Structural characteristics of tropical broadleaves stands under effect of conventional and low impact logging plot in truong son forest enterprise quang binh province

ACKNOWLEDGMENT During months of conducting this working, I gained availed of encouragements and assistance from many people without whom this thesis would have never been conducted First and foremost, I would like to express my gratefulness to Dr Nguyen Hong Hai for constant support to each step of my thesis working, giving me motives and enthusiasm as well as a wealth of knowledge The guidance was really clear with vivid images and detailed illustration, which facilitated me a lot in thesis project, in another place, I would like to thank the Administration of Vietnam Forestry University, Faculty of Forest Resources and Environmental Management, Department of Environmental with sincere gratitude for enabling us all best to complete the graduation thesis Also, I sincerely express my thankfulness to many local people and authorities, both of whom untold assist me in collecting data and many other related procedures Finally, I also thank my family and all my friends, partners for best effort me the best facilitations to accomplish the thesis within expectations Thank you! Xuan Mai, 2nd October 2019 Student Nguyen Thi Hong Nhung TABLE OF CONTENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ABSTRACT CHAPTER - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Forest and forestry in the world 1.2 Forest and forestry in Viet Nam 1.3 Conventional Logging (CL) 1.4 Low Impact Logging (LIL) 1.5 Studying in Forest structure CHAPTER - GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Goals 2.2 Objectives 2.3 Methodology 2.3.1 Data collection 2.3.2 Data analysis CHAPTER - NATUAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITION OF THE STUDY REGION 11 3.1 Natural condition 11 3.2 Socio-economical condition 15 CHAPTER - RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 17 4.1 Forest stand properties 17 4.1.1 Main characteristics of two forest stands 17 4.1.2 Diameter distribution 19 4.1.3 Characteristics of tree individuals at life stages 20 4.2 Tree species composition 21 4.2.1 Tree species composition of two plots 22 4.2.2 Tree species compositions at life stages 25 4.3 Species diversity 26 4.3.1 Species diversity in two plots 26 4.3.2 Species diversity at life stages in two plots 27 4.4 Spatial distribution 28 4.4.1 Distribution of trees by life stages 28 4.4.2 Spatial distribution of dominant tree species 30 4.5 Some recommendations for sustainable forest management at Truong Son Forest Enterprise 33 4.5.1 Management solutions 34 4.5.2 Policy solutions 34 4.5.3 Technical solution 34 CHAPTER – CONCLUSION 36 5.1 Forest structure stand 36 5.2 Species composition 36 5.3 Species diversity 37 5.4 Spatial distribution 37 5.5 Proposing management solutions 38 REFERENCE APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Structural characteristics of tree species in LIL plot 17 Table 4.2 Structural characteristics of tree species in CL plot 18 Table 4.3 The most dominant tree species in LIL plot 22 Table 4.4 The most dominant tree species in CL plot 23 Table 4.5 The most dominant tree species base on life stages in two plots 25 Table 4.6 Summary of diversity measures for the two plots 27 Table 4.7 Summary of diversity measures for the study plots at life stage levels 28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 The location of the study site in Quang Binh Province 12 Figure 3.2 Climate graph by month in Quang Ninh district, Quang Binh province 13 Figure 3.3 Average temperature Quang Ninh district, Quang Binh province 14 Figure 4.1 Frequency of tree individuals and tree DBH in LIL plot 19 Figure 4.2 Frequency tree individuals and tree DBH in CL plot 20 Figure 4.3 Spatial distributions of life stages in LIL plot analyzed by the Ripley’s L function 28 Figure 4.4 Spatial distributions of life stages in CL plot analyzed by the Ripley’s L function 29 Figure 4.5: Spatial distributions of seven dominant species in LIL plot analyzed by the Ripley’s L function 31 Figure 4.6: Spatial distributions of seven dominant species in CL plot analyzed by the Ripley’s L function 33 ABSTRACT This study has aimed to show some structural characteristics of tropical broadleaves that stands under the effect of conventional and low impact logging in Truong Son Forest Enterprise, Quang Binh Province A total of plots of 100m x 50m each placed in two forest states were surveyed species name, diameter, height, relative coordinates We calculated and described structural parameters such as DBH dominance and species index, tree density, frequency distribution, and tree diameter and height data by Paleontological Statistics and Microsoft Excel softwares The results show that: most of studied species were found highly mixed with other species The number of trees per life stages and density of the forest state conventional logging concentrated on all diameter levels form sapling, juvenile, and adult, suggesting that this forested state will focus on all trees of economic value in Truong Son Forest Enterprise, while in the low impact logging concentrated mostly on diameter of more than 30 cm to keep the immature seedlings alive for future crops The number of trees in each life stage is inversely proportional to each other, the number of individuals decreases when the diameter becomes larger Species composition were very seriously affected because number of species in the life stage all changed The most important species found in both two forest states were G.pierrei, T.javanica, L glutinosa, B tonkinensis, P cerasoides About spatial distribution of two plot mainly clustered distribution but some species that are completely randomly distributed without the cluster distribution like G pierrei The spatial structural parameter offers direct information and valuable about spatial structure of forest stand That information can be used in thinning of sustainable forest management, modeling and restoration Key words: Forest enterprise, forest stand properties, LIL plot, CL plot, tropical broadleaves, tree species composition, tree species diversity, spatial distribution CHAPTER - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Forest and forestry in the world Geographically, tropical rain forests are currently found in Southeast Asia, Central and South America, and Central and West Africa (Richards, 1996; Whitemore, 1998), with Southeast Asia containing the second largest tropical rain forest with an area of about 2.5 million km2 (Whitemore, 1998) Globally, around 52% of the total forests are in tropical regions and they are known to be the most important areas in terms of biodiversity (Lewis et al., 2009) Tropical forests play a crucial role in three respects regarding the well-being of mankind Tropical forests provide many goods and ecosystem services, such as prevention of soil erosion and preservation of habitats for plants and animals (Anbarashan M and Parthasarathy N., 2013) Socially, millions of people who are living in or around tropical forests depend on them for the many forest products and environmental services gained (NaughtonTreves and Weber, 2001) Economically, they possess a main source of energy in the form of fuel wood, wood, and traditional medicines: they also provide timber and nontimber forest products It is therefore essential to understand the structures and species diversity of tropical forests in order to find a way to maintain, protect, and develop those ecosystems, Biotic factors such as seed quality, seedling survivorship, and recruitment are important in maintaining the tree composition of tropical forests (Connell 1971) Overexploitation has resulted in the rapid loss of forests and is recognized to be one of the biggest environmental and economic problems around the world (Mani and Parthasarathy 2006) The natural forest is disappearing at alarming rates worldwide, reducing annually by 1–4% of their current area (Laurance 1999) Relatively increased anthropogenic pressures have led to agricultural expansion and overgrazing of livestock (Anitha et al 2010) 1.2 Forest and forestry in Viet Nam Forest vegetation in Vietnam is diverse as a result of different climatic conditions and topographic/latitudinal variations (Thai, 1978; USAID, 2013) Vietnam has at present 13.7 million hectares of forest covering 41.45 % of its total land area; of these, 10.4 million hectares (75.2 % ) are natural forests (FPD, 2013) with 4.15 million is production forest and State Forest Enterprises (SFE) manage that can be classified into eight major forest groups: close-mixed evergreen broad-leaved rainforest, semideciduous mixed forest; mixed limestone forest; coniferous and mixed coniferous broad- leaved forest; sparse forest, seasonal deciduous forest and Dipterocarpsdominant forest; mangrove forest; Melaleuca forest (i.e., forest on alum land); and bamboo and mixed timber-bamboo forest As it is the case concerning other tropical forests, Vietnam's forests are high in diversity, and up to hundreds of different tree species can be found within one hectare (Whitmore, 1990; Richards, 1996) The result is a high level of biomass and productivity (Vanclay, 199la: Le, 1996; Sam, 2004; Gunter et al.,2011) 1.3 Conventional Logging (CL) CL is a term used to identify methods commonly used in an area to move logs from stump to mill (By U S Forest Service) It brings the highest economic efficiency but causes serious impacts on forest structure such as large areas of forests are often destroyed in order to remove the few selected logs One felled tree also often brings down other trees with it by falling into them on its way to the ground This creates large holes in the canopy which impacts the habitat in many ways and complete regeneration of this gap can take hundreds of years, if it is able to regenerate at all These gaps break habitats into smaller fragments, referred to as fragmentation, which threatens many species with endangerment or extinction 1.4 Low Impact Logging (LIL) LIL is considered better practice than clear-cutting (Gatti et al., 2014) It is increasingly being accepted as an approach to protecting forest integrity and enabling the proper use of resources This silvicultural technique is widely used because the growers want to keep the immature seedlings alive for future crops In other words, after the law impact logging, the rest retained the main structural elements of the forest as well as the various ecological niches an of pre-harvested values (Nzogang, 2009) Damage caused by LIL plot (LIL) was assessed in 18 plots each in a terra firm rain forest of Eastern Amazon (Brazil, Paragominas) Mean logging intensity was trees ha−1 and the resulting commercial volume 21 m³ ha−1 On average, logging damage affected 16% of the original stand while skid trails occupied 7% (661 m² ha−1) of forest soil area Canopy openness doubled to a mean of 11% Of the variables studied, “number of trees harvested or felled per plot” gave the best correlation to “proportion of damaged or destroyed trees” Damage to each diameter class was distributed in accordance with relative abundance of trees (DBH ≥ 20 cm) in the original population before logging, suggesting that all diameter classes were affected equally (P Sist, FN Ferreira, 2007) Tree injury and death from RIL in contrast, was substantially lower (30.5%) than from conventional methods (48.1%) (JG Bertault, P Sist, 1997) 1.5 Studying in Forest structure However, the majority of researching tropical forests in developing countries are still limited, consequently, the stand structures and species diversity of those forests are often insufficient for management Sustainable management of these forests requires a good knowledge of all the natural forest resource; this knowledge could be reliable only through studies of the forest environment (Hien Thu Thi Cao, Hong Hai Nguyen, 2019) Forest structure plays an important role in forestry research Forest structure greatly impacts the habitat of fauna and flora species Complex forest structures diversity microclimates, niches and habitats for maintaining the majority of terrestrial biodiversity Forest structure is the key to understanding and determining ecosystem functions The structure and distribution of forest patches regulates habitat structure, wildlife distribution and determines the delivery of ecosystem services In other words, the structure directly affects the biodiversity, erosion control, water availability and carbon storage functions of the forest Changing forest structure leads to changes in carbon stocks and evapotranspiration Indicators of forest structure are also a component that should be considered for sustainable forest management Species diversity can be influenced by tree diameter distributions Forest structure classifications can be practical and meaningful for ecological assessment and monitoring (Hung Manh Bui, 2018) Species diversity, species richness, and biodiversity are widely used terms in ecology and natural resource management In general, the species diversity of a community is made up of two components: species richness (or the number of species present) and the evenness, species equitability species (Pielou, 1966; Patil and Rao, 1994), or abundance of each Hamilton (2005) reports that there have been two approaches to measuring species diversity: the first involves constructing mathematical indices broadly known as diversity indices, and the second requires comparing observed patterns of species abundance to theoretical species abundance models Species diversity indices take two aspects of the community into account: species richness and evenness (Hamilton, 2005) In this study, species richness, the Shannon-Wiener the Simpson indices, and the diversity profile are computed to evaluate and compare the diversity of tree species in the for study sites (Hien Thu Thi Cao, 2016) A diversity index is a quantitative measure that reflects how many different types (such as species) there are in a dataset, and simultaneously takes into account how evenly the basic entities (such as individuals) are distributed among those types The value of a diversity index increases both when the number of types increases and when evenness increases For a given number of types, the value of a diversity index is maximized when all types are equally abundant When diversity indices are used in ecology, the types of interest are usually species, but they can also be other categories, such as genera, families, functional types or haplotypes The entities of interest are usually individual plants or animals, and the measure of abundance can be, for example, number of individuals, biomass or coverage In demography, the entities of interest can be people, and the types of interest various demographic groups In information science, the entities can be characters and the types the different letters of the alphabet The most commonly used diversity indices are simple transformations of the effective number of types (also known as 'true diversity'), but each diversity index can also be interpreted in its own right as a measure corresponding to some real phenomenon (but a different one for each diversity index) (Source: Google scholar) APPENDIX Table List of tree species in two plot No VietNamese name Scientific name ab t Mallotus paniculatus Ba soi Mallotus paniculatus i l i nh t Litsea glutinosa i l i v ng Litsea pierrei p l ng Actinodaphne pinosa p v ng Actinodaphne pinosa a Garcinia oblongifolia b i bung căng sp 10 Chân chim Schefflera heptaphilla 11 Chay l b Artocarpus styracifolius 12 Ch o t a Engelhardtia roxburghiana 13 Cho i Terminalia bellirica 14 Ch a Garuga pierrei 15 Chua h t Chukrasia tabulais var velutina 16 Chua lu Bursera tonkinensis 17 C m t ng Eleocarpus dubius 18 D uh i sp 19 D ur i Dipterocarpus alatus 20 D gai 21 D n c Acronychia pedunculata Castanopsis tonkinensiss Xylopia vielana 22 n3l 23 Du mo c Cassine glauca 24 Dung gi y Symplocos laurina 25 Gi i xanh Michelia mediocris 26 G i en Amoora gigantea 27 G i tr ng Aglaia elaeagnoidea Vitex trifolia 28 G m t Sindora cochinchinensis 29 Hu nh Tarrietia javanica 30 Kh ng Koilodepas longifolium 31 Leo heo Polyalthia thorelii (Pierre) Fin & Gagnep 32 Lim xanh Erythrophfloeum fordii 33 Llim x t Peltophorum tonkinense 34 L ng b ng Dillenia turbinata 35 M n Archidendron clypearia 36 M u ch Knema pierrei 37 Mtn i Artocarpus rigidus ssp 38 Mua Melastoma candidum 39 Nang Alangium ridleyi 40 Ng t v ng Gironniera Subaequalis 41 Ng Oligoceras eberhardtii 42 Nh n i Diospyros apiculata 43 Nh c en Polyalthia cerasoides 44 R ng r ng m t Ormosia balansae 45 Re g ng (b u) Cinnamomun bejolghota 46 Săng ch ( 47 Săng l sp 48 Săng mây Antheroporum pierrei 49 S nm t Madhuca pasquieri 50 S ita Balakata baccata 51 Sung Ficus fistulosa 52 T um t Vatica odorata subsp odorata 53 Trăm sp 54 Trâm Syzygium zeylanicum 55 Tr m tr ng Canarium album 56 Trâm tr ng Syzygium wightianum 57 Tr Nephelium melliferum a ng trung b ) Xanthophyllum annamense ng ch m 58 59 Tr ng m t ng tr ng 60 o i r ng 61 ng c Paviesia annamensis Endosperrmun sinensis Mangifera flava Canthium dicoccum Table Structural characteristics of tree species in two plots LIL plot No Species E roxburghiana N DBH (cm) H (m) G (m²) V (m³) 26 32.06±9.12 20.19±5.32 2.3937 23.2428 T javanica 172 3.89±9.04 4.00±5.28 0.2713 1.0923 G pierrei 55 11.63±9.10 8.34±5.29 1.5070 13.1676 E sinensis 25 22.66±9.06 15.24±5.37 1.2663 10.5419 L glutinosa 76 7.83±9.06 7.23±5.28 0.5735 3.0213 B tonkinensis 88 6.47±9.09 5.18±5.30 0.4153 1.6479 S laurina 42 14.58±9.07 13.63±5.32 0.9122 7.7061 C bejolghota 53 10.36±8.97 8.95±5.27 0.6998 4.9464 G Subaequalis 50 9.56±9.07 6.44±5.29 0.6922 3.7739 10 O balansae 43 12.52±9.08 11.27±5.30 0.7687 5.7545 11 P annamensis 77 5.91±9.03 6.25±5.27 0.2934 1.3268 12 P cerasoides 75 5.01±9.07 3.82±5.29 0.1645 0.3210 13 C album 39 10.73±9.11 9.46±5.30 0.4448 2.5082 14 A gigantea 32 7.50±9.12 5.68±5.31 0.2438 1.1091 15 V odorata 28.82±9.14 15.5±5.62 0.5667 5.2762 16 E fordii 13 14.55±9.13 10.19±5.32 0.4394 3.8817 17 A ridleyi 25 7.71±9.02 6.44±5.30 0.2003 1.3294 18 S wightianum 20 9.41±9.17 7.9±5.33 0.1868 0.9799 19 K longifolium 24 7.09±8.88 5.06±5.29 0.1347 0.5054 20 S heptaphilla 18.25±9.12 13.77±5.42 0.2935 2.0590 21 K pierrei 19 8.90±9.17 8±5.32 0.1518 0.7581 22 P thorelii 16.65±8.91 11.07±5.53 0.3003 3.0782 23 M paniculatus 28 3.35±9.09 3.98±5.39 0.0260 0.0490 24 L pierrei 19 7.79±8.99 5.78±5.37 0.1311 0.4721 25 B glauca 19 7.14±8.97 6.97±5.27 0.0898 0.3463 26 A pierrei 20.16±8.96 15±5.35 0.2125 1.5208 27 S cochinchinensis 12.37±9.15 9.57±5.42 0.1483 1.0494 28 G oblongifolia 15 4.39±8.96 4±5.33 0.0261 0.0600 29 M pasquieri 12.30±9.07 11.25±5.37 0.1017 0.6042 30 M mediocris 11.27±8.51 8.4±5.53 0.1147 0.9374 31 X vielana 10.50±9.08 9.08±5.41 0.0724 0.4175 32 V trifolia 12.65±9.43 7.5±5.55 0.0911 0.5731 33 B tabulais 38.85±9.00 18±5.35 0.1186 0.9604 34 N melliferum 13.37±8.95 7.33±5.32 0.0839 0.4817 35 sp5 8.81±8.99 6.83±5.16 0.0390 0.1127 36 A rigidus 11.46±9.19 8.25±5.60 0.0460 0.1858 37 Sp4 31.84±7.84 19±5.04 0.0797 0.6811 38 D turbinata 4.40±9.18 3.83±5.33 0.0096 0.0180 39 Ar styracifolius 14.80±9.07 12±5.20 0.0418 0.2975 40 C apiculata 3.18±9.07 3±5.63 0.0032 0.0043 41 B baccata 18.47±8.98 17±5.36 0.0268 0.2050 42 C dicoccum 5.57±8.74 6.25±5.33 0.0049 0.0138 43 A clypearia 4.14±8.97 5±5.17 0.0013 0.0030 Grand Total 1124 5.87±9.06 6.73±5.52 14.3888 107.0206 Table Structural characteristics of tree species in two plots CL plot No Species N DBH (cm) H(m) G(m²) V (m³) G pierrei 54 12.4 ±8.85 8.62 ±4.87 1.4439 12.379 O balansae 40 15.57± 8.83 12.23 ± 4.89 1.1491 9.3136 C album 48 13.56 ± 8.59 10.14 ± 4.82 1.0066 7.0379 P annamensis 65 8.89±8.66 7.82±4.88 0.7079 4.3367 P cerasoides 91 5.50±8.61 4.12±4.85 0.2505 0.6322 M aniculatus 90 4.02±8.63 4.72±4.86 0.1202 0.2702 T javanica 71 5.56±8.63 5.66±4.82 0.3378 2.5372 D fordii 21 18.06±8.66 12.23±4.88 0.9218 8.5243 B tonkinensis 68 6.29±8.66 5.13±4.88 0.264 0.8687 10 L glutinosa 47 8.74±8.63 7.78±4.86 0.4814 3.2791 11 C tonkinensiss 40 10.02±8.70 8.02±4.84 0.5484 3.5062 12 A gigantea 44 8.05±8.40 6.70±4.85 0.3317 1.5462 13 B bejolghota 21 11.13±8.64 9.42±4.87 0.3232 2.3834 14 D sinensis 28 5.89±8.71 5.58±4.85 0.1271 0.767 15 P pierre) 25.28±8.72 16.6±4.94 0.391 4.3491 13 13.54±8.84 9.76±4.87 0.2667 1.6677 17 V trifolia 26.75±8.56 12.16±4.86 0.3431 1.9237 18 S laurina 19 8.78±8.47 8.05±4.86 0.1474 0.764 19 K longifolium 25 5.46±8.75 3.72±4.84 0.075 0.1859 20 G Subaequalis 20 8.07±8.78 6.6±4.84 0.1313 0.5484 21 C glauca 15 9.97±8.68 8.4±4.82 0.1823 1.1278 22 V odorata 33.28±8.71 13.5±5.12 0.3193 3.4421 23 L pierrei 21 8.74±8.63 7.78±4.85 0.0714 0.1919 24 G oblongifolia 15 8.21±8.78 7.3±4.82 0.1056 0.5381 25 S heptaphilla 11 8.80±8.85 7.22±4.85 0.1426 0.8546 26 A pierrei 16.08±8.66 12.83±4.86 0.1341 0.8624 27 K pierrei 10 8.98±8.68 8.1±4.86 0.0858 0.5196 16 S cochinchinensis 28 D apiculata 8.31±8.67 7.44±5.00 0.0653 0.3116 29 S zeylanicum 44.58±9.19 21±4.98 0.1561 1.4754 30 sp1 28.02±8.68 15.5±4.88 0.144 1.0727 31 E dubius 19.32±9.23 13.66±5.02 0.1202 0.9979 32 O eberhardtii 41.40±8.68 22±4.86 0.1346 1.3328 33 E alatus 35.03±9.13 24±4.97 0.0964 1.041 34 sp2 5.99±9.11 7.16±4.93 0.0206 0.0874 35 A ridleyi 5.62±9.17 7.66±4.99 0.0157 0.0581 36 A pinosa 4,98±9.23 4.16±5.02 0.0141 0.0361 37 A rigidus ssp 30.57±9.27 10±4.97 0.0734 0.3304 38 F roxburghiana 28.66±9.06 22±4.97 0.0645 0.6388 39 M mediocris 4.01±8.89 4±4.89 0.0067 0.0141 40 A elaeagnoidea 5.62±8.62 6±4.86 0.0099 0.0366 41 B baccata 20.07±9.09 16±4.91 0.0337 0.2423 42 A clypearia 5.73±8.63 6.33±4.83 0.0082 0.0255 43 M pasquieri 10.82±9.36 11±5.02 0.0184 0.0908 44 T bellirica 19.10±9.19 12±5.07 0.0287 0.1549 45 M paniculatus 5.73±9.04 7±5.03 0.0057 0.0212 46 B dicoccum 14.33±8.91 10±4.96 0.0161 0.0726 47 A pedunculata 10.50±8.67 9±4.86 0.0087 0.0351 48 sp3 8.59±8.61 8±4.65 0.0058 0.0209 49 C turbinata 5.09±9.98 6±5.00 0.002 0.0055 50 M candidum 2.86±9.81 4±4.91 0.0006 0.0012 955 23.76±9.08 8.06±6.32 11.4587 82.46 Grand Total Table Characteristic of individual base on diameter levels in LIL plot Sapling (DBH < 10 cm) No Species N DBH (cm) T javanica 170 H (m) G (m²/ha) V (m³) 2.54 ± 9.5 2±9 0.2094 0.4452 B tonkinensis 76 2.86 ± 8.59 2.5 ± 0.1666 0.3651 P cerasoides 75 2.86 ± 9.5 2±9 0.1645 0.3210 P annamensis 66 1.33 ± 9.5 ± 10 0.1350 0.4184 L glutinosa 55 1.05 ± 9.55 2.5 ± 12 0.1199 0.3618 G pierrei 39 2.86 ± 9.58 2.5 ± 12 0.1190 0.3927 Other species 344 2.54 ± 9.87 ± 16 0.8390 2.4004 Total 825 1.05 ± 9.87 ± 16 1.7534 4.7045 Juvenile (10 < DBH < 30 cm) No Species S laurina 26 17.45 ± 4.95 16.5 ± 4.02 0.6895 5.8121 D bejolghota 17 18.04 ± 4.85 15.47 ± 3.96 0.5136 3.8538 O balansae 19 16.7 ± 4.68 14.36 ± 0.4475 3.1638 B album 21 14.9 ± 3.81 12.23 ± 3.7 0.3944 2.347 L glutinosa 19 13.87 ± 2.66 11.73 ± 3.17 0.3006 1.6593 E sinensis 12 18.76 ± 4.27 15.75 ± 3.82 0.3517 2.6267 Other species 11 10.19 ± 4.47 13.27 ± 3.57 2.8723 17.701 242 16.36 ± 4.98 13.3 ± 4.08 5.5697 37.164 Total N DBH (cm) H (m) G(m²/ha) V (m³) Adult (DBH > 30 cm) No Species N DBH (cm) H(m) G(m²/ha) V (m³) 17 38.89 ± 6.21 22 ± 3.34 2.0875 20.746 F roxburghiana F sinensis 35.6 ± 3.22 19.33 ± 3.33 0.9035 7.885 G pierrei 56.52 ± 10.37 20.5 ± 3.27 1.1346 11.237 V odorata 45.54 ± 7.15 15 ± 3.34 0.5251 5.0303 Other species 24 30.25 ± 7.8 15 ± 3.32 2.415 20.254 Total 57 38.43 ± 10.14 19.68 ± 3.43 7.0658 65.152 Table Characteristic of individual base on diameter levels in CL plot Sapling (DBH < 10 cm) No Row Labels N DBH (cm) H (m) G (m²/ha) V (m³) P cerasoides 88 5.24 ± 1.724 3.97 ± 2.31 0.2076 0.4239 M paniculatus 90 4.02 ± 1.26 4.96 ± 1.91 0.1202 0.2702 C tonkinensis 58 5.24 ± 1.78 4.13 ± 2.34 0.1408 0.3303 T javanica 65 4.29 ± 1.75 4.73 ± 2.33 0.1076 0.316 P annamensis 47 5.23 ± 1.8 5.75 ± 2.35 0.1158 0.3824 H pierrei 36 5.63 ± 1.8 5.77 ± 2.38 0.0987 0.3007 L glutinosa 34 5.36 ± 1.78 5.56 ± 2.33 0.0869 0.2564 Other species 296 5.76 ± 1.82 5.23 ± 2.18 0.7513 2.2688 Grand total 714 5.06 ± 1.83 5.07 ± 2.36 1.6289 4.5487 Juvenile (10 < DBH < 30 cm) No Species N DBH (cm) H (m) G (m²/ha) V (m³) D album 24 17.86 ± 5.41 12.25 ± 3.61 0.6586 4.29 O balansae 20 11.46 ± 5.43 15.75 ± 4.01 0.6098 4.6309 A gigantea 13 15.33 ± 4.48 10.54 ± 2.18 0.2635 1.351 P annamensis 14 14.21 ± 5.13 12.57 ± 2.55 0.2394 1.4015 B tonkinensiss 10 18.8 ± 5.05 12.6 ± 2.1 0.3113 1.8622 G pierrei 12 15.71 ± 5.02 11.33 ± 2.56 0.2594 1.5277 V trifolia 26.75 ± 5.13 12.17 ± 1.3 0.3431 1.9237 Other species 103 10.19 ± 5.07 13.16 ± 3.5 1.9994 12.056 Grand Total 202 16.3 ± 5.43 12.2 ± 4.01 4.6845 29.043 Adult (DBH > 30 cm) No Species N DBH (cm) H (m) G (m²/ha) V (m³) H pierrei 46.39 ± 9.86 20.33 ± 2.15 1.0858 10.551 E fordii 44.58 ± 10.54 23 ± 1.53 0.6592 6.9309 O balansae 39.5 ± 4.86 20.25 ± 0.502 4.5619 P annamensis 33,3 ± 3.97 15.5 ± 2.7 0.3528 2.5528 C album 35.03 ± 4.82 19.67 ± 1.47 0.2908 2.5583 P Fin & Gagnep 46.81 ± 10.81 25.5 ± 0.7 0.3534 4.0305 Other species 16 30.57 ± 9.83 10 ± 2.3 1.9013 17.683 Total 39 39.89 ± 9.53 20.02 ± 3.9 5.1452 48.868 Table The most important tree species in LIL plot No Species N (%) G (%) IV (%) Engelhardtia roxburghiana 2.31 16.6359 9.47 Tarrietia javanica 15.30 1.8852 8.59 Garuga pierrei 4.89 10.4731 7.68 Endosperrmun sinensis 2.22 8.8008 5.51 Litsea glutinosa 6.76 3.9860 5.37 Bursera tonkinensis 7.83 2.8861 5.36 Symplocos laurina 3.74 6.3400 5.04 Cinnamomun bejolghota 4.72 4.8636 4.79 Gironniera Subaequalis 4.45 4.8104 4.63 10 Ormosia balansae 3.83 5.3423 4.58 11 Paviesia annamensis 6.85 2.0388 4.44 12 Polyalthia cerasoides 6.67 1.1435 3.91 13 Canarium album 3.47 3.0916 3.28 14 Amoora gigantea 2.85 1.6941 2.27 15 Vatica odorata subsp odorata 0.53 3.9387 2.24 16 Erythrophfloeum fordii 1.16 3.0538 2.11 17 Alangium ridleyi 2.22 1.3921 1.81 18 Syzygium wightianum 1.78 1.2983 1.54 19 Koilodepas longifolium 2.14 0.9359 1.54 20 Schefflera heptaphilla 0.80 2.0398 1.42 21 Knema pierrei 1.69 1.0552 1.37 22 Polyalthia thorelii (Pierre) Fin & Gagnep 0.62 2.0872 1.36 23 Mallotus paniculatus 2.49 0.1808 1.34 24 Litsea pierrei 1.69 0.9112 1.30 25 Cassine glauca 1.69 0.6244 1.16 26 Antheroporum pierrei 0.53 1.4767 1.01 Sindora cochinchinensis 0.62 1.0308 0.83 28 Garcinia oblongifolia 1.33 0.1815 0.76 29 Madhuca pasquieri 0.71 0.7071 0.71 30 Michelia mediocris 0.44 0.7975 0.62 31 Xylopia vielana 0.53 0.5031 0.52 32 Vitex trifolia 0.36 0.6331 0.49 33 Chukrasia tabulais var velutina 0.09 0.8240 0.46 34 Nephelium melliferum 0.27 0.5834 0.43 35 sp5 0.53 0.2713 0.40 36 Artocarpus rigidus ssp 0.36 0.3199 0.34 37 Sp4 0.09 0.5536 0.32 38 Dillenia turbinata 0.53 0.0666 0.30 39 Artocarpus styracifolius 0.18 0.2906 0.23 40 Diospyros apiculata 0.36 0.0224 0.19 41 Balakata baccata 0.09 0.1862 0.14 42 Canthium dicoccum 0.18 0.0339 0.11 43 Archidendron clypearia 0.09 0.0094 0.05 44 Grand Total 100 100 100 Table The most important tree species in CL plot No Species N (%) G (%) IV (%) Garuga pierrei 5.65 12.6010 9.13 Ormosia balansae 4.19 10.0285 7.11 Canarium album 5.03 8.7842 6.91 Paviesia annamensis 6.81 6.1783 6.49 Polyalthia cerasoides 9.53 2.1861 5.86 Mallotus paniculatus 9.42 1.0494 5.24 Tarrietia javanica 7.43 2.9480 5.19 Erythrophfloeum fordii 2.20 8.0447 5.12 Bursera tonkinensis 7.12 2.3040 4.71 10 Litsea glutinosa 4.92 4.2009 4.56 11 Castanopsis tonkinensiss 4.19 4.7857 4.49 12 Amoora gigantea 4.61 2.8948 3.75 13 Cinnamomun bejolghota 2.20 2.8206 2.51 14 Endosperrmun sinensis 2.93 1.1091 2.02 15 Polyalthia thorelii (Pierre) Fin & Gagnep 0.52 3.4119 1.97 16 Sindora cochinchinensis 1.36 2.3274 1.84 17 Vitex trifolia 0.63 2.9946 1.81 18 Symplocos laurina 1.99 1.2862 1.64 19 Koilodepas longifolium 2.62 0.6541 1.64 20 Gironniera Subaequalis 2.09 1.1456 1.62 21 Cassine glauca 1.57 1.5906 1.58 22 Vatica odorata subsp odorata 0.21 2.7863 1.50 23 Litsea pierrei 2.20 0.6233 1.41 24 Garcinia oblongifolia 1.57 0.9217 1.25 25 Schefflera heptaphilla 1.15 1.2441 1.20 26 Antheroporum pierrei 0.63 1.1701 0.90 Knema pierrei 1.05 0.7490 0.90 28 Diospyros apiculata 0.94 0.5701 0.76 29 Syzygium zeylanicum 0.10 1.3626 0.73 30 sp1 0.21 1.2569 0.73 31 Eleocarpus dubius 0.31 1.0486 0.68 32 Oligoceras eberhardtii 0.10 1.1749 0.64 33 Dipterocarpus alatus 0.10 0.8412 0.47 34 sp2 0.63 0.1798 0.40 35 Alangium ridleyi 0.63 0.1370 0.38 36 Actinodaphne pinosa 0.63 0.1233 0.38 37 Artocarpus rigidus ssp 0.10 0.6407 0.37 38 Engelhardtia roxburghiana 0.10 0.5631 0.33 39 Michelia mediocris 0.52 0.0583 0.29 40 Aglaia elaeagnoidea 0.31 0.0865 0.20 41 Balakata baccata 0.10 0.2937 0.20 42 Archidendron clypearia 0.31 0.0715 0.19 43 Madhuca pasquieri 0.21 0.1609 0.19 44 Terminalia bellirica 0.10 0.2503 0.18 45 Mallotus paniculatus 0.21 0.0501 0.13 46 Canthium dicoccum 0.10 0.1408 0.12 47 Acronychia pedunculata 0.10 0.0757 0.09 48 sp3 0.10 0.0507 0.08 49 Dillenia turbinata 0.10 0.0178 0.06 50 Melastoma candidum 0.10 0.0056 0.06 Grand Total 100 100 100 ... effect of conventional and low impact logging plot in Truong Son Forest Enterprise, Quang Binh Province? ?? To study effect of conventional and low impact logging plot on structural characteristics of. .. broadleaves that stands under the effect of conventional and low impact logging in Truong Son Forest Enterprise, Quang Binh Province A total of plots of 100m x 50m each placed in two forest states were... and natural tropical broadleaf in Truong Son Forest Enterprise, Quang Binh province in particular, it is necessary to study: ? ?Structural characteristics of tropical broadleaves stands under effect