Hubbry Logo
Selection cuttingSelection cuttingMain
Open search
Selection cutting
Community hub
Selection cutting
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Selection cutting
Selection cutting
Selection cutting
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Selection cutting in California, May 1972
The results of selective cutting of Ponderosa Pine

Selection cutting, also known as selection system, is the silvicultural practice of harvesting trees in a way that moves a forest stand towards an uneven-aged or all-aged condition, or 'structure'. Using stocking models derived from the study of old growth forests, selection cutting, also known as 'selection system', or 'selection silviculture', manages the establishment, continued growth and final harvest of multiple age classes (usually three, but 5 or even 10 are possible) of trees within a stand. A closely related approach to forest management is Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF), which makes use of selection systems to achieve a permanently irregular stand structure.[1]

Selection cutting or systems are generally considered to be more challenging to implement and maintain than even-aged management, due to the difficulty of managing multiple age classes in a shared space, but there are significant ecological benefits associated with it. Uneven-aged stands generally exhibit higher levels of vertical structure (key for many species of birds and mammals), have higher levels of carbon sequestration, and produce a more constant flow of market and non-market forest resources than even-aged stands.[citation needed] Although a forest composed of many stands with varied maturity ages maybe comparable, this would be at the forest rather than the stand level. This silvicultural method also protects forest soils from the adverse effects of many types of even-aged silviculture, including nutrient loss, erosion and soil compaction and the rapid loss of organic material from a forested system. Selection silviculture is especially adept at regenerating shade-tolerant species of trees (those able to function under conditions of low solar energy, both cooler and less light), but can also be modified to suit the regeneration and growth of intolerant and mid-tolerant species. This is one of many different ways of harvesting trees. Selection cutting as a silvicultural system can be modified in many ways and would be so done be a forester to take into account varied ownership goals, local site conditions and the species mix found from past forest conditions.[2]

Confusing term

[edit]

Selection cutting is often (sometimes deliberately) confused with "selective" cutting, a term synonymous with the practice of high grading (the removal of the most economically profitable trees in a forest, often with a disregard for the future of the residual stand). Often the latter term is used by foresters or loggers to imply the former (which has a generally positive connotation in forestry circles) and mislead landowners into stripping their woodlot of its most valuable timber. Used correctly, the term 'selection cutting', 'selection system', or 'selection silviculture' implies the implementation of specific silvicultural techniques—usually either 'single tree selection', 'group selection' or a combination of the two—to create an uneven-aged or all-aged condition in a forest stand, one more akin to a late successional or 'climax' condition.[3]

Partly as a result of such confusion, the term Plenterwald, which is the German term for selection cutting, is being more commonly used as the standard term in English.[4] Increasingly, especially in Britain, Ireland and elsewhere in Europe, the term Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF) has been adopted to embrace an approach to stand management that most often employs selection systems to achieve a permanently irregular stand structure.[5]

Single-tree selection

[edit]

The most common type of selection system is single-tree selection,[6] in which scattered individual trees of multiple age classes, whose canopies are not touching, are harvested. This type of selection system generally produces small canopy openings especially conducive to the establishment and growth of shade tolerant tree species.

Group selection

[edit]

Another variation of selection silviculture is group selection. Under this system, a number of 'groups', or small openings created by the removal of several adjacent trees, are created in complement to the harvest of scattered individual trees. If the groups created are large enough, and if seed-bed conditions are favorable, this can allow species which are intolerant of shade to regenerate.[7] Group selection is designed to mimic larger, multi-tree mortality events, which in some environments may represent natural disturbance regimes.

The maximum size of a group (before it becomes a patch, or clearcut) is debatable. Some say it may be up to 2 acres (0.8 hectares) in size, whereas others limit it to a maximum of 0.5 acres (0.1 hectares).

In any case Plenterwald can operate in a small areas of 1/3 - 1/2 hectare, whereas other systems need a bigger area.[8] Behind this is the philosophical idea that a stand should be balanced (that is equal amounts of land cover for each age class) in the same way that a forest would be balanced under a clear cut régime (that is stands collectively are balanced on yield flow). The reasoning is based on the Normalwald concept, which is a model of a forest over 100 years that will produce an amount of money that is consistent over time with treatments being consistent over time rather than big expenses or big profits at one time and low expenses and low profits at another.[9]

Care need to be taken to avoid epicormic shoots growing on trunks of surrounding trees such that they lead to knotty wood, if timber production is desired. It is also challenging to visualize the groups with cuttings over time.[10]

Implementing A Selection System

[edit]

In North America, trees are selected for harvest in a selection system with reference to the Arbogast Method (named after the method's creator[11]). This is also known as the BDq method. Under this method, a harvest is specified by defining a residual basal area (B), a maximum diameter (D), and a q-ratio (q). The q-ratio is the ratio of the number of trees in a diameter class to the number of trees in the next larger class. Typically diameter classes are either 4 centimeters or 2 inches.

When the Q is plotted on semi-log paper it gives a straight slope for uneven aged stands. However, in reality this slope can be seen to vary from what is called an S-curve in old growth forests to cut off the older trees giving a reverse-J curve in a managed stand. The curve is also an ideal curve and there may be variations to some extent, particularly in earlier number of trees where there are many more seedlings and saplings than the model Q-ratio would suggest.

Given the BDq, a curve representing the state of the residual stand is computed. This curve is compared to the inventory data from a stand, specifically the curve of the diameter classes of the trees in the stand against the number of trees in each diameter (age) class. Diameter is used as a surrogate for age and thus called an age class even though strictly it should be a size class. The comparison of these two curves tells the forester how many trees of each age-class should remain in the stand. Surplus trees are marked for harvest. If there are too few trees in a class, the forester will determine if it is necessary to reduce the removal of trees from neighboring classes to maintain an ideal q-ratio.[12]

The goal of the use of a BDq curve is to ensure the continued development of trees in each age class, and the continued availability of mature timber to harvest on a relatively short cutting cycle (8–15 years).[13] Longer cutting cycles may be used depending on species mix, silvicultural goals and if the aim is amenity or economic forestry in respect to the land.

Following this method with well performed forest inventories should see the right amount of cutting. However, reality has shown about a third of forests are overcut and a third are undercut. It appears that the model also departs from reality in many cases, and so cannot be solely relied on.[14] The judgement of an experienced forester is also needed.[15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Selection cutting

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Selection cutting, also known as the selection system in , is a forest management method that maintains uneven-aged stands by periodically removing individual mature or overmature , or small groups of , at regular intervals to promote continuous forest cover, natural regeneration, and a diverse structure of ages, sizes, and . This approach, which includes single-tree selection for shade-tolerant and for light-demanding ones, creates small canopy gaps—typically 0.3 to 2 acres in group cuts—to encourage establishment while minimizing disturbance and stand disruption. The system relies on key principles such as regulating residual basal area (often 50-90 square feet per acre), balancing diameter distributions across age classes, and timing harvests to coincide with favorable production, usually every 5 to 20 years depending on type and growth rates. Foresters carefully mark trees for harvest based on criteria like health, vigor, and quality to avoid high-grading— the removal of only the best trees— and to foster regeneration from advance seedlings or natural seeding on exposed mineral soil. Implementation requires skilled logging to limit damage to remaining trees, with challenges including higher operational costs, risks of in exposed stands, and potential for or pest spread if not managed properly. Selection cutting offers significant ecological benefits, such as preserving , wildlife habitat, and watershed protection through sustained canopy cover, while providing economic advantages like periodic timber yields for sawlogs and veneer without the need for large-scale clearings. It is particularly suited to mixed species forests, including northern hardwoods (e.g., sugar maple and ), spruce-fir types in the Northeast and Lake States, , and Appalachian oak-hickory stands, and is often applied in areas, steep terrains, or small private woodlands where aesthetic and conservation goals align with timber production. Though adaptable for converting even-aged to uneven-aged structures over time, it demands ongoing monitoring to prevent understocking or shifts in species composition.

Principles and Concepts

Definition and Terminology

Selection cutting, also known as the selection system, is a silvicultural practice within uneven-aged that involves the periodic removal of individual trees or small groups of trees based on criteria such as size, , quality, vigor, and maturity, with the goal of promoting natural regeneration, maintaining diverse forest structure, and ensuring sustained yield of timber products while preserving continuous canopy cover. The term originated in European silviculture in the late 19th century, drawing from traditional practices like the Plenterwald system in , which emphasized steady-state uneven-aged management through selective harvesting to mimic natural dynamics in mixed mountain forests dominated by species such as silver fir. In , selection cutting gained adoption in the mid-20th century, particularly post-1940s, as a response to the depletion of old-growth forests and the limitations of even-aged methods, with early research initiatives like those at the Fernow Experimental Forest beginning in 1948 to test its viability in eastern hardwoods. However, the terminology has often been confusing, as "selection cutting" is sometimes misused interchangeably with high-grading, a exploitative practice that removes only the most valuable large trees, leaving poorer-quality residuals and degrading long-term stand productivity. Essential prerequisites for selection cutting include understanding the distinction between uneven-aged and even-aged forests; uneven-aged stands feature multiple age classes (typically three or more), with trees of varying s coexisting across a continuum, whereas even-aged stands consist primarily of one age class, often resulting from regeneration methods like that synchronize cohort development. True selection cutting differs from diameter-limit cutting, which mechanically removes all merchantable s above a fixed threshold (e.g., 12 inches DBH) without regard for individual tree vigor, spatial arrangement, or overall stand balance, often leading to reduced diversity and suboptimal regeneration compared to selection's more holistic approach. A key structural goal in selection cutting is achieving a balanced distribution, often visualized as a reverse-J curve, where stem density decreases progressively from smaller to larger diameter classes, reflecting continuous and sustained uneven-aged character in managed stands. Subtypes include single-tree selection, targeting individuals, and , focusing on small patches, both aimed at replicating this distribution.

Comparison to Other Harvesting Methods

Selection cutting differs fundamentally from , which involves the complete removal of all trees within a designated area to create even-aged stands, often suited to species requiring full sunlight for regeneration such as aspen or . In contrast, selection cutting targets individual mature or overmature trees or small groups, preserving an uneven-aged forest structure and continuous canopy cover to support shade-tolerant species like sugar maple. This approach minimizes soil disturbance and maintains aesthetic and ecological continuity, though it demands greater expertise to avoid suboptimal outcomes like high-grading. Compared to the shelterwood method, which progressively removes overstory trees in multiple stages to foster regeneration under moderated light conditions and ultimately yield even-aged stands, selection cutting sustains multi-aged cohorts without phased overstory elimination. Shelterwood is particularly effective for oaks or mixed hardwoods needing controlled environmental shifts, but it requires extended timelines and potential site preparations, whereas selection promotes ongoing harvests in diverse, irregular forests. The seed-tree method, a variant of , leaves a sparse distribution of seed-producing trees (typically 5–10 per acre) after initial harvest to ensure natural regeneration, resulting in even-aged stands similar to full clearcuts but with some immediate seed source retention. Selection cutting, however, avoids such large-scale openings, instead regulating tree distribution across age classes to enhance and habitat stability without relying on isolated seed trees for reestablishment. Unlike diameter-limit cutting, which harvests all trees exceeding a predetermined size threshold (e.g., 12–16 inches in ) regardless of , often leading to the removal of the best stems and degradation of stand vigor, selection cutting evaluates individual health, composition, and spatial arrangement to foster long-term . This distinction prevents the high-grading pitfalls common in diameter-limit practices, prioritizing over short-term volume extraction. Overall, selection cutting excels in maintaining wildlife habitat, soil protection, and visual appeal in mixed-species woodlands, making it ideal for uneven-aged management, though it necessitates skilled labor and is less suitable for uniform plantations favoring even-aged regeneration. In northern forests, it is the predominant system, outperforming even-aged alternatives like in promoting diversity, while is commonly used in sun-dependent types such as aspen and in regions like the states. However, has declined in recent decades in the Lake States, with studies showing a shift toward partial harvests as of the .

Types of Selection Systems

Single-Tree Selection

Single-tree selection is a silvicultural method within uneven-aged management that involves the removal of individual mature, overmature, or defective trees scattered across a forest stand to perpetuate a balanced distribution of tree ages and sizes while maintaining continuous canopy cover. This approach mimics natural disturbances by harvesting single trees or very small groups, typically removing 20-30% of the basal area or the periodic growth accumulated since the last entry, with cutting cycles occurring every 10-20 years to allow for regeneration and growth of residual trees. The goal is to regulate stand structure so that ingrowth from smaller classes offsets removals from larger ones, ensuring long-term without creating large openings. Trees are selected based on criteria aligned with management objectives for species composition, diameter distribution, health, and spatial arrangement to prevent uneven gaps or high-grading. For , preference is given to removing less desirable or intolerant individuals while favoring shade-tolerant species like sugar maple or to promote desired composition. Diameter classes guide removals primarily from larger sizes (e.g., 18-24 inches DBH for sugar maple) to sustain a reverse-J shaped distribution, where smaller classes are more abundant and larger ones taper off, typically leaving 60-80 square feet of basal area with 25-60 square feet in sawtimber sizes. assessments prioritize the elimination of unacceptable growing stock, such as defective or declining trees, while retaining vigorous acceptable growing stock; spatial patterns ensure uniform distribution to avoid concentrated damage and support even regeneration under the canopy. This method is particularly suited to old-growth or mature mixed hardwood forests, such as northern hardwoods in the Appalachian region of the , where it facilitates natural regeneration of shade-tolerant beneath the existing canopy and supports wildlife habitats requiring mature forest conditions. It is effective for converting even-aged stands to uneven-aged structures over multiple entries, providing periodic timber yields while preserving aesthetic and ecological continuity. Implementation relies on precise marking techniques, such as the B-line and A-line systems, where the B-line uses basal area targets to guide overall removal levels and the A-line employs guides to assess and select individual trees based on and position. The order of removal typically starts with low- or high-risk trees to improve stand vigor, followed by mature ones to create regeneration opportunities, often retaining 1-2 wildlife trees per acre. In European contexts, such as Plenter forests in , this approach sustains multi-story canopies with shade-tolerant species like silver fir and by maintaining equilibrium between growth and harvest through negative exponential diameter distributions.

Group Selection

Group selection is a variant of selection cutting that involves the removal of small clusters of trees to create discrete openings within stand, mimicking the patch dynamics of natural disturbances such as or . These groups typically range from 0.1 to 2 acres in size, allowing for the establishment of new age classes while preserving the surrounding mature forest matrix. Harvesting occurs on rotations of 10 to 30 years, with each cycle removing 20 to 40 percent of the stand volume to promote regeneration without fully depleting the area. The selection of groups focuses on areas with poor growth potential, gaps in species composition, or locations needing increased light to favor shade-intolerant species, ensuring that the resulting patches integrate smoothly with the adjacent forest through techniques like edge feathering to reduce abrupt boundaries. This approach targets clustered removals to accelerate regeneration in targeted zones, contrasting with more dispersed methods. Group selection is particularly suited to coniferous and mixed forests where light penetration is essential for regenerating species like Douglas-fir, as seen in stands of the , where it facilitates timber production alongside habitat maintenance. It serves as an intermediate strategy between single-tree selection, which preserves overall stand structure through individual removals, and shelterwood methods that prepare larger areas for even-aged regeneration. Developed in the mid-20th century as a compromise between aggressive and highly conservative harvesting, group aimed to sustain uneven-aged forests while addressing concerns over large-scale disturbance. Studies, including those from the USDA Forest Service and affiliated extensions in the , indicate that it enhances plant and avian diversity relative to single-tree selection alone by creating varied light conditions that support a broader range of species.

Implementation Practices

Planning and Assessment

Planning and assessment form the foundational phase of selection cutting, where forest managers evaluate site conditions and establish objectives to ensure sustainable implementation. Site assessment begins with a comprehensive of stand structure, typically conducted using fixed-area plots to measure distributions, which reveal the uneven-aged character essential for selection systems. This involves recording tree at breast height (DBH) across various size classes to assess current composition and potential for regeneration. Concurrently, evaluations of , (such as and aspect), and composition are performed to identify constraints like risk or requirements. Growth models are then applied to predict residual stand health post-harvest, simulating growth and mortality under different cutting intensities to maintain stand vigor. Goal-setting follows site assessment and focuses on aligning harvest plans with broader management aims, such as sustained yield of timber products, enhancement of through diverse age classes, or increased via retained canopy cover. Objectives are quantified where possible, for instance, targeting specific basal area levels or regeneration densities to support . Regulatory compliance is integral, particularly under frameworks like the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), which requires land and plans that balance timber production with protections for , , , and , often necessitating environmental impact assessments before approval. Similar requirements apply in other jurisdictions, ensuring selection cutting contributes to multiple-use forest objectives without compromising ecosystem integrity. Key tools and methods facilitate precise planning, including marking guides that use quadratic mean (QMD) targets to guide selection, ensuring a balanced diameter distribution by removing trees that exceed desired averages while promoting ingrowth in smaller classes. Pre-harvest simulations employ software like the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), which models stand dynamics over decadal cycles based on input data from inventories, allowing managers to test scenarios for residual density and yield projections. In the 2020s, geographic information systems (GIS) have become standard for , integrating data to map harvest units, avoid sensitive areas, and optimize access routes. The overall planning cycle typically spans 1-2 years, encompassing , modeling, and stakeholder consultations to refine the prescription.

Execution and Monitoring

Execution of selection cutting involves precise harvesting techniques designed to limit damage to residual trees and soil. Low-impact methods such as cable yarding are employed, where logs are suspended via skyline systems to transport them over the ground, thereby minimizing compaction, , and disturbance on steep slopes common in selective operations. Horse skidding offers an alternative in gentler terrain, using animal power to drag logs with reduced machinery impact on forest floors. Directional felling patterns direct trees to fall away from retained stands, protecting future crop trees from breakage and facilitating efficient extraction while preserving overall stand integrity. Post-harvest monitoring begins with regeneration cruises using plot-based assessments to evaluate establishment, typically targeting densities of 400-800 stems per acre to achieve acceptable stocking levels and ensure long-term productivity. These surveys occur at intervals such as 3, 5, and 8 years post-cut, continuing until seedlings are free to grow without competition. Long-term protocols track diameter growth and mortality every 5-10 years through fixed-area plots, allowing managers to assess stand health and adjust future cuts. Modern tools like unmanned aerial systems (drones) enhance these efforts by generating high-resolution orthomosaics to map regeneration success and soil disturbance with minimal field labor. Key challenges include the potential for to proliferate in canopy gaps created by harvesting, necessitating targeted control measures to prevent dominance over native regeneration. addresses emerging threats like intensified droughts in Western U.S. forests by modifying selection criteria, such as retaining more drought-tolerant species and reducing densities to build resilience against climate-driven stressors. Execution costs for selection cutting are typically 15-20% higher than , attributable to the labor-intensive selectivity and specialized equipment required.

Ecological and Economic Impacts

Ecological Effects

Selection cutting promotes by fostering multi-aged forest stands that support a wider range of compared to even-aged management systems. In yellow birch-conifer forests, diversity increases with harvest intensity, with cover rising nearly threefold in heavily cut areas after eight years, while overall and evenness remain stable or improve due to increased light availability. , in particular, creates diverse habitats including early successional patches, edges, and mature forest remnants, mimicking natural disturbances and enhancing bird variety and small mammal diversity relative to clearcuts. Retained snags and cavity trees provide essential nesting and sites for cavity-nesting birds, though careful management is required to avoid excessive removal during harvests, as densities can decline by up to 52% without targeted retention. By preserving canopy cover, selection cutting minimizes that fragment habitats in even-aged methods, thereby supporting greater overall . The practice has minimal impacts on and due to the retention of vegetative cover, which limits and compared to . Selective harvesting results in lower suspended yields and reduced stormflow concentrations, with studies showing no significant increases in when best management practices are applied, unlike clearcuts that can elevate loads threefold or more. Gap-phase dynamics created by selection cuts enhance cycling by accelerating litter decomposition and release, particularly in medium-sized gaps where environmental factors like and microbial diversity promote faster breakdown of and higher availability of and . remains largely unaffected, with minimal changes in , , and leaching, as the dispersed nature of cuts avoids the widespread disruptions seen in intensive harvesting. Selection cutting contributes to by sustaining higher carbon stocks than , with partial harvests reducing live tree carbon by approximately 45% compared to 78% in clearcuts, allowing for greater long-term sequestration through retained and faster recovery. In eastern North American forests, this approach maintains ecosystem carbon pools more effectively over time, with showing stability and minimal variation across treatments. In boreal mixedwood forests, increases understory by about 13% (from 30 to 34 ), boosting pioneer and shade-intolerant herbs while promoting overall diversity, though it may reduce among sites. However, canopy gaps can intensify deer browsing pressure on regenerating , potentially altering composition and slowing succession if densities are high.

Economic Considerations

Selection cutting provides landowners with periodic income streams through regular harvests of mature, high-value trees, in contrast to the one-time lump-sum associated with . This method supports sustained yield by removing trees at a rate aligned with the forest's annual growth increment, ensuring ongoing timber production without depleting the resource. By targeting premium-quality logs, selection systems often generate higher per unit volume, as the selective focus preserves stand quality and allows for repeated high-value extractions over decades. In the United States, selection cutting typically yields long-term timber volumes that are comparable to or exceed those of when managed properly, with studies indicating that medium-intensity selection can optimize growth and yield balance in forests. For instance, ongoing in northern stands shows that selection methods maintain productive capacity, achieving sustained outputs of 1,000 to 13,000 board feet per acre across multiple cutting cycles, depending on site conditions and intensity. This approach reduces income volatility compared to , as harvests can be timed to market conditions every 10-20 years, spreading revenue and mitigating risks from single large sales. Harvesting costs under selection cutting are generally higher than for clearcutting due to the need for skilled labor, precise tree marking, and lower operational efficiency from scattered removals. Clearcutting benefits from mechanized, high-volume operations that minimize time and equipment use per acre, often resulting in costs 20-50% lower, while selection requires more manual intervention and planning. Long-term profitability, however, is enhanced by potential premiums for certified timber; for example, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified forests using selection practices can command premiums ranging from 0% to 20% higher prices for logs in markets like Pennsylvania state forests, depending on product and conditions. These premiums help offset initial costs, particularly for small landowners managing 50-500 acres, where certification adds value without requiring full-scale industrial operations. Market and policy factors further influence the economic viability of selection cutting, with incentives promoting its adoption for and . In 2023, the provided $150 million in grants for small forest landowners to enable participation in carbon credit markets, where improved practices—including selection cutting—generate credits valued at $3 to $15 per metric of CO2 equivalent as of 2025, though high-integrity -based credits may fetch $30-50 per . In the , post-2020 policies under the initiative provide subsidies and credits for selective practices that maintain carbon stocks, supporting exports of certified timber to high-demand markets. These mechanisms address global trade dynamics, where sustainably sourced wood fetches premiums of 5-15% in international sales, benefiting small-scale operators by reducing exposure to timber price fluctuations that typically vary 5-15% annually in the as of 2020-2025.

References

  1. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_series/wo/wo_ah445.pdf
  2. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2014/nrs_2014_schuler-t_001.pdf
  3. https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/public/raca/handbook/pdf/53-iam-9-h_silviculture-hb_final_signed_508.pdf
  4. https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/84/5/467/541222
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2197562025000570
  6. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/select_cutting_selects_what
  7. https://extension.psu.edu/high-grade-timber-harvesting-is-bad-news-for-forest-landowners
  8. https://ag.ok.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Forestry-landowner-assistance-Even-and-Uneven-Aged-Forest-Management.pdf
  9. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/20688
  10. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x11-027
  11. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2019/nrs_2019_bassil_001.pdf
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112705001404
  13. https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/forest_types_of_michigan_silvicultural_systems_e3202_13
  14. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs075/gtr_srs075-guldin001.pdf
  15. https://www.maineforestry.net/timber-harvest-methods
  16. https://www.sfasilviculture.com/index.php/textbook/3-3-regeneration-methods-seed-tree
  17. https://www.envirothonpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Just-say-no-to-High-Grading.pdf
  18. https://utia.tennessee.edu/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/269/2023/10/PB1848.pdf
  19. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr-nrs-p-211papers/03-helman-p-211.pdf
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340251076_The_Decline_of_the_Clearcut_26_Years_of_Change_in_Silvicultural_Practices_and_Implications_in_Minnesota
  21. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs132.pdf
  22. https://extension.unh.edu/sites/default/files/migrated_unmanaged_files/Resource000235_Rep254.pdf
  23. https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/80/2/163/513651
  24. https://thetimberlandinvestor.com/guide-to-selection-harvesting/
  25. https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/extd8/files/documents/em9106.pdf
  26. https://www.sfasilviculture.com/index.php/textbook/1-2-introduction-silvicultural-systems
  27. https://www.fs.usda.gov/media/218200
  28. https://directives.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files2/1719592953/Forestry%2520190-1%252C%2520Forestry%2520Inventory%2520Methods.pdf
  29. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/forest-management/essential-fvs.pdf
  30. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/national-forest-management-act-nfma1976.pdf
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233669010_Technical_Note_Why_Quadratic_Mean_Diameter
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112725006838
  33. https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm08512W03/documents/Cable_Logging_Systems.pdf
  34. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40725-020-00113-8
  35. https://utia.tennessee.edu/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/269/2023/10/W1013.pdf
  36. https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/ecssilviculture/policies/regeneration-survey-policy-procedures.pdf
  37. https://crojfe.com/archive/volume-43-no.2/application-of-uas-for-monitoring-of-forest-ecosystems-a-review-of-experience-and-knowledge/
  38. https://iforest.sisef.org/contents/?id=ifor4204-016
  39. https://extension.unh.edu/blog/2018/02/using-groups-reduce-invasive-plant-dominance-naturally-regenerated-new-hampshire-woodlots
  40. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_rummer002.pdf
  41. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/items/48eaef34-cd50-4897-9d83-ee2921f223a7
  42. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2018/nrs_2018_raymond_001.pdf
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43260063_Cavity_Trees_Snags_and_Selection_Cutting_A_Northern_Hardwood_Case_Study
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112722003917
  45. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/14/4/673
  46. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eap.70050
  47. https://annforsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13595-022-01152-w
  48. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/ES13-00223.1
  49. https://www.buskirklumber.com/selective-cutting-best-timber-harvesting-method/
  50. https://research.fs.usda.gov/nrs/projects/long-term-selection-cutting-study-0
  51. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ne/newtown_square/publications/research_papers/pdfs/scanned/OCR/ne_rp582.pdf
  52. https://churchandchurchlumber.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-clearcutting
  53. https://www.buildwithfsc.org/post/what-s-the-premium-for-fsc
  54. https://www.preferredbynature.org/news/fsc-price-premium
  55. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2023/08/22/biden-harris-administration-invests-150m-connect-underserved-and-small-acreage-forest-landowners
  56. https://phys.org/news/2025-08-global-forests-vast-carbon-wealth.html
  57. https://www.unep.org/events/webinar/true-cost-redd-carbon-credits-aligning-prices-high-integrity-standards
  58. https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Carbon-Market-Incentives-Report.pdf
  59. https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/2022_05_23_USLessons_CarbonMarkets4%2520%25281%2529.pdf
  60. https://www.gordian.com/resources/lumber-price-updates/
  61. https://www.nahb.org/news-and-economics/housing-economics/national-statistics/framing-lumber-prices
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.