Silvicultural intensification for tropical forest conservation: a response to Fredericksen and Putz

Abstract

In their recent paper Fredericksen and Putz (2003) (henceforth F & P) recognize the necessity to minimize unnecessary logging perturbations, but claim that reduced impact logging (RIL) techniques create insufficient disturbance to permit regeneration of some commercially valuable timber species. They argue that in tropical forests where a valuable species requires substantial disturbance for seedling establishment, intensive silviculture, consisting mainly in increasing canopy gaps, is necessary in order to maintain a sustainable flow of timber. We argue that tropical forest silviculture for the sustainable management of its resources is much more complex than the manipulation of gap size. We take issue with a number of claims made by F & P.