The knowledge gap regarding post-logging carbon recovery by increased growth is becoming more crucial to understand the significant contribution of forest to climate change mitigation. We assessed the ability of tropical forests in Indonesia to recover carbon following conventional logging. We evaluated carbon re-growth of 10,415 trees in permanent sample plots (PSPs) in East Kalimantan. Four different post-harvesting silvicultural treatments including liberation, refining, thinning, and control were applied in the PSPs. We estimated the carbon recovery period using three different scenarios of total carbon losses due to logging. In the first scenario, we used an existing factor of logging damage and increased it for assuming the range of carbon losses due to different logging practices. Under the existing conventional logging practice, the concession annually emits 51.18 tC∙ha− 1, of which 16.8% are extracted from the forest as raw timber, 38% are logging losses, and 45.2% are emissions due to infrastructure development for logging operation. Increasing the logging damage factor two and three times led to an increase in carbon emission to 70.76 and 90.34 tC∙ha− 1, respectively. The recovery time of the aboveground carbon is 26 years in Scenario 1, 36 years in Scenario 2, and 46 years in Scenario 3. We found no significant effect of the silvicultural treatment type on carbon recovery, but significant effect of the sites was observed. We found that the time taken to restore the carbon to the level found in undisturbed forests is considerably longer than the current intervention cycles. The time needed to recover biomass and carbon-stock noticeably depends on the intensity of logging interventions, demonstrating the benefits of using improved harvesting e.g., reduced impact logging to reduce emissions. The study found that site variability has a significant effect on the carbon recovery time. Different silvicultural treatments, on the other hand, have no effect on the recovery time. The study suggests that it is not appropriate to establish an intervention cycle based on arbitrary choice; the time between interventions must be based on logging losses and site specific growth potential to ensure sustainable management of forests.

中文翻译：

---

印度尼西亚加里曼丹有选择地砍伐热带雨林后的碳回收

为了了解森林对减缓气候变化的重大贡献，有关通过增加生长进行伐木后碳回收的知识缺口变得越来越重要。我们评估了印尼热带森林常规采伐后恢复碳的能力。我们评估了东加里曼丹省永久性样地（PSP）中10,415棵树木的碳增长。在PSP中采用了四种不同的采伐后造林处理方法，包括解放，精炼，间伐和控制。我们使用三种因采伐造成的总碳损失的情景来估算碳的回收期。在第一种情况下，我们使用了一个现有的伐木破坏因子，并增加了它来假设由于不同伐木实践而造成的碳损失范围。根据现有的常规测井实践，该特许权每年的排放量为51.18 tC∙ha-1，其中16.8％是作为原木从森林中提取的，38％是伐木损失，45.2％是由于伐木业务的基础设施发展而产生的排放。伐木破坏因子增加两倍和三倍导致碳排放分别增加到70.76和90.34 tC∙ha-1。在方案1中，地上碳的回收时间为26年，在方案2中为36年，在方案3中为46年。我们发现，造林处理类型对碳回收没有显着影响，但是观察到了这些地点的显着影响。我们发现，将碳还原到未受干扰的森林中所需要的水平所需的时间比当前的干预周期长得多。回收生物质和碳储量所需的时间明显取决于伐木干预的强度，这表明使用改进的收割方法（例如减少影响伐木以减少排放）的好处。研究发现，场地变异性对碳回收时间有重要影响。另一方面，不同的造林方法对恢复时间没有影响。研究表明，基于任意选择建立干预周期是不合适的。干预之间的时间必须基于伐木损失和特定地点的增长潜力，以确保森林的可持续管理。研究发现，场地变异性对碳回收时间有重要影响。另一方面，不同的造林方法对恢复时间没有影响。研究表明，基于任意选择建立干预周期是不合适的。干预之间的时间必须基于伐木损失和特定地点的增长潜力，以确保森林的可持续管理。研究发现，场地变异性对碳回收时间有重要影响。另一方面，不同的造林方法对恢复时间没有影响。研究表明，基于任意选择建立干预周期是不合适的。干预之间的时间必须基于伐木损失和特定地点的增长潜力，以确保森林的可持续管理。