Logging_Maritime Pine_France

Affiliation
IIED
Type of wild species covered by the record
Wild species used in significantly modified habitat (e.g., oil palm plantations, rice paddies)
Stage of the value chain covered by the record
Unknown/not recorded
Record Source
Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

Biomass and nutrients in tree root systems–sustainable harvesting of an intensively managed Pinus pinaster (Ait.) planted forest

Increasing
Is the species endemic HIDE
No
Population Status
Unknown/not recorded
Unknown/not recorded
National Level
Unknown/not recorded
Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species
Population Trend
Unknown/not recorded
Sub-national Level
Unknown/not recorded
Additional Details (if available)

Residential, urban, industrial and tourism related developments in coastal areas has reduced the available habitat for this species. However, this decline is more than offset by its expansion in other areas.

Name
Emma Hemmerlé
Scientific Name
Pinus pinaster
Common Name(s)
Maritime Pine
Type of Use
Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)
If extractive, for the target species, is this use
Lethal
Does this use involve take/extraction of
The whole entire organism
Details of parts/products taken

The aboveground biomass of trees was first harvested, except the bottom of the stem. Next, understory vegetation and the forest floor were removed up to a radius of 1.5 m around each stump using hand tools. The stump–root system was collected using a backhoe with around 10 operators working with hand tools.

How is the primary use carried out?
Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?
Unknown/not recorded
Purpose of Use
Largescale commercial exploitation for trade
Additional Details (if available)

many countries are implementing policies to promote the use of biomass for energy production (EC, 2000). In this context, forest ecosystems are often seen as potential providers of plant biomass.

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?
What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?
Geographic Location
Country
France
Sub region/state
Aquitaine
Name
Landes de Gascogne forest
Site Description

(ca. 900 kha; ca. 43.5–45.5°N and 1.5°W–0.3°E). Stands are monospecific and even-aged ones. Soils are podzols and arenosols which are acidic, sandy, more or less cemented and highly P-deficient

Unknown/not recorded
Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?
No
Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?
Unknown/not reported
Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species
Unknown/not recorded
Mixed(e.g., some beneficial effects, some deleterious)
Additional Details (if available)

Results are reported in terms on impacts on nutrient content of the soil:
we compared three scenarios (i.e. S + R: stem + belowground biomass; S + B: stem + branches; S + B + F: stem + branches + foliage) in comparison with a conventional stem-only harvest (S). in the S + R scenario, harvesting roots led to additional export of nutrients, which was lower than or similar to the additional biomass exports (i.e. +9 to +15%). In the S + B scenario, the increases in nutrient exports were higher than the increase in export of biomass (i.e. +21 to +34%). These increases were high- est in the S+B+F scenario (i.e. +30 to +57%); our simulations clearly showed that harvesting complete canopies (i.e. S + B + F scenario) is disproportionally expensive in terms of nutrients. we conclude that our forest site conditions (i.e. characterized by severely poor soils) are more propitious to root harvests than to branch harvests; On the basis of our results and based on results in literature, we conclude that, even if it is technically feasible (Nunez-Regueira et al., 2005), using tree foliage as fuelwood is probably not sustainable in most infertile forests. Conversely, using tree stumps and coarse roots as fuelwood may be sustainable for carbon mitigation strategies

Details of assessment carried out

Combining our original results on roots with previously published data on the above ground compartments showed that nutrient losses were higher in canopy harvest scenarios than in root harvest scenarios. This was mainly due to high nutrient concentrations of needles. We concluded that stump and root harvest could be sustainable in our study context, conversely to foliage harvest.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded
No
Contribution to GDP
Unknown/not recorded
Medicine/healthcare
Training/Skills
Land/Resource Rights
Decision Making
Social Cohesion
Conflict- people
Conflict- wildlife
Climate Change
Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?
Unknown/not recorded
Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?
Unknown/not recorded
Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?
Unknown/not recorded
Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?
Unknown/not recorded
Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?
Unknown/not recorded
Unknown/not recorded
Biological characteristics of target species
Absent
Source Reference(s)

Augusto, L., Achat, D.L., Bakker, M.R., Bernier, F., Bert, D., Danjon, F., Khlifa, R., Meredieu, C. and Trichet, P. (2015), Biomass and nutrients in tree root systems–sustainable harvesting of an intensively managed Pinus pinaster (Ait.) planted forest. GCB Bioenergy, 7: 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12127

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record
Who is involved in the use?
Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles
Unknown/not recorded
How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?
How many people outside the local area are employed
Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs
Unknown/Not recorded
Scale of Assessment
IUCN National Red List Category
IUCN Global Red List Category
Green Status Global Category
Yearly Financial Flows
No assessment recorded
Yes, considered sustainable
Country reference