The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Harvesting intensity versus sustainability in Indonesia
Open accessAbstract
In East Kalimantan (Indonesia), impacts of conventional (CNV) and reduced-impact logging (RIL) on forest ecosystems were compared on the basis of pre- and post-harvesting stand inventories. There was a positive and significant correlation between the proportion of trees damaged by felling and the density of trees felled. Logging intensity ranged from 1 to 17 trees ha ˇ1 (9‐ 247 m 3 ha ˇ1 ) and averaged 9 trees ha ˇ1 (86.9 m 3 ha ˇ1 ). The study has shown that with RIL techniques, logging damage on the original stand can be significantly reduced by 50% compared with conventional logging. However, this 50% reduction in logging damage, was dependent on the felling intensity. With a felling intensity of 8 stems ha ˇ1 or less, RIL techniques only damaged 25% of the original tree population whereas 48% were damaged with conventional techniques. Above this felling intensity (i.e. 8 stems ha ˇ1 ), the effectiveness of RIL in limiting forest damage was significantly reduced, mainly because of the increasing felling damage. Moreover, the removal of all harvestable timber trees, leaving only few potential crop trees, will result in a seriously depleted residual stand. Because of the high damage involved by high felling intensity, leaving few potential crop trees, and the yield capacity of the remaining stand, acceptable harvesting volume will not be reached within the felling rotation of 35 years. It is concluded that silvicultural system based on diameter limit alone, as is the Indonesian system (TPTI), cannot be compatible with sustainability and more sophisticated harvested-selection rules are needed. # 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.
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
Impact of El Niño and Logging on Canopy Tree Recruitment in Borneo
Curran, L. M., Caniago, I., Paoli, G. D., Astianti, D., Kusneti, M., Leighton, M., Nirarita, C. E., & Haeruman, H. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5447.2184 · Cited by 369
Dung beetles as indicators of change in the forests of northern Borneo
Davis, A. J., Holloway, J. D., Huijbregts, H., Krikken, J., Kirk‐Spriggs, A. H., & Sutton, S. L. (2001) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00619.x · Cited by 342
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., Nolan, T., Bertault, J.-G., & Dykstra, D.
- Venue
- Forest Ecology and Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 251-260
- ISSN
- 0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008961772
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.28
- 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: Harvesting intensity versus sustainability in Indonesia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0378-1127(98)00228-x
- The paper
- Sist, P., Nolan, T., Bertault, J.-G., & Dykstra, D. (1998). Harvesting intensity versus sustainability in Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(98)00228-x
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.