IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i4p3801-3822d47535.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resilience Assessment of Lowland Plantations Using an Ecosystem Modeling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Hsin Wu

    (Senior Vocational High School, National Taitung Junior College, 95045 Taitung, Taiwan
    Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, 97401 Hualien, Taiwan)

  • Yueh-Hsin Lo

    (Departamento Ciencias del Medio Natural, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Campus de Arrosadía, Pamplona, Navarra 31006, Spain)

  • Juan A. Blanco

    (Departamento Ciencias del Medio Natural, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Campus de Arrosadía, Pamplona, Navarra 31006, Spain)

  • Shih-Chieh Chang

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, 97401 Hualien, Taiwan)

Abstract

As afforestation programs of former farmlands take hold in Taiwan to achieve a variety of ecological and socio-economic values, it is becoming necessary to define best forest management. Hence, we simulated mixed stands of Cinnamomum camphora and Fraxinus griffithii planted through a gradient of soil fertility and varying camphor/ash density ratios, but maintaining a fixed total stand density of 1500 trees ha −1 . Total stand productivity was slightly lower in mixed stands than the combination of both monocultures in rich and poor sites. Maximum negative yield surpluses for 50-year old stands were 7 Mg ha −1 and 6 Mg ha −1 for rich and poor sites with a 1:1 camphor laurel/ash ratios. Maximum stand woody biomass in rich sites was reached in camphor laurel monocultures (120 Mg ha −1 ) and in poor sites for Himalayan ash monocultures (58 Mg ha −1 ). However, for medium-quality sites, a small yield surplus (11 Mg ha −1 ) was estimated coinciding with a maximum stand woody biomass of 95 Mg ha −1 for a 1:1 camphor laurel/ash density ratio. From an ecological resilience point of view, rotation length was more important than stand composition. Long rotations (100 years) could improve soil conditions in poor sites. In rich sites, short rotations (50 years) should be avoided to reduce risks or fertility loss.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Hsin Wu & Yueh-Hsin Lo & Juan A. Blanco & Shih-Chieh Chang, 2015. "Resilience Assessment of Lowland Plantations Using an Ecosystem Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:4:p:3801-3822:d:47535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/4/3801/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/4/3801/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yueh-Hsin Lo & Juan A. Blanco & J.P. (Hamish) Peter Kimmins & Brad Seely & Clive Welham, 2011. "Linking Climate Change and Forest Ecophysiology to Project Future Trends in Tree Growth: A Review of Forest Models," Chapters, in: Juan A. Blanco & Houshang Kheradmand (ed.), Climate Change - Research and Technology for Adaptation and Mitigation, IntechOpen.
    2. Margaret Alston, 2004. "Who is down on the farm? Social aspects of Australian agriculture in the 21st century," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(1), pages 37-46, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cheng Zong & Kun Cheng & Chun-Hung Lee & Nai-Lun Hsu, 2017. "Capturing Tourists’ Preferences for the Management of Community-Based Ecotourism in a Forest Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Chun-Lin Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang & Chun-Hung Lee & Supasit Sriarkarin, 2019. "Evaluating the Public’s Preferences toward Sustainable Planning under Climate and Land Use Change in Forest Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean Vasile Andrei & Mirela Panait & Alexandra Alecu, 2016. "Aproaches on Eu-28 Social Agriculture Model," International Conference on Competitiveness of Agro-food and Environmental Economy Proceedings, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 5, pages 306-314.
    2. Laure-Elise Ruoso, 2020. "Can land-based and practice-based place identities explain farmers’ adaptation strategies in peri-urban areas? A case study of Metropolitan Sydney, Australia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(3), pages 743-759, September.
    3. Anthony M. Fuller & Siyuan Xu & Lee-Ann Sutherland & Fabiano Escher, 2021. "Land to the Tiller: The Sustainability of Family Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Patrick O’Keeffe, 2018. "Creating a governable reality: analysing the use of quantification in shaping Australian wheat marketing policy," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(3), pages 553-567, September.
    5. Camille Page & Bradd Witt, 2022. "A Leap of Faith: Regenerative Agriculture as a Contested Worldview Rather Than as a Practice Change Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Barbosa, Roseli Azambuja & Domingues, Carla Heloisa de Faria & Silva, Marcelo Corrêa da & Foguesatto, Cristian Rogério & Pereira, Mariana de Aragão & Gimenes, Régio Marcio Toesca & Borges, João August, 2020. "Using Q-methodology to identify rural women’s viewpoint on succession of family farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Jacqui Dibden & Chris Cocklin, 2009. "‘Multifunctionality’: Trade Protectionism or a New Way Forward?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 163-182, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:4:p:3801-3822:d:47535. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.