Forests are considered as renewable resources but is in present scenario of forest deforestation and degradation can we say the same. In my opinion Forests were renewable resources when there was rate of regeneration was higher than the rate of extraction from forests. In current scenario if we still say or teach forests are renewable resource than we put condition provided if that "forests have rate of regeneration more than the rate of extraction". Its factually correct that forests have ability to regenerate so we can call it renewable but this condition is not prevailing currently even after so such human assisted natural and artificial regeneration efforts.
Renewable they are in principle; most forest in the tropical/low to mid-income countries seem currently not be renewed at the optimal rate for carbon sequestration, timber yield or biodiversity. In short, deforestation prevails (Gils & Loza 2006). On the other hand, in the temperate zone (Gils et al. 2008), many forests are expanding/regrowing/renewing after centuries of of deforestation. In other words, statements on renewability are place, time and use dependent.
A common practice in the boreal forests of Canada is to cut mature forests which have relative high value and replace them through natural regeneration. This is done under the presumption that managing forests in accordance with the emulating natural disturbance hypothesis is a sustainable approach. Although the ENDH appears to be well thought out, I am wondering if anyone has conducted tests to determine if the implementation of ENDH leads to mores sustainable forests. I'm in the process of writing a paper whereby ENDH was implemented at the stand-level and I would like to cite a few more papers than the ones that I already have on hand.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction