The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reduced-impact logging in Indonesian Borneo: some results confirming the need for new silvicultural prescriptions
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Reduced-impact logging (RIL) and conventional techniques (CNV) were compared in a mixed dipterocarp hill forest in East Kalimantan in three blocks of about 100 ha each. Damage was evaluated using pre- and post-harvesting assessments in 24 one-hectare sample plots. RIL techniques nearly halved the number of trees destroyed (36 vs 60 trees/ha). RIL’s main benefit was in the reduction of skidding damage (9.5% of the original tree population in RIL vs 25% in CNV). Before logging, mean canopy openness in CNV (three plots only) and RIL (9 plots) was similar (3.6 and 3.1%) and not significantly different (χ2=2.73, P=0.254). After logging, the mean canopy openness was 19.2% in CNV (n=9 plots) and 13.3% in RIL (n=8 plots), and the distributions of the canopy class in RIL and CNV significantly different (χ2=43.56, P 8 trees/ha), both stand damage and canopy disturbance in RIL approached those recorded in CNV under low or moderate felling regime. Over this felling intensity threshold the effectiveness of RIL in reducing tree damage is limited. In mixed dipterocarp forest where harvestable timber density generally exceeds 10 trees/ha, a minimum diameter felling limit is clearly insufficient to keep extraction rates below 8 trees/ha. Based on these new results and previous studies in Borneo, we suggest three silvicultural rules: (1) to keep a minimum distance between stumps of ca. 40 m, (2) to ensure only single tree gaps using directional felling, (3) to harvest only stems with 60–100 cm dbh. Foresters, policy makers and certifiers should consider these as criteria for sustainable forest management. We emphasise the need to expand harvesting studies to look at impacts and trade-offs across larger forest landscapes, to expand RIL beyond silvicultural concepts and to include the maintenance of other forest goods and services.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Life after logging: reconciling wildlife conservation and production forestry in Indonesian Borneo
E., M., D., S., R., N., D., A., B., R., D., I., T., S., A., L., I., R., A., W., et al. (2005) · Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks · doi:10.17528/cifor/001663 · Cited by 296
Canopy dynamics in unlogged and logged forest stands in the eastern Amazon
Schulze, M., & Zweede, J. (2006) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.08.333 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Sist, P., Sheil, D., Kartawinata, K., & Priyadi, H.
- Venue
- Forest Ecology and Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 1-3
- Pages
- 415-427
- ISSN
- 0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2100318043
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reduced-impact logging in Indonesian Borneo: some results confirming the need for new silvicultural prescriptions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0378-1127(02)00533-9
- The paper
- Sist, P., Sheil, D., Kartawinata, K., & Priyadi, H. (2003). Reduced-impact logging in Indonesian Borneo: some results confirming the need for new silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(02)00533-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.