CARBON CHANGES FROM DIFFERENT HARVESTING TECHNIQUES IN PAHANG,
MALAYSIA
Azian M.1, Nur Hajar Z.S.1, Yusoff, M.2 & Norhaidi, Y.3
1
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, 52109 Selangor.
Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
3
Forestry Department of Pahang, Kuantan, Pahang.
2
FRIM-ITTO REDDES Project
Reducing Forest Degradation and Emissions Through
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) in Peninsular Malaysia
RED-PD 037/11 REV. 2(F)
PROJECT BRIEF NO. 4/2015
INTRODUCTION
Forests are important mitigation tool of climate change
as it can sequester and store more carbon than any other
terrestrial ecosystem. When forests are cleared or
degraded, their stored carbon is released into the
atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2). Hence, assessment
of carbon stocks in secondary, logged or other nonprimary forests are needed to estimate the emissions
from forest degradation and deforestation (Gibbs et al.
2007). Tropical deforestation has become one of the
growing concerns as it is estimated to have released the
order of 1–2 billion tonnes of carbon per year during the
1990s, roughly 15–25% of annual global greenhouse gas
emissions (Malhi & Grace, 2000; Fearnside & Laurance
2004). Efficient logging systems are able to lessen the
climate change brought about by the degradation
process. Therefore, this study aims to prove that using
low impact logging (LIL) system releases lesser carbon
dioxide as compared to using reduced impact logging
(RIL) system, thereby reducing the impact on the
environment.
METHODOLOGY
The area being studied to assess the carbon changes
from different harvesting techniques is a virgin jungle
forest located in Pahang, Malaysia which is the Ulu Jelai
Forest Reserve (Figure 1). The two harvesting techniques
being used to assess the carbon changes are RIL and LIL.
A total of eight compartments were assessed, consisting
of four compartments for the RIL technique and four
compartments for the LIL technique which are presented
in Table 1. The above ground biomass (AGB) and below
ground biomass (BGB) were calculated using the
formulas derived by Kato (1978), Chave et al. (2005) and
Niiyama et al. (2010) respectively. The total biomass (AGB
+ BGB) was then used to calculate for the total carbon
changes and carbon equivalent for both the RIL and LIL
respectively.
Table 1. Logging techniques and their respective
compartments
Logging method
LITERATURE REVIEW
According to the International Tropical Timber
Organization (2005), forest degradation can be defined
as a direct human-induced loss of forest values
(particularly carbon), likely to be characterized by a
reduction of tree crown cover. Reduced impact logging
(RIL) system comprises of the use of crawler tractor,
whereas LIL system comprises of the use of Rimbaka
timber harvester. In the early 1990s, RIL was commonly
practiced in some forest areas in Peninsular Malaysia.
However, the implementation of RIL depletes carbon
containing organic matter from the forest floor resulting
in considerable reduction in regeneration and growth of
trees (Agherkakli et al. 2010). In 2001, the
environmentally-friendly Rimbaka timber harvester was
introduced, minimising the use of crawler tractors. The
Rimbaka timber harvester is able to access areas that are
known to be difficult and dangerous for crawler tractors
(Norizah et al. 2012).
LIL
RIL
Study Area
Compt. / Block
Area (Ha)
1
338-A & 350 -A
149.07
2
470-A
101.17
3
485-A
80.95
4
406-A & 409-A
101.18
5
502-B & 503-A
101.17
6
488-A & 487-A
101.19
7
573-A
102.5
8
548-A
101.17
DISCUSSION
From the results obtained, it can be clearly seen that
both the carbon changes and carbon equivalent values
obtained for the RIL logging system are three folds
higher than the values obtained for the LIL logging
system. This indicates the RIL logging system releases
a higher amount of carbon to the environment as
compared to the LIL logging system.
Carbon
equivalent represents the amount of carbon loss to the
environment in the form of carbon dioxide. Carbon
dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases which are
known to be responsible for global climate changes.
Therefore, through this study it is proven that using LIL
logging system for harvesting brings about lesser
climate changes as compared to RIL logging system,
as it releases lesser carbon dioxide to the environment.
Figure 1. Map of Ulu Jelai Forest Reserve, Pahang,
Malaysia
RESULTS
Table 2 shows the carbon changes and carbon
equivalent obtained through RIL and LIL logging
systems by using three different formulas. The carbon
changes and carbon equivalent for the LIL logging
system is lower than that of the RIL logging system.
Table 2 indicates that the carbon changes using the RIL
logging system is three times higher than that of the
carbon changes of the LIL logging system. In addition,
the carbon dioxide equivalent for the RIL logging
system is also three times higher than that of the LIL
logging system.
Table 2. Carbon changes from different harvesting
techniques
Logging
Techniq
ue
Kato + Niiyama
Kato (H') +
Niiyama
CO2
(tCO2/ha)
Chave + Niiyama
Carbon
(tC/ha)
CO2
(tCO2/ha)
Carbon
(tC/ha)
Carbon
(tC/ha)
CO2
(tCO2/ha)
LIL
8.517
31.229
2.278
8.353
1.020
3.739
RIL
25.814
94.652
7.334
26.891
3.330
12.210
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We convey a special thanks to the advisor of this
project, Dr Abd. Rahman Kassim; Mrs. Noraishah Safee,
a former group member of component 2; Ms. Nur
Syahidah Khairul Anuar and Ms. Dhanya Lakshmi
Arivalagan, internship students from University
Technology Mara (UiTM) and University Malaysia
Kelantan (UMK) respectively for their assistance in
writing up the work. This research was funded by the
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)
under the Thematic Programme: Reducing Emission
from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, and
Ecosystem Services (REDDES) entitled Reducing Forest
Degradation and Emissions through Sustainable Forest
Management (SFM) in Peninsular Malaysia.
REFERENCES
1. Gibbs, H.K., Brown, S., Niles, J.O. & Foley, J.A. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks:
making REDD a reality. Environ. Res. Lett. 2.
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045023.
2. Malhi, Y. & Grace, J. (2000). Tropical forests and
atmospheric carbon dioxide Trends Ecol. Evolut. 15 332–
337.
3. Fearnside, P.M. & Laurance, W.F. (2004). Tropical
deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions Ecological
Appl. 14 982–986.
4. ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization).
(2005). Tropical Timber Market Report 10(12), 1-15
August
2005.
International
Tropical
Timber
Organization, Yokohama, Japan.
5. Agherkakli, A., Najafi, A. & Sadeghi, S.H. (2010). Ground
based operation effects on soil disturbance by steel
tracked skidder in a steep slope of forest. For. Sci. 56(6):
278–284.
6. Norizah, K., Mohd Hasmadi, I., Kamaruzaman, J. & Alias
M.S. (2012). Operational efficiency of Rimbaka timber
harvester in hilly tropical forest. Journal of Tropical
Forest Science 24(3): 368–378.
7. Kato, R., Tadaki, Y. & Ogawa, H. (1978). Plant biomass
and growth increment studies in Pasoh Forest. Malayan
Nature Journal 30(2): 211-224.
Contacts:
FRIM-ITTO REDDES
Tel: +603-6279 7635
Project Support Unit (PSU)
Fax: +603-6275 0216
Forestry and Environment Division
Email: [email protected]/[email protected]
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
52109, Kepong, Selangor
Malaysia
http://www.frim.gov.my/frim-itto-reddes
https://www.facebook.com/pages/FRIM-ITTO-REDDES