IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v13y2024i5p62-d1381892.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different Approaches of Forest Type Classifications for Argentina Based on Functional Forests and Canopy Cover Composition by Tree Species

Author

Listed:
  • Guillermo J. Martínez Pastur

    (Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Houssay 200, Ushuaia 9410, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina)

  • Dante Loto

    (Instituto de Silvicultura y Manejo de Bosques Nativos (INSIMA), Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero (UNSE), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Belgrano 1912, Santiago del Estero 4200, Santiago del Estero, Argentina)

  • Julián Rodríguez-Souilla

    (Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Houssay 200, Ushuaia 9410, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina)

  • Eduarda M. O. Silveira

    (SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

  • Juan M. Cellini

    (Laboratorio de Investigaciones en Maderas (LIMAD), Universidad Nacional de la Plata (UNLP), Diagonal 113 469, La Plata 1900, Buenos Aires, Argentina)

  • Pablo L. Peri

    (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (UNPA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), cc 332, Río Gallegos 9400, Santa Cruz, Argentina)

Abstract

Modern forestry systems rely on typologies of forest types (FTs). In Argentina, several proposals have been developed, but they lack unified criteria. The objective was to compare different approaches, specifically focusing on (i) phenoclusters (functional forests based on vegetation phenology variations and climate variables) and (ii) forest canopy cover composition by tree species. We conducted comparative uni-variate analyses using data from national forest inventories, forest models (biodiversity, carbon, structure), and regional climate. We assessed the performance of phenoclusters in differentiating the variability of native forests (proxy: forest structure), biodiversity (proxy: indicator species), and environmental factors (proxies: soil carbon stock, elevation, climate). Additionally, we proposed a simple FT classification methodology based on species composition, considering the basal area of tree species. Finally, we compared the performance of both proposals. Our findings showed that classifications based on forest canopy cover composition are feasible to implement in regions dominated by mono-specific forests. However, phenoclusters allowed for the increased complexity of categories at the landscape level. Conversely, in regions where multi-specific stands prevailed, classifications based on forest canopy cover composition proved ineffective; however, phenoclusters facilitated a reduction in complexity at the landscape level. These results offer a pathway to harmonize national FT classifications by employing criteria and indicators to achieve sustainable forest management and conservation initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Guillermo J. Martínez Pastur & Dante Loto & Julián Rodríguez-Souilla & Eduarda M. O. Silveira & Juan M. Cellini & Pablo L. Peri, 2024. "Different Approaches of Forest Type Classifications for Argentina Based on Functional Forests and Canopy Cover Composition by Tree Species," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:62-:d:1381892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/13/5/62/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/13/5/62/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerrie A. Wilson & Marissa F. McBride & Michael Bode & Hugh P. Possingham, 2006. "Prioritizing global conservation efforts," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7082), pages 337-340, March.
    2. Canedoli, Claudia & Ferrè, Chiara & Abu El Khair, Davide & Comolli, Roberto & Liga, Claudio & Mazzucchelli, Francesca & Proietto, Angela & Rota, Noemi & Colombo, Giacomo & Bassano, Bruno & Viterbi, R, 2020. "Evaluation of ecosystem services in a protected mountain area: Soil organic carbon stock and biodiversity in alpine forests and grasslands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lennox, Gareth D. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2011. "Suitability of short or long conservation contracts under ecological and socio-economic uncertainty," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2856-2866.
    2. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Seung Gyu & Roberts, Roland K. & Jung, Suhyun, 2009. "Amenity values of spatial configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the Southern Appalachian Highlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2646-2657, August.
    3. Tara G Martin & Iadine Chadès & Peter Arcese & Peter P Marra & Hugh P Possingham & D Ryan Norris, 2007. "Optimal Conservation of Migratory Species," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-5, August.
    4. Mathieu Bonneau & Régis Sabbadin & Fred A Johnson & Bradley Stith, 2018. "Dynamic minimum set problem for reserve design: Heuristic solutions for large problems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Simone Ravetto Enri & Fabio Petrella & Fabrizio Ungaro & Laura Zavattaro & Andrea Mainetti & Giampiero Lombardi & Michele Lonati, 2021. "Relative Importance of Plant Species Composition and Environmental Factors in Affecting Soil Carbon Stocks of Alpine Pastures (NW Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, October.
    6. Claron, Charles & Mikou, Mehdi & Levrel, Harold & Tardieu, Léa, 2022. "Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: The case of the Greater Paris metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    7. Mallory, Mindy L. & Ando, Amy W., 2014. "Implementing efficient conservation portfolio design," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-18.
    8. Takuya Iwamura & Kerrie A Wilson & Oscar Venter & Hugh P Possingham, 2010. "A Climatic Stability Approach to Prioritizing Global Conservation Investments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-9, November.
    9. Nadine Marshall & Neil Adger & Simon Attwood & Katrina Brown & Charles Crissman & Christopher Cvitanovic & Cassandra De Young & Margaret Gooch & Craig James & Sabine Jessen & Dave Johnson & Paul Marsh, 2017. "Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-9, March.
    10. Daniele Silvestro & Stefano Goria & Thomas Sterner & Alexandre Antonelli, 2022. "Improving biodiversity protection through artificial intelligence," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(5), pages 415-424, May.
    11. Fred A. Johnson & Mitchell J. Eaton & James H. Williams & Gitte H. Jensen & Jesper Madsen, 2015. "Training Conservation Practitioners to be Better Decision Makers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-20, June.
    12. Jonathan O. Hernandez & Inocencio E. Buot & Byung Bae Park, 2022. "Prioritizing Choices in the Conservation of Flora and Fauna: Research Trends and Methodological Approaches," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, September.
    13. Phillis, Yannis A. & Kouikoglou, Vassilis S., 2012. "System-of-Systems hierarchy of biodiversity conservation problems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 235, pages 36-48.
    14. Stephen T Garnett & Liana N Joseph & James E M Watson & Kerstin K Zander, 2011. "Investing in Threatened Species Conservation: Does Corruption Outweigh Purchasing Power?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    15. Laycock, Helen F. & Moran, Dominic & Smart, James C.R. & Raffaelli, David G. & White, Piran C.L., 2011. "Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1789-1796, August.
    16. Pablo L. Peri & Juan Gaitán & Boris Díaz & Leandro Almonacid & Cristian Morales & Francisco Ferrer & Romina Lasagno & Julián Rodríguez-Souilla & Guillermo Martínez Pastur, 2024. "Vegetation Type Mapping in Southern Patagonia and Its Relationship with Ecosystem Services, Soil Carbon Stock, and Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, February.
    17. Tianlin Zhai & Mingyuan Chang & Yingchao Li & Longyang Huang & Ye Chen & Guanyu Ding & Chenchen Zhao & Ling Li & Weiqiang Chen & Panfeng Zhang & Enxiang Cai & Caiyan Lei & Jing Wang, 2023. "Integrating Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Ecosystem Services into Spatial Optimization of Urban Functions," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-25, August.
    18. Ruiqing Miao & David A. Hennessy & Hongli Feng, 2022. "Grassland easement evaluation and acquisition with uncertain conversion and conservation returns," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(1), pages 41-61, March.
    19. Hinojosa Flores, Isaías Daniel & Skutsch, Margaret & Mustalahti, Irmeli, 2016. "Impacts of Finnish cooperation in the Mexican policy making process: From the community forest management to the liberalization of forest services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 229-238.
    20. Wang, Han & Lu, Siying & Lu, Bo & Nie, Xin, 2021. "Overt and covert: The relationship between the transfer of land development rights and carbon emissions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    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:jresou:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:62-:d:1381892. 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.