Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reduced-impact logging in Indonesian Borneo: some results confirming the need for new silvicultural prescriptions

Open access
Sist, Plinio, Sheil, Douglas, Kartawinata, Kuswata, Priyadi, Hari·2003·Forest Ecology and Management

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0378-1127(02)00533-9

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 169

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.