4.4 Article

Elements for a non-detriment finding of Cedrela spp. in Bolivia-A CITES implementation case study

期刊

JOURNAL FOR NATURE CONSERVATION
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 241-252

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2013.01.003

关键词

Timber species; Forest management; CITES; Harvest quota; Tropical forests

资金

  1. Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cedrela odorata and C. fissilis are two tropical tree species that have been widely harvested for their timber. In response to this heavy exploitation, the species have been listed in Appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The aim of this study was to provide important elements necessary for the making of CITES Non-Detriment Findings for Cedrela spp. in Bolivia using a wide variety of sources of information on its distribution, population structure, and management at multiple spatial scales. A national large-scale database of forest inventories was created, including information about trees of certain species with diameter at breast height (dbh) >= 20. These data were used to make non-detriment findings (NDFs) following CITES guidance for timber species. Spatial prediction of Cedrela habitat revealed a consistent pattern of habitat probability across Bolivia. The genus occurs in areas formerly or currently occupied by ten of the twelve forest types described as habitat for Cedrela odorata and C fissilis, with a density ranging from 0.4 to 159 trees >60 cm dbh per 100 ha. Based on these data, the annual export quota for Cedrela in Bolivia should be 3513.1 m(3) of timber. This country-level case study could provide a roadmap for other studies that may eventually lead to uplisting the genus. Including Cedrela in CITES Appendix II may help to ensure that its harvest to supply international markets is conducted in a sustainable manner, without damaging the target species or their ecosystem. (C) 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据