Submission declined on 23 May 2025 by ToadetteEdit (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
| ![]() |
Reduced-Impact Logging (RIL)
RIL can be defined as the forestry practices which enables sustainability within tropical selective felling forestry. RIL is intensively planned and carefully controlled timber harvesting conducted by trained workers in ways that minimize the deleterious impacts of logging.[1]
Selective logging is a widely common timber-harvesting practice that involves the removal of few timbers species trees above a minimum diameter cutting limit. It is estimated that selective logging worldwide concerns 1 billion hectares of forests including 680 million hectares of tropical forests species.[2] Unlike clearcutting, where all trees in an area are felled, selective logging leaves the remaining trees in the stand. Selective logging plays a crucial role in the achievement of sustainable forest management practices. Its impacts depend a lot on the harvesting techniques employed and the amount of damage involved will have important consequences on the capacity of the forest to regenerate.
Where forests are selectively logged by untrained and poorly supervised workers at intensities and frequencies that do not sustain timber yields, this causes high damage to the forest stand, hydrological functions and biodiversity. Selective logging is justifiably referred as conventional or even predatory selective logging.[1] Very early on, foresters have been trying to introduce harvesting techniques that caused as little damage as possible to the forest stand, soil and water system. However, the term 'Reduced Impact' better known now under its acronym RIL was raised only in the late 1990s.
History
Prior to World War II, logging in tropical forests was primarily manual, with minimal environmental impacts due to extremely low harvest intensities. Early efforts to transform timber exploitation into forest management, such as Sir Dietrich Brandis's teak management system in Burma, emphasized careful logging to preserve future timber resources. Despite this and other efforts, the post-war economic boom fueled a surge in global demands for tropical timber, leading to widespread and mostly uncontrolled industrial logging.[3] Mechanized logging substantially expanded the scales and intensities of harvest operations, raising concerns about the increasingly degraded state of forests.[4][5][6][7]
By the early 1990s, it became evident that mechanized logging posed serious threats to long-term sustainability, particularly when considering non-timber values.[8][9][10] Evidence was also accumulating that logging is among the world’s most dangerous occupations. [11] In response, the concept of RIL emerged to mitigate environmental damage while meeting timber needs. [12] While most of the recommended RIL practices have long been known[13] soon after the term was introduced, RIL gained acceptance and legitimacy, resonating with both foresters and environmental organizations.[14][15][16]
RIL (also known as reduced-impact harvesting, RIH or low-impact logging, LIL) has its roots in a long-standing recognition of the detrimental environmental effects of unplanned and so-called conventional logging. RIL is basically a set of recommended practices for selectively harvesting trees in a planned and controlled way by trained workers to minimize harm to the forest and risks to the workers. Despite advocacy for better logging practices by experts over the decades, widespread adoption of RIL remains adopted by only a small number of nations who legislate for this in their national forest standard such as Gabon, Republic of Congo and Guyana. There are pockets of sustainable RIL forestry in other tropical nations, proven by certification through Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC).
The core principles of RIL involve a series of pre- and post-logging guidelines designed to minimize damage to forests and ecosystems. These guidelines include measures such as pre-harvest planning of skid trails and log yards, directional felling, and post-logging closure operations to mitigate soil damage and maintain ecosystem processes. [17][18][19]Accumulating research has demonstrated the effectiveness of RIL techniques in reducing stand and soil damage compared to conventional logging.
Influential publications and initiatives by organizations such as the Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF), the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have played a significant role in the development of codes of practice for logging in tropical forests. In 1996, FAO published a model code of forest harvesting practice[12], which served as a guiding framework for many tropical countries to develop their own codes. These efforts aimed to promote sustainable forest management and reduce the environmental impacts of logging provided the groundwork for adoption of RIL practices globally. Despite progress in promoting RIL, challenges persist in achieving widespread adoption due to economic constraints, the lack of market demand for certified RIL timbers, and the continued influence of conventional logging norms. However, RIL remains a substantial step toward sustainable forest management and certification bodies such as FSC and PEFC are recognized as commercial vehicles towards ensuring RIL and sustainable forestry.
Management
RIL is a set of timber harvesting practices primarily focused on minimizing environmental damage. Its key goal is to harvest timber responsibly while also ensuring worker safety and preserving the forest for future use. Developed guidelines, influenced by initiatives like those from Australia and the FAO[20], have been tailored for various tropical regions, such as Asia-Pacific, Brazil[21], Malaysia, Indonesia[19], and West and Central Africa.[22]
The core of RIL involves accurate forest inventories followed by careful planning and management practices to sustain forest ecosystems. These practices include assigning forest management units and coupes, excluding sensible areas (steep slopes, buffer zones around rivers and swamp areas) from logging, meticulously planning access roads and log landings, and conducting thorough post-harvest assessments. A critical aspect of RIL is the protection of future crop trees (FCTs), minimizing wood waste and ensuring worker safety, with specific practices varying with ecological conditions and logging techniques.
Key RIL practices include conducting detailed pre-harvest inventories that include marking FCTs, reducing soil damage especially on steep slopes, and cutting lianas well before harvesting to enhance safety and reduce stand damage. The FAO advocated for broader adoption of RIL by producing a model code of forest harvesting practice, which emphasizes several standard measures: defining a minimum cutting cycle of 20 years, limiting the removal of stand basal area to one-third, directional felling to facilitate log yarding, and limiting the size of log landings. Moreover, it recommends building access roads and cutting vines well in advance of harvesting, planning skid trails to minimize their impacts, performing logging activities only under favorable conditions such as dry soils, and providing thorough training for staff. Lastly, it stresses the importance of conducting post-harvest assessments to gauge the impacts and effectiveness of logging practices.
Despite these comprehensive guidelines, standardizing damage assessment methods across different regions remains a challenge, with ongoing efforts to enhance consistency and biological relevance in forest management practices.[23][24][25][26][27]
Ecology
Use of RIL practices results in fewer trees and less soil being damaged, but its benefits can be lost at very high logging intensities. What is crucial is that each country establishes its logging rate depending on density of species. There is not one blanket rule for logging levels in all tropical forests.
In Southeast Asia, researchers have provided evidence that when more than 8 trees per hectare are logged, the benefits of RIL are diminished and the impacts become similar to those from conventional logging.[28] High logging intensities also affect the sustainability of timber yields, as removing too many trees leaves behind a forest with too few FCTs to maintain timber yields within the usual 25-35-year cycles in tropical forests; 60 years in Guyana for large concessions.
Forests in every part of the tropical region will vary in density of species. That is why RIL is so important and a uniform rule cannot be applied across all tropical areas as the species are different in the forest mix. Each forest needs to be looked at in its own right and evaluated by the growth rate of species within that forest. RIL and inventory planning ensures this by considering growth rates of each species in the mix.
The recovery of commercial timber volume after RIL depends substantially on how much damage the logging causes[28][29][30]; heavily damaged areas often see a slower recovery because vines and fast-growing pioneer species dominate, which can hinder the growth of valuable timber trees.[31] Biomass recovery is also slower when logging intensity is high, as more trees are destroyed or damaged, reducing the forest's ability to regenerate.[26][32][33]
RIL techniques hold promise for minimizing the ecological damage from logging activities.[27][34][35][36] Yet, understanding its impact on biodiversity remains limited, with emerging scientific evidence focusing on a few taxa.[37][38][39] For example, there is evidence that RIL minimizes negative impacts on stream habitats, amphibian occupancy, and diversity compared to conventional logging (CL), while also facilitating faster recovery.[40] Studies comparing RIL with CL have found limited evidence for major differences in biodiversity impacts, at least over the short term.[41][42][43][44] As an example, a study in Guyana compared vertebrate populations in areas subjected to RIL and adjacent unlogged sites. While large frugivores such as primates were less abundant in RIL sites, smaller frugivores, granivores, folivores, and insectivores were more common. Three of the 15 vertebrate species examined changed in abundance, with two showing negative impacts due to RIL.[45]
A meta-analysis revealed that species abundance shifts are smaller under RIL, with fewer detrimental effects on birds, arthropods, and mammals. The reduced impact is attributed to better logging practices, such as planned logging roads, pre-harvest inventories, and directional felling, which minimize forest damage.[46] While forests subjected to low intensity RIL retain the overall structure and composition of unlogged stands, they typically do not fully recover to pre-logging levels of biodiversity. A meta-analysis[44] showed that RIL can reduce tree damage compared to CL, its impacts on tree species richness vary with logging intensity. While RIL can reduce carbon emissions by enhancing logging efficiency and protecting sensitive habitats without sacrificing timber yields[27][47], its effects on biodiversity are less clear.[42] Long-term effects on biodiversity are uncertain, necessitating further research with appropriate controls and long-term monitoring.[48][49][50][51]
Despite uncertainties about its direct effects on biodiversity, RIL may indirectly contribute to biodiversity conservation by increasing the economic value of selectively logged forests.[52][53] This could help prevent forest conversion to agricultural plantations, thereby preserving habitat for forest-dependent species. RIL may thus serve as a valuable conservation strategy in combating deforestation and habitat loss.
Economy
RIL presents both challenges and opportunities from an economic perspective. Whether it imposes a financial burden on loggers remains a contentious issue, with concerns about reduced income and increased operational costs apparently hindering widespread adoption. Loggers transitioning to RIL often face the need for new equipment, safety measures, and trained personnel, which all add to operational expenses.[54] On the other hand, there is also evidence that due to increased recovery of timber from felled trees and other efficiencies derived from planning and the professionalization of harvest crews, RIL can also be financially remunerative.
The economic viability of RIL compared to CL varies widely with factors such as forest conditions, terrain, labor practices, and timber markets.[55][56][57] Studies have produced mixed results, with some showing RIL to be financially favorable due to reduced timber wastage[58][59], while others highlight potential losses, especially in areas with restrictions on harvesting.
Market access
Different stakeholders, including forest owners, timber companies, forest workers, and logging contractors, may have conflicting perspectives on the financial implications of RIL. Long-term consequences, such as environmental sustainability and worker safety, are often weighed differently by various parties.[57][60][61]
While RIL guidelines are often designed with larger industrial operations in mind, they are also relevant for smallholder forestry.[62] Smallholders can benefit from the reduced waste and increased safety that RIL promotes. However, some aspects of RIL may need to be adapted to meet the specific needs and constraints of smallholder operations.[24] Tropical forests face increasing demands for timber, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and ecosystem services. As a result, there is a pressing need for further exploration of alternative use regimes and a comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits for forest-dependent communities.[52][63]
Tools such as the RILSIM software package allow for detailed financial analysis of logging operations, aiding in decision-making and comparisons between RIL and CL. However, broader economic considerations, such as environmental benefits and externalities, are not always captured in traditional cost-benefit analyses.[1]
Despite challenges, there are potential economic benefits to RIL, including increased carbon retention and eligibility for environmental service payments.[27][36][64][65] As international markets for carbon, hydrological services, and biodiversity continue to develop, forests managed with RIL techniques may gain recognition and financial incentives for their conservation efforts.
The reduced-impact logging for climate change mitigation (RIL-C) protocol is an important method for monitoring carbon emissions from selective logging operations. Developed in response to concerns about climate change, the RIL-C methodology provides a standardized approach to measure carbon emissions caused by tree felling, skidding, and hauling. The protocol separates emissions from these activities, allowing for more precise measurement and monitoring. For example, studies have shown that adopting RIL-C can reduce logging emissions by up to 44%, primarily through changes such as narrower haul roads, improved skid trail planning, and better felling techniques.[27]
The RIL-C approach is also relevant in the context of carbon markets and climate agreements like REDD+ and the Paris Climate Accord. Emission savings from RIL practices, monitored with the RIL-C protocol, can help countries achieve their climate change goals. These savings may also qualify for carbon payments, encouraging the adoption of sustainable practices. In Central Africa, implementation of the RIL-C protocol has shown that over 50% of logging emissions could be avoided without reducing timber yields.[36] This makes RIL-C a practical approach for environmental conservation while supporting climate mitigation efforts.
Resources
This section highlights key institutions that have played a crucial role in developing guidelines for and promoting RIL.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
The FAO is a United Nations agency dedicated to agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. It was instrumental in developing the model code of forest harvesting practice for RIL, aiming to align harvesting techniques with sustainable forest management objectives. This effort enhances the compatibility of logging practices with the broader goals of sustainable development, thereby supporting both economic and social aims.
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)
The ITTO is an intergovernmental agency dedicated to promoting the sustainable management of tropical forests and fostering international trade in tropical timber sourced from sustainably managed and legally harvested forests. ITTO has been instrumental in developing guidelines and principles for RIL to minimize environmental damage while maintaining economic viability. The organization assists member countries in adapting these RIL guidelines to local conditions through projects and capacity-building initiatives. Additionally, ITTO maintains a comprehensive database of RIL projects, providing valuable insights and data on the implementation and effects of these practices. It also focuses on implementing policy guidelines to support sustainable forest management and sustainable tropical timber trade, collects and disseminates data on tropical timber production and trade, promotes sustainable timber supply chains, and supports capacity building in tropical forestry.
Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF)
The TFF is an international non-profit educational NGO committed to tropical forest conservation through sustainable forestry practices. Recognized for its demonstration models and training courses, TFF specializes in teaching sustainable forest management principles, particularly RIL. In Southeast Asia and the Pacific, particularly Indonesia, TFF focuses on practical RIL training upon request, while also addressing legality, market connections, and certification support. TFF-Indonesia employs a Criteria & Indicators evaluation tool for assessing RIL guideline adoption and has developed a series of five procedures manuals. These manuals, essential for RIL training, serve both as educational resources and guides for implementing RIL practices in forest concessions.
Association Technique Internationale des Bois Tropicaux (ATIBT)
The ATIBT promotes the sustainable management of tropical forests and responsible trade in tropical timber. ATIBT has conducted studies on RIL practices, particularly in the Congo Basin, and offers practical guidelines for companies. It works with timber companies, governments, and certification bodies to improve logging methods. Through its research, training, and publications, ATIBT helps raise awareness about sustainable forest management.
References
- ^ a b c Putz, F. E.; Sist, P.; Fredericksen, T.; Dykstra, D. (2008). "Reduced-impact logging: Challenges and opportunities". Forest Ecology and Management. 256 (7): 1427–1433. Bibcode:2008ForEM.256.1427P. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.036.
- ^ Putz, Francis E; Romero, Claudia; Sist, Plinio; Schwartz, Gustavo; Thompson, Ian; Roopsind, Anand; Ruslandi; Medjibe, Vincent; Ellis, Peter (2022-07-01). Bayer, Edward (ed.). "Sustained timber yield claims, considerations, and tradeoffs for selectively logged forests". PNAS Nexus. 1 (3): pgac102. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac102. ISSN 2752-6542. PMC 10468026. PMID 37654970.
- ^ Vincent, Jeffrey R. (1992-06-19). "The Tropical Timber Trade and Sustainable Development". Science. 256 (5064): 1651–1655. Bibcode:1992Sci...256.1651V. doi:10.1126/science.256.5064.1651. PMID 17841085.
- ^ Wyatt-Smith, J (1961-01-20). "Damage to regeneration as a result of logging". Malayan Forester. 25 (1): 40–44 – via CABI Digital Library.
- ^ Spears, J. S. (September 1979). "Can the wet tropical forest survive?". The Commonwealth Forestry Review. 58 (3 (177)): 165–180. JSTOR 42607603 – via JSTOR.
- ^ Gillis, Malcolm (1988), Gillis, Malcolm; Repetto, Robert (eds.), "Indonesia: public policies, resource management, and the tropical forest", Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–114, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511601125.003, ISBN 978-0-521-33574-4, retrieved 2025-05-22
- ^ Hirsch, Philip (1990). "Forests, Forest Reserve, and Forest Land in Thailand". The Geographical Journal. 156 (2): 166–174. Bibcode:1990GeogJ.156..166H. doi:10.2307/635324. ISSN 0016-7398. JSTOR 635324.
- ^ Dawkins, H. C. (1958). "The management of natural tropical high forest with special reference to Uganda". IFI Paper 34. Imperial Forestry Institute, Oxford.
- ^ Marchak, M. P. (1995). Logging The Globe. Canada: McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP. ISBN 0-7735-1346-9.
- ^ Gates, John F. (1996). "Habitat alteration, hunting and the conservation of folivorous primates in African forests". Australian Journal of Ecology. 21 (1): 1–9. Bibcode:1996AusEc..21....1G. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1996.tb00580.x. ISSN 1442-9993.
- ^ International Labour Organisation. (1990). Occupational Safety and Health in Forestry. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
- ^ a b Dykstra, D.; Heinrich, Rudolf (1997). FAO model code of forest harvesting practice (reprint ed.). Rome: FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-103690-7.
- ^ Conway, Steve (1976). Logging practices. Principles of timber harvesting systems. Miller Freeman, San Francisco.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Poore, Duncan; Sayer, Jeffrey (1990). The management of tropical moist forest lands: ecological guidelines (Second ed.). IUCN Tropical Forest Programme, publication no. 2. Gland, Switzerland.
- ^ Putz, Francis E.; Pinard, Michelle A. (1993). "Reduced-Impact Logging as a Carbon-Offset Method". Conservation Biology. 7 (4): 755–757. Bibcode:1993ConBi...7..755P. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.7407551.x. ISSN 0888-8892. JSTOR 2386806.
- ^ Dykstra, D. (2007). Promoting Reduced-Impact Logging in tropical developing countries: a success story of technology transfer. In Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology. p. 139.
- ^ ITTO. (1990). ITTO guidelines for the sustainable management of natural tropical forests. Technical Series 5, International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan.
- ^ Pinard, Michelle A.; Putz, Francis E.; Tay, John; Sullivan, Thomas E. (1995). "Creating Timber Harvest Guidelines for a Reduced-Impact Logging Project in Malaysia". Journal of Forestry. 93 (10): 41–45. doi:10.1093/jof/93.10.41. ISSN 0022-1201.
- ^ a b Sist, P.; Dykstra, D.; & Fimbel, R. (1998). Reduced-impact logging guidelines for lowland and hill dipterocarp forests in Indonesia.
- ^ Dykstra, D. and Heinrich, R. (1996). FAO model code of forest harvesting practice (pp. x+-85).
- ^ Sabogal, C., Silva, J. N. M., Zweede, J., Pereira Júnior, R., Barreto, P., Guerreiro, C. A. (2000). Diretrizes técnicas para a exploração de impacto reduzido em operações florestais de Terra Firme na Amazônia Brasileira.
- ^ FAO (2003). Regional Code of Practice for Reduced-Impact Forest Harvesting In Tropical Moist Forests of West and Central Africa.
- ^ Hartanto, Herlina; Prabhu, Ravi; Widayat, Anggoro S. E; Asdak, Chay (2003-07-17). "Factors affecting runoff and soil erosion: plot-level soil loss monitoring for assessing sustainability of forest management". Forest Ecology and Management. 180 (1): 361–374. Bibcode:2003ForEM.180..361H. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00656-4. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ a b Rockwell, Cara; Kainer, Karen A.; Marcondes, Nivea; Baraloto, Christopher (2007-01-30). "Ecological limitations of reduced-impact logging at the smallholder scale". Forest Ecology and Management. 238 (1): 365–374. Bibcode:2007ForEM.238..365R. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.11.002. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Prudente, Bruno da Silveira; Pompeu, Paulo Santos; Montag, Luciano (2018-08-01). "Using multimetric indices to assess the effect of reduced impact logging on ecological integrity of Amazonian streams". Ecological Indicators. 91: 315–323. Bibcode:2018EcInd..91..315P. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.020. ISSN 1470-160X.
- ^ a b Sist, Plinio; Fimbel, Robert; Sheil, Douglas; Nasi, Robert; Chevallier, Marie-Hélène (2003). "Towards sustainable management of mixed dipterocarp forests of South-east Asia: moving beyond minimum diameter cutting limits". Environmental Conservation. 30 (4): 364–374. Bibcode:2003EnvCo..30..364S. doi:10.1017/S0376892903000389. ISSN 0376-8929.
- ^ a b c d e Ellis, Peter W.; Gopalakrishna, Trisha; Goodman, Rosa C.; Putz, Francis E.; Roopsind, Anand; Umunay, Peter M.; Zalman, Joey; Ellis, Edward A.; Mo, Karen; Gregoire, Timothy G.; Griscom, Bronson W. (2019-04-15). "Reduced-impact logging for climate change mitigation (RIL-C) can halve selective logging emissions from tropical forests". Forest Ecology and Management. 438: 255–266. Bibcode:2019ForEM.438..255E. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.02.004. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ a b Sist, Plinio; Nolan, Timothy; Bertault, Jean-Guy; Dykstra, Dennis (1998). "Harvesting intensity versus sustainability in Indonesia". Forest Ecology and Management. 108 (3): 251–260. Bibcode:1998ForEM.108..251S. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00228-X. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Sist, Plinio; Nguyen-Thé, Nicolas (2002-07-15). "Logging damage and the subsequent dynamics of a dipterocarp forest in East Kalimantan (1990–1996)". Forest Ecology and Management. 165 (1): 85–103. Bibcode:2002ForEM.165...85S. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00649-1. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Roopsind, Anand; Caughlin, T. Trevor; van der Hout, Peter; Arets, Eric; Putz, Francis E. (2018). "Trade-offs between carbon stocks and timber recovery in tropical forests are mediated by logging intensity". Global Change Biology. 24 (7): 2862–2874. Bibcode:2018GCBio..24.2862R. doi:10.1111/gcb.14155. ISSN 1365-2486. PMID 29603495.
- ^ Sist, Plinio; Nguyen-Thé, Nicolas (2002). "Logging damage and the subsequent dynamics of a dipterocarp forest in East Kalimantan (1990–1996)". Forest Ecology and Management. 165 (1): 85–103. Bibcode:2002ForEM.165...85S. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00649-1. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Sist, Plinio; Sheil, Douglas; Kartawinata, Kuswata; Priyadi, Hari (2003-07-03). "Reduced-impact logging in Indonesian Borneo: some results confirming the need for new silvicultural prescriptions". Forest Ecology and Management. 179 (1): 415–427. Bibcode:2003ForEM.179..415S. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00533-9. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Rutishauser, Ervan; Hérault, Bruno; Baraloto, Christopher; Blanc, Lilian; Descroix, Laurent; Sotta, Eleneide Doff; Ferreira, Joice; Kanashiro, Milton; Mazzei, Lucas; d’Oliveira, Marcus V. N.; de Oliveira, Luis C.; Peña-Claros, Marielos; Putz, Francis E.; Ruschel, Ademir R.; Rodney, Ken (2015). "Rapid tree carbon stock recovery in managed Amazonian forests". Current Biology. 25 (20): 2738. Bibcode:2015CBio...25.2738R. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.059.
- ^ Pinard, Michelle A.; Putz, Francis E.; Tay, John; Sullivan, Thomas E. (1995-10-01). "Creating Timber Harvest Guidelines for a Reduced-Impact Logging Project in Malaysia". Journal of Forestry. 93 (10): 41–45. doi:10.1093/jof/93.10.41. ISSN 0022-1201.
- ^ Putz, F. E.; Sist, P.; Fredericksen, T.; Dykstra, D. (2008-09-20). "Reduced-impact logging: Challenges and opportunities". Forest Ecology and Management. Moving beyond reduced impact-logging towards a more holistic management of tropical forests. 256 (7): 1427–1433. Bibcode:2008ForEM.256.1427P. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.036. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ a b c Umunay, Peter M.; Gregoire, Timothy G.; Gopalakrishna, Trisha; Ellis, Peter W.; Putz, Francis E. (2019-04-01). "Selective logging emissions and potential emission reductions from reduced-impact logging in the Congo Basin". Forest Ecology and Management. 437: 360–371. Bibcode:2019ForEM.437..360U. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.01.049. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Castro, A. B.; Bobrowiec, P. E. D.; Castro, S. J.; Rodrigues, L. R. R.; Fadini, R. F. (2022). "Influence of reduced-impact logging on Central Amazonian bats using a before-after-control-impact design". Animal Conservation. 25 (2): 311–322. Bibcode:2022AnCon..25..311C. doi:10.1111/acv.12739. ISSN 1469-1795.
- ^ Harris, Arianne E.; Hallett, Matthew T.; Davis, Micah; Carter, Martin; Singh, Dwarka; Roopsind, Anand; Maharaj, Gyanpriya; Bicknell, Jake E. (2023-11-15). "Use of logging roads by terrestrial mammals in a responsibly managed neotropical rainforest in Guyana". Forest Ecology and Management. 548: 121401. Bibcode:2023ForEM.54821401H. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121401. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Harris, Arianne E.; Maharaj, Gyanpriya; Hallett, Matthew; Thomas, Raquel; Roopsind, Anand; O'Shea, Brian J.; Bicknell, Jake E. (2024). "Variable shifts in bird and bat assemblages as a result of reduced-impact logging revealed after 10 years". Journal of Applied Ecology. 61 (1): 145–159. Bibcode:2024JApEc..61..145H. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.14537. ISSN 1365-2664.
- ^ Asad, Sami; Abrams, Jesse F.; Guharajan, Roshan; Lagan, Peter; Kissing, Johnny; Sikui, Julsun; Wilting, Andreas; Rödel, Mark-Oliver (2021-03-15). "Amphibian responses to conventional and reduced impact logging". Forest Ecology and Management. 484: 118949. Bibcode:2021ForEM.48418949A. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2021.118949. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Castro-Arellano, Ivan; Presley, Steven J.; Saldanha, Luis Nelio; Willig, Michael R.; Wunderle, Joseph M. (2007). "Effects of reduced impact logging on bat biodiversity in terra firme forest of lowland Amazonia". Biological Conservation. 138 (1): 269–285. Bibcode:2007BCons.138..269C. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.025. ISSN 0006-3207.
- ^ a b Edwards, David P.; Woodcock, Paul; Edwards, Felicity A.; Larsen, Trond H.; Hsu, Wayne W.; Benedick, Suzan; Wilcove, David S. (2012). "Reduced-impact logging and biodiversity conservation: a case study from Borneo". Ecological Applications. 22 (2): 561–571. Bibcode:2012EcoAp..22..561E. doi:10.1890/11-1362.1. ISSN 1939-5582. PMID 22611854.
- ^ Bicknell, Jake E.; Struebig, Matthew J.; Davies, Zoe G. (2015). "Reconciling timber extraction with biodiversity conservation in tropical forests using reduced-impact logging". Journal of Applied Ecology. 52 (2): 379–388. Bibcode:2015JApEc..52..379B. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12391. ISSN 1365-2664. PMC 4415554. PMID 25954054.
- ^ a b Martin, Philip A.; Newton, Adrian C.; Pfeifer, Marion; Khoo, MinSheng; Bullock, James M. (2015-11-15). "Impacts of tropical selective logging on carbon storage and tree species richness: A meta-analysis". Forest Ecology and Management. Special Section: The characteristics, impacts and management of forest fire in China. 356: 224–233. Bibcode:2015ForEM.356..224M. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.07.010. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Bicknell, Jake; Peres, Carlos A. (2010-05-25). "Vertebrate population responses to reduced-impact logging in a neotropical forest". Forest Ecology and Management. 259 (12): 2267–2275. Bibcode:2010ForEM.259.2267B. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.02.027. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Bicknell, Jake E.; Struebig, Matthew J.; Edwards, David P.; Davies, Zoe G. (2014-12-01). "Improved timber harvest techniques maintain biodiversity in tropical forests". Current Biology. 24 (23): R1119 – R1120. Bibcode:2014CBio...24R1119B. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.067. ISSN 0960-9822. PMID 25465328.
- ^ Griscom, Bronson W.; Ellis, Peter W.; Burivalova, Zuzana; Halperin, James; Marthinus, Delon; Runting, Rebecca K.; Ruslandi; Shoch, David; Putz, Francis E. (2019-04-15). "Reduced-impact logging in Borneo to minimize carbon emissions and impacts on sensitive habitats while maintaining timber yields". Forest Ecology and Management. 438: 176–185. Bibcode:2019ForEM.438..176G. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.02.025. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Edwards, David P.; Ansell, Felicity A.; Ahmad, Abdul H.; Nilus, Reuben; Hamer, Keith C. (2009). "The Value of Rehabilitating Logged Rainforest for Birds". Conservation Biology. 23 (6): 1628–1633. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01330.x. ISSN 0888-8892. PMID 19775274.
- ^ Nogueira, Denis Silva; Calvão, Lenize Batista; de Assis Montag, Luciano Fogaça; Juen, Leandro; De Marco, Paulo (2016-06-29). "Little effects of reduced-impact logging on insect communities in eastern Amazonia". Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 188 (7): 441. Bibcode:2016EMnAs.188..441N. doi:10.1007/s10661-016-5431-z. ISSN 1573-2959. PMID 27353133.
- ^ Mahayani, Ni Putu Diana; Slik, Ferry J. W.; Savini, Tommaso; Webb, Edward L.; Gale, George A. (2020-11-15). "Rapid recovery of phylogenetic diversity, community structure and composition of Bornean tropical forest a decade after logging and post-logging silvicultural interventions". Forest Ecology and Management. 476: 118467. Bibcode:2020ForEM.47618467M. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118467. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Landburg, Gwendolyn; Amatamsir, Chanella; Muys, Bart; Hermy, Martin (2021-09-03). "Medium and long term effects of logging systems on forest structure and composition in the tropical rainforest of Suriname". Journal of Forest Research. 26 (5): 328–335. Bibcode:2021JFR....26..328L. doi:10.1080/13416979.2021.1913305. ISSN 1341-6979.
- ^ a b Cerullo, Gianluca R.; Edwards, David P. (2019). "Actively restoring resilience in selectively logged tropical forests". Journal of Applied Ecology. 56 (1): 107–118. Bibcode:2019JApEc..56..107C. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13262. ISSN 1365-2664.
- ^ Bousfield, Christopher G.; Cerullo, Gianluca R.; Massam, Mike R.; Edwards, David P. (2020-01-01), Dumbrell, Alex J.; Turner, Edgar C.; Fayle, Tom M. (eds.), "Chapter One - Protecting environmental and socio-economic values of selectively logged tropical forests in the Anthropocene", Advances in Ecological Research, Tropical Ecosystems in the 21st Century, vol. 62, Academic Press, pp. 1–52, doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2020.01.006, retrieved 2025-05-23
- ^ Holmes, Thomas P. (2015), Köhl, Michael; Pancel, Laslo (eds.), "Financial and Economic Analysis of Reduced Impact Logging", Tropical Forestry Handbook, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1–15, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41554-8_223-1, ISBN 978-3-642-41554-8, retrieved 2025-05-23
- ^ Holmes, Thomas P.; Blate, Geoffrey M.; Zweede, Johan C.; Pereira, Rodrigo; Barreto, Paulo; Boltz, Frederick; Bauch, Roberto (2002-06-28). "Financial and ecological indicators of reduced impact logging performance in the eastern Amazon". Forest Ecology and Management. 163 (1): 93–110. Bibcode:2002ForEM.163...93H. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00530-8. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Boltz, Frederick; Holmes, Thomas P; Carter, Douglas R (2003-01-01). "Economic and environmental impacts of conventional and reduced-impact logging in Tropical South America: a comparative review". Forest Policy and Economics. 5 (1): 69–81. Bibcode:2003ForPE...5...69B. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00075-2. ISSN 1389-9341.
- ^ a b Applegate, Grahame; Putz, Francis E; Snook, Laura K (2004). Who pays for and who benefits from improved timber harvesting practices in the tropics?: lessons learned and information gaps. Jakarta, Indonesia: CIFOR. ISBN 979-3361-42-5.
- ^ Healey, John R.; Price, Colin; Tay, John (2000-12-20). "The cost of carbon retention by reduced impact logging". Forest Ecology and Management. 139 (1): 237–255. Bibcode:2000ForEM.139..237H. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00385-6. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Medjibe, Vincent P.; Putz, Francis E. (2012). "Cost comparisons of reduced-impact and conventional logging in the tropics". Journal of Forest Economics. 18 (3): 242–256. Bibcode:2012JFoEc..18..242M. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2012.05.001. ISSN 1104-6899.
- ^ Pearce, David; Putz, Francis E; Vanclay, Jerome K (2003-01-20). "Sustainable forestry in the tropics: panacea or folly?". Forest Ecology and Management. 172 (2): 229–247. Bibcode:2003ForEM.172..229P. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00798-8. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A. F.; van Andel, Tinde; Morsello, Carla; Otsuki, Kei; Rosendo, Sergio; Scholz, Imme (2008-09-20). "Forest-related partnerships in Brazilian Amazonia: There is more to sustainable forest management than reduced impact logging". Forest Ecology and Management. Moving beyond reduced impact-logging towards a more holistic management of tropical forests. 256 (7): 1482–1497. Bibcode:2008ForEM.256.1482R. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.044. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Guariguata, Manuel R.; Cronkleton, Peter; Shanley, Patricia; Taylor, Peter L. (2008-09-20). "The compatibility of timber and non-timber forest product extraction and management". Forest Ecology and Management. Moving beyond reduced impact-logging towards a more holistic management of tropical forests. 256 (7): 1477–1481. Bibcode:2008ForEM.256.1477G. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.038. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Rist, Lucy; Shanley, Patricia; Sunderland, Terry; Sheil, Douglas; Ndoye, Ousseynou; Liswanti, Nining; Tieguhong, Julius (2012-03-15). "The impacts of selective logging on non-timber forest products of livelihood importance". Forest Ecology and Management. Multiple Use of Tropical Forests: From Concept to Reality. 268: 57–69. Bibcode:2012ForEM.268...57R. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.037. ISSN 0378-1127.
- ^ Angelsen, Arild; Brockhaus, Maria; Center for International Forestry Research, eds. (2009). Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research. ISBN 978-602-8693-03-5.
- ^ Graham, Victoria; Laurance, Susan G; Grech, Alana; McGregor, Andrew; Venter, Oscar (2016-11-01). "A comparative assessment of the financial costs and carbon benefits of REDD+ strategies in Southeast Asia". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (11): 114022. Bibcode:2016ERL....11k4022G. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114022. ISSN 1748-9326.