“Simultaneous optimization model for thinning and harvesting Alnus acuminata and Pinus patula plantations in Southern Ecuador”

References

• Aguirre N. 2007. Silvicultural contributions to the reforestation with native species in the tropical mountain rainforest region of South Ecuador. Múnich, Alemania: Technischen Universität München, Center of Life and Food Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Aguirre N, Günter S, Weber M, Stimm B. 2006. Enrichment of Pinus patula plantations with native species in southern Ecuador. Lyonia. 10:33.
   Google Scholar
• Ahtikoski A, Kent J. 2011. Evaluación de la rentabilidad de plantaciones forestales en América tropical. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente. 64:13–21.
   Google Scholar
• Aimin H. 2010. Uncertainty, risk aversion and risk management in agriculture. Agric Agric Sci Procedia. 1:152–156.
   Google Scholar
• Aliber M, Hart TG. 2009. Should subsistence agriculture be supported as a strategy to address rural food insecurity? Agrekon. 48(4):434–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bare M, Ashton M. 2016. Growth of native tree species planted in montane reforestation projects in the Colombian and Ecuadorian Andes differs among sites and species. New For. 47(3):333–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodie JD, KAO C. 1979. Optimizing thinning in Douglas-fir with three-descriptor dynamic programming to account for accelerated diameter growth. For Sci. 25(N.4):665–672.
   Google Scholar
• Brown C. 2000. The global outlook for future wood supply from forest plantations (Vol. 3). Rome: FAO, Forestry Policy and Planning Division.
   Google Scholar
• Burgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N. 2004. Driving forces of landscape change-current and new directions. Landscape Ecol. 19:857–868.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buytaert W, Iñiguez V, De Bievre B. 2007. The effects of afforestation and cultivation on water yield in the Andean paramo. For Ecol Manag. 251(1-2):22–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castaño-Villa G, Ramos-Valencia S, Fontúrbe F. 2014. Fine-scale habitat structure complexity determines insectivorous bird diversity in a tropical forest. Acta Oecol. 61:19–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang S. 1981. Determination of the optimal growing stock and cutting cycle for an uneven-aged stand. For Sci. 27(4):739–744.
   Google Scholar
• Chang S, Gadow K. 2010. Application of the generalized Faustmann model to uneven-aged forest management. J For Econ. 16(4):313–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chazdon R. 2008. Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science. 320(5882):1458–1460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coad L, Campbell A, Miles L, Humphries K. 2008. The costs and benefits of protected areas for local livelihoods: a review of the current literature. Cambridge, UK: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Coordes R. 2014. Thinnings as unequal harvest ages in even-aged forest stands. For Sci. 60(4):677–690.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz-Balteiro L, Bertomeu M, Bertomeu M. 2009. Optimal harvest scheduling in Eucalyptus plantations: a case study in Galicia (Spain). For Policy Econ. 11(8):548–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn WW, Morgan P, Lynch AM. 1990. Production of alder (Alnus jorullensis) to meet fuelwood demand in the Sierra of Ecuador. Agrofor Syst. 10(3):199–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dvorak W, Kietzka J, Donahue J. 1996. Three-year survival and growth of provenances of Pinus greggii in the tropics and subtropics. For Ecol Manag. 83(1-2):123–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekholm T. 2016. Optimal forest rotation age under efficient climate change mitigation. For Policy Econ. 62:62–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farley K. 2007. Grasslands to tree plantations: forest transition in the Andes of Ecuador. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 97(4):755–771.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feliciano D, Bouriaud L, Brahic E, Deuffic P, Dobsinska Z, Jarsky V, Lawrence A, Nybackk E, Quiroga C, Suarez C, Ficjo A. 2017. Understanding private forest owners’ conceptualisation of forest management: evidence from a survey in seven European countries. J Rural Stud. 54:162–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez D. 1996. Modelos y técnicas de optimización forestal. Cuadernos de Estudios Empresariales. 6:33.
   Google Scholar
• Granda P. 2006. Monoculture tree plantations in Ecuador. Montevideo: World Rainforest Movement.
   Google Scholar
• Günter S, Gonzalez P, Álvarez G, Aguirre N, Palomeque X, Haubrich F, Weber M. 2009. Determinants for successful reforestation of abandoned pastures in the Andes: soil conditions and vegetation cover. For Ecol Manag. 258(2):81–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haight R, Monserud R, Chew J. 1992. Optimal harvesting with stand density targets: managing Rocky Mountain conifer stands for multiple forest outputs. For Sci. 38(3):554–574.
   Google Scholar
• Halbritter A, Deegen P. 2011. Economic analysis of exploitation and regeneration in plantations with problematic site productivity. J For Econ. 17(3):319–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halbritter A, Deegen P. 2015. A combined economic analysis of optimal planting density, thinning and rotation for an even-aged forest stand. For Policy Econ. 51:38–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hecht S, Morrison K, Padoch C, editors. 2014. The social lives of forests: past, present, and future of woodland resurgence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hentschel J, Waters W. 2002. Rural poverty in Ecuador: assessing local realities for the development of anti-poverty programs. World Dev. 30(1):33–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hildebrandt P, Knoke T. 2011. Investment decisions under uncertainty—a methodological review on forest science studies. For Policy Econ. 13(1):1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilt N, Fiedler K. 2008. Successional stages of faunal regeneration—a case study on megadiverse moths. In: Gradients in a tropical mountain ecosystem of Ecuador. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; p. 443–449.
   Google Scholar
• Hurttala H, Cao T, Valsta L. 2017. Optimization of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) management with the total net return from the value chain. J For Econ. 28:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyytiäinen K, Tahvonen O. 2002. Economics of forest thinnings and rotation periods for Finnish conifer cultures. Scand J For Res. 17(3):274–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Intriligator M. 2002. Mathematical optimization and economic theory. Soc Ind Appl Math. 1:5–16.
   Google Scholar
• Jarrett C, Cummins I, Logan-Hines E. 2017. Adapting indigenous agroforestry systems for integrative landscape management and sustainable supply chain development in Napo, Ecuador. In: Florencia Montagnini, editor. Integrating landscapes: agroforestry for biodiversity conservation and food sovereignty. Cham: Springer; p. 283–309.
   Google Scholar
• Khazri O, Lasserre P. 2011. Forest management: are double or mixed rotations preferable to clear cutting? Resour Energy Econ. 33:155–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoke T, Bendix J, Pohle P, Hamer U, Hildebrandt P, Roos K, Gerique A, Sandoval M, Breuer L, Tischer A, et al. 2014. Afforestation or intense pasturing improve the ecological and economic value of abandoned tropical farmlands. Nat Commun. 5:5612. doi:10.1038/ncomms6612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoke T, Calvas B, Aguirre N, Roman-Cuesta R, Günter S, Stimm B, Michael W, Mosandl R. 2009.: Can tropical farmers reconcile subsistence needs with forest conservation? Front Ecol Environ. 7(10):548–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoke T, Kindu M, Jarisch I, Gosling E, Friedrich S, Bödeker K, Paul C. 2020. How considering multiple criteria, uncertainty scenarios and biological interactions may influence the optimal silvicultural strategy for a mixed forest. For Policy Econ. 118:102239. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loisel P. 2014. Impact of storm risk on Faustmann rotation. For Policy Econ. 38:191–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu F, Gong P. 2003. Optimal stocking level and final harvest age with stochastic prices. J For Econ. 9(2):119–136.
   Google Scholar
• Messerer K, Kacprowsk T, Kolo H, Baumbach J, Knoke T. 2020. Importance of considering the growth response after partial harvesting and economic risk of discounted net revenues when optimizing uneven-aged forest management. Can J For Res. 50(5):487–499. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2018-0546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messerer K, Pretzsch H, Knoke T. 2017. A non-stochastic portfolio model for optimizing the transformation of an even-aged forest stand to continuous cover forestry when information about return fluctuation is incomplete. Ann For Sci. 74(2):2. doi:10.1007/s13595-017-0643-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería, Acuacultura y Pesca (MAGAP). 2014. Programa de Incentivos para la Reforestación con Fines Comerciales.
   Google Scholar
• Ministerio del Ambiente (MAE). 2012. Estimación de la Tasa de Deforestación del Ecuador Continental, Quito-Ecuador.
   Google Scholar
• Naranjo M. 2016. La política agropecuaria ecuatoriana: hacia el desarrollo territorial rural sostenible: 2015–2025. MAGAP, I parte. Quito-Ecuador.
   Google Scholar
• Pagiola S. 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ. 65(4):712–724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira J, Correia A, Correia A, Branco M, Bugalho M, Caldeira M, Reis R. 2002. Forests and biodiversity. Climate Change in Portugal. Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures.
   Google Scholar
• Quichimbo P, Jiménez L, Veintimilla D, Potthast K, Tischer A, Günter S, Hamer U. 2019. Nutrient dynamics in an Andean forest region: a case study of exotic and native species plantations in southern Ecuador. New For. 51(2):313–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quiroz Dahik C, Crespo P, Stimm B, Murtinho F, Weber M, Hildebrandt P. 2018. Contrasting stakeholders’ perceptions of pine plantations in the páramo ecosystem of Ecuador. Sustainability. 10(6):1707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raes L, D’Haese M, Aguirre N, Knoke T. 2016. A portfolio analysis of incentive programmes for conservation, restoration and timber plantations in Southern Ecuador. Land Use Policy. 51:244–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rößiger J, Griess V, Knoke T. 2011. May risk aversion lead to near-natural forestry? A simulation study. Forestry. 84(5):527–537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• St-Laurent GP, Hagerman S, Hoberg G. 2017. Barriers to the development of forest carbon offsetting: Insights from British Columbia, Canada. J Environ Manag. 203:208–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tahvonen O, Pukkala T, Laiho O, Lähde E, Niinimäki S. 2010. Optimal management of uneven-aged Norway spruce stands. For Ecol Manag. 260(1):106–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner IM. 1996. Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forest: a review of the evidence. J Appl Ecol. 200–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber M, Stimm B, Mosandl R. 2011. Review plantations for protective purposes and rehabilitation. In: Silviculture in the tropics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 475–490.
   Google Scholar
• Yemshanov D, McCarney G, Hauer G, Luckert M, Unterschultz J, McKenney D. 2015. A real options – net present value approach to assessing land use change: a case study of afforestation in Canada. For Policy Econ. 50:327–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanotti R, Galloway G. 1996. Manejo de plantaciones de coníferas: guía técnica para el extensionista forestal.
   Google Scholar
• Zhai D, Xu J, Dai Z, Schmidt-Vogt D. 2017. Lost in transition: forest transition and natural forest loss in tropical China. Plant Divers. 39(3):149–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Young D, Oliver W, Fiddler G. 2016. Effect of overstorey trees on understorey vegetation in California (USA) ponderosa pine plantations. Forestry: An Int J For Res. 89(1):91–99.
   Google Scholar