Table 2 Description of the four management approaches defined in this study
From: Carbon costs and benefits of France’s biomass energy production targets
Management approach | Assignation priority | Criteria | Current situation | Management under the reference scenario |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Unexploitable | 1 | Exploitability index is ‘impossible’ | Accessibility or exploitability limited by physical constraints | No thinning, no harvest |
Harvest-delayed | 2 | Quadratic mean diameter is above the current practice clearcut diameter defined per species and fertility class | Stands are over-mature | No thinning, no harvest |
Overstocked | 3 | Density index is above the threshold density index defined by species | Stands have not yet reached maturity and their density is too high to be actively managed | No thinning, harvest when clearcut diameter is reached |
Actively managed | 4 | Exploitability index is ‘easy’ to ‘difficult’, quadratic mean diameter and density index are compatible with current management practices defined per species and fertility class | Quadratic mean diameters and stand are in line with present-day forest management for a given species | Thinning, harvest when clearcut diameter is reached |