (both CL and RIL stands) than in adjacent unlogged forest. This effect was largely due to higher rates of treefall (i.e., stems uprooted or broken from natural causes). Moreover, significantly higher treefall rates were recorded for trees in logged forest that were not damaged in the logging than for trees in unlogged stands. Treefall rates were nearly twice as high in conventionally logged forest as in forest logged using reduced-impact methods. We fo…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.08.333

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Conventional logging, although sometimes legal, leads to significantly greater damage to the remnant forest and thus potentially greater ramifications for NTFP harvests.

    “Conventional logging, although sometimes legal, leads to significantly greater damage to the remnant forest (Schulze and Zweede 2006) and thus potentially greater ramifications for NTFP harvests.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schulze, M., & Zweede, J.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Schulze, Mark
Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-11
Volume
236
Issue
1
Pages
56-64
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025781388
Cited by
59
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • United States Agency for International Development
  • Lindbergh Foundation
  • Milton and Miriam Handler Foundation
  • International Tropical Timber Organization
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
selective logging, reduced impact logging, tree fall, tree mortality, canopy disturbance, canopy opening, Eastern Amazon, tropical forests, logging disturbance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review