<%BANNER%>

Enrichment Planting of Native Tree Species in the Eastern Amazon of Brazil

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021994/00001

Material Information

Title: Enrichment Planting of Native Tree Species in the Eastern Amazon of Brazil Silvicultural, Financial, and Household Assessments
Physical Description: 1 online resource (132 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Keefe, Kelly
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: amazon, bcr, caboclos, carbon, cikel, conservation, cost, ethnographic, fertilization, financial, forestry, growth, irr, liana, multitask, npv, payment, planting, policy, programming, ril, scale, seedling, silviculture, smallholder, survivorship, sustainable, timber
Forest Resources and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Enrichment planting (EP) is a silvicultural tool capable of adding long-term value to forests. Here EP case studies and experimental trials are assessed at two scales: large industrial and family farm planting. Tree growth responses to treatments are reported. Financial cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) are used to determine sensitivity to short- and long-term costs and benefits. The goal is to define factors that promote or hinder EP in order to help inform landholders and policy makers of effective use of EP. A case study in the Brazilian Amazon revealed that EP produces multiple timber harvests but may be expensive without short-term financial benefits. Sensitivity analysis of costs and benefits showed that revenue from activities additional to EP, such as carbon sequestration payments, can make EP profitable. A social appraisal of EP may reveal social benefits that would justify governmental, financial, and policy support. Fertilization and site preparation experiments showed that they produce little benefit in growth and survival and therefore may incur unnecessary expenses in these settings. Considering the finding of the CBA results and the treatment experiments, it is suggested that early costs be kept low and therefore planting treatments kept to a minimum. The particular minimum treatment depends on species and site conditions. Relative abundance of EP by smallholders is intriguing given difficulties some large companies experience when implementing EP. ELP was used to assess planting conducted by Amazon smallholders. Diverse short-term benefits, multitasking, low opportunity costs, low start-up costs, reliable tree survivorship and ability to care for planted trees promoted EP among smallholders. As for industrial foresters, monetary payments for EP are also an effective incentive. Both industrial planters and smallholders need short-term benefits and minimal costs but there are differences between the scales. Industrial planters perceive financial benefits; biodiversity conservation or local economy stability are external. To make them internal, and thereby make EP more feasible, external benefits need to be translated into shorter-term financial gains for the companies. Smallholders respond well to payments and other non-financial benefits. Differences between scales should be considered when developing policies or programs to encourage EP.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kelly Keefe.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Zarin, Daniel J.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021994:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021994/00001

Material Information

Title: Enrichment Planting of Native Tree Species in the Eastern Amazon of Brazil Silvicultural, Financial, and Household Assessments
Physical Description: 1 online resource (132 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Keefe, Kelly
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: amazon, bcr, caboclos, carbon, cikel, conservation, cost, ethnographic, fertilization, financial, forestry, growth, irr, liana, multitask, npv, payment, planting, policy, programming, ril, scale, seedling, silviculture, smallholder, survivorship, sustainable, timber
Forest Resources and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Enrichment planting (EP) is a silvicultural tool capable of adding long-term value to forests. Here EP case studies and experimental trials are assessed at two scales: large industrial and family farm planting. Tree growth responses to treatments are reported. Financial cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) are used to determine sensitivity to short- and long-term costs and benefits. The goal is to define factors that promote or hinder EP in order to help inform landholders and policy makers of effective use of EP. A case study in the Brazilian Amazon revealed that EP produces multiple timber harvests but may be expensive without short-term financial benefits. Sensitivity analysis of costs and benefits showed that revenue from activities additional to EP, such as carbon sequestration payments, can make EP profitable. A social appraisal of EP may reveal social benefits that would justify governmental, financial, and policy support. Fertilization and site preparation experiments showed that they produce little benefit in growth and survival and therefore may incur unnecessary expenses in these settings. Considering the finding of the CBA results and the treatment experiments, it is suggested that early costs be kept low and therefore planting treatments kept to a minimum. The particular minimum treatment depends on species and site conditions. Relative abundance of EP by smallholders is intriguing given difficulties some large companies experience when implementing EP. ELP was used to assess planting conducted by Amazon smallholders. Diverse short-term benefits, multitasking, low opportunity costs, low start-up costs, reliable tree survivorship and ability to care for planted trees promoted EP among smallholders. As for industrial foresters, monetary payments for EP are also an effective incentive. Both industrial planters and smallholders need short-term benefits and minimal costs but there are differences between the scales. Industrial planters perceive financial benefits; biodiversity conservation or local economy stability are external. To make them internal, and thereby make EP more feasible, external benefits need to be translated into shorter-term financial gains for the companies. Smallholders respond well to payments and other non-financial benefits. Differences between scales should be considered when developing policies or programs to encourage EP.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kelly Keefe.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Zarin, Daniel J.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021994:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101111_AAAACI INGEST_TIME 2010-11-11T21:45:23Z PACKAGE UFE0021994_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 20416 DFID F20101111_AABRPI ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH keefe_k_Page_004.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b256553964edb4e81d25c9cc452744b9
SHA-1
7d98c5c1fb78d8dc0ab60a65fcbde8c514155d82
25271604 F20101111_AABROU keefe_k_Page_119.tif
821ce13d278008e42d2f4ac71dcbe86a
72338df7f14d7694e7d89309faba454322e6c95f
90580 F20101111_AABRPJ keefe_k_Page_005.pro
d7e283cfca028b69c3b5a018aa072ff1
8e17d86b4b60135bc711234711a55b1c8574655a
F20101111_AABROV keefe_k_Page_120.tif
c8e42ddbd8c4e04599dca36ade62d3f9
08798674879b607cdc58b528a8070f470f5ac349
89954 F20101111_AABRPK keefe_k_Page_006.pro
27313e169fc3e50c28f2710268b5b228
d4ebaf660031e874c985f78ca3884204e77fa0bc
F20101111_AABROW keefe_k_Page_122.tif
8bac5dfa5fd865d0e0716acd4ba7bc68
7d6c0f6b2dd7c93f3c9ed05cb09ed7e6e6659427
61887 F20101111_AABRPL keefe_k_Page_007.pro
d549e1d79ce88bebe773c900ff3da51e
ef062823b52def457e104a4887901d413b9cea24
F20101111_AABROX keefe_k_Page_123.tif
f0c226ca43633d5c055801a3f026365d
41a6982b20cb6ec25ef4569bf17f22f0e0e545a0
57117 F20101111_AABRQA keefe_k_Page_026.pro
cc816b8f497fee61b2eb3ccda1c0bafc
c1b19153bd63551d41c4ac3e80ca994b8589fe0d
50792 F20101111_AABRPM keefe_k_Page_008.pro
26e58c84107c2f64271175a39ef79861
6f39935afc1fd0c85040bb5bd96ea9e5fe9b5651
F20101111_AABROY keefe_k_Page_124.tif
dd12aafb7553ef530705ac216b68b5c4
b6c47eb0534953e22338d26e72b6b8a482fc3e20
55393 F20101111_AABRQB keefe_k_Page_027.pro
6709f57fefc13aadd5c5dd9d8003c984
9bf8e5045c709ab51d53600f4d8a59f05b72dd50
43705 F20101111_AABRPN keefe_k_Page_010.pro
0d6cffcffa54ce54f0733f656f0d81eb
8f21979867f34cf4e67593078fe6097301eaff8e
F20101111_AABROZ keefe_k_Page_125.tif
37bd22b8a2b2ed7ced60a93113dc3e68
47e456776a708c8f0c8c24e4490b9aa0e26a3992
51759 F20101111_AABRQC keefe_k_Page_028.pro
69a032ff40984e7a533d3512fe4d4609
92e34ca07a9c486a79440cc5583878f09e73c9de
31437 F20101111_AABRPO keefe_k_Page_011.pro
9e734465d2b0db42cda1814c25387330
8e244a6584d0557a471bbae4d5b5cb65630c78bc
54834 F20101111_AABRQD keefe_k_Page_029.pro
894624d1e91d886a3a0191b3a8702dff
30e8fb8a72b786fe7c33675640a89f52ee03b6c1
52450 F20101111_AABRPP keefe_k_Page_012.pro
0036cbfe9d5d13be74be8a3dc7675b4c
fb7a1294a9102d0a14e6f628d74460deec3eb859
56402 F20101111_AABRPQ keefe_k_Page_014.pro
af47367ab9bcf57fb59c48c3ce78e074
489728f13f2d67a38a7df4cf08fc7136078640a3
53684 F20101111_AABRQE keefe_k_Page_030.pro
d709e9efd0a643f22d8cf4aaaef51644
5e054e60faba55ccdf86d257176025e0fedfc1c0
57572 F20101111_AABRPR keefe_k_Page_015.pro
4cf8231758f291fc5a018732b3aad3ba
0d31f5eee83b253887260cc62ab4e35f11b3db3d
56256 F20101111_AABRQF keefe_k_Page_032.pro
3b486f2484def3eb4bee61b5717f97ee
4d5c3bc35a6d03859bbedc0d2bb1ea8fb9153c44
55068 F20101111_AABRPS keefe_k_Page_016.pro
5b25257a460ffe3bf0eca6dbf81a6786
d02d2108c3ec65c579daed702ab7732af73d7315
56185 F20101111_AABRQG keefe_k_Page_033.pro
3d1185423cedfc819ec8b5689f5a75f4
6d3a6943e8e189d1defeba3ea2049c5a8d7b27ce
53914 F20101111_AABRPT keefe_k_Page_017.pro
026f789760699701bc273de82c2b33c4
c3b983234b51a88e3bdf6b79a576e3151b50bcc1
54325 F20101111_AABRQH keefe_k_Page_034.pro
ec44f938d210c58ac3f7b707a94f6ed8
cc27a8a693a29018d75ab64a92813a8c5608bac2
54220 F20101111_AABRPU keefe_k_Page_019.pro
a9cd018cffeaf82257921523dbd91033
1aa362a330ef6d3fb451b7293abfae1196b7f22d
53604 F20101111_AABRQI keefe_k_Page_035.pro
ecb2a3c4429278779895b529887e06d2
95da7325bd0d05ff47dbdeb51b979450a0ccb605
53693 F20101111_AABRPV keefe_k_Page_020.pro
2bdd70abcab60af71795a4d57cb6ddbc
499cb9c7dbd87ffeef993003ba1a55c69680a006
59869 F20101111_AABRQJ keefe_k_Page_036.pro
7a3d6883ecce7b57811bf560a7cc8c9b
eead6838d234377f856fbecf7bd34137016de159
16808 F20101111_AABRPW keefe_k_Page_021.pro
4d49d850daf13561e80967e3bdbbc39a
046668046a6dfd80faa1c4459b5b1cafda4bb584
57344 F20101111_AABRQK keefe_k_Page_037.pro
280624f8ff60bd258d03c852777649e6
16471b2f24f66f6410367bf6eb9d162a4582d1e2
54065 F20101111_AABRPX keefe_k_Page_022.pro
815d3ecc2c04898b2c8c388997e62b78
a54e09fddd8fc30ea60cdc99efc2877abb280920
92010 F20101111_AABRRA keefe_k_Page_065.pro
c702a6ed40eadc78da6fa727d44de912
773142b1c7e123b0ad4784dab51c76c2815fa039
56205 F20101111_AABRQL keefe_k_Page_038.pro
cce9cc2f66972f84d50946e0701ca013
b83008a28bd938bf6d8e6ff5d1080ae66e8a56af
53626 F20101111_AABRPY keefe_k_Page_023.pro
c3be142eceb99de4d07a1b6afee3d72b
847af9d1f6f01b39eac4e3d0bacea50aa18d5269
50280 F20101111_AABRRB keefe_k_Page_067.pro
723b992a8475dc731b58e5b16f112d65
b4359c88aadc1e7a9f49868b5d50daf5b4e82048
27620 F20101111_AABRQM keefe_k_Page_042.pro
51cfc94b61db65b2d2a28d61b28e355f
b238776eaed917daab2518eeafbeed3bc59d0c84
54474 F20101111_AABRPZ keefe_k_Page_024.pro
72d8480e0fb0a47889d5de6c3454f112
d4fe0275177ace9e5c5545f4943791bca838763c
51452 F20101111_AABRRC keefe_k_Page_068.pro
41383c3ec44382e9b1f474ce71537466
29f2309c4b4dbf1e8db588a42f81ebf5a1a7e30a
5872 F20101111_AABRQN keefe_k_Page_043.pro
a81c4fe55bbc97ffee3c7650c510d922
352e1e31a915455059c05ec0da39c133bb70423b
53352 F20101111_AABRRD keefe_k_Page_069.pro
c0e11201db6d429baaf5f5f4af0d4c9c
4f3ebde36132852e42927b64baa0aae8a6a6a8c6
19955 F20101111_AABRQO keefe_k_Page_044.pro
c77d2d79b0dcfad0ee467c4f3afd3598
420da040cefba88acfd83ea1d7d5d8d6671a82ab
51125 F20101111_AABRRE keefe_k_Page_070.pro
cecdb2e2c4c97b81158f3e28f2e24621
d53d686a9e64370393ce8ade4978a902a1398ecf
14565 F20101111_AABRQP keefe_k_Page_047.pro
030968f83198de4d4d9f0825282e076d
9efeaf821883ecf50bfac73f5712f600fafc59c8
52448 F20101111_AABRQQ keefe_k_Page_050.pro
622add8df4a592fef8e1dbf809d3b9f1
3a287061d796d7460fe1a5a063e27ad8a805e41a
54963 F20101111_AABRRF keefe_k_Page_072.pro
f530814d344b9645e6521f9e7f7bf2b3
78830bb17aca5bb68bf1fb3fd2563b3d1452b2c3
54619 F20101111_AABRQR keefe_k_Page_051.pro
cca803bca5cc7ca342cfebe310e608f6
cdd7a06329ef96ab3f9da6434fa9c1a208ece411
55016 F20101111_AABRRG keefe_k_Page_073.pro
556a9a829ae90576cd2a9502fb9eb8f9
2662662c2e1e23e2841174f773d8f597c1fc6411
55505 F20101111_AABRQS keefe_k_Page_052.pro
ae5127ca26f0cb8c885235579261c4f6
09c86b9cee95747ddf1d8ccc3811bd4dc26f9605
57016 F20101111_AABRRH keefe_k_Page_074.pro
33d2174432bc34344d2d6c351c7b06db
d0f790d522e6ecc5472a9b314313201714c98919
F20101111_AABRQT keefe_k_Page_053.pro
eaa11370e148e24f6cc8a1c98a91fc47
210cb514834406df9727b00f408106abd9b4dbd6
45699 F20101111_AABRRI keefe_k_Page_075.pro
6320633a75bec64fb42b279154a5432b
f45ccfc82f0438a0a13e1a278fa75a3e1df22055
56132 F20101111_AABRQU keefe_k_Page_054.pro
a04d882b90168275b49d270c69b17abd
11b3a8558df97ece5324ceb10e2407512d1f0497
22666 F20101111_AABRRJ keefe_k_Page_076.pro
52e3e1fe82502dc09df80bcad9ee9aa3
f0f8aacc58819c53828267a0ee7fcb6c55a33aad
72486 F20101111_AABRQV keefe_k_Page_055.pro
4daeb9c4953b5af44911b3d19aaa4a9d
5deb3728d70a8e41cd345fc04d364ff538e0aec3
22768 F20101111_AABRRK keefe_k_Page_077.pro
872332b3942f89e8ffdce7f5be9de244
5299bee47d3d3c08a0a663be57dac6256401cc14
55261 F20101111_AABRQW keefe_k_Page_057.pro
3dd08e10ff89034ce5299e526cc50569
a039e1e7f2aabc0ff62153a9e9592e6da46c1f3d
23873 F20101111_AABRSA keefe_k_Page_097.pro
e92e910ba6a92528e532b5bde5449ff6
ae4eb8454ff014afdef1312301563803f3a249e7
9744 F20101111_AABRRL keefe_k_Page_078.pro
f6c088441eb7cebc729d053e39389281
34e7771884118bfe3839eb84fa62dbc8f6a0d6af
56231 F20101111_AABRQX keefe_k_Page_058.pro
337a6c002dad2dfaa9c6348b6d8c66fc
1b5195cdeeff6cc89ea1ad357f963c98bbbd380a
53567 F20101111_AABRSB keefe_k_Page_098.pro
98ffd05df091ad5cb83e5309f8a0aeae
f5d7ee465d8c43a2c67975cabaec2de1a1e3e0fa
53552 F20101111_AABRRM keefe_k_Page_080.pro
8b54a659917408e1940df92f8e9658e2
bac095b2b0bce1b9ab768085a78b5cc0cec8bf4f
56291 F20101111_AABRQY keefe_k_Page_061.pro
0b3a665c2392b5e4ebb5be4c488b4892
599fd8fe24fa0e429d62794d92a030c6f3eec5ad
55089 F20101111_AABRSC keefe_k_Page_099.pro
f617930cdbb05ff1c20b0e9569dfa1af
7112c94293f2014e1ec5d944c3b88e5ec99cc3d5
54813 F20101111_AABRRN keefe_k_Page_081.pro
963e93f2311211db6dc549168cf1112b
0093e6daae7261135fe959f70a1838879c1e3f1c
54175 F20101111_AABRQZ keefe_k_Page_063.pro
7afa058e47a064206955f5b44dcc0f77
f15eb22d9cd99c0702ec3ad03dd6c5e06f13e87b
F20101111_AABRSD keefe_k_Page_100.pro
ad52ee9cb1f264e8a27c958073529b24
acec46c172d0adf6acc02b5c2ce1694c77ab995a
62727 F20101111_AABRRO keefe_k_Page_084.pro
4c4d2f690ac8eb06fec90e91211b1eaf
2c123c6a0cf2fd614b66fe6dbb583f34e58bdeb2
56180 F20101111_AABRSE keefe_k_Page_101.pro
26b6d51bd3f82d06d19a48baf2cc9aab
b2350ce786a305799e6abbb1533ffd81aed3d654
51270 F20101111_AABRRP keefe_k_Page_085.pro
574d61bca62c741d29d888f2a0268117
5ca45f20dc6398f8fc935a72f06813c369f58e46
55345 F20101111_AABRSF keefe_k_Page_102.pro
795c3e275df4c31f14fd158bc9d720d8
04e324e9c225c733e3ab7fe547778658a30fe6ad
49853 F20101111_AABRRQ keefe_k_Page_086.pro
fc0dd67eda2791dcfab8a6145dfa69bb
345bb337b4e81b1d3f57eac184810534da53e0ed
54947 F20101111_AABRRR keefe_k_Page_087.pro
a8df28970939478f35dbba8d3015b5fe
d2ae627ebe6b771b07522a3d4387175c24e6c3c1
55758 F20101111_AABRSG keefe_k_Page_103.pro
6ad275faafc2ffd61507ea2e0278e5c0
c92b8610bdbaef14d801bbb43dfd50c04bcf3810
49268 F20101111_AABRRS keefe_k_Page_088.pro
343487ef0490f685fa47095406575b29
2dc927106b591eb0ff30fa16b8b3f729d5cea525
56801 F20101111_AABRSH keefe_k_Page_104.pro
aa6d6fa817928166fb106d9c3cb3157f
62aa79f112dee1396092ab051ced3943864ca5b9
54354 F20101111_AABRRT keefe_k_Page_089.pro
d3f28b198d1af8d50d844d339e81a683
fe174c91d49331b2f43b133ff745351f8ad74334
42179 F20101111_AABRSI keefe_k_Page_105.pro
7caa782f0eb5fd5e7a12170c3c2c7ac7
594d1aa9087a8344e87bb960873ac651aa1087d4
58969 F20101111_AABRRU keefe_k_Page_090.pro
fcb9a6d51f759eb7d834819cad262a7c
a4d09a11bf634903b0c955238fc927782f99c648
60472 F20101111_AABRSJ keefe_k_Page_106.pro
1326d541ad3917ad314c7df56f7c74da
091b8386198cd9591e21bcf352008028edc2f522
56468 F20101111_AABRRV keefe_k_Page_091.pro
5c0d6c313cde061d00da9a30e3f281f9
4108a726273f63a8bee8c5e3ad9f675e91877d3d
19993 F20101111_AABRSK keefe_k_Page_107.pro
6d02fe9d2f35b8f2b93a4e98e693a843
43f4425628d7368f35a67072a1b2e7a2643d74a5
13283 F20101111_AABRRW keefe_k_Page_092.pro
ee67726ce74dca9aa32ec54ba3c08a95
ffdc15bce382efb88b98c7499ad2de30512eef37
31133 F20101111_AABRSL keefe_k_Page_108.pro
02f901f7db7fa7e77351ab0ca3bb6980
e9af06f962024c132fc72873df7ece0baf8d511c
83315 F20101111_AABRRX keefe_k_Page_093.pro
911fd2802496187bda292b8a33cd7e3e
f4be9c6e60c0b79a9b15c312224250bdb0fa4a13
66866 F20101111_AABRTA keefe_k_Page_128.pro
ca5ef780d1799190059dde4e03b065df
6a66e97dd00458a4ac97ed98ef65caa121b7b0a7
42496 F20101111_AABRSM keefe_k_Page_109.pro
d0f40c51689b745e04c2e9cff89bc815
acf50a8e1406cabf125065b64e5e3e6f84b077cf
74531 F20101111_AABRRY keefe_k_Page_094.pro
84f60f85a5deb46f64dfefa5ca9f2993
8074a06c6caa0e9a3a94e405d1589e61b2c51174
71461 F20101111_AABRTB keefe_k_Page_129.pro
92dc4c58cc24667fe36af23eb5fef298
61ae6e3d82a3e93af3f52b41c0b2d6711d61f90b
58099 F20101111_AABRSN keefe_k_Page_110.pro
b9a626689bce8f819ac5353eab28fb4c
14979b63731fc1ac12b024e77520994fdbde6aa2
35358 F20101111_AABRRZ keefe_k_Page_095.pro
5893446816a4a9769808f5cff98e5355
d049e85c91e4ef14b113b9234d100cff4c53951c
67187 F20101111_AABRTC keefe_k_Page_130.pro
c6be8873e1571f9b3d1a74b24af25a98
5adef85b6962a2c890e7121dade43b6c4074720f
58015 F20101111_AABRSO keefe_k_Page_111.pro
3de275777e8afbfaebff1db9ebf92218
f82f11aaa96feeab4e613ab176c185d0e3a8346d
59952 F20101111_AABRTD keefe_k_Page_131.pro
99f1482a2eb02b0d41f03896115e7a81
8a6599bf23f3fcaeefd8e17e0aa226f72c0ec908
2474 F20101111_AABRSP keefe_k_Page_112.pro
1b1dc168bc833af939c7c3d2607f5d0e
53c3f5ec0983ce85f8f3923206e997b9f3b2fb5f
20052 F20101111_AABRTE keefe_k_Page_132.pro
00e26eb2fb18f2174c0c6eff8f8ed6ac
173f2ad4bf0a78b2d9adffa1c8c3f4b117f0e74f
82741 F20101111_AABRSQ keefe_k_Page_114.pro
fd4d49201adea2ded574a021a7a7bcf3
b02d238a67b8f54cc3f621facacaca3ff51776d2
515 F20101111_AABRTF keefe_k_Page_001.txt
d9391b6006de3e145da4f86c395dd9f3
651d5526a4922ab4317e489dc55b2c4ae84d77eb
72077 F20101111_AABRSR keefe_k_Page_116.pro
fd96cd75886cefc0ba9de7195b3b2cc7
ea8a3df46540b794adbffb0807e02ce9e33b1f51
88 F20101111_AABRTG keefe_k_Page_002.txt
d06a065ad7c7cdac443a98ba99c36dcc
ee69c9bfe5112e7b851831d0e8f6058e79efe51b
68016 F20101111_AABRSS keefe_k_Page_119.pro
e4e92b789cbb1282987eaa3e197ce078
9e18e1a2a01edb1fb527ba43520da9ad25fe79ec
26 F20101111_AABRTH keefe_k_Page_003.txt
ba5de81fa721f4cc679072f5586a1558
6725592eff7f3a7b7f88bf6498b54d8859b35419
64946 F20101111_AABRST keefe_k_Page_120.pro
ff7041ad3fe51f37756bfa3cf1ffcc29
c4a825ce676a55176ad4490e293b3014f2461abe
849 F20101111_AABRTI keefe_k_Page_004.txt
5430c439952bec81a8d81ccebc86c18e
de8721aa56f648b61d6a3ac49771cb8c2bf48112
67102 F20101111_AABRSU keefe_k_Page_121.pro
259836b455a5940200c38bd94040b6bf
ffd31410ec65687e06878e70afe02c109cc80bbd
3691 F20101111_AABRTJ keefe_k_Page_005.txt
ebe08a5b4963f63e85d6a03907a13e83
ac6de154126424d543722a2e81b2c4ae6cd71f23
61996 F20101111_AABRSV keefe_k_Page_122.pro
9e7b6b3a30abd1d32c3e3627e83459ec
b09a4c2081b5ebf69ea5cbc57ab91753ca0cbe9b
2535 F20101111_AABRTK keefe_k_Page_007.txt
0b39b075df9f38dc9fd0aabe2004fcb8
48f72b9f85e33d1fdfddd90a6e36e239061daaf5
68105 F20101111_AABRSW keefe_k_Page_124.pro
ad00996453537b3309ce5f4d11733166
aa74e7c127ec831dd819cd49f7f433b2aff8f6db
2154 F20101111_AABRUA keefe_k_Page_029.txt
7c1c002e1fa8f9da4dff4e2fe0293a6f
eb61ad1b2295eb098c50a6b5daf694d7ed8d8b0b
2097 F20101111_AABRTL keefe_k_Page_008.txt
d023ebc2844f2b5e281318fd8cd75f76
5a55cc49645426ca56594b69f9ed6c40c784d417
68643 F20101111_AABRSX keefe_k_Page_125.pro
cff643347aeaa274aca55e1691f9a172
fb15f3c64fd849c285d55b0e1fa3dc96ae832d85
2108 F20101111_AABRUB keefe_k_Page_030.txt
00c2d433b3c8be1b6a907f6cca8209bc
f6de24b3046eae10f725fef78bd471857b3f15f9
1496 F20101111_AABRTM keefe_k_Page_009.txt
3f98560a618914233735fa62d501f140
4f559cb7d04846ed9affb96fed0938b521e2cb02
66825 F20101111_AABRSY keefe_k_Page_126.pro
a952ecaed11e69a9cec30380a466a70c
297a095fad3609ab3a316d0b8aa269bb46471067
2204 F20101111_AABRUC keefe_k_Page_033.txt
2962848ddfea101a960bbbcaa84a7b1a
bcde920bc1686fe11ad7a7e601a3b214747e0738
1918 F20101111_AABRTN keefe_k_Page_010.txt
e29749c01894e76408ea139521872881
a99fa0970d28297f098d3c563d7a147379bccc3d
68548 F20101111_AABRSZ keefe_k_Page_127.pro
e5b541c02d44c60a49e12ff96bd11264
57bf0bdab3fa1ec89e2ba53d18b5d560f74c4ac9
2180 F20101111_AABRUD keefe_k_Page_034.txt
142a0248d65a235ce81336cb1ffbce21
5d98d4ef30ed7cf255fbaa43f711c8b422e78d59
2136 F20101111_AABRTO keefe_k_Page_012.txt
faeb3fca65e623a94c4031a0aaee1215
c2f0828e500369260ad64588a55470dbf29b325a
2104 F20101111_AABRUE keefe_k_Page_035.txt
effe82cc9ed3608fe9050fc37d5b3bf6
f0e7f9d406619feeacd610a0b3da8d3cefa05f32
2084 F20101111_AABRTP keefe_k_Page_013.txt
7339bf204de19d559b59fafe2e329e21
7ecc5604aead3f890500ceae753b90abb18fd88d
2336 F20101111_AABRUF keefe_k_Page_036.txt
cc4454c7577d7402ce78798f37a52a8d
af5673d5804d4fb53454a4d6c3cb200f209275ab
2239 F20101111_AABRTQ keefe_k_Page_014.txt
31e64d4e306bdef7c4d5bbb9036c93c9
3e882bf222245ca032e634182ea2f2a939274e7a
726 F20101111_AABRUG keefe_k_Page_039.txt
0cc0683a0dcf02a3d78c4605aaaa4e2f
264ce2fb040e34119c2c37b70618de96b150ef38
2278 F20101111_AABRTR keefe_k_Page_015.txt
7f6504f7e3a071baa800f0eb4b8e6492
2b4c8df35ba0697b569149cef1e4e6105043b5ef
37331 F20101111_AABSAA keefe_k_Page_022.QC.jpg
d312ee8d2baac3f3835f7ceb49dc17fc
ca40e0bbf667d9a226be4ab93f3670f761cb91cd
1195 F20101111_AABRUH keefe_k_Page_040.txt
09caf29b82215f9f40bd7d47c880010e
07161595178762c4c1fd7fd82a5694ec9c6619d3
2116 F20101111_AABRTS keefe_k_Page_017.txt
ca994a7cbfadf91bf1ebb29c39954c35
506f25edd41195ecae52f450f6564c8bf6055e13
17583 F20101111_AABSAB keefe_k_Page_079.QC.jpg
2a5fd6ae2d71ff704fe1febcc2d4a5d2
fb47436adb86b4d784768e75617549faf2a75d9b
2150 F20101111_AABRTT keefe_k_Page_020.txt
aa688b92232d06c26683050845eed832
448669a6ac941b47be7e867c5ffa7acd6f3a14e5
36262 F20101111_AABSAC keefe_k_Page_100.QC.jpg
56f7f049f0c11c1ef1f3c8b014ae2f64
313761a600d0eb2efd0b2e31cb8b8f5b91aedcb5
1226 F20101111_AABRUI keefe_k_Page_042.txt
80641b25fa281c0d9aeef3110233cb72
a3e29ff68afddff8510c803ca6e7b024bc9a76a1
667 F20101111_AABRTU keefe_k_Page_021.txt
28887c1a4f5d70d721efaa30ebeec8b8
7c298fe7cb0f488f3f7d68b2650738cc92b4e4d9
9044 F20101111_AABSAD keefe_k_Page_118thm.jpg
65d1fcfdc78bd8ea907b17c82a9b0383
ed87c6ddd2fc9eb5e6e1c60c0e52cfc27ea92f0c
347 F20101111_AABRUJ keefe_k_Page_043.txt
47e2d95485e38a7ec38b280bea0a4adb
26dd18b1a5332f9a355bfc9f7359ffae8883a9ed
2113 F20101111_AABRTV keefe_k_Page_023.txt
5d229850f4867e565edaf545082e0283
68c4d3b26e7f4c7066d40637b08530cd6fe90152
8957 F20101111_AABSAE keefe_k_Page_115thm.jpg
333485b8dc54201087d911cdec443154
fbd6c6023cd4ab75d8572107f4d1d5a6d9488f18
9028 F20101111_AABSAF keefe_k_Page_083thm.jpg
99b4948c4c5941b34d505bec404b2376
e15f3bdc060636a41f036562f2bf1fb1db01e519
561 F20101111_AABRUK keefe_k_Page_045.txt
3ccf11e930534a82b5dde1102eca624c
899ec06da76e244e2661f8d889e3489919383ec7
2141 F20101111_AABRTW keefe_k_Page_024.txt
5fb23b2e44e1dd4ba02536ea85f42d50
c834502db984994c520d51929ec9d04c0771bd2f
8368 F20101111_AABSAG keefe_k_Page_089thm.jpg
59346486aed4146ff906925f0075cf2f
5cdadb74370a1abb7ae8c3834cf65f702b103f01
764 F20101111_AABRUL keefe_k_Page_046.txt
ca1a1631e18fbb95a5a91a4435fa5d82
0a077d40fb611af2fe1a8522664cf97cb329b28d
F20101111_AABRTX keefe_k_Page_025.txt
c54d8104e542bf9278896593b4d5bb70
11cd1c66276c864f39482f0f1884297ba3a4777b
2205 F20101111_AABRVA keefe_k_Page_061.txt
697c448bfd92c6e80f316b2b039e7368
46de2f6a7327eae5ac313fc0fcafabdf7019a36f
12156 F20101111_AABSAH keefe_k_Page_003.QC.jpg
9664c3cb5d13d8642555b57e6ac05c7d
8e182a358134415967e26e21647197b6a0582620
779 F20101111_AABRUM keefe_k_Page_047.txt
c1e7df944b6693bada2eb342acb2b4a8
e63d4a163a69fbbdd0be3aa624610badb09c6509
2238 F20101111_AABRTY keefe_k_Page_026.txt
4e331b54f7eae921c552246df1983807
bd827ecabb4d61e94857f0763cd2d852688e3326
2256 F20101111_AABRVB keefe_k_Page_062.txt
804cf17fdb92ff0619059ae3eb041e4d
1722ea27957726db922721b2aecf1da8ad6f8119
5271 F20101111_AABSAI keefe_k_Page_113thm.jpg
24a5e7380e99c0c3010d0e604c5943d0
9ceadacd92d0d2fdc984a6389d68493e4b5a2d72
1114 F20101111_AABRUN keefe_k_Page_048.txt
f9aea4ec680efb57972ba961e2db4dc1
e751bf83a6785643328628f1a913f20acc63ffb1
2175 F20101111_AABRTZ keefe_k_Page_027.txt
8c9c058c7fa993f0a465568bda55a90f
b0567f977771bc9e72dd87a628ef04bb0b3c5ed2
2163 F20101111_AABRVC keefe_k_Page_063.txt
1902253088704697d294401b6ee2a577
e1c00f234e9219747a1ffecb26849f7c4f82e09e
36069 F20101111_AABSAJ keefe_k_Page_018.QC.jpg
dded35750a97f702c4cc604281d59f14
a916e3e62620ad6d06155d91b0cda4d95ad0766b
2236 F20101111_AABRUO keefe_k_Page_049.txt
b0b1381081ac0b52fa1a3635460e3519
606b2edc7c4b71e10435bc367683288d6249ce06
4048 F20101111_AABRVD keefe_k_Page_065.txt
f3dfec39a57962a41c13ae6fda041750
14e9444ea0ad23f9f19f985d3b3267f74702d00e
37636 F20101111_AABSAK keefe_k_Page_083.QC.jpg
655ba462b25e9a93c6624d7c01332a4e
51445fa5c6d931ea401f204916d1be5a746c11bd
2061 F20101111_AABRUP keefe_k_Page_050.txt
4568882682aa0cdb930caab0dab0f849
fb200e34bdb4713316dc158eadad64e1d352c71a
1037 F20101111_AABRVE keefe_k_Page_066.txt
79d7a165ca4981916e3b16803bc1105e
bac55e7e0226cfc0d4164a53c9ea5218ee380e06
2459 F20101111_AABSAL keefe_k_Page_092thm.jpg
967bb2f34b1edf4de6e52c70dbb9be7f
d4da1d35f5ad137bab0c3d7f55931bababee7e30
2183 F20101111_AABRUQ keefe_k_Page_051.txt
055e6c703368c8f3e037ad35ca8ff8cd
1615d39f79ee52b45910dbc0a21147659ff0ce1a
2092 F20101111_AABRVF keefe_k_Page_067.txt
64f7ebd7466a48f0869ce03966efbd3e
e0fead83735da7615cdbf4b4a68784a7ef308d41
8952 F20101111_AABSBA keefe_k_Page_049thm.jpg
8467bfc317bcec36d9733fd7c64f001e
efcfcb3d8390ab0da237841b52a993fe632929dc
9106 F20101111_AABSAM keefe_k_Page_071thm.jpg
e8744481ce601b4fe97350bcd494c9f4
39da677fac8d96b16cda2bea3fe34127be4d901a
F20101111_AABRUR keefe_k_Page_052.txt
82e82922705a853687b4161119589e64
1f90d376eab08cf947dd4bccb337cc9b301112bc
2087 F20101111_AABRVG keefe_k_Page_068.txt
7932ff1c8a4daf19f0ee82bf42f72f2e
272918bf52148e32857974e34468d3664c706a41
15102 F20101111_AABSBB keefe_k_Page_004.QC.jpg
184d82eddb6fc903e804a3c98e78f4a2
562829a663b4fe58c3fd5d8810103a2240c34271
8092 F20101111_AABSAN keefe_k_Page_111thm.jpg
a862a55c9c7de3d0edd7d466d0dea542
6ee006ca6ab1c0f62f546634eb123e5f51fdabb0
F20101111_AABRUS keefe_k_Page_053.txt
66bdafda24ccfaf99216851fa4d68da2
efc2bea1332bd16a5be783387cfd8a23e042e64d
2120 F20101111_AABRVH keefe_k_Page_069.txt
8f190f6cdb47e36c5cabbe3086f45f96
75ca386dfd33df8029b12153892b2b85b3f56fd6
8878 F20101111_AABSBC keefe_k_Page_073thm.jpg
7bd14af22cd3f17e46d7664b634e7e48
0f1feeded7cb838cb0ce366ef1dd8a0b4fb9af53
9046 F20101111_AABSAO keefe_k_Page_056thm.jpg
05972f7882d28e459cd1c8986246e950
b153cde96a2233ffb24f0ff3ed06cda232773187
2197 F20101111_AABRUT keefe_k_Page_054.txt
d1db2e3fc3ab569f3ae539541cb36afc
f8b7fecef2d49c6cb17fc42c380ac2fe2ce47ec2
2013 F20101111_AABRVI keefe_k_Page_070.txt
5389b893ba6619ab34452a24150b66c1
c5dfcaa4e629dc9d8034ef7992ce42a4d34d873f
34067 F20101111_AABSBD keefe_k_Page_110.QC.jpg
49cd6363abcd40398983d39eb080e6b5
5cef391871a24460fa2b4c65e899d0bd34e10012
34471 F20101111_AABSAP keefe_k_Page_131.QC.jpg
136edef25f4351bd81e4210ac50e33c4
1242ac6ca9ee7a3ac20a73b96df4377a2eb70458
2952 F20101111_AABRUU keefe_k_Page_055.txt
c081915cf2c8314e533833353addc08a
725a970f33693712401705fad4f93d21e5ecd6c1
4566 F20101111_AABSBE keefe_k_Page_095thm.jpg
b1a3847f84335324b48facce8e64fd0f
763e880f851a57e9af200140e3849c864e54ddf5
35379 F20101111_AABSAQ keefe_k_Page_019.QC.jpg
7af1aa7a0dbf8d896ed96a5bdbc19275
27043e8614da5bda5032b2b9ca0c7920c0da5337
F20101111_AABRUV keefe_k_Page_056.txt
7c14ca4ed26d2b110959efc112d05830
c6fc684312a137b79a3738dfda23b7d6f7e08095
2174 F20101111_AABRVJ keefe_k_Page_071.txt
93122f661b39458e793aa72e5fdefdc2
4e02c844d59f9691efb3955ff30b5f0b1eac7493
35663 F20101111_AABSBF keefe_k_Page_027.QC.jpg
b2c7001132cd2bce65612cc25dd98668
332900f6213fc8a89e9f9374a2436bf068f73ffa
8921 F20101111_AABSAR keefe_k_Page_074thm.jpg
798c4260e4e9272a3d86c6d649f0eebf
187a3cab80750652b15601f3b60102c5db332839
2212 F20101111_AABRUW keefe_k_Page_057.txt
371bb13d3cd806118a332c7aaa86dcc5
bf2e5edbfe660c13101af86e4641580d0011a1b2
F20101111_AABRVK keefe_k_Page_072.txt
d8e11dd1e2a2993134dd2c02fdf29dbf
20108002a6bcfc2191113f3a54b7993654e82593
35380 F20101111_AABSBG keefe_k_Page_050.QC.jpg
01f875266636a4f04d045fab5d83cf82
eb2aec172e139edead1669969baeec6a270feaaf
37038 F20101111_AABSAS keefe_k_Page_115.QC.jpg
360f5abf1a7e68f86f5e4c0b5d08d405
e93873de6ea9265fe0be3f52633869dc54627bdb
2201 F20101111_AABRUX keefe_k_Page_058.txt
f929310e1cb2bef4e05c13e7ca599f7a
1553679782eb2e215a603cc0e73df7f9d9877b63
3623 F20101111_AABRWA keefe_k_Page_093.txt
fdb96baa95ab1fca26588676fb4c6aca
5d4ca86dc44473b509898b8e6eefc38c3a341815
2259 F20101111_AABRVL keefe_k_Page_074.txt
cfa29158fd9923601dbc635aeab747be
ae5c84c650e61c5e675e27bba7b3347d642034cf
33782 F20101111_AABSBH keefe_k_Page_031.QC.jpg
198b31f34b06b2704ff026ec17431c31
e4209329fa38730f28714246a98e65aa3e4aaa07
2157 F20101111_AABRUY keefe_k_Page_059.txt
63860b390c99e998828113e4c0cece70
59c0575e3d27c28fc6ef4c635f855c68c0d0088b
3693 F20101111_AABRWB keefe_k_Page_094.txt
7df536f43de21a28de293e94ecd22243
a7e968037ad2e40f8fd32a398d617d4dce2db510
1822 F20101111_AABRVM keefe_k_Page_075.txt
6444f7847cd4f7c64902bb25bdc50687
2475f84c52c8c184eb1bb2db06d09c3542daf971
9680 F20101111_AABSBI keefe_k_Page_120thm.jpg
e6af5738fee64fa822f9a023b7b02b72
d552e21ff481ded9b4d11d250b3d3f1e0c237699
35285 F20101111_AABSAT keefe_k_Page_023.QC.jpg
18dabb97aabfab53690da36755ec4e09
1fca25ecfe792bc08027968b58235d725848bdaf
2159 F20101111_AABRUZ keefe_k_Page_060.txt
4d7de60a6c11bfa79472c179e7d1da41
bf6b32ef217e2f404d663332746832d9d1887f6c
1725 F20101111_AABRWC keefe_k_Page_095.txt
df984d3bc62af5047c27c51a056516e1
05948cddc2eb8a2da7682d154aa640300a67dd8f
1156 F20101111_AABRVN keefe_k_Page_076.txt
b4f53df62d87d3212b771076a43ce78b
3b43e7937eb9d27184d039e6c5e36dd25980738a
2322 F20101111_AABSBJ keefe_k_Page_043thm.jpg
7cbcad20eb33bc82e4a8a4a5c3d0d4d3
b50aab9b8833881bc6f4b8937fa9c2fe7cc927e2
35731 F20101111_AABSAU keefe_k_Page_030.QC.jpg
d75bf31bc40883fd8040cece5361e663
dc05d36037bdb153e6a75b43bacd1316cb1afdca
651 F20101111_AABRWD keefe_k_Page_096.txt
118ef09687e8d94df5d81d4502abd38f
ce3a619cb07cfbb4912cf877706d61e8b7d3e19b
1034 F20101111_AABRVO keefe_k_Page_077.txt
37c32f3e90215aeb8a07aae40f7c5d58
9c329fbbfb2f10ded3019b6ec4b26eea340747cf
8248 F20101111_AABSBK keefe_k_Page_085thm.jpg
ca79f257ca35bb834ce216ed325f10ee
8ced4304aea65eef55b967294fc60c6c04d85c33
F20101111_AABSAV keefe_k_Page_101thm.jpg
40bf7b2e502f0355a6ce81ab07aaddd2
4259a9b7696ac076834bb516f8f5aa46b8497fad
2185 F20101111_AABRWE keefe_k_Page_098.txt
e885bfc17ec74f51484249905f07d6c6
59a109b7e747d0056d7ef78e0674ccb354d284ab
1602 F20101111_AABRVP keefe_k_Page_079.txt
6937003b863e31714605e4e0e3a51ee2
f9094790563b6086463794163abc1bb1042c3403
9300 F20101111_AABSBL keefe_k_Page_084thm.jpg
7c88d76a0a3e629013b3da5c158c0fd7
6a6a847ddd06372428d7e8162e37c5122126f572
7176 F20101111_AABSAW keefe_k_Page_010thm.jpg
45c71840ae6e7ad0854c36e9370c0c42
c5d639d72626c6b27337e07cc9d20112ae572b0e
2162 F20101111_AABRWF keefe_k_Page_099.txt
4ef82d0d3b2c593a4d59d89ad874d5be
0f476fc9e13b46e1e202e6ad0c4f0447095302ce
2160 F20101111_AABRVQ keefe_k_Page_081.txt
231230000b331ac83c7d1117666e924e
1923e2cf6a8c5e196adc7c239594c849ba61a1e3
36023 F20101111_AABSCA keefe_k_Page_020.QC.jpg
a271549f48f1c6f495a2d453fa75ce6e
c8a166f1179fc83a3dcf59f11a5dad8b835e1d77
30288 F20101111_AABSBM keefe_k_Page_006.QC.jpg
7530f2e3aa038601134713cb11abb418
5ca523dad327aa7f92be0d130913f3ea0219ec8d
3015 F20101111_AABSAX keefe_k_Page_021thm.jpg
3d860e20a7500eda043ecc96d8f12b81
8763f2723f7a3ad730b88ede739e719e7eeb1bc0
F20101111_AABRWG keefe_k_Page_100.txt
f681f7d1aea65728a171932103760a93
fa3032ae1b9d738d7c0dff87e1e6c4427f6bdce8
2102 F20101111_AABRVR keefe_k_Page_082.txt
66ccb003b11ab20e78722aea19fc5344
c2f0529503a94bb7ba3c6206b358a9e3e874fc9d
8743 F20101111_AABSCB keefe_k_Page_020thm.jpg
732fdfdc1d7d26b6e436c730a76dcb1e
f93de093e5d1b19f3bfb9623085b45c8e397d14c
39592 F20101111_AABSBN keefe_k_Page_055.QC.jpg
d7e376be90faa87d3d04b58981901316
3c5c42fc2a286c2654d8a1d614a10260e9ef6ba4
8882 F20101111_AABSAY keefe_k_Page_128thm.jpg
00afcd87605f49f6dcdc99ac71b5fe15
33b4364d6c38e8ae0dfe0b46f94f3c4cbfc15d32
2207 F20101111_AABRWH keefe_k_Page_101.txt
7868f678e9df3ba4c37c3e6dd12f9e4e
d6b707420c5ca085b0f97d4b245a1ff0a9c2c1de
2586 F20101111_AABRVS keefe_k_Page_083.txt
31fbb67c0a06d798e8fa317f4beac913
cd303c4c9c5675861f4eb32240868c59de189715
12704 F20101111_AABSCC keefe_k_Page_021.QC.jpg
21cd0a5a03a8780f6704a4653d2b4d92
463b241d0c63b8ff860373668824195a0eff038f
197250 F20101111_AABSBO UFE0021994_00001.xml FULL
f185b315a17d40f9fc73d3d79dda3acf
14ad0ada114fa57fa11e6067f0398e356094cd44
32780 F20101111_AABSAZ keefe_k_Page_106.QC.jpg
4c58f2b4d3b99a4ce4b335af8c80ae4a
b388675cbbb43c53227e2867031387f206648d23
2167 F20101111_AABRWI keefe_k_Page_102.txt
d5326e344791e587f78f71ce2c32ce81
91e071a176b34c165c87ecb6a397fd0277cccf05
2428 F20101111_AABRVT keefe_k_Page_084.txt
133c8aed9c23c676d595279fc6794fe4
3b8d1e98ea07390bb81b781a863f926aed3656bb
8922 F20101111_AABSCD keefe_k_Page_022thm.jpg
a12964bfbc5dc5f4bf97a33e271a022b
0c7734b93510fc14d38e0c90f10b33fd595611a1
1373 F20101111_AABSBP keefe_k_Page_002.QC.jpg
cb640ea9b20603136675a17bcb064e5c
d490b8435ee7e21e9422b4cca4f9f66abc3e6dd7
2184 F20101111_AABRWJ keefe_k_Page_103.txt
6ff5a8dda8b21d11ca5b215f0d4a7322
4c3d959dfcd6ad9b4d081ae1f523e4b4273c2937
2021 F20101111_AABRVU keefe_k_Page_085.txt
961c6727f98b6be1d4c074c67b48b288
6aec922ded5f9ae72ed12dc85d07d679d29becf3
34902 F20101111_AABSCE keefe_k_Page_024.QC.jpg
730d9b4fd0a381e9d33f3c7882fa63e5
54c383dfe60f4a861bdb34b6ebcd4d77fa725c75
31696 F20101111_AABSBQ keefe_k_Page_007.QC.jpg
dfb6c4f64c94bdf13857cdc9c34efafd
86f8de34486d976ee5212112256ea525111a5e1c
1987 F20101111_AABRVV keefe_k_Page_086.txt
b4dfbe9761eb3a73073497f000bad22a
424294c23b4c648fbea095b76f8759288f26c686
8450 F20101111_AABSCF keefe_k_Page_025thm.jpg
282646091a1af66aba06843ce077c2d4
11a40bb11144ff777668500fd51e3a0ce82d7b1c
6766 F20101111_AABSBR keefe_k_Page_008thm.jpg
7a1eee59f4abb1a206f2435bab68acbc
85cf0fbde4f9a30890044de0ec6e515357f30cb6
2231 F20101111_AABRWK keefe_k_Page_104.txt
8dda969a101b44506f73c26b365b1673
50764ea867efcba57c6757d8949bf7afbdd826e3
2165 F20101111_AABRVW keefe_k_Page_087.txt
7f125c4ad6e3cfcb4a7fffcc6c32c2a0
6b963ecd47b9ee33ce21c1667d6f899cf91e7c96
37758 F20101111_AABSCG keefe_k_Page_026.QC.jpg
76ce8824b5fba2c65f1fb7a0771109db
64ff265cfa62c93583744e9e61158d88ecd31c0b
19739 F20101111_AABSBS keefe_k_Page_009.QC.jpg
53ae399f4a2bc05d1855878593cf2cfc
4f96e49c14509afcef3f2631e7e99f927be12a2f
2493 F20101111_AABRXA keefe_k_Page_122.txt
f6b03d857f753764c0d515670b318c61
af669fe6c0495a5cb0317a8d7da84362b19da0b7
1674 F20101111_AABRWL keefe_k_Page_105.txt
4d57f7b9f396fdcbb53b48a75ed66b44
3ce10a17a364fb6e2401325154280795d70914c5
2215 F20101111_AABRVX keefe_k_Page_089.txt
0de53da3cbe6adc3b8ff6f404587fca6
0d9ed7ef5dbb43feba5b191374afbe86860076e1
9082 F20101111_AABSCH keefe_k_Page_027thm.jpg
d2766710923dc2f8fff01e58a4eabc04
57ae496df14fa0796752adf98cee7acf3bf8f3c8
5139 F20101111_AABSBT keefe_k_Page_009thm.jpg
b6f1b091714ee3ac8cbc9470aaee3049
d28df9497f1c6671eb73bb71c75555caa85c2afd
2551 F20101111_AABRXB keefe_k_Page_123.txt
22972faa001da8f2c0684338f0519473
2ac9d3dccb1b544cf65c8a34ca016061669fd1bb
2546 F20101111_AABRWM keefe_k_Page_106.txt
9bc123b1d72df7041d9b502d8184d22a
50b321407b9401e87678772fa6bcf54b51f506fb
2324 F20101111_AABRVY keefe_k_Page_090.txt
2d98d9bb8ced172f79245fce0564c1e5
6bcf5646d648f7a4456105cc0cd1a89d40ad6e17
34935 F20101111_AABSCI keefe_k_Page_028.QC.jpg
bf786862963d3f4a94be81def8a1e608
1647f7caae59010f3c7a965ac468ce23ec449647
2755 F20101111_AABRXC keefe_k_Page_127.txt
33c4697eb14c7f12b90b5c216d1546c5
102a15317b2e440b357d54458c2f4ab29019df0d
983 F20101111_AABRWN keefe_k_Page_107.txt
d9a8d24c68d45ead2fdbbdaa3707821a
5400413e1a1da8eeff34bb7545fc9ef3a3f4050e
536 F20101111_AABRVZ keefe_k_Page_092.txt
195eaf95be36b892484d03d38f92c503
4a64c6cf00c3a489c933de1d90436f623cb32c9d
35621 F20101111_AABSCJ keefe_k_Page_029.QC.jpg
4c4974411ac12795d9f69d9d2562d5bf
514379afe36eb57c31eb63822c7cd63f6e03907a
29699 F20101111_AABSBU keefe_k_Page_010.QC.jpg
3e3f0646bbd684a263843d9abde0dc6b
93b9796408521bde2ff5edb5651f3718c443cdec
2694 F20101111_AABRXD keefe_k_Page_128.txt
c173164e79a57198d8aa9ac0868685ee
41172e936f56421d2364b7cbfba7f5f735d87782
2074 F20101111_AABRWO keefe_k_Page_109.txt
fb0d3ae72b553bae4f6e946167560a50
fc3ab77c78f111f42cbbf61bd404651e3846c4ea
35644 F20101111_AABSCK keefe_k_Page_035.QC.jpg
83cf705492af55d64ee0d84336345ca0
927a45be76c010f1dbc0db12f6e67ef28580ad20
33883 F20101111_AABSBV keefe_k_Page_012.QC.jpg
663c4705162c1547e7d235d1ceea83dd
dc072e8ca1d0d2d8f8dbde87cbd80c8bc30ddad2
2868 F20101111_AABRXE keefe_k_Page_129.txt
63fe9368421e62a95ea948cf923e5897
52a57a9f85ba76308243733a78dff519e33077b0
3469 F20101111_AABRWP keefe_k_Page_110.txt
cf11b198251f88229014491dd0dc8520
f9d7804387de97a55882a43ad4e9bf45253f4b56
9469 F20101111_AABSCL keefe_k_Page_036thm.jpg
299bae7a54e6503695acd0dc1e8e33bd
43073a817e4cdf90fb574a02570dd401fbd1a0a4
9023 F20101111_AABSBW keefe_k_Page_015thm.jpg
441a765fdeffeffa5a80cbce6646b930
4016986d87934b7edb354d03fde69753fbcb442c
2716 F20101111_AABRXF keefe_k_Page_130.txt
c9652ecda03f5d68a2725f02ae95ee5a
a010f84c9cdabcea55e4cb6ef6e3605297dee152
3675 F20101111_AABRWQ keefe_k_Page_111.txt
0fb91d90aba30d6aaed69cba25aae0ed
8fcc9180c3d20d7a126681908d40dc518f9e05ca
35978 F20101111_AABSDA keefe_k_Page_053.QC.jpg
0beeb02593aba015758b15d891c88507
0c03b9490a8b3febca09286c3d4de1df985062cd
9003 F20101111_AABSCM keefe_k_Page_038thm.jpg
50f594ea5d3797feb76ee1c9b729c4ad
9f0f3ee8126053a94a4afa889b93e58738a047f7
35113 F20101111_AABSBX keefe_k_Page_017.QC.jpg
b88e72e1d25eec68684240761d280091
3b91e06ffa2c04f23862b3166000583a773a5751
2432 F20101111_AABRXG keefe_k_Page_131.txt
1c65bb7058b6d0a253be107e91526b38
bda468899e93cb47f70623285296bda1def33cd4
4817 F20101111_AABRWR keefe_k_Page_113.txt
110c77ae6eab2172d92d678ace1eb48c
da24ddde618b8fcfad6904840de4af9888fbf8fa
8920 F20101111_AABSDB keefe_k_Page_053thm.jpg
f8bddb64e9d9a1edb96337c9aca6639d
786614ab0812c359f8b9257f4a8fbd506088a61c
3266 F20101111_AABSCN keefe_k_Page_039thm.jpg
be8abbe1cb45285746b2c1e0dc236393
826a02a8612b263e3dab10e4a7523ee47d7e7606
8770 F20101111_AABSBY keefe_k_Page_018thm.jpg
10f49141f9acb9610d0dd4e2a9d26897
10230f3beb7a8fc5be97559474f7fc8cfa7f9eda
837 F20101111_AABRXH keefe_k_Page_132.txt
60ce0890f92b3cb7a1837324b9aea463
de4b555b324e359833a9133e9749380178da6920
4234 F20101111_AABRWS keefe_k_Page_114.txt
f421dd5f715250092b25d9a5252a9ba4
101e2921918bc505e8e781fd37f200d5b38ec57c
37946 F20101111_AABSDC keefe_k_Page_054.QC.jpg
20ff95571f1deac906e235539483f2c9
9115d82ccb8376af186ab907aac108a1b9d56dce
13616 F20101111_AABSCO keefe_k_Page_040.QC.jpg
d5b16566af4dbc835c9c8de824f8fcc9
4509f77fadd9d2ef0f82d17038da306f8ece64e0
9015 F20101111_AABSBZ keefe_k_Page_019thm.jpg
64d4d6399190663f68eb91e2efa0740a
77ee9f8673d0972741461829c2cbe21e345c5862
2235 F20101111_AABRXI keefe_k_Page_001thm.jpg
eb849a50d4b2a9e115468351e4ea0427
59ddb91054350c07c5e24ae3441c5b324bf261da
2691 F20101111_AABRWT keefe_k_Page_115.txt
6093bff22859fbf74d383a8874f260e4
24ad858ed251739cb0248d0ab58302911b14d9c6
2676 F20101111_AABRAA keefe_k_Page_126.txt
8359b7c40cb980e22565eb0dfaf930d4
dda519de700937c77b355905ba06916e173a8645
9453 F20101111_AABSDD keefe_k_Page_054thm.jpg
6d166ae3e6997856f16e242a569b6224
61ded6e69326f46f50d6c92e52b173f4d6fdd5b7
5774 F20101111_AABSCP keefe_k_Page_043.QC.jpg
6aad08f05b7ac5ace97c53b208b282fb
7af322486cbcc33cc840dda53c239ba5fb87ad7c
936980 F20101111_AABRXJ keefe_k.pdf
47fd8e127726dc068071fa96e0d668fe
242295891907e1de7ba63d15bfbd140b20c675f1
2908 F20101111_AABRWU keefe_k_Page_116.txt
a109969693eedb19a9849c83ec0823b3
add05c8cdd183093018dd92c15cbc87e7a251818
1051970 F20101111_AABRAB keefe_k_Page_094.jp2
ec70f4e062c1551cb3fd15876faa3639
dfe79dc8803a647e35a85c7c81949c24e7cf4478
9034 F20101111_AABSDE keefe_k_Page_057thm.jpg
bf4589ff510485974c65a2339057d0c7
704649fcacf4c202385cfd0f6ea2494b2909d075
19074 F20101111_AABSCQ keefe_k_Page_044.QC.jpg
ed3b4bec559cbe66efc53436b5ee5346
32caba066298d188264abd792966c91b241d5779
35634 F20101111_AABRXK keefe_k_Page_099.QC.jpg
04a7436dfb1c41a5aeaab94f23157581
4e7959f78e854c7aeb6ab54d8185094f457f4d71
2685 F20101111_AABRWV keefe_k_Page_117.txt
38a45a8aea8658c897ea8a8165a3ab2a
6497a3c4bd270186bd3b7e20fbad58ef1e53a174
45215 F20101111_AABRAC keefe_k_Page_132.jpg
c5b20371bbe803d7dbe1ebca2ab78ae0
9db37e759250f8b6be52afcc69f974ccffc37965
8984 F20101111_AABSDF keefe_k_Page_058thm.jpg
a74b6fd047f54551694d8f3bf5ae07fd
9ac8dd20ab41d45f156ee8866a961ac1aa4c6b07
5106 F20101111_AABSCR keefe_k_Page_044thm.jpg
f780714e8a649047dcf97851d22e826f
91f765e727fb817abfa967b70cc50162130ff87a
2545 F20101111_AABRWW keefe_k_Page_118.txt
48edaa419f53fe7c77b0de922cf6dc8b
fcaf4842d0418bdf4030d229c0c94690e128d942
F20101111_AABRAD keefe_k_Page_099.tif
441ed35e6ec535c1eab9b7b9ce4ac4a3
a2a858a9e274035437fb6565faae6b29b5495c23
35605 F20101111_AABSDG keefe_k_Page_059.QC.jpg
d98844b2176da7b63ee3e1302de47b41
10af950e116038caf23cda649994f77a71c8a859
10518 F20101111_AABSCS keefe_k_Page_045.QC.jpg
7fe43b548f68f394bad0f82bf1170ac1
fc109d2d5deb6c76000754a9de68fc2f5c658c6e
9474 F20101111_AABRXL keefe_k_Page_121thm.jpg
7a100320fa631a1231060fbf4891840c
7ef4b70420719866005c4663064c9685670ce6b8
2738 F20101111_AABRWX keefe_k_Page_119.txt
8226bdaeef1394adf221f337d543cd2e
2150439b2d8a0979bbdb1ccc0402f8cc510fbc5a
12937 F20101111_AABRAE keefe_k_Page_046.pro
a16dbdec0a854ce9a83b580800213e44
b7deaab30759fa9a79c50834168a1f2e786aa057
36372 F20101111_AABRYA keefe_k_Page_103.QC.jpg
016e596e180c5fd142906eeb088da7b9
7e94aeb44896c7b36767d2fa1d79d2d01259496a
8776 F20101111_AABSDH keefe_k_Page_059thm.jpg
d0bd029a26301c2fcbfa565c09285233
81ef860965cefc1096accaeac3d8690496889a2b
3170 F20101111_AABSCT keefe_k_Page_045thm.jpg
c071d7a760a0945052354f482336d6e4
5df0443b17dccda45ec8fdb830b2ebfc471cd873
36532 F20101111_AABRXM keefe_k_Page_102.QC.jpg
9a69cdf8acce0a05f0d50a10bd081cb3
87b8764483cdd2425b5df522caad940a6e0cbb32
2604 F20101111_AABRWY keefe_k_Page_120.txt
407224437a268d0ad8546894d2becd1d
bb33c9e127426cd3693c53417d589a121c8a37e9
1051984 F20101111_AABRAF keefe_k_Page_073.jp2
54755ff93b558cd83817a029434456ed
0a8b5c33c16d677588268e3ec15262a5d9f05852
8352 F20101111_AABRYB keefe_k_Page_012thm.jpg
3429056c326cb3efb4c65b8326f097d6
52f0ed27323a9a3bf8bff95469e7188b7d351e28
35788 F20101111_AABSDI keefe_k_Page_060.QC.jpg
fc858803246a10b30640e341a70b50f2
02685d74c153e913b8a99f325aaa90682304aa2b
12877 F20101111_AABSCU keefe_k_Page_046.QC.jpg
c2dbb780a81a501f7b271a86a3291663
2216a2f32b67c5f01e99fc718d670c3a3b71ccc8
12332 F20101111_AABRXN keefe_k_Page_096.QC.jpg
382e224a5092ca444924aa6926e44adb
654ac715a270170f57c1c172140c8b31e4e50ccc
2700 F20101111_AABRWZ keefe_k_Page_121.txt
552275648e91e05fabe17ae64e72e258
a21be53fcac975fa7a965a11016b8875cd615666
F20101111_AABRAG keefe_k_Page_102.tif
c4ec917dcb044c7234f009fd54390a90
a87f62990504668f1736d59e776f6d35045d6849
9058 F20101111_AABRYC keefe_k_Page_104thm.jpg
b6b2b9f2758431e5227a6d0b987cb78a
a356d31b237f1e6892ce446036f67860a9afd086
36548 F20101111_AABSDJ keefe_k_Page_061.QC.jpg
7d77f641d035c3cdea503e860819f9d5
0130a6935b7a0cb77a79add839b9163225bbadf3
8705 F20101111_AABRXO keefe_k_Page_069thm.jpg
0ce5c8417bd2272055482dee20e128aa
1f6cd76a091b07fb169dcc9839c49cfec15d6ffd
28807 F20101111_AABRAH keefe_k_Page_079.pro
c4a84e3ecabe35fa0c59763082053f4c
f68e8237ca244250726f8d272b5d25479bb3d098
38745 F20101111_AABRYD keefe_k_Page_084.QC.jpg
a861772b34124443cd993b0e3bff5cd2
f61e5f620b7556cef303872b2db8dc02f84dfcc0
9078 F20101111_AABSDK keefe_k_Page_061thm.jpg
c107a22b37be7e6884493389c5fb1b5c
f580870ff9b2be9900b83899c93d5041bb671a81
4017 F20101111_AABSCV keefe_k_Page_046thm.jpg
aa08366e3c07938afe4c6f13b32d3a04
c5f7f89ceda0e35f9ec3c626f26e1ff43e3368a4
F20101111_AABRAI keefe_k_Page_100thm.jpg
09a5dc5253f739800f321ba57d0e37da
0a68142451565915b630cda90d7039d413c09907
9005 F20101111_AABRYE keefe_k_Page_072thm.jpg
58170a4b1a7448e8fda4734ca4368886
52304444056c7a244b9d9422efd044efb78441b5
14779 F20101111_AABRXP keefe_k_Page_042.QC.jpg
ebd6a5cd26c1d01edfd65ff240e400f5
2c2db6ae773bc6b71e092c7e9f2abded8ecec358
37214 F20101111_AABSDL keefe_k_Page_062.QC.jpg
411789785b2b6a1d8129209ad8079aa4
4f0c43b743da4b0136a35e2f467c80357d8d6ab9
13470 F20101111_AABSCW keefe_k_Page_047.QC.jpg
4685dac564dabdd9082192fed064919e
1d278e71bcdcec43ba4b08140c9ae307f5c380fb
F20101111_AABRAJ keefe_k_Page_031.tif
6d284f5d4fd0118f190bc036fd5bd3fe
3ce0a28551e9d9cf70cc66d168d500c121198531
37342 F20101111_AABRYF keefe_k_Page_014.QC.jpg
c594d14e985750efd458829872f8cf35
9d0190426731af209182d5d78f68e79585b6d0e5
10012 F20101111_AABRXQ keefe_k_Page_092.QC.jpg
30c298ea36a47fb9c00549d51106bc36
d62cf40138e39217554d7cb61afa8f35a039c91f
36411 F20101111_AABSEA keefe_k_Page_080.QC.jpg
c4d15431bba0e486425241e09344d27e
02f0e8d217b1197cdceb448e269ad2ac3834df30
9238 F20101111_AABSDM keefe_k_Page_062thm.jpg
34e091567926960c66188c3d652f9569
3321e38b1b8aa01a7af8277857184eb57453bd6f
21359 F20101111_AABSCX keefe_k_Page_048.QC.jpg
d8d70e866ccfd0c581588e0b28ca87f0
d820a38940b2106bcdc0d1459645ff5b86c4f83b
712873 F20101111_AABRAK keefe_k_Page_011.jp2
ee89071d6b0144f48cd37b4eb0215f0b
b1cc581c89c8906fc0281366ec4f8af51d4d9cf6
7757 F20101111_AABRYG keefe_k_Page_006thm.jpg
e16d24186bc44707094e24e716a324d5
24aaa69c3c303673d63958a646a115b6f76586a7
8580 F20101111_AABRXR keefe_k_Page_051thm.jpg
14366c2fec4b95249de8bb2ff7e0ef1e
e33fe1aea0b16894b3e31be06ed1694ca290b4bf
8898 F20101111_AABSEB keefe_k_Page_081thm.jpg
c29dd1cd3021633414428a5d414196ae
d5f4088072c7d8aeded5ff086ee33099fc8588b7
24217 F20101111_AABSDN keefe_k_Page_065.QC.jpg
5720abbeccf221d62b4c27c08ceeae37
b73aa7d5100d13ddb909d5c58463827a07861d19
6121 F20101111_AABSCY keefe_k_Page_048thm.jpg
404d7882377c19f5f633b15b9c3fd915
18eaa9996bc2aa8ec659b49a26711d55e1342902
50926 F20101111_AABRAL keefe_k_Page_031.pro
c32e7cfaa51bf7e913ac790ccbca8265
702fac8a395e0ff2ff1c3f61a0a94bdb5144b4a9
36369 F20101111_AABRYH keefe_k_Page_069.QC.jpg
6d007fc2c781890aff95906813b745a1
6d81ed302f25682ac0082c7d72cbc3b6e6954260
35968 F20101111_AABRXS keefe_k_Page_081.QC.jpg
e9a2b20253539f2025de1952a123d396
aa346a799dacd6363d8f36bff52d313c64293906
35443 F20101111_AABSEC keefe_k_Page_082.QC.jpg
dbcb341977c815ef3a2458d132c6c9f1
cdb7b3c711986e077e5f7db157ba761785153cdf
3400 F20101111_AABSDO keefe_k_Page_066thm.jpg
0a02d65c4468371bbf9796e13d6b63ca
576776c3d42833907ea1a1a124b83fd25af365a3
36697 F20101111_AABSCZ keefe_k_Page_052.QC.jpg
cb65d5a4753f59791f3837a15b31471d
1201d518f99686ceb0bd88c53b24b8e31355a839
3559 F20101111_AABRBA keefe_k_Page_006.txt
56c5be3983b2666117841defd797e145
3e98165d38c3acf252cbaa5896ea089ab85b576a
F20101111_AABRAM keefe_k_Page_083.jp2
c3325cbdbaa30c9610e0d86057f931e2
91e76ada7323e8be0a0f15c37a7d432bd2494325
9206 F20101111_AABRYI keefe_k_Page_119thm.jpg
8a126ea48633cecfe13e345e7f154dcb
19c3aa31360eba0114ce0fab36d03f6e032b913d
7859 F20101111_AABRXT keefe_k_Page_086thm.jpg
b0715cb55cd2fb2a0d085940655b7639
b3817dc6bf9e9c3a296d5ed414477f2063797d91
8647 F20101111_AABSED keefe_k_Page_082thm.jpg
4817dd9cc36dfad181dc2cadfb1fbf13
d6ba38e3feedc0c8e42b35e133201274d23a7dd7
34601 F20101111_AABSDP keefe_k_Page_067.QC.jpg
ae704fe6df33ded6521b87fdf35bbe43
03e60488a5db3871a8b450a2cd5ab15ffb2bd30e
36543 F20101111_AABRBB keefe_k_Page_072.QC.jpg
881269b86024ee30e0965a37fcd314b5
0e5684f36903b90c678a501c54fcf563c1a99703
F20101111_AABRAN keefe_k_Page_044.tif
41d71b6342d453805bc77f15f0c722ad
1797713c168ba075a3415bd4a7a0886dc8d06042
3999 F20101111_AABRYJ keefe_k_Page_047thm.jpg
bdcf108c851c1bc40ecca22d28868c17
a011443a0c21670fb899c1a9736ecc4c4b8305f8
10855 F20101111_AABRXU keefe_k_Page_064.QC.jpg
339b7696a5d303322ea8fd84024a43b3
f05304b344b0e506be1c9621e96daf3d85317455
34219 F20101111_AABSEE keefe_k_Page_085.QC.jpg
469f9b1fccd0bba384ce74aaeb6b10cc
f90b34ad1e82b6bef5e505eadfdfde31d2fb7947
8364 F20101111_AABSDQ keefe_k_Page_067thm.jpg
417ba2fa087d5959ca5be22047fbd80f
041f22a0de5e849703b2285005b42f91c2ae7e9b
2153 F20101111_AABRAO keefe_k_Page_073.txt
b03b3cba9383dd32e3f7413f6b58eedc
4420bc72ef100d7ed7a3f4d80f864adc6932f4e4
11741 F20101111_AABRYK keefe_k_Page_108.QC.jpg
4fa61a82e90e5891e1e71c71be81b08a
e919842eaf1a587c087705543a6a2cbd83059b1e
8611 F20101111_AABRXV keefe_k_Page_017thm.jpg
9eac5bd0a97d2ca62e2d12cce1d10e49
c54c3320bf3131f653036c20c2c555b001d370a8
F20101111_AABRBC keefe_k_Page_091.tif
05ec27e716d5809721772b3cd1d4341b
b7cd462318321d64e6f6056dffde4c9a09dede4a
9095 F20101111_AABSEF keefe_k_Page_087thm.jpg
cd5e779dc73b3214501d95af2c20af5b
055ea70ff47d7a5669ba66bebdddecbdcb55dec6
35084 F20101111_AABSDR keefe_k_Page_068.QC.jpg
280c1d1ca68be5740aeffa95cc36e8c8
a9ad68c03aea322430071d8652ecdd9973a007b3
F20101111_AABRAP keefe_k_Page_002.tif
24b9461b1d508f36e388368fd09acd8e
25b04002de0b720f8271739de79249da65a2792f
8642 F20101111_AABRYL keefe_k_Page_070thm.jpg
1e7b221f13e61a7b07b99d02a4109322
e63e51eb9f7151121fea38c9b038f819f8e29aaf
8899 F20101111_AABRXW keefe_k_Page_122thm.jpg
9654590bda15fc2bb565337c2a27b265
338670e09da2b10bc86a4635739543cd6eee9532
37858 F20101111_AABRBD keefe_k_Page_057.QC.jpg
eb13913ab9bfb21a206a7cd62cf23194
1d1be64a4f8c8a1e774f9955ce5a909747d20c8c
32045 F20101111_AABSEG keefe_k_Page_088.QC.jpg
05b25a9cc6218999fa9de237be421e87
aa5980a0db17a1bb008902154e88e8771b277be4
8732 F20101111_AABSDS keefe_k_Page_068thm.jpg
c5c335b8329d982bb69c6103783bbcc7
afa2ce51effc2b22e63ae75df8f6a3d772d60914
114746 F20101111_AABRAQ keefe_k_Page_032.jpg
d322e1be4035ea7a685a0cf4556d8a30
e523b9d120efbc1324c7e7fb7bc69a9a60ebf498
9087 F20101111_AABRZA keefe_k_Page_052thm.jpg
90a5cba1787eb13e260d4754f3614f83
f6eaeed16dc60b3df701d15ce01cf94e93b7c802
5291 F20101111_AABRXX keefe_k_Page_076thm.jpg
581b7db6c9d2c4d8ee200109c68a39aa
44b9fa28d5d770be217a690f713d935db6a6745f
105528 F20101111_AABRBE keefe_k_Page_067.jpg
78f06cc0ff7c2623f9f9d6a5df14fc0a
2362459ed51656ad46954e1e48dab86ee2e1c9fc
39477 F20101111_AABSEH keefe_k_Page_090.QC.jpg
88c64825245d4e29e5231b2e78d74dac
49aa0a9ecaeeeda5fa12a67db51c7c2247febf88
35029 F20101111_AABSDT keefe_k_Page_070.QC.jpg
91c1a3225c698800066f1ff94c185d5b
88e413c7218d4514f45a844e9d74cc122d9b0060
54784 F20101111_AABRAR keefe_k_Page_060.pro
f4b1db721d7669de0697e8c49ef05ed5
ba8f4dea632aaba4149d50721df151efe731e8c2
8965 F20101111_AABRZB keefe_k_Page_037thm.jpg
f18d48d46bfcd73f17ff41655226a6f1
c746c7af2e3e147e79b2f072d77df2c19c7c3247
30917 F20101111_AABRYM keefe_k_Page_086.QC.jpg
3bfc7f5388c98565c0751811006cd884
151b4d615c100b0b61c977c6f43798004255bd4d
8795 F20101111_AABRXY keefe_k_Page_001.QC.jpg
e826b0772a8c86b43e084ff465d587a0
3b976925952249048766079ad259cf4bc8e23125
36476 F20101111_AABRBF keefe_k_Page_104.QC.jpg
41ae08723f77498a197e4bfaf33498f9
1564678155f06a0b506e4ed1984e0cb71920c16a
9212 F20101111_AABSEI keefe_k_Page_091thm.jpg
54037de7a850cf04f462df2dd01e4867
13ce4d8fd81ef8b85e358c5f025fc23cb27f5eac
36471 F20101111_AABSDU keefe_k_Page_071.QC.jpg
dd205fe0ae4d940a6bdcde0b6f9e6620
eca12aeef083d490a173a3a16ca1ce46105e2dcc
8667 F20101111_AABQWA keefe_k_Page_080thm.jpg
0277361f0133c347f3da55f9b5debb1b
7d056354b2990d799d051a2cf41b577f56770c98
3899 F20101111_AABRAS keefe_k_Page_003thm.jpg
fa740c3f189162e7ca30e430b3c1a9eb
68621a7efa024e7ca2a681aa97ed3dc95b295019
9555 F20101111_AABRZC keefe_k_Page_127thm.jpg
011947aa0caa42e0a1871a215a6de704
6d8e95d47aaf9d19e4887d8555ef686ebae83ced
2672 F20101111_AABRYN keefe_k_Page_064thm.jpg
5d90d56dea2df3908744924fd2bd51ea
0045fc9e13da785fe3d8fb7f2af2f6f65c4eccbd
39759 F20101111_AABRXZ keefe_k_Page_124.QC.jpg
03d019ca22c70d0097f9cf0c97871e86
b6cb853169c3dd6724a8c7521bd0bc87f70561e9
35937 F20101111_AABRBG keefe_k_Page_034.QC.jpg
9493848fdf1272e326b1ce2088d2e69b
1b853ff4c828b85b48bc707fcab768c34d038e8e
9482 F20101111_AABSEJ keefe_k_Page_093thm.jpg
b2942d0e6614d30414de7ebaa3538117
948d6c92143ff3968bd7a76f209aa17e8e7cb0d6
37591 F20101111_AABSDV keefe_k_Page_074.QC.jpg
e0662e955bcf82bb8d7e4c282f154ddf
e6652d8209962e1e60a99e36089eb22b43261957
8756 F20101111_AABQWB keefe_k_Page_028thm.jpg
67590bbd34cca8b4e1839814bcb0b81d
eca26d730720dca1f26afabf6bee7842835c009b
2739 F20101111_AABRAT keefe_k_Page_124.txt
dbfb33f44698a477b1e996c9fe7152fb
c13be50489875840ea4dbfe6fb3afe496220c85b
36006 F20101111_AABRZD keefe_k_Page_073.QC.jpg
428ae8a4cf78d3043dcbd27700366640
2d08973de6ebaa5c2ac967ed5d833d1a0bdad0b2
9160 F20101111_AABRYO keefe_k_Page_032thm.jpg
8511170272427c7e806b706ff7a69d8f
18c456b7f046b656425ad6f7e86e42772fef77a7
F20101111_AABRBH keefe_k_Page_126.tif
e7334105b7e32c0659048193be6d8cc4
c7b1b924b64a6c5bb0b1877ac7252ac560591c78
34971 F20101111_AABSEK keefe_k_Page_094.QC.jpg
56c96e15cc8aa90032fb932f6041d02e
7c8cbcda9c7839cac9ec86c86adbab7162c0266a
1051952 F20101111_AABQWC keefe_k_Page_032.jp2
09f8dd644f2d0bf2924ad99cabbca236
c417456ea62761c727f3ebb7dd16e3f443ad74e3
38866 F20101111_AABRZE keefe_k_Page_123.QC.jpg
902c657137fb6b6ece411dbe5345f688
546435d881fb5c199e2317bd6098dc6cfaccdbdc
9565 F20101111_AABRYP keefe_k_Page_126thm.jpg
50f25d95f3b3f5efa239cac6a4d36776
40137c036e4c75cf38af5b1fafbcab92884a7296
155 F20101111_AABRBI keefe_k_Page_112.txt
5f21aeb76f92184805916a793e75a86f
28fac9dec9b4cba3d339dc4e119593a21ea37dc9
19511 F20101111_AABSEL keefe_k_Page_095.QC.jpg
2247ee558e6a72dcea94cf9b45c6aadc
24437f5a55945274c45396db145baa6cc39eef92
7511 F20101111_AABSDW keefe_k_Page_075thm.jpg
feee4ff8852034cccab2d3e56da01a8f
0b9f0fb185e748fb8d0e81991f7806ec2643b1d9
8659 F20101111_AABQWD keefe_k_Page_035thm.jpg
37383c1251b1cccde2be2f6f3edbb312
85ead33da28b1b511857bb41dd4db711b57ee7ad
101186 F20101111_AABRAU keefe_k_Page_088.jpg
32f2ffc62dc9ddd6435dc5976276395c
cb92a4d3a324c987c93129e76506bddcde96e43d
13559 F20101111_AABRZF keefe_k_Page_039.QC.jpg
ff04a2f0e06a254287f4bf537cb7dd30
2369a4ec7301d394c00b65dfbbb107ef014bc478
40045 F20101111_AABRYQ keefe_k_Page_116.QC.jpg
363b60ab25181f0553f55cf8c7cf69d6
df0708e3754a5d4a1a187e00cb2f0e981b18c321
37826 F20101111_AABRBJ keefe_k_Page_032.QC.jpg
04643da2bfc61abf03855b9a8b52042e
fa26c41e39cef913240a3390abc82161aaa96d9c
1014 F20101111_AABSFA keefe_k_Page_112thm.jpg
67be3de6130d061bb262d5941dbea4f7
2b406388a0157acfae275e90eefd1c7258c993ff
21436 F20101111_AABSEM keefe_k_Page_097.QC.jpg
fb4344afb865229c9baa069a072a6b4a
33e04a8515c4c7b340d9db93f3929fe5560df783
22744 F20101111_AABSDX keefe_k_Page_077.QC.jpg
55639695fb145d50347a94adb5e2bd8a
74a44d7a183f70676c52b2806089a30f257171ef
1051966 F20101111_AABQWE keefe_k_Page_070.jp2
747834dae9229509d2703a807adb5d8a
928da0967787e6c76408b93b99e1fb6022f9bf6d
F20101111_AABRAV keefe_k_Page_101.tif
f1ab67e2b3367dde71fb0a749995be41
76361286f4700092998df99696257e6fc4c3bbab
3909 F20101111_AABRZG keefe_k_Page_004thm.jpg
83adac2c625ad6ddacb9b77acaafadb7
a2ca1478dcff245321c24b7880e0d9c2acb6037b
F20101111_AABRYR keefe_k_Page_129thm.jpg
97e1288e186240222c10b21e4ff53c82
de8608460d8635e83049d2aefbd6c443ab1f0c72
8893 F20101111_AABRBK keefe_k_Page_060thm.jpg
e2caf40ef65bb82953281057b0d17efd
65dbeab37836bc954b3d0b253cb968b33afa433e
21094 F20101111_AABSFB keefe_k_Page_113.QC.jpg
65e5b01b3e5834ee01d8942acb13dc62
9e3bd6a31ae725d0333b4d3be5e2fed8a79f93ad
35168 F20101111_AABSEN keefe_k_Page_098.QC.jpg
e0e2b3e5cd19016670bf5a43be3d72c6
681faba43e8dae372f4cbad6b72e940749cdd37e
12773 F20101111_AABSDY keefe_k_Page_078.QC.jpg
3cba5260c89c888f98a8b89e1b10429d
6e4b86966f052677b736209383cc34ac9bc3e94e
F20101111_AABQWF keefe_k_Page_115.tif
3c4763370107b66d9f7bd2792b9c8568
273f8f5eee4c4e70a3cb555fafea5e7d8e376aea
35566 F20101111_AABRAW keefe_k_Page_016.QC.jpg
f8193db3dc9f89d0098d095d17ab1f82
d15143780b608ef2addefd20ea65bb83f96b9e10
35983 F20101111_AABRZH keefe_k_Page_122.QC.jpg
bc121e0fccdcc918e8ae63512b9f404c
5e7b8d3929272cd964686a7f2ef61ecb6da6c2a9
9159 F20101111_AABRYS keefe_k_Page_014thm.jpg
5b0918d7bc53c88a0c30fd65c28165e0
85c11cac6f2fb6e37f030b5b35e124d9f6e037bc
3669 F20101111_AABRBL keefe_k_Page_096thm.jpg
b09a2960aac6cc56a7aaa11a3ffd4ae3
30886a4ab8fa1be3013185223ad5043d3905f411
9869 F20101111_AABSFC keefe_k_Page_116thm.jpg
970968b53e65b7dc96f59d0791d6a50e
85819b39b3710b2ab9ac04ffa69479c773cf9047
F20101111_AABSEO keefe_k_Page_098thm.jpg
2df8d9f73816726a05336f6c65a3d7c2
54f5e4c124fc53cf7642c15a3ba1c96912966852
4591 F20101111_AABSDZ keefe_k_Page_079thm.jpg
c06c092d99d03885bbba95eccdf39eea
7cd830d828aaaf2d17a571dc0b52905e3549b496
12315 F20101111_AABQWG keefe_k_Page_045.pro
a9298452abfbb6e582cf542d9d676d6e
4175bc35f3c69233c8894de1161afc1ddb747017
56267 F20101111_AABRAX keefe_k_Page_056.pro
45906988dd31b0436babeeacab72e2ee
dfd5f5034b802a9f49639068741fb505fc0de2f4
11827 F20101111_AABRZI keefe_k_Page_107.QC.jpg
781e737ba3e979c0ce7a81838543bf28
eb5ac2ae1c7a3cab62dda4e77662dd983a563693
26430 F20101111_AABRYT keefe_k_Page_008.QC.jpg
24b1ee6c4d33833c26f13bfdba5da5d2
78e13adfa120c8fe24e9dc2ed7da5b9a2e278290
11594 F20101111_AABRCA keefe_k_Page_096.pro
64ae56c2673fe3f1263f53f550840f84
2f238def04784b106fb7d0bc072a64527bda5a3d
F20101111_AABRBM keefe_k_Page_032.txt
f3f7f9f0f86980309adce06820536fe6
5a2c430d07ba3f8f149fc6908e16544c5287b381
36163 F20101111_AABSFD keefe_k_Page_117.QC.jpg
a4bf0bbe236ad26c938c53c68bddece3
1efcc6a3d83797cca55bd40147a744cc3edba45e
8703 F20101111_AABSEP keefe_k_Page_099thm.jpg
47ded348f3e36f4d298de6ed3b5c90c6
5b35c5c2c0671f4492afec1afe09e788646e1fca
F20101111_AABQWH keefe_k_Page_121.tif
738225622bbef660880b7e510a3f287d
0a06c4b901a7722c0900dac00dfcf3247c0a93e8
F20101111_AABRAY keefe_k_Page_093.tif
a0f7e3d24a92f401d65a24024fa50c65
5f9f671df892629198f6d3e43ec59c2adefe070a
9084 F20101111_AABRZJ keefe_k_Page_033thm.jpg
bc35a1e54d0066805415e3cf3ad7d504
9f0101d6a3015c4675ea931d958ae1476c4e2886
8486 F20101111_AABRYU keefe_k_Page_094thm.jpg
524a3a71a2a6dd39e590626b1fad3969
c21d3bae3f3f7327bdb9b3d79ffa311cf0eb6ec3
F20101111_AABRCB keefe_k_Page_112.tif
02002d915843c77c73ff3085b3c322c7
b12284b39c0877a3741b590d711c7aed9e92f1c4
1263 F20101111_AABRBN keefe_k_Page_011.txt
ea73481603c2e8a24757bfb0b00cbd33
d449e482f4ca6b3e65cc0cfa649c7c25fff40085
9136 F20101111_AABSFE keefe_k_Page_117thm.jpg
1cf3917b3934eba316c0cd1f59ac3e68
566b7d6fd53703f75b95a036b12a750fabb83a5d
36443 F20101111_AABSEQ keefe_k_Page_101.QC.jpg
7ac82f8fe603615f94362805d1ce1c6d
93dfdfd59e8d7f873f92c6ab640c1aaa7cb0f11c
2179 F20101111_AABQWI keefe_k_Page_018.txt
29e7302f5b2ad4b30150dc4a87b550b8
fb01160a3b234c20b1b053e9f93ec4c8217bddc7
999033 F20101111_AABRAZ keefe_k_Page_010.jp2
166385b0e5ecf82dc758ba5ac3abce02
a4f1d9ae9ce48e60ad5952e8ec44c56af0749dd5
3826 F20101111_AABRZK keefe_k_Page_112.QC.jpg
30a42ca1d3ba030e29057ded7eea3186
8403667f4fb0de45f4c34ab4b3d3054666697b7b
18521 F20101111_AABRYV keefe_k_Page_076.QC.jpg
1288d929f7f778b2f8fd1028395f7071
f73e9a8d14c4ffdf362f9c80cb89975cc384b8aa
F20101111_AABRCC keefe_k_Page_027.tif
72a0b17accaeae24092b3a5ddc2d9340
7f9042617f39e3184c2e6ac9554693db3b77a717
112923 F20101111_AABRBO keefe_k_Page_091.jpg
348a847f1e77ae900c694bc8559adc00
2c2eccdfd0334ec86568cdebcc173b29acedcaaf
37204 F20101111_AABSFF keefe_k_Page_118.QC.jpg
4d3a85f57486dd397c9fb9606a2f9f0a
afe01d00a864671d2375d14c7977a50e54473000
9048 F20101111_AABSER keefe_k_Page_102thm.jpg
dc4de5ffea877d0b49819070eeb05b21
7564a9db8a4c052f56e68d6edff3a9cadcc6b45a
8135 F20101111_AABQWJ keefe_k_Page_110thm.jpg
a02a55b788c00742aed744803a0aaf4d
561a3e6be015de44fa255d0bb85bbd9bb21337ae
8546 F20101111_AABRZL keefe_k_Page_023thm.jpg
66781154ca897296b572effd8322e287
5ce333350b96c47c6da3194aac9a83e92ebc36ab
8767 F20101111_AABRYW keefe_k_Page_050thm.jpg
5144da4bea3c3b0c81a0659c6c2198d4
be9488bfe7696702e6020b836f3550afe69e2c15
F20101111_AABRCD keefe_k_Page_068.tif
7726556a9719ebb8f0ddd3c957698df1
ee149be85e9046178f8e9d8732afdeb278a0ed80
F20101111_AABRBP keefe_k_Page_082.tif
512a3fab178a54c807f3e90019ec8187
415370b07adb86928205ba4adee6bd76559dbe06
F20101111_AABSFG keefe_k_Page_119.QC.jpg
e38b4be9f894f3f1bf85761638f5c078
9aa1c3f3b240455e751c745545bc00cf2c516005
F20101111_AABSES keefe_k_Page_103thm.jpg
7f7e68c3b22c8968c7dfa0a436f9b418
e7bd5fc86926c73c292ff63b8308ae51aabb9f6f
F20101111_AABQWK keefe_k_Page_016.txt
4b575f28ce2376d418992b1223af9411
94831fa4b315fc6212feb10643a7cbfb9ccc4e0b
3674 F20101111_AABRZM keefe_k_Page_042thm.jpg
3fa219ad95a744540b647ca90d231b1c
a11346518a3a8f2709cb55b3fc825b6fcbd09408
8692 F20101111_AABRYX keefe_k_Page_063thm.jpg
5ffddacbbd4a83d57d9cdbd977c44c71
f918db29038b9e733b9f07728a4d224041ca1c6c
F20101111_AABRCE keefe_k_Page_076.tif
2aef474d4618d6f2b9d22f473176ffd6
84bd0af10a4ed8bf3a0f132e9b4e1788ed7773c6
46091 F20101111_AABRBQ keefe_k_Page_004.jpg
7adbfb7455f9f8c3ae960e5bdd33722f
d6aa78dd4a55a3bc2061985522aa9839a4feb2bf
37920 F20101111_AABSFH keefe_k_Page_120.QC.jpg
204ad0e80faefc9f79d21ae904f25612
80e5038c084f55ed7698eef2dc33953651f39588
28499 F20101111_AABSET keefe_k_Page_105.QC.jpg
668d074f128098886d970ba606ca43cc
f9475978da4ba556459ea43c09c0ff9f63db10f6
34619 F20101111_AABRYY keefe_k_Page_025.QC.jpg
f79ac7f137a064a05b100e4c2aa7845f
72d9ed85984f7981b0fb8fcfb8daf9eeaa6f0a8e
9271 F20101111_AABRCF keefe_k_Page_090thm.jpg
2f37c8ee87efce1fd65e26574dbc50cf
f252a270e09ef88e7be7fd84e9fe6f238188d2d4
57664 F20101111_AABRBR keefe_k_Page_062.pro
79a6d687f3971073f772d573ec6a6444
e97f0a6fc6497aa8ad074e513074880a9f198eaa
9734 F20101111_AABSFI keefe_k_Page_123thm.jpg
25f2954fd34cd63a21c4b0c405625579
a59732fc887ab1addb4b34812c410745372ccbad
6869 F20101111_AABSEU keefe_k_Page_105thm.jpg
38f8a7b3ca2ecef2c409145bea848930
efe579360b5277dac17f776d8a7a5036251e93ec
F20101111_AABQWL keefe_k_Page_083.tif
b7906f5f7381219056613ab4ef8fbaf7
c4a165dce2073505b6d0162e0862d951111389c7
4655 F20101111_AABRZN keefe_k_Page_114thm.jpg
0e4f9a840e5d038d8e0dd4087606f45a
7b966417d22870bd72bbdd73272b8fdd78b74763
35488 F20101111_AABRYZ keefe_k_Page_051.QC.jpg
310cab10c4659b31304b1c7711a75baa
eef8ecb4cf1bb2ffe1c33a1db694dfdf774a51fc
29706 F20101111_AABRCG keefe_k_Page_075.QC.jpg
73e15be0dd98bf5370646bbf48955df4
239f4d1f4358a120b157d888d7839ac2e58a4027
F20101111_AABQXA keefe_k_Page_117.tif
a1500bd11ec1b2ab5ca6a3ec5cf068f4
6b1d71e4220e395302b108035f2f4af30efdfb5f
52692 F20101111_AABRBS keefe_k_Page_013.pro
214169ef5cc7030381e1416a3f81d713
e15ab9f99042b8a8d0f4e13a653896f00104dd79
38494 F20101111_AABSFJ keefe_k_Page_125.QC.jpg
43f46312bd8e44f8a0429b8e0e304cab
d30cb8485ffcfd9ab392bebf59973d1b4c7e23df
7639 F20101111_AABSEV keefe_k_Page_106thm.jpg
059e84bb2d62b54ba215299a26dfb8ab
9b9e6cf0db5643dbf8d59e405c73721352d89ca4
8664 F20101111_AABQWM keefe_k_Page_013thm.jpg
8709a7207512627f556961c483853b4a
13e872fb9eb703dd56646569aaae7a4e63c68fcd
8969 F20101111_AABRZO keefe_k_Page_016thm.jpg
3d46c1749985d4bd26ad62fa7db0cb46
6533209c4020bfb2bb915492b41e82deaa2ffe75
54855 F20101111_AABRCH keefe_k_Page_018.pro
33b7fc8d75d1eabc77fa7b94e98183ac
1f501240dea2773c67ed9058f97f4affbbc4eaf4
22773 F20101111_AABQXB keefe_k_Page_066.pro
79a57991d27cb93395704b67d99f0602
a62e1f320d13b933642519e47284bdbd2f9cfca3
382044 F20101111_AABRBT keefe_k_Page_021.jp2
6a182c5837147e64e2098729f5df4a98
8d61c7258137d902061831194787d34a90fbbc16
9334 F20101111_AABSFK keefe_k_Page_125thm.jpg
c42b91d0af9f04603034db6f74ec223c
53b9d505637705de848cb9dae588a1308fb1b895
3024 F20101111_AABSEW keefe_k_Page_107thm.jpg
d626494f575342762ede46adb664dcee
8d9c018878109b96a9b1a422426424db2014afee
138973 F20101111_AABQWN keefe_k_Page_119.jpg
adca4fac1d8f1514981adc692eee0392
b02dd1df282d45f9d0cf2a8406cc7a883acc316b
13170 F20101111_AABRZP keefe_k_Page_066.QC.jpg
ac77ec0fd46ec5c0705541751dc114e1
dbf8d39c29f71745eacfbe6b134d032919784c34
F20101111_AABQVZ keefe_k_Page_012.tif
519615a5c0fda3febd230e6f598e23b5
1777bb7aac2d4e770730d555f3be7f276bad0feb
F20101111_AABRCI keefe_k_Page_015.QC.jpg
f063ad6810604ae0ee06d437262205b9
4ba2c4ad9bfba924cf482b8734ccf06b62173bf4
F20101111_AABQXC keefe_k_Page_116.tif
d9bf3a4d5d949d4aacee8758d36c2d94
28f9b0aabd6f0a95eacf64070cead59edd98e4e4
F20101111_AABRBU keefe_k_Page_080.txt
f0d0ecf8120d9df723dbfbc7222fe561
e48d215ba897fcc359c8e2421dd0e2b16c11124f
38672 F20101111_AABSFL keefe_k_Page_126.QC.jpg
359de5b9eb50cb70b73edabbae9857b7
d4c7f4b4087a8b426f33ca0f1ddf68c7020b55e7
18571 F20101111_AABQWO keefe_k_Page_114.QC.jpg
e0c2003f6803c0f4ed949df6a60c388f
987dbef4697c6f198ed23248cd1193f4ffffe171
37203 F20101111_AABRZQ keefe_k_Page_049.QC.jpg
b982b95ec12a25a5a53a3b27c728e694
74796bd0d961381d48ff49284ce4e7d903f49ce8
476415 F20101111_AABRCJ keefe_k_Page_004.jp2
c52a6660c9cbff128850cc66c24cfc2b
769ba139eb2f5e6b33022263e06d22f2a134c7bc
66408 F20101111_AABQXD keefe_k_Page_117.pro
5344d137eed0fea3c71defb58e368b91
c45638af0617f7b3aca1aeb725e435c2adc7e084
39452 F20101111_AABSFM keefe_k_Page_127.QC.jpg
8d7a366b3b0a220ac61369cb3ce6bf7c
b8fa356df672033de64c957105bbe0a4595f7fec
3639 F20101111_AABSEX keefe_k_Page_108thm.jpg
100982ef6a7b4ccdeb7551e1d7cd4922
72f9eb922ba0e2841a7ce3a35f13464f59ab5b81
538 F20101111_AABQWP keefe_k_Page_002thm.jpg
7ff9e61f8182e67d0557217d2aea8240
f8d6e9048b14347a6d60bf96f3be23e5303ad7a7
8811 F20101111_AABRZR keefe_k_Page_030thm.jpg
d48a57f88f6269951df4c59b0a763212
2b6bc75b4ae95ed5ad6c59a75434a89264fb566b
6717 F20101111_AABRCK keefe_k_Page_077thm.jpg
272f80d816bf2e3b58aa829553bd125d
3cc518d86435d8957301317a561b8fad1dd728ab
110231 F20101111_AABQXE keefe_k_Page_081.jpg
73b926829e92fb30ccb34c83896f8f9d
dcaca89e81e37b353a00c62edab56a1c1bce39db
107586 F20101111_AABRBV keefe_k_Page_063.jpg
62b8e9d4d8aa408d34d82466b6facc4a
b720a70804d94baa0aa50272236d77a3f3800e42
37906 F20101111_AABSFN keefe_k_Page_128.QC.jpg
3f080e36778bbe48fa6653fc8fb9e142
79c5af7299fc3119c5b28edaf626ef83c13b0d68
3735 F20101111_AABSEY keefe_k_Page_109thm.jpg
e4db4cdf79a0549a39ab1ed695645e26
b4905923234c27e65e03bc01e6b0e24f17cf0ed2
8859 F20101111_AABQWQ keefe_k_Page_024thm.jpg
0e26cb191a99921ee0f0eeb9d7c0a7a0
53566415e6ad2a040d4fe6745382328bcd93e11a
36494 F20101111_AABRZS keefe_k_Page_091.QC.jpg
14e4edd6ebed2e31515cbd4954310082
52ebc8a813e732c6ed1c9072b4ca77f770f3685c
F20101111_AABRCL keefe_k_Page_066.tif
a6c3640a2f7f343b2786d23191a2f092
ac6e7150f5424e17bb0392fd409b59cf69ab02e4
21824 F20101111_AABQXF keefe_k_Page_011.QC.jpg
6c9b4cd48879e4b08064fb7879eb88c9
c9763bc9f40935a8aa7ae712ea367b2cd0b5cee0
1051974 F20101111_AABRBW keefe_k_Page_124.jp2
25d07a609b06ca2a4512c1c2bed20a3d
ff6ba78c7588516edfb2169202b2f54f67880319
38577 F20101111_AABSFO keefe_k_Page_130.QC.jpg
048f76fa0f4da708a51e25f6241b79d5
0bdd8071d8ee359338b7a281998166a737ba7f62
33669 F20101111_AABSEZ keefe_k_Page_111.QC.jpg
d6ff744b8d1cc0ed9b84c543b2af99b4
4b2ffe38ebae480211d8f27d55ce2bf235efe25e
131165 F20101111_AABQWR keefe_k_Page_083.jpg
37e066ef69f2268e41edc61b97cf600f
6c886b80c174fc8cfb469090ccc77ebaf24a8d55
36927 F20101111_AABRZT keefe_k_Page_033.QC.jpg
a4388eb8516ca07ec8143a870874e3c7
552073a386d25866219a938f596c6924910a8b3a
1051923 F20101111_AABRCM keefe_k_Page_131.jp2
4024de1512a0e2cd62f8332d972085cc
02b170b67e05978c75d9a9611955dd5938e3251e
2211 F20101111_AABQXG keefe_k_Page_091.txt
ecb1f0270e2e0c5f2fc303d89ac0aab3
5a82f6c1c25c3ac5d7bd1d3e21c3549cc14ed36c
579 F20101111_AABRBX keefe_k_Page_064.txt
ff0d3ed09566400b9381edc07126d3c3
54f3ac70b2e0690de237483f2fb63a4f77c39e50
9376 F20101111_AABSFP keefe_k_Page_130thm.jpg
73af2d594e460e89a243b86a56dbe1c5
59d1b05ce4aca6c12cc4d0a574234a749cb79565
40400 F20101111_AABQWS keefe_k_Page_093.QC.jpg
89e4210fc5085293e52b822d5e276bd8
b371ee24628e4806892153215196d9e85e202130
5913 F20101111_AABRZU keefe_k_Page_097thm.jpg
e6116462a9781d69c2632dfa808b4378
55bfc884a63ecc73ff0fcd4298152ca3a25f88aa
64288 F20101111_AABRCN keefe_k_Page_044.jpg
e970720966fed8853aa1887805d39cae
c86617cdf9a82a8f8c1c5c5c60b52eb94a2167fa
1051972 F20101111_AABQXH keefe_k_Page_069.jp2
421bfb06f5f5190cebfa507d37adfcd2
5f4fbc731217bfd32974866496577f94555bb3a9
36139 F20101111_AABRBY keefe_k_Page_087.QC.jpg
46299ec707ac1bc5f3020bafdf9d448a
9b9d76431e2c336f1b7086752eeca7b2b9d15977
14488 F20101111_AABSFQ keefe_k_Page_132.QC.jpg
3fa7180903927e545651d499ccd31d98
a08101512950215a50789de9485b3f60546eb4f7
37050 F20101111_AABQWT keefe_k_Page_058.QC.jpg
77ce96ca6dd0e9fed84b7b2b95adca8a
21dbf2f88b9bd450497e32154c761ed38750b7bc
27551 F20101111_AABRZV keefe_k_Page_005.QC.jpg
928ea89e85c244dea2fd1104c3431830
63d5d44906c740d48fda17aa4b80410085e70a2e
29974 F20101111_AABRDC keefe_k_Page_001.jpg
51c553999827ebcc09c2b2745cb2d6ca
3913cd690d0aa7302358c4fe29822040b4e78e1f
824 F20101111_AABRCO keefe_k_Page_044.txt
949c3d8e428feacf5272b9ed2728ba52
86a429596e8427b26c657cca851b28c4ff599d42
8597 F20101111_AABQXI keefe_k_Page_034thm.jpg
9a130fc3771321fe0bd2ab8524efe653
e952ac77ec9a51c6305f138876d974151707e4d2
54292 F20101111_AABRBZ keefe_k_Page_049.pro
49ff9d961c64656042abdb098602c627
8c04c3e9c1c7f0bc930dd624e05a13516366203d
3797 F20101111_AABSFR keefe_k_Page_132thm.jpg
6087250b4490087ab938119455865b9a
ba9988305435973ffc9bb3c508503cda9ad5aee2
942029 F20101111_AABQWU keefe_k_Page_105.jp2
32862a30852392ede043574af1d03c4a
e6d550953470252bf9dd91eb49169da669fc2416
8844 F20101111_AABRZW keefe_k_Page_029thm.jpg
70a88b739178e3878b1e51dd9b66e61b
f238c979d097328bbee7152eeaec1f8b79f91c23
3810 F20101111_AABRDD keefe_k_Page_002.jpg
0919c3c5d520297da7752a3c08f161f7
af269f050e27e43eb973e9d9982db17604c17074
5420 F20101111_AABRCP keefe_k_Page_011thm.jpg
7f7e384e626feeef9bb5c5a3153d7a0c
1023949fbe801b155dc7d905a13babf76b473192
1957 F20101111_AABQXJ keefe_k_Page_088.txt
60f2cf776835090d840be2c3481b8ff2
e1cd8082e2c6cad94e5cff1840bc60cc40671451
33637 F20101111_AABQWV keefe_k_Page_013.QC.jpg
2957aa3654110e8e53bfe15d0c546c52
a06161616b4987c4e1de5f3ad139eb58243acb74
9081 F20101111_AABRZX keefe_k_Page_055thm.jpg
1c826f6329726a43b901de08d8a76522
bc937ec2b04c4a5515fd822010a4ca654b7a5930
37515 F20101111_AABRDE keefe_k_Page_003.jpg
5336a63182a633d6edba8b09d320d9b7
bc388c53796684208a2eac3e69f85b2be1d4b328
F20101111_AABRCQ keefe_k_Page_010.tif
a4428cdd61079ebb6438f513c9cdd2fc
8ada8ee88dd6bd1c9ef90a0811fb4cf54fba0fb9
1560 F20101111_AABQXK keefe_k_Page_108.txt
06b1072f660ae1f31766a1f57774f90a
052737ffc332192c171b632965ba7d34d679352c
14401 F20101111_AABQWW keefe_k_Page_064.pro
e7e2652623c02cd77fc5b5715f3cb87d
7debbb0902d47de0dede6bbc806cb80368f635c1
3862 F20101111_AABRZY keefe_k_Page_040thm.jpg
834081d5bf4af2068d82d4f8af239e3d
c67f57d20070a567fed94f5b7aacb296a631f664
120938 F20101111_AABRDF keefe_k_Page_005.jpg
964acb801275ab4843abcc139cf5d7f1
bb86d3aa206bf760cb9e1878fdf3898ed372a1ff
9597 F20101111_AABRCR keefe_k_Page_124thm.jpg
7213af23c71911ba007d6e45da04cad2
0b83416fd6fdee76d0c86475b1dabb05a86c94bf
37152 F20101111_AABQXL keefe_k_Page_037.QC.jpg
ed32f65351e06f096ed9a873147230e4
b52db30f9f21f3ad70cfc5ca0730fcfaedbcbc9c
401348 F20101111_AABQWX keefe_k_Page_047.jp2
bb8053344608cf0894e7325d5cda46de
0ec15490ee19171d577bd3793b86c52ddeacee94
39465 F20101111_AABRZZ keefe_k_Page_036.QC.jpg
59fd6df369b7879b08ca912d41fc87d6
1a6be90c6d64154d2442599291279cde6b6dd326
130957 F20101111_AABRDG keefe_k_Page_006.jpg
9532e0e0e8b4eadc32865e5a76e492d8
d658302a35220415b98336d82da12e7a97223f17
40495 F20101111_AABQYA keefe_k_Page_129.QC.jpg
2f5b67e010f15c43e7bebb456a59b27b
4f04984416a638a9873cafb2dea04b6882e26d75
1051982 F20101111_AABRCS keefe_k_Page_013.jp2
39091c9e02832992bdc818b6c21f9072
0dc5e6f19b622a32ef4d6f7c8e5b252c1a1d719e
36503 F20101111_AABQWY keefe_k_Page_038.QC.jpg
6eea10aa0759f9f2192cee67da61ce4e
2b5098b9e7e48a856c84e1701ab40ae0be255439
114489 F20101111_AABRDH keefe_k_Page_007.jpg
53f45690ec8aabe8732348dfade2bbe8
17e4afd00a733e8e605449c4554f99be3c7871a6
F20101111_AABQYB keefe_k_Page_041.txt
135cfd1b3831c64efa4e284fee95ad3a
0e2e43a147d89107e39fcfafd91f8f61b032a071
110404 F20101111_AABRCT keefe_k_Page_049.jpg
0b1c7af8c2c939ed3c4d5b65a64c157f
f316d3892cde000fd619dbb47f66e13e2ec5047a
134551 F20101111_AABQXM keefe_k_Page_121.jpg
a2a21d11a86fa8afc6edf7fb8f704439
ae43b9e286e86a177025b7047da24494a6f9a5af
F20101111_AABQWZ keefe_k_Page_037.tif
4cf37a357e1e68a7356d0a2a38f402c1
ed956b2d1d860c406deef41528b6196bb99d8e91
95261 F20101111_AABRDI keefe_k_Page_008.jpg
775e4e908ec20df823966ce3d8bc5f97
d5c70a2cd8056d9313b8bd2613c85d780e152216
52566 F20101111_AABQYC keefe_k_Page_082.pro
7ddfa8b76058d25ad2ae808488829138
58da9519043af4ec53d754ef2f28c350d04aa80f
F20101111_AABRCU keefe_k_Page_039.tif
137a8a070626c0bde2e1c4eff1d060f5
d18e974b2553fd19a39b80bd76fdefeed46b4526
7294 F20101111_AABQXN keefe_k_Page_005thm.jpg
3c95bff9d7b4ea8cde996dbe0cc72bf2
0be87e4e0bab3f29814d1bf07429e10dd63cac2a
70947 F20101111_AABRDJ keefe_k_Page_009.jpg
290c80915ecf88bfc02eae4167704e27
db048dac733e66ae0a065ec51008c2b4a10e1918
F20101111_AABQYD keefe_k_Page_070.tif
2010398d700cb53faa9158ba59a3d2cb
e7826a0289403a2f44759bbe0c33c62a636d3c98
1051979 F20101111_AABRCV keefe_k_Page_086.jp2
31106092183419e088933b673e4f2eac
9660138620d4a4829cfea07a83339c929021b53a
108319 F20101111_AABQXO keefe_k_Page_017.jpg
8e4531424eeb6bfb10dd20fb3b15468e
a57a66eac90962553ab3d67238616701a1c1c91f
92781 F20101111_AABRDK keefe_k_Page_010.jpg
887927e2e44f4ce2305f7ea1bd36da71
42695d1ffe5f1f5ba6e04aae2920eac3d55a0cf0
8163 F20101111_AABQYE keefe_k_Page_007thm.jpg
939b6cae351a3adbf8879114142df45c
7eb51901cc9b5bf0e08b19f50dbff21f45c59544
2049 F20101111_AABQXP keefe_k_Page_031.txt
07dd3902a61d0e37b3e5b8b71a239496
c8ad8d127a1b53ed663a7359078c7d6f59ef7550
65832 F20101111_AABRDL keefe_k_Page_011.jpg
041117e29c851b6e7734d276becf84dc
ffaf33b2909558bda246b7116315e19a4401bb64
646606 F20101111_AABQYF keefe_k_Page_040.jp2
7a98694c0aa00db9b8e41c9228ce5bb8
a62ccd2c5fef352f7174a01cf7c0338a663c6a1c
70938 F20101111_AABRCW keefe_k_Page_095.jpg
28a5c88858ddb97da9a439c8c9b0d95c
886df492fc8242b4a7df23f6e73c687441a589dc
34470 F20101111_AABQXQ keefe_k_Page_089.QC.jpg
a52dd80bba588823fdcc077fe2b98d30
22b8775d2ee4ddd509f16bc80a8cf5ed93b030ce
106609 F20101111_AABRDM keefe_k_Page_012.jpg
074cd2640abd52ad9533d331db40229f
301113d0ca7e3fe37c1512a10fb99621d39c8150
2279 F20101111_AABQYG keefe_k_Page_037.txt
ed75a085afda27d57e720d5ce83ad63d
7dc81c11c3f54ae31830ca5ee4cb3c70081c54b1
109691 F20101111_AABRCX keefe_k_Page_051.jpg
daba26f15b65bf5b4176dc6ef8814b73
0916fc613799d1bd1a81e55e978f183172f2b3b8
66710 F20101111_AABQXR keefe_k_Page_115.pro
6505bd0a6aca6a078678b2328e3ed778
a1d3dc50446ec8e453cef0641ea1c34481ac5124
104726 F20101111_AABREA keefe_k_Page_028.jpg
6e7d218598a3f3ca903fb23bd8740182
71177d9d06794103a38ba511afd1ab033eac8708
105697 F20101111_AABRDN keefe_k_Page_013.jpg
48e832c179aa4712e5d22aaa9bc769d8
2884c40695d8e7a060cf386138eb1e55feceac34
67330 F20101111_AABQYH keefe_k_Page_083.pro
abf96f388be0e1d53b63ae56d76967bb
6210d54b33f8f9e83800a279b78cc9dac9b59c6d
1051899 F20101111_AABRCY keefe_k_Page_103.jp2
23e216eb7262ecef4f66a544e2937ebe
3141f317dcbb22df1ce084474b8d1dd4134e325e
F20101111_AABQXS keefe_k_Page_106.tif
b91ba02c605bff425edfcbf058a31d18
f4bcb0dac0a7948b542d9e0780261ed8022c4aa1
108814 F20101111_AABREB keefe_k_Page_029.jpg
e42f1b81737c1551dcad6d6d763e180a
4e6cab998f829fce12462ac0984a1fb8b69858cc
109944 F20101111_AABRDO keefe_k_Page_014.jpg
a4ad8ccc480e5614af1e4bd14458969c
367cb44ecc560504a071b6d2492678ce3cc4293c
122923 F20101111_AABQYI keefe_k_Page_106.jpg
4da47d4673dfcd327ca24edb78bff506
ca5f858ae48fdb0b5bb367d79214db5935a90b1e
152500 F20101111_AABRCZ UFE0021994_00001.mets
a7ce4a9b60d786f03f67238c086d0696
83567ffbd83df0eb7c3cdf45787077a17e4b373e
127990 F20101111_AABQXT keefe_k_Page_120.jpg
ad6b274bea6e62be465dad0c295efd30
0c03cb1c6947a07bc2b761d81f169ffecd038dc5
110205 F20101111_AABREC keefe_k_Page_030.jpg
69485ee29850c2f05a600bac3eb68b90
fb98d2c7155a1dc756314f2c9849e3112efc2e13
114417 F20101111_AABRDP keefe_k_Page_015.jpg
7a4ea9d54db0a91ad1e7fab11cce1b13
848f6cde47dcf343a2874020afbd46368476b22a
F20101111_AABQYJ keefe_k_Page_094.tif
855b4bdeb226344f15a736b445587a4c
f968a842387097a53a133ed0b5edf4b0f1fd151b
133578 F20101111_AABQXU keefe_k_Page_130.jpg
34d04294ae45e43ae7358e22bb6c825c
44e24c9ee1683b5c35d9819e501a5a69166e7618
103848 F20101111_AABRED keefe_k_Page_031.jpg
44c6a1614c86989fb95691bcf71e0b8b
3440756ed7629ebed24af5fd3281ac29e18c3970
110270 F20101111_AABRDQ keefe_k_Page_016.jpg
c7c54cfc733cf73d9eae4ddaf432862f
8cb4ae7adc0605df33f1f251557451fb3ac89402
1051893 F20101111_AABQYK keefe_k_Page_034.jp2
7b817df7786bf8fcb46e889a9ae3ab49
be6b5e09a3c0b3e95aaaac842698ea6ad8899659
23896 F20101111_AABQXV keefe_k_Page_048.pro
6a218d6669d1b224080e56dfb3a91705
596d321f3f89e8f1785eab5bedb9b5d429ca0958
112117 F20101111_AABREE keefe_k_Page_033.jpg
2703e8215f8830d6062a8f72dfaad2c8
7c3b2ce68a8441bbb06f92d006a7982ed856b86b
110480 F20101111_AABRDR keefe_k_Page_018.jpg
0c17838ab9cc2b2fce222de86dd006a3
d271464a68b034a0b807554dbbe497b16d73fa8f
1051882 F20101111_AABQYL keefe_k_Page_053.jp2
59131d47ed2656346460a07cf5a15b94
c583a0af77419bb1fd21f159b090d625c453dc86
5528 F20101111_AABQXW keefe_k_Page_065thm.jpg
77224b78492def5ce915a36d00810a79
3654fdf3b7ccd1a2e5f3acbea2cda3a73afc44a4
109670 F20101111_AABREF keefe_k_Page_034.jpg
b3385c8e48216fae8c7434ea16bd1c91
40dbc810fda3ce22c3e93632f3492433146db9e3
2769 F20101111_AABQZA keefe_k_Page_125.txt
6f1155bb14c8add12159110ab1da0751
f289f07c7794457869b567555f3f5b35c9ffb546
106783 F20101111_AABRDS keefe_k_Page_020.jpg
cb8cfc71192f1a4eb2194a26d229cb2c
c6952e21ff2eee4d13064e24b8f4ea37ce164575
2044 F20101111_AABQYM keefe_k_Page_028.txt
1d6c03fc595b58709e5c98e5f4a3575b
94d7e12c78262f17e461fa987361d636af9bef50
109873 F20101111_AABQXX keefe_k_Page_080.jpg
272268b792bed56b48cad8dcd60513eb
054fa09688e5f04eaadf9c5fd744c1976a6fe281
106708 F20101111_AABREG keefe_k_Page_035.jpg
2c5fd2ef4851047f1ebc0bc5ab979801
b18bbfa4a7390a86ea2d23913081916e3ec9774e
1051943 F20101111_AABQZB keefe_k_Page_037.jp2
643d666a3af92becf45eeba7319bd3b3
f5d695e362e94057793a7196303655d006b980c0
36291 F20101111_AABRDT keefe_k_Page_021.jpg
e0fcc1c6c1d9ac8e64bf39566ee39cdf
19ee83ba23fb3819c1f9317cbc09ef558091081e
18279 F20101111_AABQXY keefe_k_Page_039.pro
1e7ea91a5abd753bbdef4ce54c587d2e
46d4e5b05e6f9c22b7a13bd263643423eb549ab6
119853 F20101111_AABREH keefe_k_Page_036.jpg
0f50d6161528d528637e6a673c702028
ed6c114ce7e654c5a3cb411db397d18f5963a1e0
113239 F20101111_AABRDU keefe_k_Page_022.jpg
f02597c4117748576cdab1c42b49093d
eba744b3189dc79b0430b743bba10339beb6740a
F20101111_AABQYN keefe_k_Page_026thm.jpg
11529da46ceaed077892c19f33b6f70e
44de50352326c538d01710ee75074516042943f7
F20101111_AABQXZ keefe_k_Page_062.tif
6c35335ef198dc814a93be44ad84194f
b80cb4d52285ddd60715b7df3e2e9513865a499e
113642 F20101111_AABREI keefe_k_Page_037.jpg
d9d8bf88ce0ed77aacb18a069f81869b
a09aafed75f1884aa7ea29df1bdcf670a19e2dee
107237 F20101111_AABQZC keefe_k_Page_019.jpg
fddc32835a7f84495ca650e26343adb9
9d2f3fd1a262babec9541f718b7512e25f04084c
108584 F20101111_AABRDV keefe_k_Page_023.jpg
ce1e623a0b4698127b0efa2eb36f6317
ba8561a25ef6259953eeccf98abfcfc97ca9501c
8462 F20101111_AABQYO keefe_k_Page_131thm.jpg
7ab95898ac1b7949b4e402921489c9fe
7c6f594fa179cb21043d0ed6910519f118a1ea84
113050 F20101111_AABREJ keefe_k_Page_038.jpg
9f5b5f29196d409495d12308e484af09
0aed259a9ce7a0b2656ffb369e0de3ec51a119f5
966 F20101111_AABQZD keefe_k_Page_097.txt
347531e81a8c179412d1a403d768ab64
b53deb99154766723318084be9d78a13b1bbedaf
108302 F20101111_AABRDW keefe_k_Page_024.jpg
bfec90535962f82dbdec850a6beaa2c9
04024fd81fa0e46782e2dc45a6164bfba761d341
2206 F20101111_AABQYP keefe_k_Page_038.txt
16412252802213170fe33ecbe25d679e
c15b8cd5db8a5859aff2adb9f65d51c8bf18cc51
39110 F20101111_AABREK keefe_k_Page_039.jpg
441d8d030e55159149dfb92b199144b7
654505575ce22df6da6b17d075fc926762dcbab4
1051956 F20101111_AABQZE keefe_k_Page_082.jp2
fa1e2da4e1f0146f4eee6bdd3f2d7790
a963b268c54e3b800e43fba9009f0c3c5ee05232
12928 F20101111_AABQYQ keefe_k_Page_109.QC.jpg
6c4975ea20e9edcbd7cfee715a25b6df
f4081b7b97e6dc69ada61206f9fd97af83b369e4
43740 F20101111_AABREL keefe_k_Page_040.jpg
2e4f7fc53dc8274c455344e908424630
f77b39322171098d252dc5234f8099dc29bf41f0
38265 F20101111_AABQZF keefe_k_Page_121.QC.jpg
742604dc874fc12f5742c656a74db8e3
d6db83e2e8d0cab1b652fde38d3e6658d716f885
105169 F20101111_AABRDX keefe_k_Page_025.jpg
540459acca968756b15dfb69f00d807e
94e75ffcd5bdc6a784aa9ab7c5d51ee4bc4082ff
8515 F20101111_AABQYR keefe_k_Page_031thm.jpg
559ad9378284d6c914a049527a6eee38
fdb98556ccefa3306f952242ecb56d222dfd4986
109494 F20101111_AABRFA keefe_k_Page_059.jpg
27e0d3864fc524b6e023cfede4fe0d45
9599e17caad47d34a634273a7f9f9378923b88a8
89101 F20101111_AABREM keefe_k_Page_041.jpg
d3ac480b00d113b55eaa1fe8e182cc70
d43752af47c5dae89f0a497d8d3af1d757bb1a63
25023 F20101111_AABQZG keefe_k_Page_041.QC.jpg
cbdabe5799cfcc344edf506e5dc0db57
a054cf4fa53c1db545aadace6d5a1e893b20fbbf
114410 F20101111_AABRDY keefe_k_Page_026.jpg
c1cb356e3475a86438934954841cb4af
7ad78d3e2f66de84930aaa357cd945a22ca1f877
63062 F20101111_AABQYS keefe_k_Page_118.pro
1de0aa01dbd94996d470d0c8d1c797ff
5cbb186aa83f32ad882c9d1df60ce6792e7bd2c0
111012 F20101111_AABRFB keefe_k_Page_060.jpg
835940e6c1d576bff1973137f6f43fdb
5847e33f0d6ca96f6dfe2b0b45cc0d6179325ae0
55617 F20101111_AABREN keefe_k_Page_042.jpg
65980ae64a18b394c64b48b72ed85802
e08e837368ae54122cc3865dd38d25387d1676f2
F20101111_AABQZH keefe_k_Page_023.tif
13a1e0620d5ac56623e6511fadf4b4c0
84a51af4a8238c03a2a26f335a85229c457fd31c
110289 F20101111_AABRDZ keefe_k_Page_027.jpg
bb433b1dc0203cdba746d8edf29cbb56
a5ae59f2be7cd9008cc651b5d9d112ddb1f4580e
23851 F20101111_AABQYT keefe_k_Page_040.pro
0734db2c92d14436ad70197315137343
36a60525ef3d81f22ff153f9d6fdf54811746c9d
112915 F20101111_AABRFC keefe_k_Page_061.jpg
bdcf7f7d97ef20b762d881345c927976
58b7a2bea6061a82ff785d5d3d4c93c128ebf508
19110 F20101111_AABREO keefe_k_Page_043.jpg
5ddcda802f9c73e9fdb88dadd8c29d27
533ef886df85dd5db6e245b73d3ef7713f626024
520 F20101111_AABQZI keefe_k_Page_003.pro
c92a35a8865543c4c54357b4c6f5c27d
aaf6b025a3537b1f6101f18116e2faf23d5840b6
399 F20101111_AABQYU keefe_k_Page_078.txt
1b35b90f711b98f5af9e82d719e4ac0f
cd478ac544fdd3aea47fa013a907d482c5d438b4
114953 F20101111_AABRFD keefe_k_Page_062.jpg
32ed4c0bad02d1949e3badab559152c4
f37dc0e5a565f7c75772713b9fea790fac13b464
36257 F20101111_AABREP keefe_k_Page_045.jpg
11a17f1e597c5ef2997633caaab681db
d46e84970c8d162a719152d6d969c90246eefef9
1051965 F20101111_AABQZJ keefe_k_Page_054.jp2
bb1159e0d95844329b39ce438ef5694c
040b1847850a93e554657ca143f468a7b06c65ec
54903 F20101111_AABQYV keefe_k_Page_059.pro
ceac46d6434c3c4d7b9ebbd8304d82e8
f5bc29f54b84e3f6ece5c7f145ae78a546cb4c82
31546 F20101111_AABRFE keefe_k_Page_064.jpg
0334f659e847c891067470d5f7cfa5cf
81d24170d1b3dc451b0d92b69704f19d8e2d1c86
40908 F20101111_AABREQ keefe_k_Page_046.jpg
91a6d02813fed5463b05735510c3ba30
6375d8c40b624604a7d1c2bc94922b9b43255ea1
325759 F20101111_AABQZK keefe_k_Page_064.jp2
baa680819fe3fe343bb35e64989dc03e
ee5a6a901d7c8a9559c04d784cd6379db1d4ff28
43675 F20101111_AABQYW keefe_k_Page_047.jpg
9a2271c6b3d43135890384c591e6b2a3
1d9573a93ac9d94abd19a6e93b7db7225f2cec06
101082 F20101111_AABRFF keefe_k_Page_065.jpg
c6b1bbce380a49cf2c6a708e283d0e36
0a5b6d15f1172b5beb3dd8ba3a8d7537c460daba
70960 F20101111_AABRER keefe_k_Page_048.jpg
083e16c8af0086a7b81c63c408df4952
d01b5ab8cbcdeaf985e630a9261ca4c7dbfb69b9
89893 F20101111_AABQZL keefe_k_Page_113.pro
81fbc09523f45be83f11bf818dae635d
815ea2a2038427d2886fccf875cadaba3bdfc413
54612 F20101111_AABQYX keefe_k_Page_071.pro
05387773d915a18be21230f788cd8687
dee0f7dc8753b130fc0b891abb51c2a657ff34d9
47075 F20101111_AABRFG keefe_k_Page_066.jpg
7258238180826217175c90d41e6ce8e3
5b6bcc81a1564cfce159fba45ec97b8aff3da128
107878 F20101111_AABRES keefe_k_Page_050.jpg
6bd02445f62961ec9620fe79a600103d
19a8ae594375a706e184c55d58fd860e91019459
63243 F20101111_AABQZM keefe_k_Page_123.pro
a8ba5820a81e1cb30854f9a9796edea8
187e8620d8283a7ea2d4930c28ff58b28cbe7c33
F20101111_AABQYY keefe_k_Page_081.tif
414e9ad0774f831775975c5ec91a8441
affabf4c8089f1ce89a6e8bd603ed68408a8172a
106137 F20101111_AABRFH keefe_k_Page_068.jpg
f59bff9df3434f97fc08dc144ec28c9d
213149a16b38a8d4d0259f118d4b07f41ae00ed9
112124 F20101111_AABRET keefe_k_Page_052.jpg
e47c87fcc8b8eee7189f0de2ee8644a7
9c5fb47e2a34d11917f1bf8d43cc77188b98d208
2224 F20101111_AABQZN keefe_k_Page_022.txt
fd129238725de0f67aa7b864b94d9dab
eff46d09c9edd0e24f9d2504c126dc3a2e95d992
35637 F20101111_AABQYZ keefe_k_Page_009.pro
43021d9c85b75c64344e25bbad6ba1ad
2f11abcad08ecd4c6d77b07c0fc5fca0cc229680
111455 F20101111_AABRFI keefe_k_Page_069.jpg
35069e96ec1e61347506753a85a38253
b4e065a8a42b990d8537864e41d59af31923f85a
111237 F20101111_AABREU keefe_k_Page_053.jpg
47d539aae9e0cba7185201c35542b860
fa9bb834ffcd1908dcfb72b7328ecc440d4f2277
106847 F20101111_AABRFJ keefe_k_Page_070.jpg
38d3e74ceba7ffd898d497d6e1115d16
c1b1588169fa0b95a574578912e52458670b5421
116418 F20101111_AABREV keefe_k_Page_054.jpg
c2f0f7ecd6cec394d80e22d3214b0129
c1d3bc43be9dbf0525c054bb8d79d2b13c65b950
6109 F20101111_AABQZO keefe_k_Page_041thm.jpg
90e86b8ede3a6af753f8340b4d2d1850
6d40d17e053430dc66519790cfeec6c8d421c1b5
110365 F20101111_AABRFK keefe_k_Page_071.jpg
e43310433cddc34518a64e13eead6cf3
c456517e162ecdff510119395695b75b892e62ba
139289 F20101111_AABREW keefe_k_Page_055.jpg
74d77361a9e87e1a1e3d15d6b5468e54
763a763458fd34405b928e0068e77786d0963a16
3913 F20101111_AABQZP keefe_k_Page_078thm.jpg
b59e70cff6f5fd23cfc125c2095e3f5b
b2bbfd6750a9457de3f17b9b46f1aba5c353f91e
111596 F20101111_AABRFL keefe_k_Page_072.jpg
100370c80501769cf3ee0e213eba34be
9f7f030bd0d8c9d6dade5a745b2e334b1693fd55
112882 F20101111_AABREX keefe_k_Page_056.jpg
baefb5a2302b0e53d009d666480f03be
e4e9e390b7b875369fe6dc1394ed003ece719047
36664 F20101111_AABQZQ keefe_k_Page_056.QC.jpg
56950716ad3baa8dad2bff5013a6f5e8
a43001a604e1de1abc07663a2e59fb3a11c797ea
111430 F20101111_AABRFM keefe_k_Page_073.jpg
d2584d02b32877c11b6bd6f826e36ba1
686706a7789e348cd2ac30b06122c9d6d78087fa
1051963 F20101111_AABQZR keefe_k_Page_093.jp2
59090aff676915277ce972ee6ac242d1
e22e6068c4c0d1c7e625f2a210b0f8a864e79ba7
146217 F20101111_AABRGA keefe_k_Page_093.jpg
92b1b976ab17494b7e861d0b37c06747
f34638a209597cd8741706ea09af72adebec0614
115158 F20101111_AABRFN keefe_k_Page_074.jpg
7ac5a173648de128f115ae1e6af372f4
298e9e474ed690edf60c86d31f34a21bcc0e1b8a
112293 F20101111_AABREY keefe_k_Page_057.jpg
6e46926526bf5aec3ed548b0d636b92c
d0938c9585124aeb6f9a317ae23b43cdd2c9377b
2130 F20101111_AABQZS keefe_k_Page_019.txt
500691ca18d50394f12e5edd2b6e868a
558f9424994bbd1e37e66f41735903ef6ede11fc
131781 F20101111_AABRGB keefe_k_Page_094.jpg
7756b57705a2eb9bbecb717ac521d9ef
26366e0f4ff09ec04cb2e15f4a9a4fbc2d4d33ed
92601 F20101111_AABRFO keefe_k_Page_075.jpg
a9f4fe0b798a380bf7ae13b5e763fc9a
d070a1b89c044e580c1b5f6d1bd6fd34d050428c
112509 F20101111_AABREZ keefe_k_Page_058.jpg
572a08693a7ad62a60b1d65f0f74ca53
8143cbf16998140132e4e1dd04c3c4cdd084a00d
F20101111_AABQZT keefe_k_Page_004.tif
82423949639e7da2f79f9e2d6870dd92
e63ed20b978fb818ee48902bbdea82b7ee7a7e1f
35645 F20101111_AABRGC keefe_k_Page_096.jpg
8682b9dfc00a7efef77b7e5acfd428fc
af850bc8845abc596168e345efa98b94a08b99e0
57561 F20101111_AABRFP keefe_k_Page_076.jpg
89f273d6344b1d11f300a8799d16ddfd
802b859101021b991af928851cacee10f4620dde
8209 F20101111_AABQZU keefe_k_Page_088thm.jpg
86ce539308591fbc5ed84b9227fb6536
bee148630f4f514b865810aab9f4d355043d4963
75365 F20101111_AABRGD keefe_k_Page_097.jpg
4c4f5b46a84be1eb79f15865ea0085f1
2deee8eadbb1c98b813562a9d86141be10e0e289
69802 F20101111_AABRFQ keefe_k_Page_077.jpg
c05ab9d7a386877b809c36089951459f
f5c3bfbaea4e68a6177ab2de4ed2808187e28a56
47878 F20101111_AABQZV keefe_k_Page_041.pro
a09ca93060c1218d7e2fd6c381717812
857074667d8c59e4c81f7723261e6d6c5efbb07f
108293 F20101111_AABRGE keefe_k_Page_098.jpg
56ba26ab06050b1b7d9e57adea3acc9c
46592d31ae6bf291998130f40910e678066098e6
38664 F20101111_AABRFR keefe_k_Page_078.jpg
617939528823a06c5a104cf3bb47188c
c4cba955ff7830121ab290e86d3c85033b777495
52212 F20101111_AABQZW keefe_k_Page_025.pro
7820c9c3b40b9d8b182e49b34d548b5a
7cd66aa79542b8b49697200a747e6d40da1345bb
110775 F20101111_AABRGF keefe_k_Page_099.jpg
2ef599a77247237b2c772deee375aff1
26ef00b51aad8aa376f83d773e18b16f529b1f4e
57157 F20101111_AABRFS keefe_k_Page_079.jpg
acd6d00b682f72ff52cde9086fed8957
88e9d614b71cf25213722e4f06c5cc9d785619c5
106498 F20101111_AABQZX keefe_k_Page_089.jpg
717e3dde158ba80208694faa37df42df
195e9e2caea93cad9e6440aea232cc80c353401a
111638 F20101111_AABRGG keefe_k_Page_100.jpg
189c5760bad382ddce59f6e1f0b248d0
37213c75bdb5547538d604c4c39e7b82fb35f3c6
105590 F20101111_AABRFT keefe_k_Page_082.jpg
113bb2a0ef07096e64ab5bb0a9c4ef25
4318ceaddc241a9932f33ee687584a9553fb258e
36169 F20101111_AABQZY keefe_k_Page_063.QC.jpg
2d5092fd6bda9b512a18ed5fd3a316cb
3c08740e8e05b303670405d16b325f5e3d319087
112277 F20101111_AABRGH keefe_k_Page_101.jpg
eee339a9bae5567d0cf575249f051eba
29023ee083ae567c72d5f94a07c371d2b97a50d6
126411 F20101111_AABRFU keefe_k_Page_084.jpg
214fc9fb699c77e7f4184c0e7b92129b
9ac04cbbd77fb89d7208b7052a3c6aea55527a4c
F20101111_AABQZZ keefe_k_Page_075.tif
d2829929c484a594dbe913961f6ade82
2a26dcfbfb10b0ec8588832a231fb1bdbefb9107
111590 F20101111_AABRGI keefe_k_Page_102.jpg
efa508e43987db0952deb9a57917c8ca
2c3d42840a5424a2e77d45279df60f9d68858528
103984 F20101111_AABRFV keefe_k_Page_085.jpg
173451e19c749b1cdb149b19a228e9ad
8d39acd5153ccb16c8789fdc532221c1ff0b5d53
112520 F20101111_AABRGJ keefe_k_Page_103.jpg
8fda635efde2b721e9384f43fee5c16d
29dad53a2d0c611acaaa813e633809d74bdf4ddf
97846 F20101111_AABRFW keefe_k_Page_086.jpg
316ee4fcb2de3beef575595d2bc170f1
d98516a8ce30627e7f20480eef8bf504794e3635
112551 F20101111_AABRGK keefe_k_Page_104.jpg
12709f706697d87056cbbfc4ff0f6d12
aea41af969ab13e4a40ee3755672b8d5c658d32b
111173 F20101111_AABRFX keefe_k_Page_087.jpg
b84eff8cd528f1a255be99556420aaeb
ed6859068734217cb4f38d181eccd1afadfc97a9
85615 F20101111_AABRGL keefe_k_Page_105.jpg
ee0320f777cafcb1ad8e1dde3bb54022
98714ad4cfc557c368bf95c6d841e3d98b1ead7a
119667 F20101111_AABRFY keefe_k_Page_090.jpg
fbc19ae7ee147cb867a4131a8f6c7979
2d6b7799d4d570e9ecbd172a7ec95ed2dd760819
139454 F20101111_AABRHA keefe_k_Page_124.jpg
32b948521fc0180702cc414ec3ab741f
be3bd72c11bcb0ac1fc5122ac50abcfeb23e2c2c
37468 F20101111_AABRGM keefe_k_Page_107.jpg
2e621f8d887f0e5a388fd4c24398b5cb
ed42fb475dd187f6867ef34dbb760574a77ce71a
137316 F20101111_AABRHB keefe_k_Page_125.jpg
5a30e8016b04d420cf86cae0b1eb1615
eded50d2d548ad73109e689566c3237f410b3f41
38058 F20101111_AABRGN keefe_k_Page_108.jpg
f02ca361df66aca661a924dfe04254d3
0425cd881336fcd1d86b4580e8183aceb84410a0
29331 F20101111_AABRFZ keefe_k_Page_092.jpg
20c7a3bbe155c959f8b8c54f3e11cc8a
8aa0e27f45b2ad0b407c63fa9c2120d90abe29fa
133002 F20101111_AABRHC keefe_k_Page_126.jpg
06461a76041e0ff1c5cda88823064c1f
ad46f6c84cf35701336493228abae9db2d9101cc
45839 F20101111_AABRGO keefe_k_Page_109.jpg
8e2a7c09ba7822d16638b55ba2f62422
3e9a86be0ce4b1573152323f13dec4296af15ead
138936 F20101111_AABRHD keefe_k_Page_127.jpg
aaf25fe9125862167a74c1ab32061381
e110cf859ec9898757207d1e2dc997181acba277
106919 F20101111_AABRGP keefe_k_Page_110.jpg
f8c509b8ee2bd18d476a307da3111b7a
6271de89a15ff2a3de973d24716923130f7a3798
130551 F20101111_AABRHE keefe_k_Page_128.jpg
1dfa5e1c49faa44a38d883d0d2d940be
4a7bf35f766431a6a131438250fb03fce13a1aa1
105968 F20101111_AABRGQ keefe_k_Page_111.jpg
7a3937fecc5cbb3ef8e43c1dac7a3bdc
a1e73d47cc1197ccf2d4e85e72105c7a25723570
145363 F20101111_AABRHF keefe_k_Page_129.jpg
21f20d643eab39c40193279d9f8222cd
353ce694d5be99902d169ba4e3c1bf1a2f41a824
10186 F20101111_AABRGR keefe_k_Page_112.jpg
e86ab4bac0fe7c6aa565e186e700f847
2a2a00b6142316f537c71f45362e1bdaa49ef3d7
120543 F20101111_AABRHG keefe_k_Page_131.jpg
78003105c228c9abebf51e7d127d7471
b75eba56daf4d97d19bd3acb42d18d3be8063ac5
77405 F20101111_AABRGS keefe_k_Page_113.jpg
13ef7728bc0ce90f9e3328452ea9dbe0
651ea93a5a0ba1cf22eb53a067b5db7a5fe2e367
281308 F20101111_AABRHH keefe_k_Page_001.jp2
377572b0eb33da246fab2bfffeb5e36e
b187c451ff52c5daad4f46a9aa62433a33b0277d
68525 F20101111_AABRGT keefe_k_Page_114.jpg
4a4dca76cd7e1ff162ff08870d5ad94b
f15377b3a8d8f75fd831b41fa897ca5e7f7df03e
27057 F20101111_AABRHI keefe_k_Page_002.jp2
a1137b2e6aa1d02919956114db424f5d
818e0b3ce88c2428dfabb178374d000126b9dcce
132112 F20101111_AABRGU keefe_k_Page_115.jpg
5550da2843ebe7b1d80472b3e91440cc
c6fd983c81a4366cb5627bb7a8ef508859bbbd02
694118 F20101111_AABRHJ keefe_k_Page_003.jp2
9f2b912297dd79bdcea0ee312ce11923
cdc29d353849c3cbdd121c6d8620efce21939375
143181 F20101111_AABRGV keefe_k_Page_116.jpg
bbadfec2b4a56e2386499bf58541bfb9
51213d5b5be043f784df6fcc10dcb91fff5c2bef
1051969 F20101111_AABRHK keefe_k_Page_005.jp2
88c22126645901c31d046e4b5152a1d4
a26b422abadb88456f19693c8c61bb8a81b23a86
123504 F20101111_AABRGW keefe_k_Page_117.jpg
3ef0e01a2f6034e1dbfcca361935030e
adf75094c80d8b132d8a9932de2aa241c979080e
1051938 F20101111_AABRHL keefe_k_Page_006.jp2
4cc08a1067de7b30331e29a24ce848b0
0c562cba2e243d325d8ba19ed32ca6ef3b3b2fdf
131855 F20101111_AABRGX keefe_k_Page_118.jpg
8d90e39fd5640a9a7ba7a0f5066f12df
0d140e4a2b68ce0f305ed83782abe2c5aab5b1aa
1051957 F20101111_AABRIA keefe_k_Page_025.jp2
18f32be669f3361245b913e18fc02e6b
896c696f965f0750bd90b6b00f2bb115c876eea3
1051975 F20101111_AABRHM keefe_k_Page_007.jp2
4719e818971b4596ac2ed143a36a807b
a6c99ce5f66ae1fde1205d23c58a0f5d389bffa6
124823 F20101111_AABRGY keefe_k_Page_122.jpg
8ca041df634b1392ed416a0e712a715b
0d2aa741ed93399c6f6f9262aae1989027035acc
1051971 F20101111_AABRIB keefe_k_Page_026.jp2
2c3c2d13a7d45036e0990b98d29f2928
c7c9e978aab5dcd89776914e0288e2b4f9cead34
1051973 F20101111_AABRHN keefe_k_Page_008.jp2
82c7381f94da7e6999f498de0a98705f
15baf6ec554b8268a199924aedc144588cb52e61
135065 F20101111_AABRGZ keefe_k_Page_123.jpg
70b679c6d4d9096a01844221c5231969
3e37a311a5bb4332bfc52f2dda2ede90da79a5b7
F20101111_AABRIC keefe_k_Page_027.jp2
ff81cfa73c2bfd6c221679fa11e0768a
8c290dd4e91dbe656c8d8a6fa711bffa308b6618
780355 F20101111_AABRHO keefe_k_Page_009.jp2
c709060ce767b2aa5375f01e9fe3e872
c7a337b0802d97c0b8ef13f1322b2c75e0909dc2
1051942 F20101111_AABRID keefe_k_Page_028.jp2
5c87fed84c7d2b3e83d1ecd94c5ae5f7
44f2085f4c5a5d087e0f550274f33d4de7ffa4cc
F20101111_AABRHP keefe_k_Page_012.jp2
15b8ade338fa794c97768ffd90313f7e
06b99f4b75de6949636746e9c2eeb3fdab583df9
1051978 F20101111_AABRIE keefe_k_Page_029.jp2
e5ef0b71df836baedf2ff24b8b701f7c
2608ad29ba8179659a3b803c3c79ca990e6cb546
1051937 F20101111_AABRHQ keefe_k_Page_014.jp2
92ff4aabbc0cd0709935c06e3aa9936a
3c8424bea02350513e7cd0fc88e17fe890998222
F20101111_AABRIF keefe_k_Page_030.jp2
1a88276052921fba9ec8106257a4be1c
93d732b293199b2a5b620880840dc2852307bd31
1051949 F20101111_AABRHR keefe_k_Page_015.jp2
c8ff1115c9e59312cf52ec776caebba5
473f9cba7f7589cda984ab0f9c0ed178a549ecf8
1051961 F20101111_AABRIG keefe_k_Page_031.jp2
4b3e99f3da76cc92bbf34d96cd7a192f
9a0beb24dc3ebcdc6c9cf6f5b01163c546c24bf7
F20101111_AABRHS keefe_k_Page_016.jp2
349190570b263e2953a668d2c8359082
7bfe6eacad90da60666090889938b24ebc32e314
1051983 F20101111_AABRIH keefe_k_Page_033.jp2
cec35e0af3a6c34ae80046a6b069a4ae
124a5d988c05b9982522735e341b9e496bed7d88
1051986 F20101111_AABRHT keefe_k_Page_017.jp2
40df3d4c268e29a209b755705cc76219
f3fa13aef8d10b2b066d1f12ac7f2845411740a2
1051985 F20101111_AABRII keefe_k_Page_035.jp2
e9d2f9465d263ba2f8e3137ad0f41c17
356d85570ff6c1f8afe5e097803cb1393e772eac
1051909 F20101111_AABRHU keefe_k_Page_018.jp2
698ca2953ae27270967e5433114c3b1f
d3124ff3c57d96e38c8368539dcb148b8a71cf9d
1051980 F20101111_AABRIJ keefe_k_Page_036.jp2
2f035c932b802e764f136777043ce799
5513be6fff9cbbf3ef0f15ca4a336967462bc658
F20101111_AABRHV keefe_k_Page_019.jp2
a31fb664a78d09f458b3817812aab4a3
8a26d0dc6b94f06ab89de93c87001aa7147130b9
1051968 F20101111_AABRIK keefe_k_Page_038.jp2
f8af5bf18bd33344fd4b305fa3bd8f91
d8bedcd28a6ff27b7a998c3cb15151ff20244a06
F20101111_AABRHW keefe_k_Page_020.jp2
6bed357ac3728dbcce2afb10595d51ac
007ebc84bf9a2c40c453ead0838ff741bfc12298
416671 F20101111_AABRIL keefe_k_Page_039.jp2
0ed4d5d628e22a315c1d1122e02805fb
1b9dad7741ddd4beca20ff1ff15229b6647aade5
F20101111_AABRHX keefe_k_Page_022.jp2
55902763821f080a902d6c72a3081cdc
5a3077e2097f477c51ef1dac157f97a66f28dc33
945758 F20101111_AABRIM keefe_k_Page_041.jp2
a53d8b22e786b080fa537a4c37c2744e
d7368f5a734cec70bc94a8ae3f4ec0179e5b9a8d
F20101111_AABRHY keefe_k_Page_023.jp2
b0e12708a1fa641310451badc568a035
659f591224df4d1d59c94286b65588335b8d9cbe
1051915 F20101111_AABRJA keefe_k_Page_058.jp2
7e6f0aa38a894fd0fb1f21f25df7ccf3
8546081e6d1c438c7cc5c8882a2b6db4b8eecb60
590187 F20101111_AABRIN keefe_k_Page_042.jp2
083f167ce2fc10cd5aa2739e0135a617
80165968ee9a6a05f55b367e1856ee96334a392c
F20101111_AABRHZ keefe_k_Page_024.jp2
858c5930f93dedae7e4d500b3e36eec7
9533de2466f1c8296d72ed615a82822964a1232d
F20101111_AABRJB keefe_k_Page_059.jp2
c5ac4fa66334c9e4a08bfe248b7ba8d2
b15c390289e9f87893e116ee787286f8d9c4f57b
149051 F20101111_AABRIO keefe_k_Page_043.jp2
86ba5268da7d3f1c81e398e6413cc7ba
09f39349992867d1393b42f6b00ccd81ac43f5c7
F20101111_AABRJC keefe_k_Page_060.jp2
c9d8e16ab916915657b5ce3d28e919ef
a877c432b10f74c99ee0eca34ff9cdccddaaf19e
661652 F20101111_AABRIP keefe_k_Page_044.jp2
46b46086c230f68c8736a4268971eeb5
f82cb449cd68b028cc8b0d38d7c94032e8effc9c
1051976 F20101111_AABRJD keefe_k_Page_061.jp2
47e6bed8fad6a966f81a7550cac0ab1a
96b28540da1443647140152dc4eec6d70e0ff70b
340268 F20101111_AABRIQ keefe_k_Page_045.jp2
8da58f94816032b5023fcafe82b50820
68efbab561d14b9b39e300916ea5f98f76268ca8
1051953 F20101111_AABRJE keefe_k_Page_062.jp2
ccd13b3b945147d6ba7a7c8b82719f0d
ae7ea51d4b6877620024c4b9a5c912d1f925dc2c
375868 F20101111_AABRIR keefe_k_Page_046.jp2
5672eb2bf30727d4d12e907756343ac1
f30e4479472f14ed4f3a255ef3d1c1a56f328fd4
1051928 F20101111_AABRJF keefe_k_Page_063.jp2
9d40b517c1679f9cde4dbd793b0dee6b
dc6451859ee4a7815d95f24ce54706ca272dd116
750814 F20101111_AABRIS keefe_k_Page_048.jp2
34ed3fb7a1c433450bb1f4251dbd8224
96268a394ba52cb94832fbb6a3c153275581eff3
1051962 F20101111_AABRJG keefe_k_Page_065.jp2
cee1c8155f7ada08f110da0ebad76050
1c973dad5cc66ce627d4dcf50e4698ef39e22811
F20101111_AABRIT keefe_k_Page_049.jp2
1c235fc8d889cc46d50015f2be8ca0e4
ef3d8c3ae4ea67cce0bf8de003d226378c556032
469951 F20101111_AABRJH keefe_k_Page_066.jp2
d94e6b55cccb2877d06aed55dc3cda0e
e28bfdb14f373654174a67202c9c9848a64ca5bf
1051954 F20101111_AABRIU keefe_k_Page_050.jp2
3dfdaa9219299fe166889e3534528594
777f847f366a3c0bf1d413f09f63a0a66c43e967
F20101111_AABRJI keefe_k_Page_067.jp2
97a218cb7ba313bccf29f528c3563138
9200cac183bef467570caf1f50012073c2cfc14b
1051977 F20101111_AABRIV keefe_k_Page_051.jp2
63cf9aa22d6e035c7383df0f053d0cf5
6815f2b7215dac11294b95c34c0ff89615b9fe6c
F20101111_AABRJJ keefe_k_Page_068.jp2
de9e4368bd67f8bd5cfa5a62faa71aec
c936bc6c785357ad7dca85df8a8a0ebed26a9062
F20101111_AABRIW keefe_k_Page_052.jp2
36204c3f6aafb3c029dfad0eb4233721
68b495410295979591e68fd31f6fecb718968cdd
F20101111_AABRJK keefe_k_Page_071.jp2
2886fd4328c1c69e14a923a47c771e29
d1d44b35234d1f5bfb1da7e233d421e6b429db49
1051922 F20101111_AABRIX keefe_k_Page_055.jp2
3a8cca9280327e12f5f8d71d0a3efc7c
3dd53448060be6114dfe4438fbc4aa6d9bdaa142
1051933 F20101111_AABRJL keefe_k_Page_072.jp2
7c00f6ab9870810867ab8d9cd0bffd63
48858bf6760fd94f233b5b471ee606b2cf961a4f
1051901 F20101111_AABRKA keefe_k_Page_091.jp2
91afcb7ca01931b4e172853cecba6dc8
9c6e0c68b16fc2eb90b7583a7114cf350c8bcdc9
1051960 F20101111_AABRJM keefe_k_Page_074.jp2
5d1329864ff57c9a87051f9ce3120372
07c59ab25c7a6a85c371e2646a106a420877613c
1051981 F20101111_AABRIY keefe_k_Page_056.jp2
196e830c4f684f7654badaa8747427db
6593316e7901230bdab8ba693fe0d517e6511d4e
304195 F20101111_AABRKB keefe_k_Page_092.jp2
08cbe8bb4c4aa8a13d07e0523d327b1a
689acebaefd512a95f9c5db94d6ce856f2569cb6
1006049 F20101111_AABRJN keefe_k_Page_075.jp2
c7d0c4074e93e5e0a1c7ccc981d6a1e4
3337fda09e1c6ded5ccc50d5a2adc1e4fee73134
1051927 F20101111_AABRIZ keefe_k_Page_057.jp2
c30d946e5409f7d6971ba96dd7f498c3
444aba50a42ef2678d1ade1659ef63ba00fd8ca2
691944 F20101111_AABRKC keefe_k_Page_095.jp2
b48db8223bc02b0af1c929294b21a97d
00cd98a7f03f628812c74f89877e8d3cccf591ef
551970 F20101111_AABRJO keefe_k_Page_076.jp2
488c500d288c8a30c53906be21ec64ee
7eb76feaf7df5a9e76a8fa727b8cbbb4b8794ab6
348272 F20101111_AABRKD keefe_k_Page_096.jp2
6ecce29e90fbcfe5e2a014bd91e7fec7
c3a58c37e9c1f8484351e2fe8f98e0ad60595d24
700227 F20101111_AABRJP keefe_k_Page_077.jp2
8e44ab286b6a6f9046bb3a4cf0dd2542
93478468053b6797832b084b70aa29c3413e3e90
782338 F20101111_AABRKE keefe_k_Page_097.jp2
03631cf8e2d5be3c701e741b248a0c48
f4d7b86e95f76fe74f027d62270cf46deddc3456
372084 F20101111_AABRJQ keefe_k_Page_078.jp2
03778b74477e50db4a34836986976f80
2210e73a4bfea3b9655b4957eccb749e259b3091
F20101111_AABRKF keefe_k_Page_098.jp2
0431a02ffa13fa1d35cff828bb3c9de2
a3771f7c181aaa6dc3feb1aa9c89375143732041
587498 F20101111_AABRJR keefe_k_Page_079.jp2
2deb9b1e6c27555c31aa9e9177861a23
0893e694a25fedfbc33bebaae6a2a4f82086d067
1051947 F20101111_AABRKG keefe_k_Page_099.jp2
a56e68c2a70c2ef17b4fa0309005dd15
e46050a950bd1fdcd705d7c956b0b205826a47fb
F20101111_AABRJS keefe_k_Page_080.jp2
89911ab9a4065333581b3c62a19b1bb7
3fa0c433b2b17499b57a2d9497410fad820f2cb5
F20101111_AABRKH keefe_k_Page_100.jp2
c598bc4ea9c875f7bc156fb4d2460fa1
909f1d5df9a8b857fb86c4802db63ddf4a733cd8
1051959 F20101111_AABRJT keefe_k_Page_081.jp2
ba3bdf5340cadb8465f5517db5d633dd
7bde785e775c595b20b8ea9f510e309f18c90c92
F20101111_AABRKI keefe_k_Page_101.jp2
151ecbfa105a27663237ffa3230e49ba
01243871d73682383f2fde923cb826c2633c4591
F20101111_AABRJU keefe_k_Page_084.jp2
24061a66beb5c3a6d3a1be117a23fff2
21ad4cf9204924076c0f0447dea9b4f40d284e7c
F20101111_AABRKJ keefe_k_Page_102.jp2
673cb57d6e86204c3bb642e9bf2c9bc7
ce23d55aaa2958dffb515de927983329ef8444d5
1051934 F20101111_AABRJV keefe_k_Page_085.jp2
b68b25bcb517785f6dba3824b8ddc764
188618ccdbbe5fa42476dc713704d903be553669
F20101111_AABRKK keefe_k_Page_104.jp2
e4bcde305b5e0240639b051f818a1e8a
e0c5118367fae3be0371d3d97ffa0700851352cf
F20101111_AABRJW keefe_k_Page_087.jp2
b7ffcf5bcfc70391441cf7685eaa083f
105923d9109d2fee400ffc46f6cb3c362ee79394
F20101111_AABRKL keefe_k_Page_106.jp2
ab57d8da936845877056f40eff1a356b
fa831d3a6c46b8b0da9cefa1bca142390ba2c1c9
F20101111_AABRJX keefe_k_Page_088.jp2
068a7423c3ff9abd829bb3a91bf21ff2
eb5556212a837a79a26a46b221fd04a048f9f8a9
352316 F20101111_AABRKM keefe_k_Page_107.jp2
5211b8dd695a97dda18ce14059b1dc12
36f61275f5f22974e078881fef4a615751ccd9ba
F20101111_AABRJY keefe_k_Page_089.jp2
1c02a71465aec123e18196853c959167
b5ffea6eab86351a4dfacaacdb18799d55c9876b
F20101111_AABRLA keefe_k_Page_121.jp2
668ed8d5b28d38dadee8568c5b93cc12
750366e491f7cdb1fdad71ab90a7b7cc294b1d9f
623757 F20101111_AABRKN keefe_k_Page_108.jp2
3dc3072b82cf0d04553c6faa277aade1
94a8ac5224f2e06a72cc3d18340f07cab4991499
1051950 F20101111_AABRJZ keefe_k_Page_090.jp2
d09ad01d412b09bb90e417cfb8c72c6a
0877881d5e3aab96ce286ab86e824c6add5233ab
F20101111_AABRLB keefe_k_Page_122.jp2
16969bbe5549ee122060eeece0e0638a
65a4cf565e8fc5fa61c584053623f8be0be7fa28
780638 F20101111_AABRKO keefe_k_Page_109.jp2
e3e5db0a6ad4c8e236fb1602a353a094
f2641915a8cc0feb521e9d3cc0b8f478af6c9dc1
1051946 F20101111_AABRLC keefe_k_Page_123.jp2
e15594294bfbbcd52986905e12d8685b
9b1863ca1e6180b8ae0e8b1cab80bcfadee6a857
1022386 F20101111_AABRKP keefe_k_Page_110.jp2
618936ae7d66a74eec9ecd48d7e82908
e9770c20891cbe2fcefea4e58efe10d81f7feb9c
F20101111_AABRLD keefe_k_Page_125.jp2
b825f123c79e9dc4c3df960f7e51ded3
45a737eb4d59fb8f4e3b4370bb02e45815ac3a1c
1022238 F20101111_AABRKQ keefe_k_Page_111.jp2
9c3d0cb6919239da1af7fbbed87d7df8
624124ef2536ca89e50c821c742b4ed5d554b75f
F20101111_AABRLE keefe_k_Page_126.jp2
a9fa1eafd031b165efeb085bb5ef458e
86b2821e9541ba2d5bb8a37f85dec87eda30897e
83439 F20101111_AABRKR keefe_k_Page_112.jp2
bd6b0874f3fe99d54e7d0a7c2c69342c
339cc0bf8bbbe4586b956168bc1d4fee803a4216
1051935 F20101111_AABRLF keefe_k_Page_127.jp2
1ac83ca8d8531c9c01ad6f4e777762e3
b5d910e9a402aa06d4ec7c51cb202ec54d1e6aef
1051905 F20101111_AABRKS keefe_k_Page_113.jp2
3c3281e33769cc6a8105bb6d00e76d0d
a2cd507c0ffd40d37f47e384eafa71ed5fd6b48b
F20101111_AABRLG keefe_k_Page_128.jp2
3dea2cf50ca3f4a3c360a121d81a318d
67a07e30b01ecd4a69b7b70de7d0f142e43ac54a
F20101111_AABRKT keefe_k_Page_114.jp2
ee9dcbe0a803d66af01bb48bb9a5821e
31c2b23688a50ad621e177e80a197c0f6fcfce7a
1051904 F20101111_AABRLH keefe_k_Page_129.jp2
6e87ee0a07a19c83e9a688f20a07e85f
cacff40634a31dcf5dc556e1a33720a3867c9acf
F20101111_AABRKU keefe_k_Page_115.jp2
0f5ce420364f021f1ac3cb5b832b0f8a
7d73d5d48b6b188a5992b42fff97ef082844e2f1
F20101111_AABRLI keefe_k_Page_130.jp2
820fd00ee8b7b151d1c42dcee0e03986
1f4b8a4a78eb1083c8664bc3fff8efd44bfc3286
F20101111_AABRKV keefe_k_Page_116.jp2
f5598dfc00f4e96857b97461f7abecb3
1792b9a0b015cf8631f97f699a4bca9c1a7a5f95
470520 F20101111_AABRLJ keefe_k_Page_132.jp2
4525149d49b23849838dc9e4c48e4bb4
fdfe6cde07ae8f0cf526cfcb89102a95d2619d83
F20101111_AABRKW keefe_k_Page_117.jp2
fb3c59d3174f2a7292fe13465b2d42bb
d3cae1ba5b38f7e2f9e321e0ac38523d1cf46182
F20101111_AABRLK keefe_k_Page_001.tif
b2966c88f9a8e87b86805d03631a660e
41819d5e5908ad8468215f71eb564f6b2e5509f7
F20101111_AABRKX keefe_k_Page_118.jp2
77cca39d92fbb508f151d31ab61b160b
77a595a732a8b8ee458c692a0e1d6c6156e736fd
F20101111_AABRLL keefe_k_Page_003.tif
8d6026884ddba7ff2199f596461803e0
d56ae206d76a3290f71b5df72551606f2aefa983
F20101111_AABRKY keefe_k_Page_119.jp2
6febe0c31fda9fa3654f4b291dd1f14b
2050a410a63eeb7a61b24a673aeab0d7a8d681ab
F20101111_AABRMA keefe_k_Page_021.tif
fa07e7a3a8cea1c0bb3f8361973a549c
7e2c6167785b0c3efa0b5b5e1fcea90598392df4
F20101111_AABRLM keefe_k_Page_005.tif
a0c8cb2fed19038085954947b063686b
e3982c23b0d6e2b197765e032fe2550936702e28
F20101111_AABRKZ keefe_k_Page_120.jp2
1cc69377e540c1cbc40245b329e84540
dd3f6eb2688a27426aba8b2508f1d20cf010e016
F20101111_AABRMB keefe_k_Page_022.tif
c167f6c9653b0eac545d72c4cbd61a13
d0202f697bef75ac3cc9b639d47cf55d4913f626
F20101111_AABRLN keefe_k_Page_006.tif
cc559de99333ad78b789e24e52755790
f39acbc04d8eaf3fcd1a0095f22fbc13ff01d45a
F20101111_AABRMC keefe_k_Page_024.tif
2103aab961d07c5268ab3dc4b6036598
2f50be0a1f9bf1cf78d8f286884114ee717bca7b
F20101111_AABRLO keefe_k_Page_007.tif
939dc92490b8e6872213e56d99c3bd44
27d0a1974e0409cd6790545848bd65c1d784db22
F20101111_AABRMD keefe_k_Page_025.tif
0fdf99ebdb2bfc2622185368be137f6c
cd4f74cf7909383bb4bc82445febe436ab9e5f68
F20101111_AABRLP keefe_k_Page_008.tif
69887adb68d55083539f19a531153cc4
03e27098fdd1efb9ed725b06464bf866686e7708
F20101111_AABRME keefe_k_Page_026.tif
2b7c3b42e28b5f74be31df073cf24c25
518e5f96369da164d3a242e6dd3dd0908c43b3b5
F20101111_AABRLQ keefe_k_Page_009.tif
536cdfd71394743bc4c8da55080e4d5f
f96fd8ba33982e10fbd446b66f0d6cbc62399994
F20101111_AABRMF keefe_k_Page_028.tif
16f422e77dab685f5eb4e24e2f16ebcc
bc70fa5ae6eedcabd16ba24a6611f527b1d86821
F20101111_AABRLR keefe_k_Page_011.tif
a71a5e56dc3d56db41578376f8c022b8
8fadf367edb6e942e6b7c833f146854c8c1cd7e7
F20101111_AABRMG keefe_k_Page_029.tif
02ff0e0ca5546f1d278d5dc27774ce2c
5f7c4066d1cbe38a98695ea5ad28885d69e67f19
F20101111_AABRLS keefe_k_Page_013.tif
620849e95ebf1caf4c1955fa672e7d22
ebe1274efee84f8f4f6e65c56fd4efc806b02771
F20101111_AABRMH keefe_k_Page_030.tif
1b23b4a40938cd1741c7c47ec7c6232e
f27189c39393bafe9cf8e4a18996a72033913ffc
F20101111_AABRLT keefe_k_Page_014.tif
7a0f21a37a870e3111b877e778d2cdef
1f43765ffa2d2fcd6708d71c3cee7f037c526780
F20101111_AABRMI keefe_k_Page_032.tif
fb02d62089109991f89dd4e7cacae525
4e37dcffe952cec1ffa8309c0ac12ca18afa6dda
F20101111_AABRLU keefe_k_Page_015.tif
d565b006a995ce4f17087827435a49a3
cb2f9a343ba7ac856ba9986114f4b15062c8e12e
F20101111_AABRMJ keefe_k_Page_033.tif
38bb6b029ce861cf579f4848271e3c6a
b40bb29246e26f508855b8b1487e23abb45503d1
F20101111_AABRLV keefe_k_Page_016.tif
6adf5303c349d2af327a2681be283271
b32dd608daef287466a65d0019ba6ad099884d73
F20101111_AABRMK keefe_k_Page_034.tif
e72b581600b8837a1c6be25e1c4d8a17
c5f9a3e9f6834f535c65c203fb27aeb9cb0cf878
F20101111_AABRLW keefe_k_Page_017.tif
5d485bd31b38dda034fdd41c46b5bb30
aab6e922a167e6e4a06e1e856d8134af014a9288
F20101111_AABRNA keefe_k_Page_053.tif
0bd47b333b8560a8223c41ae246b62d3
9258fcb163587c648963473c4e6eb5c973750f88
F20101111_AABRML keefe_k_Page_035.tif
d46023d50091764b299b29e379707b22
ed3ba2c06b651a68f7de430740a7afe7bf8f7e29
F20101111_AABRLX keefe_k_Page_018.tif
6b99f8360db23cd2f8039ac442cd98bc
48023c679f808e5438712135228cf2a81c752e71
F20101111_AABRMM keefe_k_Page_036.tif
9df625554eb121550570c04676c7494e
309b8a113e70f0e42d2f85925e0adabb77ba611e
F20101111_AABRLY keefe_k_Page_019.tif
e48ebd07a1b585b8f17d6a5642b080c2
542f552623a38f8cd0ab6d7950ce3f60d4c1c2c9
F20101111_AABRNB keefe_k_Page_054.tif
07c0678bf4a7e156ecb4de68186c719b
8c320b6bc29e8550782fa6f7f8bfe3aa2f1514d9
F20101111_AABRMN keefe_k_Page_038.tif
cc4b758227142e31d78e6fc97167806d
fb5fb17fdf7f23eb7e034d53e93046ac2e6ac9b5
F20101111_AABRLZ keefe_k_Page_020.tif
a42172d9ac6fc5d724b750ec231912db
12d6a1b2df0b37197aa574e5b1621b147f58b6be
F20101111_AABRNC keefe_k_Page_055.tif
0395ff9acbd8239959a9f4a9070f715a
9073958191dee7addea4dacc7646a9c236ac3e39
25265604 F20101111_AABRMO keefe_k_Page_040.tif
83fc16ed47deb5796a6e2fa2669bd156
bb9438578442be8b73a5227890eb6396320458dd
F20101111_AABRND keefe_k_Page_056.tif
b9e31e6ec20c60c48164f30e9368b877
8e6d03a8f6b3c7d746fdc824a17ff9c453b84036
F20101111_AABRMP keefe_k_Page_041.tif
775ab8a0cf888c66663f6ad89eb1ada6
f88f0706959bc2fc72f9ebef1d1c26a82d23ce55
F20101111_AABRNE keefe_k_Page_057.tif
c8b70cf200cc89af6bad6ff83a93afe1
cd0c57dc20f5e234bd0b0cdcb90de6958e366b3b
F20101111_AABRMQ keefe_k_Page_042.tif
3b5f1fb53fa63fbc90535be1c4bdf0b4
1a15617edd4e4539f8c9ba0d70474d1890fb92d9
F20101111_AABRNF keefe_k_Page_058.tif
62b55fbbc294fd60dc99cdaf2936115b
0ca84c016332fc7aa15e063ec707449631987f9b
F20101111_AABRMR keefe_k_Page_043.tif
8ae293146f5253528a9a9233ddcdbb99
e216b6a306aaaf621ca395a0617ff575574ec490
F20101111_AABRNG keefe_k_Page_059.tif
606e1943796b4f2c45052809e9e3a6f3
8a5d6b276a6c1d91038980afd73d4ccf8c88a1e6
F20101111_AABRMS keefe_k_Page_045.tif
ec593a6bdb036320fd7ebd7fb40a5758
c47a62fe2d19a6dfd861981706ce57b2a45030f6
F20101111_AABRNH keefe_k_Page_060.tif
14b1a090b0c43daae790a5d56da91015
d967f8ffe1eae5594b8675bcbd4fc0c05a54ef21
F20101111_AABRMT keefe_k_Page_046.tif
f8415bcc1302ba3807808fbbffc428fd
c3dbd9d25466881cb417fb6bcdc58d2acdd5d67b
F20101111_AABRNI keefe_k_Page_061.tif
ca0727c0251eb9fd49d413d48d9ab5a2
d86ebaa514d7f15c25aed3952927d124b8acdcb3
F20101111_AABRMU keefe_k_Page_047.tif
5d24e8c94f8ad6c2d021b747736de4b2
11b201e0c8e3d239e8f983c71b973fe1f0aafde6
F20101111_AABRNJ keefe_k_Page_063.tif
bec2a27ec0058971ac705102f58c0589
767d2c8d471703fd11821155d14140e113110ba1
F20101111_AABRMV keefe_k_Page_048.tif
b19129d987cef86296b2557847141645
9c3039ad0168677f591c421a3571f69059b1cba1
F20101111_AABRNK keefe_k_Page_064.tif
3795bdf71b567dd960b2b6f58bf66999
1c3e7113ba2e4801222f5af72ad320e00bf09aab
F20101111_AABRMW keefe_k_Page_049.tif
09ef572d2d09e3d0d2ffa8b2919ee9b7
e24757118e229f65d3fdf6f59c492396eff6ce16
F20101111_AABRNL keefe_k_Page_065.tif
1e529fbcfe035646efd8c48c54872ed0
6df53d81da7a1eccdabbdd19863df6da23a1065c
F20101111_AABRMX keefe_k_Page_050.tif
56c09f37818af882aa778e9d93dab680
97cb978c34fdd439e9d8fd14404e6b8f260b4faf
F20101111_AABROA keefe_k_Page_088.tif
4f58321b852704dc8b0382ad5c6612d4
ff4587de63b2559bf2dc2ca657815b47682d8fdb
F20101111_AABRNM keefe_k_Page_067.tif
abe12edf20276965886e61c6257ddea9
6a33edb5a59e128c9882617d507812db877362cd
F20101111_AABRMY keefe_k_Page_051.tif
2ccf0933d4bc1fa9718488e1bdec9a4d
6e92b98650869e273f641ee9f35005222e28fa5b
F20101111_AABROB keefe_k_Page_089.tif
30a832c6c36a2f0cfd4f1b908f9d9010
c73d26bfbb857c431a32e54c2f3f1e7cf82945b9
F20101111_AABRNN keefe_k_Page_069.tif
dc87fafe3126d74d280e1b60f7d8db53
217fb6c8bbfcefab67986d7e5d0d4716951d8542
F20101111_AABRMZ keefe_k_Page_052.tif
d550fcb9e38d5571c5f72d96c0844df7
a9dac6a21170990c68bf89d52d99c28e47dab4c9
F20101111_AABRNO keefe_k_Page_071.tif
d49f16dc939e54ea07f3880cb37e63fd
4b8c3b818df1ee95801ad49fb67ffa557c1d6351
F20101111_AABROC keefe_k_Page_090.tif
2c6d5d45e5827e7dbc6cf7593d43ed0f
9e434b20d654683a061b8bc7e35eb4951cc56756
F20101111_AABRNP keefe_k_Page_072.tif
1a181d4a2f19237fa7ee347841750506
9197bad4be355da3e18c60ee9ad099cfe44f5546
F20101111_AABROD keefe_k_Page_092.tif
3171d063d6649507cb44cd325c2de21f
cc4aa350ba1771976bce5d13f553d19e0476aded
F20101111_AABRNQ keefe_k_Page_073.tif
a9146698dac8efda70674e488def90d6
25cf567a49cf6b2d088d4d167969bf4e2ffd35f6
F20101111_AABROE keefe_k_Page_095.tif
fdc8e4f2213d74200a7179e3744039ca
fa4501da73535d9d38e9625c009e82782ee8fb40
F20101111_AABRNR keefe_k_Page_074.tif
65260f3e17b2cc437b5283af699cec24
a91505bf802350434d802b7cd1c222493efb0312
F20101111_AABROF keefe_k_Page_096.tif
165650378878740a8a2c86f2802fdee1
0e2be386450733529998ad06a5fe1b80f94f48b4
F20101111_AABRNS keefe_k_Page_077.tif
0766726b9ff8dc19191ffcff72d6360d
3c2f4a03669858a1f3110dd720dd3e22c837c8cc
F20101111_AABROG keefe_k_Page_097.tif
787e6df1a6b492d0983aa64ad5d093ae
cdd6988949599119eba283ac44c63288d5627c56
F20101111_AABRNT keefe_k_Page_078.tif
823c5d1796fa2a78936b9e1f8e0a3c0d
2568900209bd3a74d22a51f398e26dec940e789f
F20101111_AABROH keefe_k_Page_098.tif
b1f28f06ae4718e1a0a322262553c3ca
b58b0e2eda66c8c82900aa80825725f390604493
F20101111_AABRNU keefe_k_Page_079.tif
62901f9609fd1fc92716fd5e44aec89b
daaf77d4d04b394a446419574c1a76dc5d0c01f0
F20101111_AABROI keefe_k_Page_100.tif
f5b7bd9b164a2283a4c0e2f438ae743c
4d54e3d57e8891f770ce5ba77b8b7e3966837ab8
F20101111_AABROJ keefe_k_Page_103.tif
36e2a0983d086b308be91dc0fd185678
4b7fdd0e921bf03f225812a532d3188c81587688
F20101111_AABRNV keefe_k_Page_080.tif
fc43d6a627939c5d526dd7daa6851035
4a68e98352d0332c864aa2aefb65a77886eae40b
F20101111_AABROK keefe_k_Page_104.tif
c99170cf2e16bf153f14e4161ca48732
12377b0934f51a23602422a3ef86bc460e8fd7c2
F20101111_AABRNW keefe_k_Page_084.tif
824de44725fcca82baa3f741ebf01801
750c763d0d601e6c2f964838bd4d9de359711089
F20101111_AABRPA keefe_k_Page_127.tif
4f84b83cc2521ed68e57ce1e55526abf
102aeebb9fd48fb03fbd0fe5c4f4c6e5e861c34d
F20101111_AABROL keefe_k_Page_105.tif
af91cc5d9d6d5b5a96ddae755d3d43c4
51b893ee9f0a53abbc72410aaa2f28b11a2f8968
F20101111_AABRNX keefe_k_Page_085.tif
a145f658e5fad27b1a36913a9b888e4c
49dd9d08a767ca892713ffe08a9a4e0531c142a4
F20101111_AABRPB keefe_k_Page_128.tif
1328130f38b786d0d02ec3522845a863
8ab3fd0c2c7a7ef5abb7de39658f13b33e8e5cd6
F20101111_AABROM keefe_k_Page_107.tif
f913f6e3148679c008dcc4e76c12b012
2a8ee9eac4ecfa5b32fc1947dd5c0fe549eea5de
F20101111_AABRNY keefe_k_Page_086.tif
2e109f5e46e42c1b4e825995425fefe7
1cbb374eac67475ae05355a1b06a9e95b10a5f6d
F20101111_AABRPC keefe_k_Page_129.tif
51b003e556e1db579452815ee7eb1759
c6fe2f8005d988cbd07f5485a64c7f0b835749a1
F20101111_AABRON keefe_k_Page_108.tif
3df95ffc849a35ba989a59ed12ddd1ac
87128ee05925698e39f59ecdeb6c5d37a53e856d
F20101111_AABRNZ keefe_k_Page_087.tif
78f732c9e406dde92e9cb78ec8ae1d2e
15b2b78cc9f4faee1e4692516583d9632e92c1e7
F20101111_AABROO keefe_k_Page_109.tif
e7e5f40d434bc800e501e5f606a5768a
03dff9799fb1da924a1438b69649afd116333c52
F20101111_AABRPD keefe_k_Page_130.tif
b448bba21705815ea8d2cfd81000e953
0d14d2645bedb2678b84ba0f6b4b6ed6bcc73a80
F20101111_AABROP keefe_k_Page_110.tif
91b91b84474c1ecf984336c2e47db4f7
8be82c3af92b7b97db8be9cd256386d4d7469aaf
F20101111_AABRPE keefe_k_Page_131.tif
bb8bacfb06950e4ba02caf777b775bf9
bf0a186e79c98e3fdff2b3386773426665673d7a
F20101111_AABROQ keefe_k_Page_111.tif
3a834849ba52d6cf9859251515a5a3cc
2caef879a9685a5ac7dbbf5aa431197eef979084
F20101111_AABRPF keefe_k_Page_132.tif
f9d8c5b13dda39a8dfcccd8391aa1e4e
fa680ff4215b977c23b9c400fcba5b4fd17855b0
F20101111_AABROR keefe_k_Page_113.tif
6572f6030a282c3b8eed643a327f9fab
ae657b44c78377ebbc5acacc96dd3c833d86eb21
9531 F20101111_AABRPG keefe_k_Page_001.pro
d604456d00a27eea93bc036902259da8
6df067aaca0f2ad7be59261aa08663398dae9830
F20101111_AABROS keefe_k_Page_114.tif
0b770efdccde35faaecfabd592733895
a05cd435927b22272b08a2d9e9d0d7ac44270bf2
886 F20101111_AABRPH keefe_k_Page_002.pro
5f2082e95ab623b5e01c4704b873e459
8a8d8e12623bf5ac1602dd46094b379c320bf877
F20101111_AABROT keefe_k_Page_118.tif
941004404bfe5635075ccada3601a0a4
bafb128d01b38caf3f2e2a5a88d5631697ccad6c







ENRICHMENT PLANTING OF NATIVE TREE SPECIES IN THE
EASTERN AMAZON OF BRAZIL: SILVICULTURAL, FINANCIAL,
AND HOUSEHOLD ASSESSMENTS





















By

KELLY JEAN KEEFE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008
































2008 Kelly Jean Keefe









To Suzana









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the Instituto Floresta Tropical for inspiration and ongoing support; the

gracious families and logging professionals who hosted me and answered my endless

questions; Dr. Daniel Zarin, Dr. Janaki Alavalapati, Dr. Peter Hildebrand, Dr. Karen

Kainer, and Dr. "Jack" Putz of my advisory committee for thorough and insightful

coaching; Lucas Fortini for tireless translating and assistance (and photography!); Dr.

Mark Schulze for valuable ideas and input; and Dr. Daniel Nepstad for access to

interesting long-term tree growth data. I thank my family and friends for their steadfast

support. Funding was provided by a Working Forests in the Tropics fellowship at the

University of Florida, supported by the National Science Foundation (DGE-0221599).









TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ........................................................... ...................................... 4

L IST O F TA B LE S ............. .. ............. ...................... ............................... 7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

LIST O F A BBREV IA TION S ..................................... ......... ................. ................................. 9

ABSTRAC T ................................................... ............... 10

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ....................................................... ................ .. ... .... 12

R research O objectives and M ethods........................................................................... ...... 14
C costs of L ong-T erm T ree C are.............................................................................. ........ 15
Long-Term Effects of Treatm ents ................................................ .............................. 18
C onclu sion and Im plications ......................................................................... ...................20

2 ENRICHMENT PLANTING AS A SILVICULTURAL OPTION IN THE
EASTERN AMAZON: CASE STUDY OF FAZENDA CAUAXI.................. ............22

In tro du ctio n ................... ...................2...................2..........
M methods ....................................... .................................... 25
Planting Site D description .......... ................ .......................... .. .......... ......... 25
Site Preparation and Enrichment M ethodology ................................... .................26
A analysis of E nrichm ent Planting ......................................................................... ..... 28
R esu lts ...... ........... .. ..... .... .............................................. ...................... ........... 3 1
Distribution of Liana Forest at Cauaxi ...................... .......... ...............31
Species Performance in Liana Forest Enrichment Planting Areas..............................32
Projections of Harvest Times and Future Yields..........................................................33
D isc u ssio n ................... ........................................................... ................ 3 4
G ro w th ................... ...................3...................4..........
T ending R egim e ................................................................... 35
P reduction P potential ............ .... .. ............................................ .......... .... ..... ... 35
Staggered Harvests from Liana Forest Enrichment Sites: The Parica, Mogno,
Ip 6 M o d e l ........................................................................................................... 3 6
C o n clu sio n ................... ...................3...................7..........

3 IS ENRICHMENT PLANTING WORTH ITS COSTS? A FINANCIAL COST-
BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR AN AMAZON FOREST ............... ............................... 49

Introduction.............................................. .... ......................... ................ 49
M eth o d s ............................................................................................. 5 1









R e su lts ................... ...................5...................6..........
D iscu ssio n ................... ...................5...................7..........
C o n clu sio n ................... ...................6...................3..........

4 EARLY PLANTING TREATMENT EXPERIMENTS: GROWTH AND
SURVIVAL OF PLANTED FRUIT AND TIMBER SPECIES WITH AND
WITHOUT TREATMENTS IN PARAGOMINAS, PARA, BRAZIL ..................................67

Introduction ............... ...... ........... .............. ...............67
Site D description .............. .............. ... .................... ........ 68
Experiment One: Site Preparation and Maintenance Study ................................................68
Site Preparation and M maintenance Results ........................................ ........................ 69
Treatment Effects ............................... .. ...... ... ................... 69
Species E ffects.................................................. 70
Species X T reatm ent E effects ........................................ ............................................7 1
Experiment Two: Fertilization Study .................................. .....................................71
D iscu ssion and C onclu sions ......................................................................... ....................74

5 ANALYSIS OF ENRICHMENT PLANTING BY SMALLHOLDERS IN THE
COMMUNITY OF MAZAGAO, AMAPA, BRAZIL.........................................................80

Intro du action ................... .......................................................... ................ 80
M materials and m methods ................................................................... ...... ....... 82
Fam ily Farm ing System s ........................................................... .. ............... 82
M o d e l ................... ........................................................... ................ 8 3
O observations ............................................................... ..... ...... ........ 84
M odel Form ulation ..................................................... ............... .. ....... 85
S c e n a rio s .............................. .................................................................... ............... 8 8
R results ............ .......... ............... .......... .......... ................................ 89
Discussion and Conclusions: Lessons Offered by Vdrzea Farmers ......................................90

6 CON CLU SION .......... ................................................. .. ................ ....98

APPENDIX

A FINANCIAL COSTS OF ENRICHMENT PLANTING, YEARS 0-60, AT
FAZENDA CAUAXI, PARA, BRAZIL ........................................................... ......... 107

B RESULTS OF SITE TREATMENTS AT FAZENDA VITORIA..............................110

C MEAN DIAMETER AND HEIGHT FOR FERTILIZATION EXPERIMENT AT
F A Z E N D A V IT O R IA ............................ ................................................ ..................... 112

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............................ ...................................................... .....................115

B IO G R A PH ICA L SK ETCH ......................................................................... ................. 132









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Vine tangle enrichment planting sites at Fazenda Cauaxi ............................................ 40

2-2 Extent of liana forest in 560 ha of unlogged forest, Fazenda Cauaxi............................ 41

2-3 Mean annual diameter growth rates of tree seedlings in vine forest enrichment
plantings, F agenda C auaxi .................................................... ........................... ..... 4 1

2-4 Projected size (DBH in cm) at year 30 after planting for individuals of three
timber tree species in vine-forest enrichment plantings based on observed sizes
and growth rates of individuals in experimental planting areas from 1997-2005,
F azen d a C au ax i ................................................................................... 4 2

3-1 Scenarios of enrichment planting in conditions of alternate costs, alternate yields,
additional benefits, and policy support. ........................................ ....................... 65

3-2 Sensitivity analysis of influences on enrichment planting economic indicators ............. 66

4-1 Fertilization experiment growth rate results ....................................................... 79

5-1 Factors that influence landholder's decision to conduct EP ......................... .......... 93

5-2 Hypotheses, test methods, results, and interpretations of modeled EP scenarios on
farm system s in M azagdo com m unity ........................................ ................... ..... 94

5-3 Sensitivity analyses of payment scenarios for enrichment planting............................... 95

6-1 Lessons learned about what encourages EP and suggestions for promoting EP ........... 106

A-1 Labor wages for workers at Fazenda Cauaxi ........................................ ............. 107

A-2 Costs associated with enrichment planting at Fazenda Cauaxi, in US dollars (2004
average exchange rate of 2.91) ............................................... ............................ 108

B-1 Height, DBH, and survivorship results of site treatments at Fazenda Vitoria.............. 110

C-l Mean diameter and height of species with and without NPK fertilizer and addition
of manure, administered in the first year after planting............... ..................... 113









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Size distribution of liana forest patches in harvest blocks at Cikel ........................... 43

2-2 Stand maps of two management blocks at Fazenda Cauaxi ........................................... 44

2-3 Commercial timber volume (nondefective stems of commercial species) per
h e c ta re ................... ................... ....................................................... .. 4 5

2-4 Species mean and 75th growth rates in years 1-8 after planting in liana forest
enrichm ent planting areas, Fazenda Cauaxi................................................ ... ................. 46

2-5 Species mean, 75th percentile and maximum diameters in years 1-8 after planting
seedlings in vine-forest enrichment planting areas, Fazenda Cauaxi. ........................... 47

2-6 Staggered tree development and harvest in a three-species enrichment planting........... 48

4-1 Treatment effects: Mean height of site preparation treatment groups in 1991, 2003 ....... 76

4-2 Treatment effects: Mean DBH in 2003 of site preparation treatment groups in
2 0 0 3 ................... ................... ......................................................... .. 7 6

4-3 Species effects: Mean height of each species with treatments in1991 .......................... 77

4-4 Species effects: Mean height of each species with treatments in 2003 ........................ 77

4-5 Species effects: Mean diameter at breast height (DBH) of each species with
treatm ents in 2003 ............. ...... ...................... .. .......... .......... 78

5-1 ELP Sensitivity analysis results of initial payment without monthly stipend for
enrichment planting (Scenario 2) and initial payment plus monthly stipend
(S c en ario 3 ) .......... .. .......... ............................................................................. 9 6









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS


BCR Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) indicates the monetary value of a project per money
invested. It is calculated using present values for project costs and benefits.

ELP Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) is an Excel-based model based on
Linear Programming used in Decision Sciences. Family activities, timing, and
cultural factors such as division of labor between men, women and children are
included in ELP.

EP Enrichment planting (EP) here refers to a set of techniques used to increase
densities of native tree species when natural regeneration does not meet land
management goals.

IRR Internal rate of return (IRR) is a measure of investment success. It is the yearly
increase (or decrease) in yield that can be attained from an investment.

NPV Net present value (NPV) is the current financial value of a project given costs and
benefits that may occur in the future, which have been translated into today's
values.

RIL Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) refers to a harvest system that includes careful
planning and execution of all phases of a logging operation with the goals of
limiting damage to the residual stand, improving efficiency of operations, and
reducing waste. RIL involves substantial investment in training of personnel and
in preharvest operations ff that are essential to sound forest management.









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ENRICHMENT PLANTING OF NATIVE TREE SPECIES IN THE
EASTERN AMAZON OF BRAZIL: SILVICULTURAL, FINANCIAL,
AND HOUSEHOLD ASSESSMENTS

By

Kelly Jean Keefe

August 2008

Chair: Daniel Zarin
Major: Forest Resources and Conservation

Enrichment planting (EP) is a silvicultural tool capable of adding long-term value

to forests. Here EP case studies and experimental trials are assessed at two scales: large

industrial and family farm planting. Tree growth responses to treatments are reported.

Financial cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) are

used to determine sensitivity to short- and long-term costs and benefits. The goal is to

define factors that promote or hinder EP in order to help inform landholders and policy

makers of effective use of EP.

A case study in the Brazilian Amazon revealed that EP produces multiple timber

harvests but may be expensive without short-term financial benefits. Sensitivity analysis

of costs and benefits showed that revenue from activities additional to EP, such as carbon

sequestration payments, can make EP profitable. A social appraisal ofEP may reveal

social benefits that would justify governmental, financial, and policy support.

Fertilization and site preparation experiments showed that they produce little benefit in

growth and survival and therefore may incur unnecessary expenses in these settings.

Considering the finding of the CBA results and the treatment experiments, it is suggested









that early costs be kept low and therefore planting treatments kept to a minimum. The

particular minimum treatment depends on species and site conditions.

Relative abundance of EP by smallholders is intriguing given difficulties some

large companies experience when implementing EP. ELP was used to assess planting

conducted by Amazon smallholders. Diverse short-term benefits, multitasking, low

opportunity costs, low start-up costs, reliable tree survivorship and ability to care for

planted trees promoted EP among smallholders. As for industrial foresters, monetary

payments for EP are also an effective incentive.

Both industrial planters and smallholders need short-term benefits and minimal

costs but there are differences between the scales. Industrial planters perceive financial

benefits; biodiversity conservation or local economy stability are external. To make them

internal, and thereby make EP more feasible, external benefits need to be translated into

shorter-term financial gains for the companies. Smallholders respond well to payments

and other non-financial benefits. Differences between scales should be considered when

developing policies or programs to encourage EP.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Our study examined enrichment planting practiced at industrial and small farm scales,

including its costs and benefits, and settings which seem to encourage or discourage planting.

Enrichment planting (EP) here refers to a set of techniques used to increase densities of native

tree species when natural regeneration does not meet land management goals. Specifically, my

focus is on timber species for future harvest in the eastern Amazon. Enrichment planting

includes stocking of stands that have uneven distribution of natural regeneration (partial

planting) as well as restocking a site that has poor natural regeneration overall. Types of EP

include line, strip, gap, group, and diffuse plantings as well as underplanting (Costa, 1995;

Mayhew and Newton, 1998; Montagnini, 1997; Schulze, 2003; Silva, 1989; Vielhauer et al.,

1998). The goal of this dissertation is to provide information that may help conservationists,

forest managers, and policy makers decide if and how to encourage EP. Lessons from this

research may apply broadly to tropical forested regions, but should be generalized only with

caution since the research consists of case studies from the eastern Amazon. Our study

contributes to existing knowledge regarding tree planting by providing a synthesis of published

information about enrichment planting in the Brazillian Amazon (Chapter 1), descriptions of

case studies (Chapters 2 and 5), detailed cost and benefit information and results of financial cost

benefit analyses (Chapter 3), long-term results of experimental tree planting treatments (Chapter

4), and an economic analysis of small farm tree planting using a modeling technique geared

specially for smallholder economic analysis (Chapter 5). The dissertation concludes with a

summary of the lessons learned from industrial and smallholder planting, and suggestions for

encouraging EP. The information in this dissertation may guide decisions regarding the scale at









which to conduct enrichment planting, cost-effective treatments for seedlings, and benefits that

encourage planting by landholders.

Enrichment enhances the value of the future forest and therefore may make conservation

of forest cover more appealing to private landholders when conducted under the right conditions.

Maintaining the Amazon climate system depends principally on the maintenance of forest cover

and, while the Brazilian Forest Code requires that 80% of any private property within the

Amazon forest region remain forested, many landholders routinely violate this policy because it

is financially unattractive (Fearnside, 2005; Nepstad et al., 2001; Verissimo et al., 2002).

Enrichment planting may increase monetary returns from multiple harvests, thereby providing

incentive for owners to maintain their forests as an asset and contribute to the abatement of forest

loss and climate change (Browder et al., 1996; Schulze et al., 1994).

Financial benefits of EP include increased density of valuable trees per hectare within

areas that already have good access to reusable roads, such as land-holdings that conduct

reduced-impact logging (RIL). In such operations EP also provides work opportunities during

the wet season when many laborers in the forestry sector are under- or unemployed. This could

reduce turnover of trained employees, which would maintain consistency and prevent loss of

training investments. Enrichment planting has the potential to sustain highly exploited species

such as Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany) and Tabebuia serratifolia (ip6), which have

economic as well as aesthetic value (Browder et al., 1996; Salleh, 1997; Zweede, 2004 Personal

Communication).

Enrichment planting also has costs. These include the direct costs of labor, equipment,

training, site preparation, and transport of materials to and from markets, and the opportunity

costs associated with not pursuing a more profitable activity such as ranching. EP also has risks,









including mortality of the planted trees (Kammesheidt, 2002; Schulze et al., 1994). Costs and

risks vary with location of planting: planting old fields may require more labor and have higher

risk of burning in escaped fires, whereas trees planted in more protected forest gaps require less

labor but have higher transport costs and more variable light conditions (Kainer et al., 1998).

Also, some costs may be lower for small-scale farmers than for larger firms, as explored in

chapters 3 and 4 of this dissertation, but others may be higher, especially if they have a higher

burden of regulatory compliance (Merry et al., 2002). In general the costs of EP at any site are

high relative to the present value of benefits due to long harvest periods and high discount rates

(Ricker et al., 1999; Schulze et al., 1994).

Essentially, EP requires two conditions: a suitable growing environment for the planted

trees and willingness of the landholder to wait for long-term returns from their efforts.

Ecological factors such as site conditions and treatments, and socioeconomics factors such as

tenure security, labor and opportunity costs, and discount rates influence the suitability of these

conditions in any given scenario. The scale of planting may alter the effects of these factors. My

goal is to clarify some situations that are appropriate or inappropriate for EP in the eastern

Amazon of Brazil, considering long-term effects of site treatments and socioeconomic factors on

small- and large-scale planting.

Research Objectives and Methods

The objective of this dissertation is to explore enrichment planting with a focus on case

studies in the eastern Amazon of Brazil in order to provide land holders and policy makers with

information regarding cost-effective planting and benefits that encourage planting by landholders

at industrial or smallholder scales. A variety of methods are used to reach this goal. In

Chapter 2, the description of industrial scale planting includes silvicultural analysis of tree

growth rates and years needed for planted trees to reach harvestable size. The 17 planting areas









described in Chapter 2 were created for demonstration purposes rather than experimental and

statistical rigor, but enough replication of four species among the areas allowed for reliable

analysis of growth rates and planting results. In Chapter 3 financial cost-benefit analysis is used

to evaluate EP described in the previous chapter and to explore hypothetical scenarios such as

giving land holders payments for atmospheric carbon sequestered in the planted trees and

sensitivity analyses. Chapter 4 consists of two planting experiments, implemented in 1988 and

revisited in 2003 to assess long term effects of treatments given at the time of planting. In

Chapter 5, Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) is used to evaluate enrichment planting

conducted by eight smallholder families. The ELP method is novel compared to traditional

financial cost-benefit analysis in that it produces a model of family economics that includes

financial and non-financial costs and benefits; social influences such as 'norms' of division of

labor among men, women, and children; and it includes timing of activities within the family so

that an activity such as tree planting cannot be conducted at the same time as crop-planting if

food security is at risk. The results of these chapters offer lessons regarding enrichment planting

by industrial foresters and smallholders, summarized in Chapter 6.

Costs of Long-Term Tree Care

Large scale enrichment planting (EP) of timber species in the neotropics has repeatedly

failed. These failures often have resulted from lack of tending, due in part to a lack of

knowledge about the most efficient and effective planting/tending methods. The prospect of

tending over the life of the trees increases the magnitude of time and labor investments in EP

since timber trees in this region can take 15 to 100+ years to reach harvestable size. The lack of

knowledge of effective planting/tending methods includes a near absence of information about

the economic consequences of the scale of planting, which has long-term effects on EP's

economic feasibility for each landholder, especially in terms of costs of planting and tending.









Planting sometimes requires landholders to wait a lifetime or longer for the financial returns

from their investments. There is also a need for information about the effectiveness of

treatments such as fertilization and site preparation. The scarcity of information has exacerbated

uninformed decision-making in EP ventures, which has, unfortunately, contributed to expensive

failures (Putz et al., 2000; Schulze, 2003; Silva et al., 2002b).

Planting is facilitated by technical skills, dependable growth and survival of the species,

access to markets if costs are to be recuperated by sale of timber or tree products, favorable

discount rates and low opportunity costs, and a supportive policy environment. These

constraints are evidenced by people's willingness/unwillingness to participate in tree planting

programs offered by governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Internationally,

participation of smallholders in such projects has depended on their perception of secure tenure;

technical capacity and/or access to extension services; choice of appropriate species for planting;

availability of farm land for planting vs. other options for that land; value of incentives;

perceptions of risks of the planting vs. risks of other farm activities; and supportive policy

contexts especially in regard to tenure (Church et al., 2000; Lynch, 1992; Murray, 1987; Peart,

1996; Santos et al., 1998; Thacher et al., 1997).

Under what conditions will a private landholder gain or lose by conducting EP? The

answer may depend in part on scale. In the eastern Amazon and other neotropical regions

smallholders often conduct mixed perennial plantings on their property including some timber

species. This practice seems to have persisted since prehistoric times (Gomez-Pompa et al.,

1987; Gordon, 1983; Lundell, 1938; Putz et al., 2000; Wiseman, 1978). Smallholders may be

better able than firms to diversify their plantings, reduce labor and opportunity costs, and accept

higher internal rates of return. For example, small-farm family members or hired labor may be









available to plant and tend trees during "down time" between periods of high labor demand, or

they may multi-task these activities with other farm work. Multi-tasking was observed in

shifting cultivation plots on small farms in the western Amazon, where only minimal extra labor

was needed to tend trees in concurrence with the maintenance of farm crops (Kainer, 1998). In

this setting, non-monetary benefits may also be important, such as the satisfaction of planting

trees that may benefit the next generation. In contrast, industrial forestry operations have only

hired labor, typically contracted only during the season of high demand for logging, and these

workers have little opportunity to conduct planting or maintenance. Enrichment planting and

maintenance would have to be a separate activity for them, requiring wages, oversight, training,

and transportation, which amount to more costs for their employer, the large-scale landholder.

The labor costs are high, and this may be exacerbated by low value of nonmonetary benefits of

planting. Given these factors, small family farms seem more amenable to enrichment planting

than large industrial forestry settings.

These observations are supported by evaluation of enrichment planting using financial

cost-benefit analysis and ethnographic linear programming (Chapter 3 and 5). These analyses

revealed that smallholders in the eastern Amazon with a secure perception of land tenure are

likely to plant if they have family members or other low-cost labor available, if they have enough

land that tree planting does not compete with subsistence farming, if their time is not better spent

on more profitable activities such as off-farm work, and if they believe that planting could serve

as insurance or benefit future generations. These factors effectively lower costs and increase

benefits. It should be noted that other activities can provide these benefits to landholders. For

example, other land uses such as cattle ranching may also provide such insurance, and be more









immediately available (Gittinger, 1982; Hecht et al., 1988; Mattos and Uhl, 1994; Walker et al.,

2000).

At the large scale, EP may require forestry operations that hire year-round labor and that

have long-term forest management goals. A financial cost-benefit analysis of EP from the point

of view of Cikel, a large-scale, private logging company near Paragominas, Para, Brazil, was

conducted in response to the perceived potential of EP to augment their long-term forest

harvesting and management plans. The analysis showed that their EP, as conducted since 1997,

is cost-prohibitive. In the analysis the highest costs were associated with early expenses

combined with long waiting periods until benefits could be realized (Chapter 3). This analysis

also provided insight into costs that could be could be cut and benefits that could be expanded.

Large-scale EP may require mostly fast-growing species to reduce the waiting time for financial

benefits, and there may be opportunities to multi-task some EP activities with other work to

reduce costs. External benefits of EP may warrant external financial support that would reduce

costs or shorten the waiting time for financial benefits of planting.

Long-Term Effects of Treatments

Seedling growth environment requirements in the eastern Amazon and similar tropical

regions include light, water availability, soil nutrients; and protection from fire, vine

overtopping, and herbivores (Dunisch et al., 2002a; Gerwing, 2001; Kammesheidt, 2002;

Schulze, 2003; Souza and Valio, 2001). Planting experiments in the 1920s in Belize showed that

mahogany seedlings needed liberation from competition, especially for light (Mayhew and

Newton, 1998). More recently, Kainer et al. (1998) found that competition for light, nutrients

and water limited the growth of Brazil nut trees (Bertholletia excels) planted in forest gaps.

Vines can limit growth or even kill planted seedlings (Gerwing, 2001). Interactions among

factors may be as important as any of them individually and optimal conditions for species can









change throughout germination, seedling, sapling, and mature stages of life (Davidson et al.,

2002; Dunisch et al., 2002b).

These interactions can be complex in situ, and little is known about the long-term effects

of attempts to modify them. Short-term analyses in this region and beyond have shown that

treatments such as fertilization or removal of competing vegetation often have a positive effect

on seedling growth, and presumably survival, within a few years of treatment (Ares et al., 2003;

Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Davidson et al., 2002; Gehring et al., 1999; Glaser et al., 2002;

Lehmann et al., 2003; Nepstad, 1998; Pereira and Uhl, 1998; Schulze, 2003; Silva et al., 2002a;

Uhl, 1987) although seedling diameter at the time of planting may override these effects on

survival and growth for some species (Mead, 2005; South et al., 1993, South et al., 2005).

However, these results are short-term and tend to focus on marketable-fruit trees or short-rotation

timber trees. Few researchers have measured long-term tree growth in the region (Silva et al.,

1995; Silva et al., 1996; Silva et al., 2002b; Souza et al., 2004; Yamada and Gholz, 2002;) or

investigated the effects of treatments on native timber species (Dunisch et al., 2002a; Dunisch et

al., 2002b; Mayhew and Newton, 1998; Schulze, 2003; Silva et al., 1995; Souza et al., 2004).

Many questions remain regarding the long-term value of implementing site treatments on planted

species (Vidal, 2004).

Two experiments initiated by Nepstad, Pereira, and Uhl in 1988 in the eastern Amazon

offer some answers to the questions about long-term effects of planting treatments. The first

experiment tested for effects of planting site preparation by comparing results of deep planting

holes, loosened fill-soil, and removal of competing vegetation around the hole for 16 planted

species. The second experiment consisted of fertilization of 26 planted species at the time of

planting, accompanied by no other maintenance beyond the first year after planting. Analysis of









the growth and survival of the trees showed that planting seeds by burying them at 1cm depth in

unloosened soil and weeding around the seedlings produced larger individuals in the short- and

long-term for most species, while fertilization had long-term effects on only a few species. Such

mixed results imply that landholders could easily lose investments in treatments if

appropriateness for the site and species is not considered (or known). However, the results also

imply that informed application of treatments could boost the benefits of planting for the

landholder and help to create a successful EP scenario (Chapter 3).

Conclusion and Implications

The difference in feasibility of EP between the scales lies in costs and values. This is

observed at the small scale where trees planted near the home can be monitored and maintained

relatively easily with low costs in terms of labor or land. The ability of these landholders to wait

for the financial benefits can be higher than industrial foresters since they also perceive benefits

such as knowing they have 'insurance' and that they may leave something of value for their

children.

Since large-scale forestry companies must consider finances more strongly than other

values, short-term benefits are greatly reduced or not present unless they consider benefits such

as retaining trained employees beyond the harvesting season. In addition, their planting labor

costs are higher than family farmers conducting EP due to lack of multi-tasking of planting and

maintenance activities. The implications of this are that there are fewer scenarios in which EP

makes sense at the large scale. The scope of these scenarios may be widened with government

or private support that would lessen the time that these companies must wait until they receive

benefits of value to them.

In this dissertation the effects of scale will be explored with a financial cost benefit

analysis of EP by an industrial-scale logging company and an ethnographic-economic analysis of









smallholder tree planting on family farms. In these evaluations, scale appears to affect land

holders' perceptions of the costs and benefits of planting and therefore influences the decision to

conduct EP. The literature also provides examples of scale altering outcomes of land and forest

management (Hildebrand, 1986a; McCracken et al., 1999; Perz, 2001; Rockwell et al., 2007)

Given evidence of the influence of scale presented in this dissertation and in the literature, scale

should be addressed in forest conservation and management policy in Brazil to reach forest

management objectives more effectively (Zarin et al., 2007).









CHAPTER 2
ENRICHMENT PLANTING AS A SILVICULTURAL OPTION IN THE EASTERN
AMAZON: CASE STUDY OF FAZENDA CAUAXI

Introduction

Conservationists and policy-makers are increasingly recognizing that a transformation of

the timber sector is fundamental to both socio-economic development and conservation goals in

the Brazilian Amazon (Ministerio do Meio Ambiente [MMA], 2001; Silva, 2005). Destructive

logging practices have degraded the forest resource base and promoted deforestation in much of

the eastern and southern Amazon (Nepstad et al., 1999). Efforts to bring order to the Amazon

forest frontier involve resolving land tenure chaos, regulating logging on private and public

lands, and pushing the industry towards adopting alternative forest management systems that

generate revenues without degrading the forest resource (Verissimo, 2005).

Promoters of sustainable forest management have focused for the past 15 years on

developing and promoting reduced impact logging (RIL). Amazonian RIL systems have been

described in detail many times (Barreto et al., 1998; Holmes et al., 2002; Johns et al., 1996). The

essence of RIL is careful planning and execution of all phases of the logging operation with the

goals of limiting damage to the residual stand, improving efficiency of operations, and reducing

waste. Reduced impact logging involves substantial investment in training of personnel and in

preharvest operations (e.g., complete stand inventories) that are essential to sound forest

management. These investments can pay for themselves by reducing costs of the most expensive

harvest operations (e.g., log skidding), and increasing timber yields from volume felled relative

to conventional logging, in which operations are inefficient and wood is wasted through poor

felling, tree-finding and log-skidding (Barreto et al., 1998; Holmes et al., 2002). Reduced impact

logging is an integrated preharvest and harvest system that increases the potential for sustainable

forest management by protecting the residual stand.









In the design and regulation of Amazonian forest management, silviculture has received

less attention than have preharvest and harvest operations. Even in current examples of "best-

practices" forestry, RIL itself is typically the only silvicultural prescription (Fredericksen et al.,

2003; Schulze et al., 2008). Reduced impact logging improves prospects for sustained timber

production by limiting damage to future harvest trees and regeneration of commercial species

(Uhl et al., 1997; Vidal, 2004). It does not by itself guarantee sustainability or maximize

financial returns of future harvests (Fredericksen et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 2004; Valle et al.,

2007). Given projections that RIL harvests under current forest regulations will lead to declines

in harvestable volume and populations of high-value timber species over multiple cutting cycles

(Grogan et al., 2008; Keller et al., 2004; Phillips et al., 2004; Schulze et al., 2005; Valle et al.,

2006, 2007; van Gardingen et al., 2006;), development of silvicultural treatments are essential to

maintain long-term forest value.

The Instituto Floresta Tropical (IFT), a Brazilian NGO dedicated to training and research

in forest management, has been working since 1996 to refine RIL operations and test

silvicultural treatments to improve ecological and economic sustainability of forest management.

Two key silvicultural questions for Amazonian forests concern whether growth rates of residual

commercial stems in logged forest are adequate to support harvests at projected intensities and

cutting cycles (20-35 m3 ha1 and 25-35 yrs, respectively), and whether commercial species

regeneration is sufficient to maintain long-term productivity (Grogan et al., 2005). Silvicultural

research at IFT has focused on improving growth rates of future harvest trees through liberation

thinning (Wadsworth and Zweede, 2006) and enhancing regeneration of commercial species

using gap enrichment planting (Schulze 2003, 2008; Zweede, unpublished). Here we report on a









pilot effort to enhance regeneration in an otherwise unproductive forest area: liana-dominated

forest patches.

Amazonian forests are mosaics of patches with different structural characteristics.

Patches of tall, closed forest with relatively open understory alternate with nearly impenetrable

liana-dominated thickets in which large trees are rare and crowns of smaller trees are engulfed by

the liana canopy on a scale as small as hundreds or even tens of square meters (Gerwing, 2004;

Gerwing and Farias, 2000). The structural variation in Amazonian forests can be traced to a rich

history of natural and anthropogenic disturbance of varying spatial and temporal scales (Balee

and Campbell, 1990; Nelson et al., 1994). At one end of the spectrum, individual treefalls occur

throughout the year and open canopy gaps of 25 to 400 m2; over time this process leads to

patches of differing successional stages and structure interspersed over small spatial scales

(Grogan, 2001; Schulze, 2003; Uhl et al., 1988). Large-scale disturbance events, such as

blowdowns, can level swaths of forests up to 3,000 ha (most commonly 5-100 ha; Nelson, 1994;

Nelson et al., 1994) but occur infrequently. It has been hypothesized that past human, climatic,

and biotic mega-disturbances-blowdowns, fire and floods-account for many of the large

patches of liana forest and bamboo forest occurring in Amazonia (Balee and Campbell, 1990;

Gerwing, 2001; Heckenberger et al., 2003; Nelson et al., 1994; Pires and Prance, 1985). In the

eastern Amazon, liana forest patches are common (Gerwing and Farias, 2000).

For the forest manager, liana forests constrain both current and future timber production.

For timber, these liana forests are essentially nonproductive areas (Gerwing, 2001). Very few

adult trees of commercial species occur within the liana forests, and poor stocking of

submerchantable stems combined with poor stem form, low growth rates, and high mortality

rates of liana-infested trees, mean that prospects for future timber harvests from current liana









forest patches are extremely limited (Gerwing, 2001). Anecdotal evidence suggests that, once

established, liana forest areas can persist for decades or more (Putz, 1995). Many of the

investments made in a commercial logging operation-e.g., road infrastructure and forest

inventory-are related to total forest area rather than productive forest area. Thus,

nonproductive areas within the management block reduce profit margins from forest

management. If liana forests could be brought into production through silvicultural intervention,

the financial prospects in future cutting cycles would improve.

IFT began experimental enrichment plantings in liana forest in 1997 to evaluate the

feasibility of converting unproductive forest patches into future sources of timber. Through

2006, 17 liana forest areas, totaling 4.4 ha have been prepared and planted. In this paper we

present initial results from enrichment plantings and evaluate the potential of this silvilcutural

intervention to increase long-term productivity. We also outline some operational and ecological

questions that must be addressed before liana forest enrichment can be added to the menu of

silvicultural options for Amazonian forests.

Methods

Planting Site Description

Planting was conducted near Paragominas, Para (383'50 3084'50S; 4881'50 -

48082'50W) on the Rio Capim and Cauaxi properties of the Cikel Brasil Verde Madeireiras

company. The terrain, formed from the residual tertiary plateau, is undulating terra firme

(upland) with creeks that drain to the Capim River, and oxisol soils with an argillic horizon

(RadamBrasil, 1974). Tropical moist forest, with mean upper canopy height of 30-40 m and

scattered emergent trees up to 50 m tall, covers the majority of each property. The yearly

average rainfall is 2200 mm, with a pronounced dry season from June to November (Asner et al.,

2004; Costa and Foley, 1998). Within the 178,000 ha combined area of the properties, IFT









operates the largest forest management demonstration and training area in the Brazilian Amazon,

with more than 3,000 ha of forest under management.

In the Cikel forest, as throughout much of the eastern Amazon, liana density is relatively

high-59% of the canopy trees have moderate to heavy loads of lianas, and patches of low,

broken-canopied liana forest occur within the taller forest (Schulze, 2003). These liana forest

areas, which generally have little commercial-sized timber, cover ca. 15% of the total forest area,

in patches that range in size from <0.25 ha to well over 10 ha. When liana forest areas are

included with other areas excluded from production, such as riparian buffer zones and permanent

forest reserves, roughly 25% of the forest area on the FSC-certified Cikel Rio Capim property is

effectively out of production (area of reserve and buffer zones = 13,700 ha; SCS 2006). The

enrichment planting conducted by IFT is intended to display EP possibilities to forest managers

who visit the site for harvest training; the planted areas were not designed for experimental or

statistical rigor. This chapter contains analyses of four species that were repeated in the 17 EP

display planting areas. Repetition of the four species allowed for reliable analysis of growth

rates and years needed until trees would reach harvestable size.

Site Preparation and Enrichment Methodology

Any attempt to bring liana-dominated areas into timber production must involve some

treatment to reduce or remove liana competition. Repeatedly, high loads of lianas in tree crowns

have been shown to curtail growth and fruit production, and increase mortality rates (Gerwing,

2001; Grogan, 2001; Kainer et al., 2006; Schulze, 2003; Vidal, 2004). In a nearby forest,

Gerwing (2001) found that blanket liana cutting in liana-dominated forest reduced canopy loads

of lianas and improved growth rates of standing trees. Controlled burning of liana tangles at the

nearby site was not successful in improving tree growth rates or in shifting the competitive

balance in favor of trees (Gerwing, 2001). Moreover, both liana-cutting and burning depend









either on the recovery of established tree stems that have been suppressed and damaged under

severe liana loads for many years or decades, or on natural seeding and recruitment of

commercial tree species before liana populations recover. Gerwing's research suggests that a

more aggressive approach may be required if liana areas are to become productive within a 30-

or 60-year interval compatible with projected harvest cycles in the eastern Amazon.

In this study we reset the competition between lianas and trees through mechanized site

preparation and planting of nursery seedlings. At the beginning of the wet season, a tractor

worked from the periphery to the center of each liana patch, leveling vegetation towards the

center of the area and avoiding damage to surrounding forest. The few large trees present in the

liana patches were cut down with chain saws and cut into pieces small enough to not disrupt

planting. Multiple passes over the felled vegetation broke up liana stems into small pieces

without scraping the organic horizon of the soil or removing leaf and stem debris from the site.

Once the site was prepared, the planting team marked planting locations at 4 meter spacing

throughout the clearing, avoiding the edges where seedlings are likely to become overtopped

quickly by the spreading crowns of nearby forest trees. No herbicide or other chemical

treatments were used to prepare the sites.

Seedlings of commercial species were raised on site in 1 kg plastic nursery bags from

seed or seedlings transplanted from the forest understory. IFT personnel made best efforts to

plant seedlings of similar size and vigor, usually the largest and most vigorous of those growing

in the nursery, to initiate the best growth in the planting areas. Plantings were made in soil with

relatively high organic matter collected from nearby forest and fertilizer was not given.

Production of seedlings began in the middle to late dry season, when the majority of the study

timber species produce seed, and seedlings were ready to plant in the early rainy season, after 1-3









months of development in the nursery. While in the nursery, seedlings received water when

needed but after planting they were not watered. Planting was conducted early in the wet season

and seedlings received enough rain in subsequent months to avert any need for irrigation.

Trials included a suite of timber species, with an emphasis on two species types: high

value commercial species with light demanding seedlings; and low to medium value species with

pioneer-like traits and capacity for rapid growth. The first enrichment trials employed 6 species,

while trials after 1999 focused on two planting schemes: single species plantings with the long-

lived pioneer Ceibapentandra; and mixed species plantings with one pioneer species,

Schizolobium amazonicum and two high-value timber species with relatively fast (Swietenia

macrophylla) and slow (Tabebuia serratifolia) growth rates. Enrichment plantings from 1997-

2005 are detailed in Table 2-1, including species composition, stem numbers and size of planting

area.

All enrichment plantings were maintained annually through manual clearing of

competing vegetation by workers with machetes who cut all competing vegetation in the planting

area to ground level. Naturally recruiting seedlings of commercial species were also maintained

and favored during site maintenance. IFT technicians measured diameter at breast height of all

planted saplings yearly, beginning 1 to 2 years after planting.

Analysis of Enrichment Planting

We mapped areas of liana forest in six forest stands as part of forest inventory protocol.

Liana forests were identified in the field based on structure-low, broken canopies with high

liana density in the understory, few adult trees and heavy liana-loading in tree crowns-and

mapped in relation to a trail grid with 50 m intervals. Field maps were digitized in a GIS

database (ArcView version 3.2, Environmental Systems Research Institute 1999), and the total









area of liana forest per planting area and sizes of individual liana patches were calculated (Table

2-2).

We analyzed species performance (size and diameter growth rate) in enrichment

plantings each year after planting with the objective of providing reliable estimates of growth

rates and years needed until planted trees would reach harvestable size. The planting areas were

considered replicates, and means, 75th percentiles and maximum values calculated for each area.

To compare data from areas planted in different years we used the number of years after planting

rather than calendar year. For several species, growth data were limited, either because planting

trials began relatively recently (Tabebuia serratifolia and Ceibapentandra) or only one or two

planting area replicates were available (Cordia goeldiana; Cedrela odorata). We present initial

growth measurements for these species, but limit projections of growth and recruitment to three

species with large, replicated samples and 7-8 year time series (Parkia gigantocarpa;

Schizolobium amazonicum; Swietenia macrophylla) (Tables 2-3 and 2-4).

In order to make predictions about the potential to raise seedlings to harvestable trees in

liana forest enrichment sites, we projected growth rates observed in years 5-8 forward from year

five to estimate the time required for each species to attain commercial size assuming mean and

rapid (75th percentile) growth. For the mean and rapid growth scenarios the average of planting

area mean and 75th percentile diameters at year five were used, respectively, as the starting

diameter for projections. We used constant growth rates over time in each projection scenario

for several reasons: By year 8, planted trees either were in the developing canopy or had a clear

path to it, meaning light and other conditions (competition) affecting growth are likely to remain

favorable throughout recruitment to commercial size. Studies of timber species growth

incorporating large samples spanning all diameter size classes have found that diameter growth









potential, as estimated from the growth rates of the fastest-growing stems in each size class, does

not vary with size; growth rates of individuals are strongly correlated with growth conditions

(Grogan, 2001; Schulze, 2003; Vidal, 2004, J. Lockman, pers. comm.). Analyses of growth

rings of trees in both tropical and temperate forests have shown strongly autocorrelated growth in

successfully recruiting adults, with those individuals displaying relatively fast diameter growth

throughout recruitment to the canopy (Brienen and Zuidema, 2006; Landis and Peart, 2005).

Projected tree diameters at the time of harvest were converted to volume estimates using

a single-entry and two double-entry equations: [eq. 1] In Vol = (7.62812 + 2.18090 (In)

(DBH)) (Silva et al., 1984), [eq.2] vol = Basal area COMMERCIAL HEIGHT *0.7 (Heinsdijk

and Bastos, 1963; Brown et al., 1989), [eq.3] vol = 0.077476+0.517897*(DBH2*

COMMERCIAL HEIGHT) (Rolim et al., 2006). For P. gigantocarpa and S. amazonicum, the

mean of estimates from equations 1-3 was used in each simulation. In the case of S.

macrophylla, unusually short harvestable boles meant that only equations 2 and 3 were

appropriate. We expect that the growth rates of the most vigorous 25% of planted individuals

will be maintained by a selective thinning conducted mid-harvest cycle. For the purposes of this

chapter, we include thinning as a means of maintaining growth rates; in the enrichment planting

cost-benefit analysis in chapter 3 we include sale of thinned trees as a financial return ofEP. We

estimated the potential stocking of adult trees in enrichment plots by calculating the stocking of

trees >= 45 cm in unlogged forest at Cauaxi and calculating a mean distance between stems

assuming a regular distribution of stems through the stand. Using this estimate of mean distance

we then calculated the number of adults per hectare that could be expected in enrichment

plantings assuming optimal spacing. From these estimates we could then project the volume of









timber that could be raised in liana forest enrichment plantings if 5% of a 100-ha management

block were treated.

Results

Distribution of Liana Forest at Cauaxi

Liana forest patches accounted for almost 22% of the total area of the six management

blocks we inventoried (Table 2-1). However, local variability was quite high, with less than 10%

of one block and more than 40% of another composed of liana forest. Individual liana forest

patches ranged in size from < 0.2 to > 8.0 ha. The median size of mapped liana patches was 0.43

ha with the vast majority (>70%) of patches < 1 ha (Figure 2-1). Liana patches tend to be

dispersed throughout forest stands at Cauaxi rather than in discrete clusters. Because forest

infrastructure (roads, log decks and skid trails) is built systematically in RIL, most liana patches

within a management block can be accessed easily without increasing the residual forest area

impacted by heavy machinery (Figure 2-2). This means that additional impacts of liana forest

enrichment planting on forest structure should be limited to clearing the liana patches, and to

additional tractor passes over sections of road and skid trails.

Little harvestable timber is located in liana areas, and they contain few submerchantable

timber trees to supply future harvests (Figure 2-3). Commercial volume in liana forest is < 20%

of that found in the adjacent tall forest, and those trees that do exist are primarily large old trees

that likely survived the disturbance that produced the liana forests (Schulze, 2003).

Submerchantable stems occur at low densities in liana forests compared with tall forest (<30% of

both number and volume). Moreover, the majority of trees (ca. 70%; Gerwing, 2001; Schulze,

2003) in liana forests have moderate to high liana infestation rates, a trait that has been

repeatedly observed to correlate with low growth and high mortality rates (Clark and Clark,









1990; Gerwing, 2001; Grauel and Putz, 2004; Grogan, 2001; Lowe and Walker, 1977; Putz,

1984; Kainer et al., 2006).

Species Performance in Liana Forest Enrichment Planting Areas

Annual growth rates of seedlings planted in liana forest enrichment areas were generally

at the upper range of values observed for each species in Amazonian forests (Garrido, 1975;

Grogan 2001; Gullison et al., 1996; Justiniano et al., 2000; Lamb 1966; Schulze, 2003; Snook,

1993; Vidal, 2004; Vidal et al., 2002). This trend reflects the large size of openings created in

liana forest areas relative to natural treefall or felling gaps and the near absence of competition

with lianas, pioneers, and other weedy species (maintained via annual thinnings). The mean area

of enrichment canopy openings (2500m2 or 0.25 ha) was 15 times the mean size recorded for

natural treefall gaps (mean 174 m2) and 9 times mean logging gap area (277 m2 or 0.0277 ha) at

Cauaxi (Schulze and Zweede, 2006). Based on measurements of logging gap area and light

intensity in RIL stands at Cauaxi, in which the largest gaps measured 450 m2 (or 0.045 ha) and

55% percent of the total incident light was transmitted by the canopy (Schulze, 2003), we can

assume that most enrichment plots received well over 55% of incident light since they are much

larger than canopy gaps and have open canopies.

Timber species diameter growth rates were highest in the first two years, declining and

then leveling off for years 3 to 8 (Figure 2-4). The most vigorous individuals of pioneer timber

species Parkia gigantocarpa and Schizolobium amazonicum in each enrichment site grew at rates

well above 1 cm diameter per year (rates were initially > 2 cm yr 1), and attained dominant

canopy positions and diameters equal to those of small canopy trees in the surrounding forest (in

general, trees > 20 cm DBH are in the mid to upper canopy in the Cauaxi forest) within eight

years of planting (Figure 2-5). Limited data on Ceibapentandra plantings at the site indicate a

similar trajectory for this species (Table 2-3); indeed in an older experimental planting at the









Cauaxi field camp Ceiba plants attained diameters of 40 cm and heights of 25 m within eight

years (Zweede, unpublished data). The most vigorous mahogany plants also generally grew at

least 1 cm per year in enrichment areas, but will take longer to attain dominant positions

(Figure 2-5). Initial results with Tabebuia serratifolia indicate that this species will take much

longer to reach the canopy than any of the other timber species tested (Table 2-3).

Projections of Harvest Times and Future Yields

Simulations of long-term growth in liana forest enrichment areas suggest that both Parkia

and Schizolobium will attain commercial size within 30 years of planting, or by the second

timber harvest, if planted immediately following the first (Table 2-3). This prediction holds true

whether conservative or more optimistic growth rates are projected. Under the higher growth

scenario (i.e., rates we observed from the most vigorous 25% of stems and can reasonably expect

of individuals that ultimately reach commercial size under selective thinning), trees would be 15

to 20 cm larger than the minimum harvestable diameter of 50 cm in year 30. Hence, each tree

would yield ca. 2.1 to 3.5 m3 under the conservative projection and up to 4.3 to 4.8 m3 if rapid

growth can be maintained over time.

For mahogany, even sustained growth at the upper range of what we observed would not

produce harvestable trees within 30 years. However, even the conservative growth rates predict

trees with DBHs more than half of commercial size. These simulations suggest that mahogany

planted in liana forest enrichment sites immediately following the first harvest would attain

commercial size by the third harvest at year 60, and very likely would do so within 45 to 50

years. Mahogany enrichment plantings could therefore either contribute to the value of third

harvests, or if legally authorized, provide a source of revenue during the interval between 2nd and

3rd harvests. By year 60, mahogany boles of 1.1 to 1.9 m3 can be expected (assuming a

commercial height of 6 m; see discussion of mahogany shootborer, below).









In unlogged forest at Cauaxi, there were 59.3 canopy trees > 35 cm DBH per hectare, or a

mean distance of 13 m between canopy trees (Zweede, unpublished forest inventory data).

Similarly, crown diameters of 45-60 cm diameter trees of eight timber species averaged 11.5 m

(Schulze, 2003). From these numbers, we estimate that 20 to 60 commercial-sized trees could be

raised per hectare in liana forest enrichment plantings.

Discussion

Growth

Consistently rapid growth and low mortality of planted seedlings of all the timber species

tested in this study suggest that liana forest enrichment planting has substantial potential to

contribute to timber stocks in second and third harvests of managed forests in the study area. We

attribute the excellent performance to three primary factors: very high light relative to typical

forest and forest gap conditions; largely intact soil with abundant organic material and minimal

compaction; and low competition rates maintained by annual weeding. Because enrichment sites

were all much larger than most natural or logging canopy gaps, the environment was likely ideal

for the light-demanding species tested in this study. Even the slow-growing Tabebuia is light-

demanding as a seedling, and does not show negative response to high light intensity. Young

seedlings of more shade tolerant timber species might not perform well in these large canopy

openings. Similar high growth rates have been recorded for Parkia, Schizolobium, Swietenia,

Tabebuia and other light-demanding timber species planted in canopy gaps at felling sites in

Cauaxi and nearby forests (Schulze, 2003; Vidal, 2004; Zweede, unpublished), indicating that

somewhat smaller liana tangle enrichment sites than the ones used here could also be successful.

Mahogany plantations in the neotropics have been plagued by the mahogany shootborer

(Hypsipyla grandella), the larval form of a nocturnal moth, which kills the apical leader on

seedlings and saplings and through repeated attacks can reduce growth rates, destroy growth









form, and eventually result in death of weakened seedlings (Grogan, 2001; Grogan et al., 2002).

Mahogany in liana forest enrichment plantings in this study also suffered nearly 100% attack

rates by the shoot borer. Early branching and poor stem formation can be seen in many

individuals, but careful pruning of secondary shoots and culling of poorly formed stems has

resulted in the establishment of a cohort of well-formed young trees, that will yield at least a

single 6 m log when fully mature. More recent experiments with fertilization of young

mahogany plants indicate that this treatment holds promise for maintaining vigorous growth

despite shootborer attack (Zweede, unpublished).

Tending Regime

The annual tending regime employed in this study is probably more frequent, and

therefore more costly than necessary. Annual liberation of seedlings is essential for at least the

first three years after planting, otherwise lianas and weedy species are sure to overwhelm all but

the most robust and fastest-growing individuals. However, after year three or four less intensive

tending-removing any lianas entwined on commercial stems and killing any pioneer plant that

overtops a planted tree-may be adequate to maintain high growth and survival rates. After

eight years, fast-growing species like Schizolobium appear to no longer require any tending, as

they have consolidated canopy positions. Slower growing species might require occasional low-

intensity tending through the first decade or more.

Production Potential

Projections of stand recovery from eastern Amazonian RIL harvests without post-harvest

silvicultural interventions suggest a steady decline in timber production-a drop of 1.2 to 15.5

m3 ha-1 from the 1st to 2nd and 3.5 to 24.1 m3 ha-1 from the 1st to 3rd harvest-with successive

harvests (Phillips et al., 2004; Valle et al., 2007; van Gardingen et al., 2006). This is particularly

true for high value timber species; over two or three harvests much of the projected harvestable









volume is contributed by low-value lightwood species (Phillips et al., 2004; Schulze et al., 2005).

Timber produced in enrichment plantings could provide 2.8 to 13.6 m3 per hectare if liana forest

in 5% of stands were treated (assuming 20 to 60 trees per ha and 2.8 to 4.5 m3 per tree). Thus,

much of the projected decline in harvest volume in second and third RIL harvests could be offset

by enrichment planting, improving prospects for sustained-yield forestry.

Staggered Harvests from Liana Forest Enrichment Sites: The Parici, Mogno, Ipe Model

The above projections of timber species recruitment rates to commercial size suggest that

staggered harvests of mixed species enrichment plantings may be possible, with low-value, fast-

growing species providing a relatively rapid return on the investment and more valuable species

providing export-quality timber from the same areas over longer intervals. IFT has tested a

three-species model with S. amazonicum, S. macrophylla and T. serratifolia. These species

could provide three different harvests from a single enrichment planting, with S. amazonicum

harvested for plywood after 25 to 30 years, high-value S. macrophylla logs harvested after 45

to 60 years, and T. serratifolia furnishing a final harvest. While the short time that Tabebuia

plantings have been monitored precludes projections of harvest potential, all the available

evidence suggests that an expectation of harvestable timber by year 60 would be overly

optimistic (Schulze, 2003; Schulze et al., 2005; Schulze, 2008). Tabebuia harvests would likely

not occur until the fourth harvest, or the interval between 3rd and 4th harvests (Figure 2-6). When

planted optimally and felled carefully, trees of each species could be raised to commercial size in

turn, as each harvest releases subadults of the slower growing species without damaging them. In

this way, more total timber volume could be extracted from each enrichment site over the long

run, and enrichment sites would remain productive for at least 60 years. In a staggered harvest

system with S. amazonicum and S. macrophylla, as much as 7.6 m3 ha- could be produced in the

2nd harvest and 3.4 m3 ha-1 in the third (assuming that the staggered development of these of









these two species-with relatively small S. macrophylla developing below the tall but thin

crowns of S. amazonicum until the second harvest opens canopy space) would allow high

stocking initially and eventual production of 35 trees of each species per hectare. Natural

regeneration below the established adults should allow these enrichment sites to return to more

typical forest structure and composition after the 1st or 2nd harvest.

Conclusion

Enrichment planting has emerged and reemerged in the literature as a suggested means to

increase forest value for landholders and thereby save forests from conversion to other land uses

(Dawkins, 1961; Putz et al., 2000; Silva, 1989). Enrichment planting appears capable of

guaranteeing a future forest value that is at least equal to the current value. Liana forest

enrichment planting is one of several silvicultural tools that are capable of adding long-term

value to production forests. However, EP protocols that have been promoted in the past have not

always been effective or appropriate (Salleh, 1997). Enrichment planting is not appropriate in

every context, just as liberation thinning and other silvicultural techniques are not. At Fazenda

Cauaxi, liana forest EP shows promise because the property contains large patches of

unproductive forest, trees can be planted and maintained there rather easily with existing logging

infrastructure, and trees in the planted areas survive and grow at mostly satisfactory rates, much

more than would have resulted from the liana patches without treatment. In addition, Fazenda

Cauaxi is a private production forest in which sustaining timber yields is critical to maintaining

standing forest and the ecosystem services that even a modified forest provides. In the following

chapters we evaluate the financial costs and benefits of EP in order to help land managers

increase their forest value with EP and, in particular, whether the plantings at Cauaxi justify the

costs of producing timber in liana patches (Chapter 3). We evaluate the short- and long-term

results of some planting treatments to help managers choose the most efficient protocols for









planting (Chapter 4). Finally, we assess EP at the small, family-farm scale in order to learn

whether EP may be more appropriate for large- or small-scale (Chapter 5).

In the Fazenda Cauaxi setting, ecological costs and risks may be incurred that could

reduce the ecological benefits of RIL, such as smaller canopy openings and reduced forest

fragmentation (Asner et al., 2004; Johns et al., 1996; Pereira et al., 2002). Clearing liana patches

may cause increased canopy openings that would make surrounding forest more vulnerable to

tree falls (Gourlet-Fluery et al., 2004; Schulze and Zweede, 2006) and ground fires, a serious risk

for forests in the eastern and southern Amazon (Cochrane et al., 1999; Holdsworth and Uhl,

1997). In addition, eliminating liana forest patches reduces habitat for species that are adapted to

the patches and may thereby influence the species composition of the landholding (Merry, 2001;

Perez-Salicrup et al., 2004). The benefits ofEP should be weighed against these ecological risks

and EP sites should be carefully selected to prioritize areas adjacent to roads, patios and primary

skid trails, which will remain open for several years after planting and are considered permanent

infrastructure in most management operations.

Where management is held to a sustainability standard, such as private lands that have

been certified as sustainable or public forests with concessions awarded to logging companies,

sustained harvests of high-value timber are essential to maintain the long-term use of the forest

while protecting the forest ecosystems. Also, sustained harvests are necessary for socio-

economic development goals that hinge on harvesting of forest products (i.e., state and federal

production forests). In these cases current log-and-leave management practices are not adequate.

Liberation of future crop trees may help sustain multiple harvests by increasing growth rates and

volume accumulation (Dauber et al., 2005; Wadsworth and Zweede, 2006), but is dependent on

adequate stocking of sub-merchantable trees. As shown in this case study EP increases stocks of









valuable timber species in unproductive areas such as liana patches; it may also increase stocks if

conducted in felling gaps or other sites directly impacted by logging. EP and liberation may be

necessary to ensure that production forests accumulate timber volume at rates permitting

relatively short cutting cycles (25-35 years), and that recovery of commercial species populations

is sufficient to forestall economic, as well as biological, impoverishment of managed forests.

Policymakers and forest managers in the Brazilian Amazon should consider the potential for EP

and other silvicultural interventions to maintain long-term forest value within timber concessions

on public lands.










Table 2-1. Vine tangle enrichment planting sites at Fazenda Cauaxi
Number of seedlings planted
Planting
Year area Spacing Schizolobium Tabebuia Swietenia Ceiba Parkia Cordia Cedrela
Planting Area installed (m2) (m) amazonicum serratifolia macrophylla pentandra gigantocarpa goeldiana odorata
AMF1 ITT2-1 1997 2259 3 36 -- 86 -- 66 --


AMF1 UT2-2
AMF1 UT2-3
AMF1 UT3-1
AMF1 UT2-4
AMF2 UTB1-1
AMF1 UT3-1
AMF2 UTB2-1
AMF2 UTC1-1
AMF2 UTC2-1
AM 2 UTC2-2
AMF2 UTA1-1
0 AMF2 UTC2-3
AMF1 UT5-1
AMF2 UTC2-4
AMF3 UTB4-1
AMF3 UTD4-1


1997
1997
1997
1999
2001
2002
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005


3,825
1,854
4,185
1,683
5,745
1,923
2,009
2,275
1,727
1,923
3,781
4,900
1,544
1,286
1,666
1,325


3
3


169
78


70
38


104
60
170

125


TOTAL 43,911
(4.3911 ha)


1,019


37 29









Table 2-2. Extent of liana forest in 560 ha of unlogged forest, Fazenda Cauaxi
Management block Total area (ha) Vine forest area (ha) Percent vine forest
Al 100 34.0 34.0
B2 100 11.0 11.0
C3 110 17.8 16.2
C5 100 9.4 9.4
C2 100 42.9 42.9
T5 50 7.8 15.6


Total


122.8


21.9


Table 2-3. Mean annual diameter growth rates of tree seedlings in vine forest enrichment
plantings, Fazenda Cauaxi
Mean Maximum Range of published mean
growth growth (maximum in parentheses) growth
(cm yr1) a (cm yr -) rates from Amazonian forest sites b
Cedrela odorata 0.50 1.30 0.3 0.6 (1.48) c
Ceibapentandra 2.25 5.62 0.43 0.75 (7.37) d
Cordia goeldiana 2.03 2.43 0.24 0.33 (1.5)
Parkia gigantocarpa 2.44 4.88 0.74 (1.7)
Schizolobium 0.6 1.5 (2.8)
amazonicum 2.14 5.30
Swietenia macrophylla 1.17 3.19 0.26 1.09 (>2.0)h
Tabebuia serratifolia 0.75 1.90 0.17 0.84 (>1.0)
a Only data from areas planted 1997- 2003 presented (see Table 2-1 for sample sizes); values are
means of planting area mean and maximum annual growth rates
b From published studies of tree growth in forest (either unlogged or logged; no plantations or
nonforest sites included) in the Amazon
c d'Oliveira, 2000; Dauber et al., 2005; Vidal, 2004 ; Vidal et al., 2002
d Condit et al. 1993; Putz 1984
' Schulze 2003; Vidal 2004 ; Vidal et al., 2002
f Vidal et al., 2002; Vidal 2004
g Dauber et al. 2005; Justiniano et al. 2000; Vidal et al 2002; Vidal 2004
h Dauber et al. 2005; Grogan 2001; Gullison et al.1996 ; Lamb 1966; Snook 1993
' Dauber et al. 2005; Garrido 1975; Justiniano et al. 2000; Schulze, 2003; Vidal 2004









Table 2-4. Projected size (DBH in cm) at year 30 after planting for individuals of three timber
tree species in vine-forest enrichment plantings based on observed sizes and growth
rates of individuals in experimental planting areas from 1997-2005, Fazenda Cauaxi

Mean DBH 75th percentile DBH 2
Parkia gigantocarpa 57.4 74.7
Schizolobium amazonicum 50.5 76.1
Swietenia macrophylla 30.2 42.4
In the mean growth scenario, mean observed diameter at breast height (average of 3-6 planting
area means) at year 5 was used as the starting size, with mean observed growth rate (average of
3-6 planting area means) during years 5-7 used to project growth during years 6 30.
2 In the rapid growth scenario, observed 75th percentile DBH (average of 3-6 planting area 75th
percentile sizes) at year 5 was used as the starting size, with observed 75th percentile growth
(average of 3-6 planting area 75th percentile growth rates) during years 5-7 used to project
growth during years 6-30.











80-

70-

60-

50-

u. 40-


30-

20-

10 -

0
0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6
Liana forest patch size (ha)

Figure 2-1. Size distribution of liana forest patches in harvest blocks at Cikel





























500 meters


Figure 2-2.


~O)


500 meters


Stand maps of two management blocks at Fazenda Cauaxi with moderate (A-16%)
and high (B-43%) densities of vine forest. Dark gray areas are vine patches with
low, broken canopies, few adult trees and little commercial potential. Light gray
areas represent the remaining forest area, from which the vast majority of timber
was harvested. In (B), black lines, in descending order by thickness, show main
access roads, secondary roads and skid trails created during the initial harvest.
White shapes are log decks. This logging infrastructure provides direct access to
virtually all vine patches in these stands, allowing for efficient transportation of
equipment to vine forest enrichment planting sites.























Vine tangles


Vine tangles


Remaining forest


Figure 2-3. Commercial timber volume (nondefective stems of commercial species) per hectare
(A) above and (B) below the minimum felling diameter of 50 cm found within vine
tangles and in the surrounding forest in three 100 ha management blocks, Fazenda
Cauaxi. Values are means (n=3 blocks) with standard deviations. Paired t-tests
were significant at p = 0.02 and p = 0.06, respectively.


Remaining forest













Parkia gigantocarpa
/\

I / \\


1 ---i' --f ---



1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years since planting


SSchizolobium amazonicum
/ \









1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Years since planting


Swietenia macrophylla





I --_ -.--
IJ^ ^ -


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Years since planting


Figure 2-4. Species mean ( std. error; thin dashed lines) and 75th growth rates (heavy lines) in
years 1-8 after planting in liana forest enrichment planting areas, Fazenda Cauaxi














20

E15
C-
m 10

5

0


Species mean (+ std. error; thin dashed lines), 75th percentile (heavy dashed lines)
and maximum diameters (solid lines) in years 1-8 after planting seedlings in vine-
forest enrichment planting areas, Fazenda Cauaxi.


Parkia gigantocarpa

F-- --n7


--






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years since planting


Schizolobium amazonicum











1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Years since planting


Swietenia macrophylla





A --




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Years since planting


20
18
16
14
E12
10
m 8
6
4
2
0


Figure 2-5.

















Ie 11 I I T l. 17 1
YEAR 1 YEAR 30 PRE-HARVEST YEAR 30 POST-HARVEST








YEAR B0 PRE-KARVEST YEAR 60 POST-HARVEST YEAR 90 PflE-HARVEST

S. Ama um
T SlMacrmph


Figure 2-6. Staggered tree development and harvest in a three-species enrichment planting, with
the fast-growing Schizolobium amazonicum providing a plywood logs by year thirty
after planting, Swietenia macrophylla high-value sawlogs by year 60, and Tabebuia
serratifolia dense, specialty timber within 90 years. Note: Although not shown here,
spaces left by harvested trees may fill with natural regeneration that can be cleared
during maintenance or may be allowed to grow if seedlings are of merchantable
species. Additional planting may be conducted in the spaces as well. Such scenarios
of additional trees are not included in the EP description of Chapter 2 or the financial
cost-benefit analysis of Chapter 3.









CHAPTER 3
IS ENRICHMENT PLANTING WORTH ITS COSTS? A FINANCIAL COST-BENEFIT
ANALYSIS FOR AN AMAZON FOREST

Introduction

Tropical forest lands have a history of landscape conversion that has boosted the mining,

logging, and agriculture industries while also causing degradation of ecosystems and loss of

forest habitat. Much attention has been focused on the negative effects of deforestation on

biodiversity (Brechin et al., 2003; Pimentel et al., 1992; Putz et al., 2000) and on the direct

contribution of deforestation to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Feamside, 2000;

Schroth et al., 2002; Tinker et al., 1996). Replacement of large areas of forest with agricultural

fields and pasture also has the potential to alter regional climate by increasing albedo and

decreasing evapotranspiration, thereby enhancing a positive feedback between a drier climate

and increased frequency and severity of wildfires (Nepstad et al., 1991; Nepstad et al., 2001;

Tinker et al., 1996), further contributing to climate change and decreasing the ecological

integrity of forests. Despite growing awareness of potential negative outcomes, conversion of

tropical forest to agriculture, cattle ranching and other land uses continues to erode forest cover

(INPE, 2007; Lentini et al., 2003).

While conservationists value tropical forests for their diversity, nutrient cycling,

watershed protection, and role in regulating climate, these values rarely translate into financial

benefits for landowners in forested regions. Rather, the financial return from converting tropical

forest land to agriculture or ranching often dwarfs that of maintaining forest cover (Cardille and

Foley, 2003; Geist and Lambin, 2002; Kaimowitz and Angelsen, 1998; Lambin and Geist, 2003;

Perz and Skole, 2003). One strategy for enhancing the value of forests is to increase the

concentration of economically important, indigenous tree species by planting seeds or seedlings

for future harvest (Brown et al. 2003; Dawkins, 1961; Dawkins and Philips, 1998; Montagnini









and Jordan, 2005; Salleh, 1997). This can be accomplished with enrichment planting (EP), and it

may help make forest management financially attractive to landholders and thereby reduce forest

conversion to other uses. Enrichment planting has been employed internationally with varying

degrees of success (Putz, 2000; Sears and Pinedo-Vasquez, 2004; World Resources Institute

[WRI], 1985) but there has been little systematic research on the factors that constrain its

successful implementation. In particular, there have been few studies of EP in the eastern

Amazon and, although their quality may be good, most are short-term (Camargo et al., 2002;

d'Oliviera, 2000; Pena-Claros, 2002; Schulze, 2008), and have not included economic and/or

financial analyses.

There are many factors that can deter landholders from planting trees in this region,

including labor and maintenance costs (Long and Nair, 1999; Ramirez et al., 1992; Virginia

Tech, 1996), uncertainty regarding land tenure (Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Murray, 1987),

risk of escaped fire damage to the trees (McCracken et al., 1999), lack of technical outreach and

training (Simmons et al., 2002; Virginia Tech, 1996) and lack of reliable information about the

long-term benefits of planting and maintenance treatments (Pukkala, 1998; Virginia Tech, 1996).

To explore these factors and to provide insights about long-term results of enrichment planting, a

financial appraisal of the enrichment planting in liana forest patches described in Chapter 2 was

conducted from the point of view of Cikel, a large-scale, private logging company near

Paragominas, Para, Brazil. Cikel has Forest Stewardship Council certification of its harvesting

operations, which include Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) procedures. The RIL setting was

chosen for this study because RIL harvesting techniques are designed for repeated harvests over

periods of 60 years or more, making the system a potentially supportive context in which to









conduct EP. For this financial appraisal the costs and benefits of enrichment planting were

calculated as an activity that could be conducted in addition to RIL.

Given the mixed results of EP internationally, combined with its apparent potential to

contribute to conservation efforts by increasing forest financial value, one of the objectives of

this study was to determine ifEP is financially beneficial for a private landholder in the eastern

Amazon region of Brazil for a 60-year period. We include 7 alternate EP scenarios: high and

low financial costs, low timber yield, additional revenue from carbon sequestration payments or

higher timber prices, and examples of possible government support in the form of free seedlings

or subsidized interest rates (Table 3-1). A sensitivity analysis of carbon payment amounts,

timber prices, and discount rates is presented to show the effects of a range of timber price

increases, and the price or rate needed to make EP profitable in terms of net present value

(Table 3-2). The simulations and long-term financial information in this chapter are intended to

help policy makers and forest landholders by providing economic indicators of the investment

value of EP.

Methods

The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) presented here consists of a commercial appraisal using

market prices to assess the profitability of enrichment planting from the private forest

management company perspective. Costs and benefits are estimated for 60 years into the future,

a time period in which some high-value species may reach harvestable size (Silva 2001,

Chapter 2). This is not a social appraisal, which would be done from society's point of view to

assess whether society's welfare would be improved, although an assessment from this point of

view would be a valuable compliment to this analysis and would provide needed information to

policy makers. Financial cost-benefit analyses that include 'pure market' values can neglect

values that have worth to society, such as capacity-building and maintenance of 'common'









(shared) goods. These wider ranging costs and benefits do not always fit into a CBA from a

private landholder's perspective, but can be included more reasonably in a CBA from society's

perspective. Such a CBA evaluates consequences of project activities and choices over time and

between various subsets within a society (Campell and Brown 2003).

Cost information was collected by interviewing employees of Cikel and of the Instituto

Floresta Tropical (IFT), a nonprofit RIL training organization that works with Cikel. Estimates

of expenses such as wages to be paid for hourly work or use of equipment were based on data

recorded for enrichment planting activities by IFT personnel, interviews with Cikel executives,

expense information reported in Holmes et al. (2002), agro-business supply websites, and similar

data recorded by D. Nepstad and C. Uhl for planting done at a nearby location (Nepstad and Uhl,

unpublished data). Since this appraisal is based on the operations of one company, the results

should only be generalized with caution.

The activities included in the cost-benefit analysis begin with site selection and seed

purchase in year 1, maintenance of planting areas and seedlings at years 2, 3, 4, 6, and 10, a

commercial thinning at year 15, continued maintenance in years 20, 25, 30, 35, 45, and 55, and a

harvest at year 60. Costs of EP included marking harvest maps with potential planting sites,

building a plant nursery, acquiring seeds and seedlings, and nursery seedling tending, transport

of seedlings to planting sites, site preparation, planting, subsequent maintenance, thinning, and

harvests. The first two scenarios, costs and benefits of two maintenance schedules, were

assessed based on suggestions of Schulze (2003) and IFT personnel: effects of reducing expenses

of EP were explored by removing items from the list of nursery care and long-term maintenance

tasks (Appendix A). Items were removed based on observations at the site and recommendations

of planters regarding which activities would not be necessary to maintain growth rates if the EP









sites were not kept accessible and attractive to visitors participating in training courses, as they

currently are at Fazenda Cauaxi. The maintenance of sites at Fazenda Cauaxi is more thorough

and expensive than needed for EP conducted at sites not used for display. Removed items

include site clearing with machetes of competing vegetation during years 6, 10, and 20 45; this

scenario represents the lower limit of maintenance that would probably be needed to maintain

growth of planted seedlings while keeping costs low.

To project costs and benefits we considered the area that would be planted, the species

that would be planted, and two estimated yields for comparison: a 'reasonable yield' projection

of 18 cubic meter (m3) per planting area and a 'low yield' projection of 6 m3 per planting area

(Scenario 3). The reasonable projection was based on observations of growth rates of these

species on this site and others (Schulze, 2003, 2008). The low yield projection is based on

growth data collected from trees growing in an unmanaged forest that we presume included

competition for light, water, and nutrients, which could reduce the growth rates of the trees

measured there (Silva, 2001; Silva et al., 1996) The reasonable yield of 3x the low projection

may be attainable given site preparation and care of seedlings planted in EP areas. The resulting

timber volume per planting area was used to divide benefits and costs, which resulted in benefit

and cost information per cubic meter of timber. We use the reasonable yield for all scenarios

presented here except Scenario 3 which gives financial results of the low yield for comparison.

The low yield results are important for landholders and policy makers because they may

approximate the results of enrichment planting not followed by site maintenance.

Two sources of additional revenue were included in our analyses. Scenario 4 includes

payments for atmospheric carbon sequestered in wood grown in EP areas and Scenario 5

includes higher timber sale prices for EP wood. These factors are considered uncertain, meaning









they are difficult to estimate as a probabilistic function; they are ambiguous. While some factors

are considered quantifiable 'risks' and can be included in an analysis as a probability, 'uncertain'

factors may or may not happen and are more effectively evaluated using sensitivity analysis. For

Scenarios 4 and 5 we conducted sensitivity analyses of carbon payment amounts and timber

prices. In the carbon sequestration scenario we used allometric equations developed in the

region (Silva and Carvalho 1984) to convert yearly diameter increase of planted trees to yearly

increases of metric tons of carbon stored in the trees. The sensitivity analysis consists of three

rates of payment issued: US$3 per metric ton of atmospheric carbon as suggested recently by the

Brazilian government, US$10 per metric ton suggested in refereed literature (Fearnside 2000,

Fearnside 2001a), and US$30 per metric ton, which is the rate on the current European market

(http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/cme accessed June 2008). We issued the payments in 5-year

increments during the time from planting to harvest of each species and used a 9.75% discount

rate to determine the present values of the payments (Table 3-2) based on the rates specified by

the Development Bank of Brazil (BNDES 2008). The timber price sensitivity analysis presents

economic indicator results for a range of timber price increases, starting with the 150% increase

described by Globalwood (2004), a 300% increase for comparison, and a 500% price increase

required to make EP feasible in terms of NPV. Price increase percentages are relative to prices

reported in Holmes et al. (2002).

Scenarios 6 and 7 show forms of possible government or policy support. Scenario 6, in

which forest managers are given free seedlings to conduct EP, provides an example of lowering

initial costs of EP. Since initial costs can easily overwhelm the long-term (and therefore largely

discounted) benefits of future harvests (Lamb et al., 2005), we assess this method of supporting

EP by reducing the early costs for planters. Government policy may also support EP by









providing low interest rate loans, tax breaks, or other forms of subsidization to mitigate early

costs of EP for private landholders. Given the benefits that EP may provide to society, which are

external benefits to the private landholders as described above, policy makers may have ample

justification for creating such subsidies. We provide a sensitivity analysis of discount rates and

show the rate that would make net present values of EP profitable for large scale forest

landholders in the region (Table 3-2). The discount rates represent effects of policy

subsidization such as low interest loans or tax breaks.

The planting area and species were assessed as follows:

* Area: The planting takes place in liana forest patches that often occupy 15-20% of forest
landholdings (Chapter 2). Typical planting areas at Fazenda Cauaxi are 200 m2. During
interviews, IFT employees reported cost information in terms of the costs of preparing
and planting each 200 m2 planting area. For this analysis, costs and benefits were then
divided by the number of cubic meters of wood expected from the area, resulting in cost-
benefit data reported in terms of BR$/m3 of wood produced by EP.

* Species: parica (Schizolobium amazonicum), fava (Parkia gigantocarpa), mahogany
(Swietenia macrophylla King), and ip6 (Tabebuia serratifolia).

* Growth rates and prices: The EP areas contain a mixture of fast-growing, lower priced
species (S. amazonicum and P. gigantocarpa) and slower-growing, higher priced species
(S. macrophylla and T. serratifolia). A mid-rotation commercial thinning is included
during which fast-growing species may be harvested to provide short-term financial
benefits to offset ongoing costs of maintenance. Current Brazilian forest policy does not
permit re-entry for timber harvest before the 30th year, but we included this 15th-year
thinning with the expectation that it would be permitted under the evolving regulatory
framework (Zweede, personal communication). The slower growing species are
harvested at Year 60 in this CBA, based on growth rates projected in Chapter 2. Except
in scenarios 3 and 5, it was assumed that costs and timber market prices would not
change enough to alter the revenue projections from those reported in Holmes et al.
(2002).

* Discount rate: A rate of 9.75% was used in calculations of the net present value (NPV) of
EP seedlings to be harvested in the future (BNDES, 2007) except for Scenario 7.

The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) were calculated in

addition to NPV for the seven EP scenarios. Internal rate of return is an indicator of the

profitability of an investment; it is the discount rate at which the net present value of a project









will equal zero. It is usually used to compare investment options: if a project has a high IRR

compared to another investment option, the project would have to be subjected to a higher

discount rate for the net present value to fall to zero. Therefore, the project with the highest IRR

would be the most desirable (other factors equal) because it would have higher likelihood of

showing profitable growth. In addition to project vs. project comparisons, one can also compare

a project's IRR to return rates of financial markets such as the Standard & Poors 500 to

determine if project money would be better invested in the market (Borders and Bailey, 2001;

Campbell and Brown, 2003; Dubois and Glover, 2001). Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is also

informative for policy makers: the BCR tells how much financial value a project will yield

compared to the amount spent on the project. In settings of monetary constraints, which many

industrial and policy-making settings are, the BCR can be more informative than the NPV

because BCR tells how much money a project will return per dollar invested. The indicators we

report in this chapter can be used together to determine if private investments in EP and/or policy

support of EP are economically justifiable.

Results

Scenario 1, our 'as-is scenario' ofEP as conducted at Fazenda Cauaxi is not financially

cost effective without accounting for benefits to the company aside from the sale of timber

grown in EP areas. At the 9.75% discount rate, the current EP practices conducted at Fazenda

Cauaxi result in a net present value (NPV) of US$-12.15/m3. Scenario 2, the 'low cost' scenario

resulted in a NPV of US$-11/m3, an IRR of 0.043 and a BCR of 0.24. The highest net costs are

associated with seedling cultivation and planting, which include costs of building a nursery,

purchasing or gathering seeds, collecting planting soil with a tractor, care for seedlings in the

nursery, transport to planting site, site preparation, and planting of the seedlings (Appendix A).

Scenario 3 shows what may happen if seedlings are planted but not tended. Low yield provides









less revenue at the commercial thinning and harvest, resulting in an NPV ofUS$-38.7, IRR of

0.012 and BCR of 0.06 even though high maintenance expenses were not incurred.

Given a reasonable yield from an EP area, additional sources of revenue can make EP

profitable for private industrial landholders. For example, the sensitivity analysis of carbon

payments (Scenario 4) showed that payments of $30/metric ton resulted in a positive NPV of

US$0.94, an IRR of 0.54 and a BCR of 1.07. A timber price increase of 500% (Scenario 5)

results in a positive NPV of US$2.53, IRR of 0.14 and BCR of 1.18. Sensitivity analysis results

showed that lower carbon and timber prices resulted in negative NPVs: US$3/ metric ton of

carbon paid every 5 years result in NPV ofUS$-9.81, IRR of 0.14, and a BCR of 0.32.

US$10/metric ton of carbon, paid every 5 years result in an NPV of US$-7.02, an IRR of 0.30

and BCR of 0.51 (Table 3-2). A timber price increase of 150% resulted in an NPV of US$-

5.93/m3, and IRR of 0.07, and a BCR of 0.59; an increase of 300% in timber prices resulted in an

NPV of US$-4.24, IRR of 0.10, and a BCR of 0.71 (Table 3-2).

Government support in the form of free seedlings did not reduce early costs enough to

result in a positive NPV. In Scenario 6, free seedlings resulted in NPV ofUS$-7.55, IRR of

0.052, and BCR of 0.31. The Scenario 7 sensitivity analysis of discount rates showed that a rate

of 3% results in a positive NPV of US$3.70, IRR of 0.01, and BCR of 1.11 (Table 3-2).

Discussion

The first assessment of enrichment planting showed that extensive nursery, planting, and

maintenance expenses can overwhelm the financial benefits ofEP. The high expenses in this

case probably result from extensive care given to keep the EP areas visually appealing for

demonstration and training. For more industrial forests not used for demonstration or training it

would be realistic to reduce costs by reducing some nursery expenses and many years of planting

site maintenance without reducing growth rates of the trees. However, despite lower costs, the









low cost scenario also resulted in a negative NPV. Since costs are incurred early and financial

benefits are not gained until thinning and harvest, just lowering costs to a minimal level alone

did not result in a positive NPV. This result agrees with reports of enrichment planting

profitability depending on sales of short term, non-timber products from the trees before year of

harvest (Schulze et al. 1994) and cases of EP with fast-growing species that can be harvested

within 10 years of planting (Adjers et al., 1995; Lamb et al., 2005). Non-timber products and/or

short harvest cycles provide financial benefits to planters faster; short term benefits may be

necessary to attain a positive NPV for planting.

Carbon sequestration payments may provide frequent, short term, financial benefits for

planters (Coomes et al., 2008; Smith and Applegate, 2004; Stainback and Alavalapati, 2002;

Wise and Cacho, 2005). In the carbon payment scenario economic indicators show that EP

combined with carbon payments is a financially justifiable option, although this depends in part

on the price paid to forest holders for carbon credits. The sensitivity analysis of carbon

sequestration prices revealed that the price suggested by the Brazilian government, US$3 per

metric ton, is too low to make the NPV positive for planting. However, the price of US$30, the

current European market price, resulted in positive NPV and favorable IRR and BCR. It should

be noted that in this analysis, operational costs that may be incurred to receive the payments

would reduce the net value of receiving carbon payments (Vliet et al., 2003). Potentially costly

activities include more frequent monitoring and analysis of tree growth and administrative costs

of reporting growth. In order to fully assess appropriate pricing, profitability of carbon

sequestration at the suggested prices should include any cost increases associated with receiving

payments. To further complete a carbon payment appraisal, the costs and benefits of this

scenario should be compared with profitability of EP with alternate tree species (i.e., species









with traits such as faster growing or higher wood density) and the profitability of other land uses.

It also should be noted that there are various allometric equations in the literature that could be

used to calculate the amount of carbon stored in growing trees, species of trees hold different

amounts of carbon per cubic meter, and research has resulted in range of reported biomass

estimates for Amazon forests (Alves et al., 1997; Chambers et al., 2001; Fearnside and

Guimardes, 1996; Keller et al., 2001; Nelson et al., 1999; Nogueira et al., 2005; Overman et al.,

1994; Saatchi et al., 2007). Policies that encourage carbon credit sales should be based on

careful review of the most reliable information available for these forests.

If timber prices increase 500% from those reported in Holmes et al. (2002), the NPV of

enrichment planting becomes positive. The chances of such an increase are reasonable for high

value species, given trends in tropical wood sale prices reported by the International Tropical

Timber Organization (ITTO, 2007). In addition, wood certified by Smartwood can sell for

higher prices than those from non-certified forests and therefore EP may be more profitable in a

certified forest setting.

Governmental and nongovernmental organizations internationally have supported

distribution of free seedlings to promote reforestation and forest restoration in degraded areas.

Many reports on such planting projects cite lack of secure tenure or lack of ample land as

deterrents to tree planting (Murray, 1987; Otsuka et al., 2003; Summers et al., 2004) and,

perhaps inadvertently, imply that planting costs are not a deterrent when seedlings are provided.

Here the financial analysis showed that NPV remained negative despite money saved by using

free seedlings. In addition, new costs may be incurred if forest managers have to transport

seedlings from a point of distribution to their planting site, which was not included in the free

seedling scenario. Given transportation costs EP may become more expensive if planters use the









provided seedlings. Free seeds or seedlings may be more beneficial to planters when the species

produce short term products, such as fruits or non-timber products, and when timber is only one

of multiple, internal benefits of growing the trees. If the only benefit of planting free seedlings is

timber, then free seedlings may not be incentive enough to overcome enrichment planting costs.

Policy mechanisms that could reduce EP costs include subsidies and tax policies that

encourage longer harvest rotations to increase biomass produced and increase proportion of more

permanent timber products by encouraging sawtimber production (Stainback and Alavalapati,

2002). The scenario of lowered discount rates reported here simulates the effect of financial

support of EP through such policies. A discount rate of 3% resulted in positive NPV, which is

lower than the rates usually observed in Brazil. Policy support that decreases EP discount rate to

3% could be justified by the benefits to society ofEP. Although not quantified here, the social

benefits of EP may be substantial. They include alleviation of high unemployment among

logging sector in the wet season, ability of logging industry in long-term locations rather than

'boom-and-bust' forest product economy (Burs, 1965; Lambin and Geist, 2003), rare species

conservation (Zweede, personal communication), and maintaining trained employees through the

non-harvest wet season when most forest workers are laid off may help landowners reduce

turnover and training costs. Benefits to society are mostly external to private landholders.

Policy makers may be interested in promoting EP with financial incentives, an internal benefit

for the land holders, for the external benefits that can boost socioeconomic and ecological well-

being.

While much attention is given to NPV results, the IRR and BCR indicators also are useful

for forest managers and policy makers. Calculating the NPV requires an assumption of the

discount rate, which can be very hard to predict for the long time span of a timber project.









Internal rate of return does not require a discount rate and therefore reduces uncertainty in

equation. In this chapter the NPV and BCR give consistent indications of the investment

feasibility for each scenario: Those with the highest NPV also have the highest ratio of benefits

per money invested. The scenarios with the best NPV and BCR were carbon sequestration sales

at US$30/metric ton and the scenario of 3% discount rate. The indicator that does not use

discounted values, the IRR, showed that carbon sales and higher priced timber sales would be the

most profitable scenarios. Carbon sales rank high when using or not using discount rates

because they bring a steady stream of revenue even early in the life of the project. Therefore, the

revenue is high even when discount rates lower the payments from the end of the project to

almost nothing. Carbon payment scenarios also rank high when not using discount rates because

the full value of all of the payments and the timber sales sum to a relatively very profitable

amount compared with the other scenarios. Using the discounted indicators, 3% discount rate

ranked second; using the non-discounted indicator, higher priced timber sales ranked second.

The second ranked scenarios are actually very similar given the indicators that ranked them: the

indicators both ranked second the scenario that would provide the most revenue from timber

sales. NPV and BCR ranked the 3% discount rate, which was the lowest of all the scenarios,

because that low rate caused the least amount of reduction in the revenue from timber sales.

Similarly, the IRR favored the high timber price because, since IRR is calculated without

discount rates, the sale of the logs in this scenario was the highest of all scenarios.

The EP scenarios included a mixture of fast and slow- growing species in a forested

setting, however, currently in the region most timber planting consists of fast-growing

monoculture plantations. We did not perform data collection and cost-benefit analysis of a

hypothetical scenario of EP in liana clearings with a monoculture of fast-growing species









although land managers would probably have interest in this scenario. We suspect that benefits

of planting fast-growers in liana patches and harvesting them on shorter rotations, such as the 30-

yr legal minimum, would not exceed financial benefits of planting mixed species. Planting costs

and harvest costs would remain the major expenses regardless of species planted and therefore

little expense would be saved by changing the species or harvesting earlier. The costs of

planting would be recuperated sooner in this scenario, subjecting the timber sales to less

discounting, but the fast-growers tend to have lower sale prices and this reduces the financial

benefits of sale despite shorter discounting. In addition the landholder would have to plant new

seedlings after the 30-year harvest to start the next rotation, and to continue receiving carbon

sequestration payments, which would incur a repeat of the planting costs. Landholders

conducting EP with a mixture of fast- and slow-growers can incur planting costs once, recuperate

costs early with a commercial thinning or 30-yr harvest of the fast-growers, and harvest the slow-

growing, higher value species in later rotations. In a setting of long-term management, such as

this FSC certified forest where landholders are implementing RIL harvesting, planting a mixture

of species helps ensure expected timber volumes of high value species for multiple harvest

rotations, thus supporting the long-term plans of the landholder. In a scenario where the

landholder is also receiving carbon sequestration payments, planting mixed species can provide a

source of carbon payments for multiple rotations without repeated costs of planting seedlings.

In comparison to the cost-benefit analysis of industrial scale EP, research about EP on

small family farms in the region suggests that multitasking of tree care helps make EP

economically viable at the family farm scale (Chapter 5). The difference may be due to lower

costs of smallholder EP in terms of capital and opportunity costs, since smallholders plant during

'down times' and not in conflict with planting or harvest times for crops. Smallholder costs are









also low due to opportunistic use of seeds and seedlings from their property. Smallholders also

may gain more diverse internal benefits from planting such as land improvement, nontimber

products for sale or use by the family, 'insurance' against financial hardship, and satisfaction of

planting (Chapter 5). The lower costs incurred by planting on a family farm scale, combined

with the diverse values of financial and non-financial benefits for families, support the findings

in this chapter that EP appears most feasible in a setting of low costs and multiple internal

benefits in addition to long-term harvest of timber.

Conclusion

If the primary goal is to achieve profit from enrichment planting, a landholder would not

conduct EP of slow-growing species at the industrial scale if costs will be similar to those shown

here and if no other, short term, benefits are available from planting. However, costs could be

lowered and external benefits ofEP could be made internal. Costs could be lowered by reducing

planting and maintenance costs to a minimum (Scenario 2), access to free seedlings or other

services (Scenario 6) and/or policies that lower discount rates for planters (Scenario 7). In

Chapter 6, I suggest that seedlings and other resources such as technical planting information

could be supplied by a governmental agency or a nonprofit NGO that provides diverse, local,

appropriate seedlings for free at nurseries that conduct research and planting trials. If the

nurseries are easily accessed, they could help reduce risks and costs associated with EP by

providing seedlings, supplies, information, and possibly assistance with other processes that

encourage EP such as management plan writing and tenure applications. Based on observations

of smallholder EP reported in Chapter 5, it also may be possible to lower costs of EP by

following the example of smallholders who plant when other farm demands are not pressing

('down-times') and who multitask planting and maintenance activities with other farm activities.









At the industrial scale, the down times would be during the non-harvest season and multi-tasked

activities could include site clearing during road clearing or site surveys during forest surveys.

Revenue ofEP could be increased to make it financially justifiable and competitive with

other land uses. Brazilian policy could boost EP revenue greatly by facilitating carbon

sequestration payments. EP may have far reaching, external benefits that could be captured in a

social appraisal that would justify policy and/or external support of EP.










Table 3-1. Scenarios of enrichment planting in conditions of alternate costs, alternate yields, additional benefits, and policy support.
Since the Scenario 1 cost accounting was not used for other scenarios it is not reported here but can be found in the results
section of the text. All scenarios shown here are calculated using Scenario 2 minimum expenses. All scenarios assume a
yield of 18 m3 wood per EP area except the low yield scenario (#3) that uses a 6 m3 yield. All scenarios use a wood price
of US$16.81/m3 for low value wood harvested at thinning, and US$91.65/m3 for high value wood harvested at Yr 60
(Holmes et al., 2002, converted to 2004 dollars), except Scenario 5 which simulates a 500% increase. Values in each row
of years are not discounted, but discounted sums and a net present value are reported in the Present Value (PV) row using
a discount rate of 9.75%. Scenario 7 uses a 3% discount rate, which made EP net present value positive. Results are
reported in US dollars per cubic meter of wood produced, using average 2004 currency conversion rate of 2.95 between
Brazilian and US currency.
Alternate costs Alternate yields Additional revenue Policy support
Scenario 4 Scenario 7
Scenario 2 Scenario 3 EP with US$10/ton Scenario 5 higher wood Scenario 6 Low discount rate
Low cost Low yield carbon payments prices (500% increase) Free seedlings (3%)
Yr Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net
1 0 -10.99 -10.9 0 -32.9 -32.9 0 -10.9 -10.9 0 -10.9 -10.9 0 -7.55 -7.55 0 -10.9 -10.9
2 0 -0.75 -0.75 0 -2.71 -2.71 0 -0.75 -0.75 0 -0.75 -0.9 0 -0.75 -0.75 0 -0.75 -0.75
3 0 -0.68 -0.68 0 -2.71 -2.71 0 -0.68 -0.68 0 -0.68 -0.9 0 -0.68 -0.68 0 -0.68 -0.68
4 0 -0.42 -0.42 0 -1.8 -1.8 0 -0.42 -0.42 0 -0.42 -0.6 0 -0.42 -0.42 0 -0.42 -0.42
15 16.8 -6.03 10.77 16.8 -10.6 6.2 16.8 -6.03 10.7 111 -6.03 105 16.8 -6.03 10.7 16.8 -6.03 10.7
55 0 -4.30 -4.30 0 -12.9 -12.6 0 -4.30 -4.30 0 -4.30 -4.30 0 -4.30 -4.30 0 -4.30 -4.30
60 91.2 -6.03 85.2 91.2 -6.03 85.2 91.2 -6.03 85.2 608 -6.03 602 91.2 -6.03 85.2 91.2 -6.03 85.2
Sum 108 -29.2 78.8 108 -69.6 -38.2 137* -29.2 166 719 -29.2 689 108 -25.7 82.3 108 -29.2 78.8
PV 3.38 -14.1 -11.6 2.41 -41.1 -38.7 7.36 -14.1 -7.02 9.1 -14.1 -5.0 3.38 -10.9 -7.5 35.9 -32.2 3.7
IRR 0.043 0.012 0.30 0.14 0.052 0.043
BCR 0.23 0.06 1.54 1.18 0.31 1.11
Note: Year 1 activities include germination and planting, Yrs 2-4 include site maintenance, Yr 15 includes site maintenance and a
commercial thinning, Yr 55 includes DBH monitoring and vine cutting, and Yr 60 includes RIL harvest. *Carbon payments issued
every 5 years add to the sum, NPV, IRR, and BCR of Scenario 4. Nondiscounted payments of US$3/ton, starting at year 5, reported
per m3 of wood produced, were $0.27, $0.72, $1.21, $0.70 (first payment after thinning), $0.93, $1.17, $1.39, $1.66, $1.92, $2.19,
$2.45, $2.73. Payments of US$10/ton were $0.91, $2.39, $4.03, $2.34, $3.10, $3.89, $4.63, $5.55, $6.41, $7.28, $8.18, $9.09.
Payments of $30/ton were $361.81, $847.14, $1379.80, $7.01, $9.30, $11.67, $13.89, $16.64, $19.22, $21.85, $24.54, $27.27.









Table 3-2. Sensitivity analysis of influences on enrichment planting economic indicators.
Payments for sequestered atmospheric carbon, increases in wood prices, lowered
discount rates were assessed. Results reported in US dollars per cubic meter of
harvested timber (US$/m3) given a yield of 18m3/planting area.
Scenario Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Carbon payments US$3/ton US$10/ton US$30/ton
Payments sum, NPV $17.34, $-9.81 $57.79, $-7.02 $173.38, $0.94
IRR, BCR 0.14, 0.32 0.30, 0.51 0.54, 1.07


Timber prices
Sales sum, NPV
IRR, BCR

Discount rate
Sales sum, NPV
IRR, BCR


150% increase
$216, $-5.93
0.07, 0.59

3%
$108.34, $3.70
0.01, 1.11,


300% increase
$325, $-4.24
0.10, 0.71

6%
$108.34, $-4.46
0.02, 0.72


500% increase
$541, $2.53
0.14, 1.18

9.75%
$108.34, $-11.00
0.05, 0.24









CHAPTER 4
EARLY PLANTING TREATMENT EXPERIMENTS: GROWTH AND SURVIVAL OF
PLANTED FRUIT AND TIMBER SPECIES WITH AND WITHOUT TREATMENTS IN
PARAGOMINAS, PARA, BRAZIL

Introduction

Large areas of the eastern Amazon of Brazil have been degraded by overgrazing of cattle

and subsequently abandoned. One strategy for restoring economic and ecological productivity to

such areas is enrichment planting of native tree species (Nepstad et al., 1991; Nghiep, 1986;

Pereira and Uhl, 1998; Uhl et al. 1991). There is little information available to help land

managers choose species, site preparation and planting techniques, and silvicultural treatments.

As shown in Chapter 3, planting treatments must be chosen carefully because the early expenses

easily outweigh long-term financial benefits of enrichment planting. There is a need for data on

the long-term results of early treatments in order for land managers to choose the most efficient

planting and maintenance methods; short-term data on growth rates and treatment responses are

currently available for some perennial species in the region (Browder and Pedlowski, 2000;

Nepstad et al., 1998; Pereira and Uhl, 1998; Schulze, 2003) but few long-term analyses of

growth or treatment response have been published (Alder and Silva, 2001; Schroth et al., 2002;

Yamada and Gholz, 2002).

Here we present the results of two studies: a site preparation and weeding experiment,

and a fertilization experiment. Both studies include fruit and timber species chosen for their

economic value and usefulness to landholders. They were planted in 1988 in cattle pastures that

had been abandoned for one year (Pereira and Uhl, 1998) (Appendix B). Our objective is to

provide growth and survivorship results of the two experiments through 2003 so that landholders

in the region who plant trees will know which early efforts may bring the most beneficial

outcome.









To evaluate the first experiment on site preparation and maintenance effects, we analyzed

short- and long-term height, diameter, and survival of 16 locally important species of fruit and

timber trees planted in 1988. Site treatments included depth of planting hole and weeding. To

asses the second experiment on fertilization effects we monitored the short- and long-term

height, diameter, and survival of 26 native perennial species planted in an abandoned pasture in

1988. Evaluation of early preparation, weeding and fertilization is appropriate for this setting

where planted areas may receive short-term care but not extensive long-term care due to resource

constraints (Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Simmons et al., 2002).

Site Description

The two experiments took place at Fazenda Vitoria, 6.5 km northwest of Paragominas,

Para, Brazil (20 59' S, 470 31' W). The area is upland terra firme with a slightly rolling

topography (slopes approximately 6%), elevation of approximately 200 m, and a mean annual

temperature of 26.30 C. The soils of the site are weathered, kaolin clays (Oxisols) and the

precipitation (2277 mm per year) is seasonal with a wet season from December to June (Pereira

and Uhl, 1998; Markewitz et al., 2001).

Experiment One: Site Preparation and Maintenance Study

Each of the 16 species was subjected to three treatments: seeds were buried at 1cm; seeds

were buried at 1 cm and the area was weeded; and seeds were buried at 1cm in a 30 cm hole

filled w/ loose soil and the area was weeded. The treatments are referred to as "buried" (B),

"buried/weeded" (BW), and "buried/weeded/soil" (BWS). The three treatments were

administered in mainplots composed of 3 adjacent subplots. Each mainplot contained 27 seeds

of one species allocated equally among the subplots (nine seeds per subplot). Each subplot was

given one of the three treatments. The mainplots were replicated three times in three blocks for a









total of 432 planted seeds per treatment. Locations of the mainplots within the three blocks were

randomized. Subplots were the unit of analysis.

Our null hypothesis was that treatments would have no short- or long-term effects on

growth and/or survivorship (South et al., 1993). We used SPSS to perform univariate ANOVAs

on survivorship, height, and diameter at breast height (DBH) for each treatment, species, and

treatment-species interaction. Height and percent survivorship results are presented for 1991 and

2003 to give short- and long-term data, but DBH results are given only for 2003 since many

individuals were not tall enough in 1991 for this measurement. Survivorship was calculated as

the percent of individuals surviving of those that were planted (Myster, 2002). Post-hoc testing

included multiple comparisons of treatment and species means using Bonferroni and Scheffe

analyses. Relative growth rates were compared to determine fastest growing species across

treatments (Hoffmann and Poorter, 2002; Sack and Grubb, 2001).

Site Preparation and Maintenance Results

Treatment Effects

Treatment effects were significant in the short- and long-term (1991 height P< 0.001,

2003 height P= 0.001, 2003 DBH P= 0.029) with different directions of effects per treatment,

which we explored further with post-hoc analysis. The post-hoc analyses showed that treatment

B (seeds buried at 1 cm), produced the shortest, smallest diameter individuals in 1991 and 2003,

with 44% and 22% survivorship, respectively (1991 height P< 0.001 between B and BW, and P<

0.001 between B and BWC; 2003 height P< 0.001 between B and BW, and 0.31 between B and

BWC; 2003 DBH P< 0.001 between B and BW, and P< 0.001 between B and BWC). Treatment

BW, where seeds were buried at 1cm and the area was weeded, produced the tallest and largest

diameter individuals in 1991 and 2003 with survivorship of 48% and 24%, respectively (1991

height P< 0.001 between B and BW, and 0.08 between BW and BWC; 2003 height P< 0.001









between BW and B, and BW and BWS; 2003 DBH P< 0.001 between BW and B, and 0.25

between BW and BWS). Treatment BWC, where seeds were buried at 1cm in loosened soil and

the area was weeded, differed from B in the short- but not long-term and its survivorship was

45%, 22%, respectively (1991 height P< 0.001 between BWS and B, and P=0.75 between BWS

and BW; 2003 height P= 0.31 between BWS and B, and P< 0.001 between BWS and BW; 2003

DBH P= 0.22 between BWS and B, and 0.25 between BWS and BW) (Figures 4-1 and 4-2).

Differences in short-term survivorship were significant among treatments (P= 0.007), and

we explored the differences further with post-hoc analysis. The post-hoc analysis showed that

only the effects of planting at 1 cm (treatment B) and planting at 1cm with weeding (treatment

BW) were significant, with treatment B resulting in lower survivorship (1991 P=0.006).

However, in practical terms the treatments made little difference: all treatments resulted in

approximately 46% or -200 surviving seedlings in 1991. The statistical differences in

survivorship were lost by 2003 (P= 0.152) and all treatments resulted in 22%-24% survivorship

(Appendix C).

Species Effects

Species effect on growth and survivorship was significant in short- and long-term for

height, diameter, and survivorship among species (1991 and 2003 P values = 0.00), with

different directions of effect per species (Appendix C). Regardless of treatment, species grew to

different sizes and ultimately ranged in height from 3m to 23m with diameters of 2cm to 28cm

(Figures 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5), and survivorship of 0-90%. Thirteen species differed significantly

from others in survivorship; of these, Bagassa guianensis, Bertholletia excelsa, and Orbignya

phalerata had the lowest survivorship and Ximenia americana L., Hymenaea courbaril, and

Platonia insignis had the highest (Appendix C). Relative growth rate (RGR) comparisons of









heights revealed that P. insignis and Sclerolobium paniculatum were the fastest growers over the

15 years of the study, respectively, with S. adstringens and Acacia sp. tied for third fastest.

Species X Treatment Effects

Interactions of the treatment and species were significant in most years for height (1989

P< 0.001; 1990 P= 0.002; 1991 P= 0.79; 2003 P=0.01) but not for DBH (2003 P= 0.522). This

indicates that treatment affected height for some species more than others, but not DBH.

Treatment also affected survivorship for some species more than others: treatment and species

interactions were significant in 1991 (P< 0.001) and 2003 (P<0.001). Overall, treatment is

important although the effect varies from species to species.

Experiment Two: Fertilization Study

Within a one-hectare area recently abandoned pasture, 26 study species were planted in a

randomized split-plot design of twenty lines that were paired into 10 blocks. Each line contained

one representative of the 26 species. For each species, twenty similar-sized seedlings purchased

locally were planted early in the wet season (January 22 February 2, 1989). Among the species,

seedlings ranged in height from 10-100 cm. The pasture was burned prior to planting and lines

were delineated 5 m apart, with planting holes every 5 m. Top soil and ash were mixed in the

planting holes and, after waiting 10 days, the containerized seedlings were introduced. Within

each block, seedlings in one line received 50 g of NPK 10-10-10 fertilizer and 10 1 of cattle

manure at the time of planting. At the beginning of the second year, treatment seedlings each

received an additional 50 g of NPK 10-10-10 fertilizer and 3 1 of cattle manure. For 2 years, the

area was maintained twice per year by using a machete to clear competing vegetation from an 80

cm radius around the seedlings (Pereira and Uhl, 1998). Height and basal diameter (1 cm above

root collars) of seedlings were measured annually until 1991. In 2003 diameters were measured

using diameter tape at 1.3 m height (DBH).









We evaluated the performance of each species and six mutually exclusive groups that

were characterized by low variance in their 2003 growth data: four family groups

(Anacardiaceae, Arecaceae, Myrtaceae, and Sapotaceae), "other timber species", and "other fruit

species". We averaged relative growth rates (RGRs) of individuals within each species to rank

the slowest and fastest growing species for diameter and height (Table 4-1) (Hoffmann and

Poorter, 2002; Sack and Grubb, 2001) and assessed whether these categories were characterized

by differences in survivorship. We then regressed the average diameter and height growth

between 1990-1991 against the average diameter and height yield in 2003 and tested for

homogeneity of the slopes between control and treatment groups to evaluate whether short-term

growth rates were a reliable indicator of long-term performance, and whether this relationship

was affected by fertilization (Hair et al., 1995). We used Fisher's Exact Two-tail Chi Square

tests on data for each measured year to determine whether survivorship was influenced by

fertilization (Summers et al., 2004). To assess the effects of fertilization on short- and long-term

growth, we conducted a repeated measures ANOVA on the 1990-1991 height and diameter data

and a standard ANOVA on the height and diameter data collected in 2003. For the 2003 data,

the interaction of block and treatment was not significant for any group, so we dropped the

interaction term from the ANOVA model. For the 2003 data, we followed the ANOVA with

Least Squares Means analyses to determine treatment effects at the species level, and we used a

null model likelihood ratio test to calculate the relative heights and diameters of each species in

order to find the direction and quantities of treatment effects. Statistical analyses were

conducted using SAS (SAS Institute Inc., 1996).

Fertilization results. Most of the fastest growers were timber species, including Cedrela

odorata, Tabebuia serratifolia, and Parkia sp., as well the small tree Platonia insignis, of the









"other fruit species" group (Table 4-1). Mean survivorship among the fastest growers was 79%,

compared to an average 56% survivorship of the remaining species (Appendix C). The slowest

growers included species from four of the six functional groups: Mangifera indica

(Anacardiaceae group), Annona muricata (other fruit species group) and Eugeniajambos

(Myrtaceae group) (Table 4-1). Mean survivorship of the slowest growing species was 42%. No

species of Citrus sp. and Bixa orelana (other fruit species group), and Spondias mombin

(Anacardiaceae group) survived to 2003.

Our regression analysis showed that short-term growth rates are moderately useful as

predictors of long-term growth performance, and the ability to predict long-term growth

trajectories from short-term growth data was not affected by treatment (Diameter W= 0.294,

P=0.516; Height R=0.209, P=0.363). The chi-square analysis showed that treatment also had

very little impact on survivorship, affecting only Genipa americana in 2003 (negative effect,

P = 0.0230), consistent with previous work in Ecuador that showed that the seedlings of 15

native tree species did not respond to fertilizer (Davidson et al., 1998). The repeated measures

ANOVA revealed that during the 1990-1991 period, treatment, species, and their interaction

(P<0.001) had significant effects on growth. Fertilized individuals in 1990-1991 were an

average of 52 cm taller than control trees, a difference of 24%, while fertilized individuals were

an average of -1 mm larger in diameter than control individuals in the short-term (17%). The

positive short-term impact of fertilization and weeding on growth that we report here is

consistent with previous work in the region (Ares et al., 2003; Schroth et al., 1999; Silva et al.,

2002a;). Despite the short term effects, in 2003 fertilized trees were an average of 3.2 cm shorter

than those that did not receive fertilizer, a statistically significant (P <0.01) but substantively

trivial difference of 0.4%; diameters of fertilized trees were an average of <1 cm larger than









untreated trees, again a statistically significant but trivial difference (0.9%). Species-level

analysis revealed that by 2003 the early fertilization had a positive effect on diameters of

Astrocarpus heterophyllus (other fruit species group) and Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae

group). Two species reacted negatively in height to the treatment: Anacardium occidental

(Anacardiaceae group), and Swietenia macrophylla (timber group) (Appendix C).

Discussion and Conclusions

In general, studies of the longer-term impact of early treatments on neotropical tree

plantings are lacking although the information is needed for mixed-species management

initiatives such as in-forest enrichment planting for future harvest and/or restoration planting.

Our results show that, when combined, planting site treatment and species affected height, DBH

and survivorship of the planted species such that the medium-intensity treatment, BW (buried at

1 cm depth and weeding) produced the largest and longest-surviving individuals. When

treatment was assessed alone, results showed that planting hole preparation and weeding affect

growth: individuals that were buried at 1 cm and maintained with weeding (Treatment BW) grew

tallest and largest in diameter. Simply burying seeds at 1 cm (Treatment B) produced shortest,

smallest diameter individuals. Burying them in loosened soil and weeding the planting sites

(Treatment BWS) produced individuals that were usually larger than Treatment B but smaller

than Treatment BW. The treatments did not affect long term survivorship: in the short-term

Treatment B resulted in significantly lower survivorship than the other treatments, although in

practical terms the treatments made little difference in number of survivors. Long-term

survivorship showed no significant difference per treatment and was influenced more by species

traits. The planting arrangement may have influenced the survival of some species. Since they

were planted in close proximity, interactions may have occurred that were not measured. For

example, trees overtopped the shrubs before the long-term data were collected, which may have









caused the demise of sun-loving shrub species regardless of treatment. If studied further, we

suggest that species could be planted in arrangements that avoid such interactions.

Results of the fertilization experiment showed that early fertilization alone is not justified

by the long-term growth results. This conclusion is consistent with shorter-term analyses in the

neotropics of the effects of competition, planting arrangement, soil quality, and other site- and

species-specific qualities (Ares et al., 2003; Davidson et al., 1998; Gehring et al., 1999; Glaser et

al., 2002; Lehmann et al., 2003; Silva et al., 2002a; Uhl, 1987). Elsewhere in the Amazon,

researchers found that after 7 years of continuous fertilization, trees that received more fertilizer

had significantly more biomass, but such a scenario is more typical of monoculture, industrial

plantations than mixed-species efforts at enrichment planting and/or habitat restoration (Schroth

et al., 2002).

As shown in Chapter 3, land holders seeking financial gain from planting trees in this

region need to apply only the most efficient planting and site preparation treatments. Since early

costs can outweigh the long-term financial benefits of harvesting trees, there is little room for

error in choosing the early treatments. With the planting-site treatment and fertilization

information presented in this paper, land holders in the region may be able to make more

informed, efficient management decisions for growing these species. It should be noted that

effectiveness of treatments, especially fertilization, depends on many factors related to the site

and species and therefore management recommendations should be made in terms of site

conditions and species.





















02003
01991


Treatment


Treatment effects: Mean height of site preparation treatment groups in 1991, 2003
(Experiment 1). The graph shows effects of treatments B (seeds buried at 1 cm
depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm and area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1
cm, area weeded, soil in planting hole was loosened). Effects are reported for 1991
and 2003.










02003

,._ 10.5
8.8
7.1



A B C
Treatment

Treatment effects: Mean DBH in 2003 of site preparation treatment groups in 2003
(Experiment 1). The graph shows effects of treatments B (seeds buried at 1 cm
depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm and area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1
cm, area weeded, soil in planting hole was loosened).


1500


1200


985.2
773.3
710.2


1 94.7 1200.1 183.3
94.7


Figure 4-1.










15



10 -


Figure 4-2.











300

250

200 -
200 U Treatment B
S 150 Treatment BW
wi O Treatment BWS
100

50

0


o e
~ ~ fiBOS


Species


Figure 4-3.


Species effects: Mean height of each species with treatments in1991 (Experiment 1).
Treatments included B (seeds buried at 1 cm depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm and
area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1 cm, area weeded, soil in planting hole
was loosened).


2500

2000


* Treatment B
* Treatment BW
O Treatment BWS


/C
/


Species


Species effects: Mean height of each species with treatments in 2003 (Experiment
1). Treatments included B (seeds buried at 1 cm depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm
and area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1 cm, area weeded, soil in planting
hole was loosened).


Figure 4-4.















* Treatment B
* Treatment BW
O Treatment BWS


Species


Species effects: Mean diameter at breast height (DBH) of each species with
treatments in 2003 (Experiment 1). Treatments included B (seeds buried at 1 cm
depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm and area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1
cm, area weeded, soil in planting hole was loosened).


Figure 4-5.









Table 4-1. Fertilization experiment growth rate results (Experiment 2)
FASTEST GROWERS 2003
DIAMETER HEIGHT
Species (RGR >4.0 mm/mm/yr) Species (RGR > 4.0 cm/cm/yr)
Control Treatment Control Treatment
Parkia sp. x Cedrela odorata x x
Parkia sp. x x
Platonia insignis x x
Tabebuia serratifolia x x

SLOWEST GROWERS 2003
HEIGHT
Species DIAMETER (RGR <2.0
(RGR < 2.0 mm/mm/yr) Species cm/mm/yr)
Control Treatment Control Treatment
Mangifera indica var. x Annona muricata x
Eugeniajambos x Eugeniajambos x x
Annona muricata x Mangifera indica var. x x
Note: Species are ranked as fastest and slowest growing for diameter and height in the control
and treatment blocks. Species averages were used to calculate the relative growth rates (RGRs)
(Hoffmann and Poorter 2002, Sack and Grubb 2001). Species that did not survive until 2003
were Citrus sp., B. orelana, and S. mombin.









CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF ENRICHMENT PLANTING BY SMALLHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY
OF MAZAGAO, AMAPA, BRAZIL

Introduction

In areas where timber harvesting and forest clearing exceed the reproduction rate of

forest tree species, planting may help maintain forest systems and provide for future timber

harvests. Maintenance of forest systems and future harvest trees may benefit local economies

and conservation efforts (Arnold, 1997; Best and Jenkins, 1999; Ricker et al., 1999;

Smith, 1997). Planting timber species in addition to naturally regenerating species, or

enrichment planting (EP), may enhance the financial value of forests by increasing the monetary

returns of conducting multiple, well-planned, reduced-impact harvests, thereby providing

incentive for owners to maintain their forests as an asset (Murray, 1987; Winterbottom and

Hazelwood, 1987). On family farms, EP may also support nonfinancial values of land-holders

such as providing materials used in the home, which may make EP more feasible for

smallholders than industrial forest managers.

Many organizations have tried to engage small-scale land holders in tree planting projects

in order to promote economic and ecological well-being, with variable success (Murray, 1987;

Simmons et al., 2002; Virginia Tech, 1996; Walters, 1997; Winterbottom and Hazelwood, 1987)

While planting in such projects is supposed to be beneficial to landholders, and while EP may

help make forest management financially attractive (and thereby reduce forest conversion to

other uses) some landholders choose not to participate in planting projects. There has been little

systematic research on the factors that influence the decisions among smallholders to plant trees

on their family farms. It can be hypothesized that low rates of planting by smallholders result

from factors such as uncertainty regarding benefits to be gained from the trees, financial or

opportunity costs of conducting planting, or a lack of technical information or ability to care for









planted trees. This hypothesis is based on research on adoption of farming technology, which

has shown the ability to adopt new methods depends in part on the size and type of landholding,

perceptions of financial risks and uncertainties regarding new techniques, opportunity costs of

land and labor, financial costs, ability to care for planted trees, perceptions of benefits including

financial or other outcomes, ability to sell or use the products of the planted trees, and an

economic setting in which trees provide a buffer against financial hardship (Table 5.1)

(Alavalapati and Mercer, 2004; Avila et al., 1977; Boggess and Anaman, 1984; Browder et al.,

1996; Dewees, 1995; Gobbi, 2000; Hildebrand, 1986b). Ecological factors play a role as well,

since planters need species that are adaptable, able to thrive without intensive maintenance, and

grow quickly enough to provide anticipated benefits (Alavalapati and Mercer, 2004; Camargo et

al., 2002; d'Oliveira, 2000; Kainer, 1998; Montagnini et al., 1997; Perz, 2001; Schulze, 2003

Zhou, 1999). The first objective of this research is to identify whether conditions of uncertainty,

financial and/or opportunity costs, lack of labor to care for trees, or inability to sell products of

planted trees hinder planting on family farms. The study is based on planting observed on family

farms in a small community in the vdrzea of the eastern Amazon of Brazil.

Although tree planting initiatives have met mixed reactions and smallholders often

choose not to participate, in many cases planting has been observed on family farms in

developing countries despite a lack of local projects, subsidies, or other external support for

planting. The second objective of this research is to identify the conditions that motivate

smallholders to conduct EP and thereby fill a gap in our understanding of what drives

smallholders to plant trees.

This study of family land management and enrichment planting on family lands took

place in a community in the forested floodplain of the Amazon River near Mazagdo, in the state









of Amapa, Brazil. The community is in a region that has the largest concentration of logging and

milling operations in the Amazon basin (Barros and Uhl, 1999; Pinedo-Vasquez et al., 2001),

indicating the importance of forestry in the economy of the region. In the study community

many families have ample land for planting timber to sell to local sawmills. However, some

families do not conduct EP while others do, thus providing a natural site for comparison of the

two groups in an attempt to determine factors that encourage or discourage enrichment planting

by smallholders. Although the study may be limited to a particular region in Brazil, the methods

and results may be relevant to forest conservation and management by smallholders in many

forested, developing tropical regions.

Materials and methods

Family Farming Systems

The study community is populated mostly by caboclos, descendants of indigenous

Amazonian populations and African slaves who have inhabited the area for multiple generations

(Padoch et al., 1999). The loosely knit community consists of households situated on tributaries

of the Amazon River in an area that experiences daily tidal flooding. Families have access to

markets by river transport; they can bring products to market using family boats or they can sell

products to middlemen who travel by boat from farm to farm, to purchase products that they

resell for profit in the nearest cities that require 1-3 days of travel to reach. Families invest

earnings in farm and family items and store limited cash in their homes to meet off-season and

emergency needs.

There is variation among the families in the community. Those with the least financial

resources live hand-to-mouth by growing food, harvesting non-timber products from forests,

hunting, fishing, and even stealing food from neighboring land for sustenance (typically newer

settlers, not yet established). Others appear economically stable with diverse, reliable sources of









income such as off-farm work as market middle-men and/or local school employees. They meet

food needs with reliable family farm crops of rice, corn, and fruits, and from non-timber forest

products from their land. They fish and hunt to meet family protein needs. Although still

considered poor, they have cash to buy food and other products at stores and small outposts

within a day of river travel from their farms. The families in the most economically well-off

group in the community also have meager homes in the town of Mazagdo Velho, within a day of

river travel from the community. Most families in the community harvest fruits of the native

palm Euterpe oleracea, known as acai, for family consumption and as a cash crop (Brondizio,

2004). Many families plant fruit trees near their homes, and some also plant local timber

species.

Model

To assess influences on the families' land management and EP, I developed an

Ethnographic Linear Programming model (ELP) of participants' land and forest management.

ELP modeling is an adaptation of general linear programming used in engineering and other

fields where management plans are developed to optimize the allocation of limited resources

among competing activities (Buongiorno and Gilless, 2003; Kaya et al., 2000)*. It is adapted to



* Linear Programming is a tool used in the field of decision management science called
Mathematical Programming (MP), which is also known as optimization. MP is the science of
finding the most efficient way to use limited resources to reach an objective. It is used by
individuals and businesses: A business may use MP to determine the mix of products to
manufacture most efficiently to maximize profits with limited resources. An individual's
example of MP would be financial planning that optimizes the amount of retirement money
available while avoiding penalties or taxes. MP scenarios always contain constraints, decisions,
and an objective, which are expressed mathematically. For example, constraints on resources are
expressed as "less than or equal to," "greater than or equal to," or "equal to," a specified value.
In this type of mathematical expression, the resources are known as the left-hand-side (LHS) and
the constraints are the right-hand-side (RHS). The objective also is written mathematically in an
expression that maximizes (or minimizes) the end result of the resource-use decisions without
violating the resource constraints. MP problems are often solved using spreadsheets to process









assess farming systems by including ethnographic data such as resource endowments (land,

labor, and capital) and home food consumption, and it can include multiple objectives such as

desire for home improvements or education. By including descriptive ethnographic data, ELP

models allow researchers to incorporate more complexity in the modeled system. Like the

general form of LP modeling, an ELP adjusts levels of production in parts of a work system to

find the combination that maximizes a specified goal but remains within constraints such as time

and capital (Alavalapati and Mercer, 2004). When applied to a smallholder system like a family

farm, constraints include the socioeconomic and ethnographic factors described in this chapter.

No ELP models that assess enrichment planting have been developed previously in this region.

Observations

Twenty families were identified as potential participants by using the Snowball method

with community members (Bernard, 2002; Perreault, 2005). The families were named as good

candidates for this research because they had similar family sizes, economic class, size of land

holdings, and their land contained a similar composition of acai, perennial fruiting species, and

forest. Similarities were sought in order to reduce confounding variables in the study by

focusing on one economic level within the community. Further study could compare multiple

economic levels by choosing enough families throughout the community to represent the levels

proportionately. The potential participant families contained 8 tol2 individuals, they lived on 80

to 100 ha of land and were considered neither poor nor elite. After interviewing all 20 families I

chose 8, half of which were participating in a local tree planting project promoted by a

and track the series of decisions that lead to optimization. One MP spreadsheet method is Linear
Programming, in which the objective functions and constraints are linear (Ragsdale, 2007).
Linear Programming has been modified by some researchers to assess family optimization
decisions, and this modified form is known as Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP), the
spreadsheet modeling tool used in this chapter (Alavalapati and Mercer, 2004; Hildebrand,
1986b; Litow et al., 2001; Ragsdale, 2007). ELP will be explained in more detail later in this
chapter.









conservation NGO. The project gives payments of BR$200 (approximately US$69) to

smallholders for tending Calycophyllum spruceanum (pau mulato) timber seedlings in small

nurseries, planting them, and then maintaining the planted areas to favor the pau mulato

seedlings. One goal of the NGO's project is to promote family use of these planted trees for

household supplies such as timber and firewood rather than extracting the materials from

surrounding forests.

Observations took place over 3 years during dry season visits. Observations were not

made during the wet season; instead interview questions were used to obtain information for

modeling wet season land management. The initial visit to the site consisted of 1-week stays

with 2 families to become familiar with them and identify the twenty families that were good

candidates for the study. Subsequent visits during the 2nd and 3rd years consisted of 2 to 4-week

stays with the eight families.

While living with the families, I conversed with all family members daily, participated in

farm management and home activities, observed labor and time allocation, and interviewed

family members. Interview questions addressed land use, time and labor allocation, spending

and earning of money, and changes in harvesting, planting, and land management that occur over

time. Interview answers were confirmed by observations and cross checking during

conversations with multiple family members.

Model Formulation

The ELP model requires an objective of the family farm and constraints on resources,

identified during observations and interviews. An objective may be to maximize discretionary

cash available for the family; constraints may be the minimum amount of food required for

family food security, the maximum amount of land available for crops, and the maximum

amount of labor available for crops. Given this information, the solver engine tries thousands of









combinations of resource-use decisions to find the combination that optimizes the final objective

while remaining within the constraints. For example, for a family that raises ducks and pigs and

has the objective of maximizing cash earned from sale of the animals, the following variables

and constraints would be considered:

* Cash available
* Labor time available
* Cost to purchase animals to raise
* Cost to feed animals
* Cash required for medicines and care
* Labor required to raise animals
* Labor required to care for offspring
* Time required for animals to mature or be ready for market
* Cash and time needed to transport animals to market
* Sale price of animals
* Number of animals needed for consumption by the family
* Cash or labor conflicts with other farm work (opportunity cost)

In this example, if ducks cost less to purchase and feed, do not require labor or

medicines, have offspring readily, mature quickly, and do not have high opportunity cost then

they may be the ideal animals for the family's farm. However, if the sale price of ducks is low

and people do not often buy them, and the sale price of pork is high, then pigs may be more

profitable for a family if the family can afford the higher costs of piglet purchase, feeding, and

care. In an ELP model, all cash, labor, and land requirements are considered against the final

objective to determine the combination of decisions that lead to optimization. The model

resembles this example but considers many more options than simply ducks and pigs. In the

study families, options of items to sell include ducks, chickens, pigs, corn, rice, palm fruits, other

fruits, shrimp, medicines, timber, and labor. Ability to raise, catch or hunt the products

optimally had to be balanced with family consumption of items that would not be sold, such as

fish or hunted meat.









Importantly, ELP models also consider cultural factors such as male and female labor

hours available and the type of work conducted by males and females (or children, or elders,

etc.), rather than generic labor hours. Therefore, if raising pigs is only practiced by men, then

pigs may be ideal animals for a family with ample male labor available but raising ducks may be

best in a family with little male labor available.

Linear Programming models also include constraint changes over time; Ethnographic

Linear Programming models consider how the families change. Changes can include number of

offspring of animals for future sale, family composition changes over time: more labor may be

available as children mature but less available when they move to their own households, and sale

prices or other values may change. Accounting for changes over time makes ELP modeling

especially relevant to economics at this scale. In the Mazagdo study, the ELP model objective

was to maximize cash available to the family from selling raw materials, goods, produce and

meat, and/or payment for off-farm labor. Constraints included time, labor, cash, land, and a

required minimum of food for the family. These "Right Hand Side" (RHS) constraints impose

inflexible limits on the system. In the 20-year model used for this chapter, changes to family

composition over time were not included, but should be included in further exploration of the

effects of composition changes on enrichment planting choices.

Farm and family activities such as clearing land, harvesting, preparing food, and planting,

were included in the model and called "Activities." Allocation of time or resources to these

activities is flexible as long as the RHS constraints are met. During each run, resource allocation

to the activities gets shuffled and rebalanced thousands of times as the model searches for the

combination that achieves a final goal such as "maximize available discretionary cash at end of

year 20." In this research, the model was used to develop scenarios that would result from









changes in RHS constraints and/or farm activities. In particular, scenarios were sought that were

conducive to enrichment planting.

In each case, I had to 'give' start-up cash to the family during the first year of the model.

I did this based on data regarding their sources of cash, for example, one family included an

elderly woman who receives retirement money monthly and they receive a monthly stipend for

participating in the tree planting project, so I used the sum of these amounts as their start-up

cash. The hypotheses tested and scenarios used to test them explored the effects of risk of tree

loss, opportunity costs of EP, start-up costs, ability to care for planted seedlings and meet their

ecological requirements, and the effect of diverse benefits. Hypotheses and tests are summarized

in Table 5-2.

Scenarios

The following EP scenarios take place in combination with acai growing and harvesting,

cultivating of crops, and other farm activities:

Scenario 1: No subsidization of enrichment planting

The families bear all costs of conducting enrichment planting on their property, including

seedling germination, planting, ongoing maintenance of planting areas, and harvest expenses if

they choose to harvest and sell the timber produced. This scenario represents the actual

conditions faced by the smallholders in the study who are not participants in the local tree

planting project and may show how they allocate their resources so that they can include EP

without project support.

Scenario 2: Subsidization of initial planting and continued stipend

In this scenario a monthly subsidy is given to families who conduct EP on their property.

Planting costs are subsidized with start-up cash equal to one monthly stipend payment given

before planting takes place. Payments continue as long as the family maintains the EP areas on









their property. This scenario represents the actual conditions faced by the participants in the

local tree planting project who are paid US$69 (BR$200) monthly. A sensitivity analysis of

stipend amounts is conducted to find an approximate minimum stipend needed to induce planting

and maintenance of 1 ha, the amount required by the local tree planting project (Table 5-3).

Scenario 3: One-time subsidization of initial planting, no further stipend

This scenario explores the possibility that EP could be supported by reducing or

eliminating expenses associated with planting but without payment for continued tree care. This

is a hypothetical scenario that does not represent an actual subset of families in the study, but

shows what the effects would be of a program that may provide free seedlings or one-time

financial benefits to encourage planting. Internationally many tree planting initiatives use such

methods. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to determine the approximate amount needed to

induce planting (Table 5.3).

Results

Model outcomes revealed that

* Uncertainty of future timber harvest did not influence the decision to conduct EP
* Planting that incurred opportunity costs that conflicted with other crops would not take
place
* Start-up costs needed to be low or free
* Multi-tasking kept labor costs (and opportunity costs) low and increased families' ability
to care for planted trees
* Families conducted EP when they received short-term benefits of planting. Short-term
benefits in the ELP model included initial payments and stipends (Table 5-2).

The model also showed the strong influence of monthly planting payments. Analysis of

family income and expenses showed that planting payments were 20% to 30% of the monthly

income for each recipient family, and at times would pay for half of the monthly expenses.

Monthly payments appear to be an effective short-term benefit that boosts family income and

promotes retention of forest cover on family land. Sensitivity analyses showed that a one-time









payment of US$65 $85 would be needed to motivate smallholders to conduct EP on at least 1

ha of their land. A start-up payment plus ongoing payments of US$10 $17 per month are the

minimum needed for smallholders in this study to conduct EP on at least 1 ha of their land.

Ongoing payments of US$69 (BR$200), the amount that participants in the local tree planting

project receive for their EP, can support approximately 3 ha of planting although the project does

not require more than 1 ha. Payment effectiveness and family satisfaction regarding the amount

of payment were also expressed in interviews, where family members said the stipend was

"plenty" to compensate them for time and land dedicated to the planting areas.

Field observations showed that stipends were not required for smallholders to conduct

EP, but provided a very convincing incentive. All participants who received payments spent

more time than other participants caring for seedlings and tending planting areas, and all reported

that this was possible because of the payments. Participants who conducted EP but did not

receive payments believed the other benefits were worth the effort of planting; the benefits cited

were investment in their property, insurance provided by trees, timber for home improvements,

mixture of long-term benefits of timber trees combined with shorter-term benefits of other crops,

short-term products provided by trees such as nuts and fuel wood, and satisfaction of feeling like

land was being well-treated for heirs in the tradition of the landholder's parents. These non-cash

benefits were not included in the model used for this chapter due to difficulties incorporating

them in the model but will be included in further ELP analysis of tree planting on family farms.

Discussion and Conclusions: Lessons Offered by Vdrzea Farmers

Families who conducted EP were influenced by short term benefits including cash, as

evaluated by the ELP model, and other, diverse, short term benefits described in interviews.

The ELP model and field observations showed that short term benefits outweighed uncertainties

regarding tree loss (such as from tree death or lack of tenure), which is a notable contradiction to









many reports in forest conservation literature (Acosta, 2006; Fearnside, 2001b; Lambin and

Geist, 2003). The contradiction suggests that policy makers and conservation organizations

should consider actual local conditions before implementing new projects to influence local land

management. A factor that may be very important in one setting, such as tenure, may be

outweighed by other priorities in different settings. In this case, family priorities of food security

and cash, non-timber forest products, and satisfaction of planting were overriding influences on

landholders. Importantly, the size of land holding may influence the importance of factors that

policy makers should consider (Hildebrand, 1986a; Zarin et al., 2007). In this case enrichment

planting gave multiple benefits to families, noted in interviews and observations, but some of the

benefits such as family use of non-timber products were specific to this scale and would not

influence industrial scale EP, as discussed in Chapter 3.

Model results revealed that EP on family farms requires low planting costs or a one-time

cash payment that would compensate costs. The model also showed that EP requires low costs

of labor for ongoing maintenance of planted areas, which can not conflict with labor required for

food crops. Free seedlings, free labor, and multi-tasking keep maintenance costs low but labor

requirements can still conflict with food security and cash crop demands. These results suggest

that free seedling programs may be helpful to promote tree planting, but landholders may also

need start-up cash, compensation, and/or mitigation of labor costs to conduct EP on their farms

and continue even minimal care for the growing trees. The model confirmed field observations

that in this setting the benefits of end sales of timber from the trees do not compensate farmers

for tree planting and ongoing care and are not the primary reason for conducting EP. Rather, the

long-term benefits of selling the timber are almost meaningless to landholders in this study,

probably because of low timber prices for unprocessed logs in the region.









Modeling combined with field observations provide a good understanding of what

motivates or prevents EP at this scale and lead to the conclusion smallholders are likely to

choose to conduct EP on their family farms given low costs and some short term compensation

in the form of cash or non-cash benefits. The costs for smallholders appear lower than costs

incurred by industrial scale planting, and the benefits to families are more diverse than those

recognized by industrial forestry companies.










Table 5-1. Factors that influence landholder's decision to conduct EP, based on literature review
and field observations.
DECISION FACTOR EXPLANATION
UNCERTAINTIES Loss of planted trees can cause the landholder to
- tenure loss' lose all benefits of planting the trees.
- tree mortality2
OPPORTUNITY COSTS Spending labor or using land for other crops may
- misallocation of labor or land to trees3 bring better benefits to farmers, in which case
- without food security, priority of EP would be conducting EP could cost farmers those benefits.
low 4
- flexibility or seasonality of labor demands may
help EP5
START-UP COSTS Since trees require years until they produce
- Access to free seeds, seedlings, materials; low harvestable products, early costs of planting are not
germination and planting costs6 recovered quickly. This may be difficult for
farmers to withstand if the costs are high.
KNOWLEDGE/ABILITY TO CARE FOR TREES Planters need to have knowledge about the species'
- access to extension services, technical ecological needs, and time to tend to the needs in
information; knowledge of species and site7 order to prevent tree mortality or low productivity.
-labor8
MARKET ACCESS Farmers without access to markets could not sell
- transport tree products; sell tree products9 products from EP, therefore benefits of EP would
be limited to their family's use or local use of the
products.
ATTRACTIVENESS OF DIVERSE BENEFITS Farmers may choose to conduct EP although they
- sell, use nontimber and timber tree products; do not have access to some of the benefits; this
satisfaction of planting; land care and happens because other benefits are available. For
improvement; assets for heirs; insurance10 example, although trees may not provide an annual
crop to sell, they provide 'insurance' against
economic hardship because they can be harvested
in times of economic need.


SBray, 2004; Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Feamside, 1993; Feamside, 2001; Mertens et al., 2002;
Murray, 1987; Pinedo-Vasquez et al., 1992; Shriar, 2002; Simmons et al., 2002; Smith, 1997; Tomich
et al., 1998
2 Schulze et al., 1994
3Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Coomes et al., 2000; D'Antona et al., 2006; McCracken et al., 1999;
Perz, 2003; Witcover, J. 2006
4 Breuer, 2003; Browder et al., 1996; Perreault, 2005 ; Perz, 2003; Shriar, 2002; Tomich et al., 1998
5 Coomes et al., 2000; Perreault, 2005; Sears and Pinedo-Vasquez, 2004; Summers et al., 2004; Tomich et
al., 1998
6 Browder et al., 1996; Hildebrand, 1986b; Perreault, 2005; Sears and Pinedo-Vasquez, 2004
7 Acosta, 2006; Arnold, 1997; Current and Scherr, 1995; Hildebrand, 1986a; Ramos and Amo, 1992;
Simmons et al., 2002
8Browder et al., 1996; Coomes et al., 2000; Perreault, 2005; Schulze, 2003; Tomich et al., 1998;
Summers et al., 2004
9 Angelsen, 1999; Evans and Moran, 2002; Mertens et al., 2002; Simmons et al., 2002; Walker, 2003
10 Browder et al., 1996; Nichols et al., 2001; Sears and Pinedo-Vasquez, 2004 ; Schulze et al., 1994










Table 5-2. Hypotheses, test methods, results, and interpretations of modeled EP scenarios on
farm systems in Mazagao community Each model test required setting model
parameters as specified, then observing whether the resulting modeled system
includes EP. The factor 'Market Access' is discussed frequently in literature, but
was not tested in this study.
FACTORS HYPOTHESIS TEST SCENARIO RESULTS INTERPRETATION
UNCERTAINTIES EP will only take Tree harvests not Lack of timber For planters, short
place with little included in model sale did not term benefits of
uncertainty of but planting will affect EP planting are more
losing tree access remain an option. decision. influential than final
before final timber timber sale.
sale.
OPPORTUNITY EP will only take Planting and care No EP in Benefits must exceed
COSTS place if planting conflicting with conflict with costs; EP benefits does
and care do not food or cash needs labor or land not overcome food
conflict with food vs. not conflicting, for crops security threats.
security or grown for sale
financial needs. or food
security.
START-UP EP will only be Compare costly vs. No EP without Cash constraints on
COSTS feasible if cash not-costly planting free seedlings, families impose
start-up costs are materials, and another opportunity
low. low-cost labor. cost of EP.
ABILITY TO EP requires Compare efficient No EP without Planters plant species
CARE FOR knowledgeable, (knowledgeable) low cost, free, known for success, in
TREES unpaid or multi- low-cost care vs. or multi- known planting
tasked labor such less efficient, tasked labor. conditions. Multi-
as family labor, expensive care. tasked and family
labor exchange, or labor reduced
labor during other expenses.
activities.
DIVERSE Landholders must Was not tested EP without Non-cash benefits
BENEFITS receive more with this model, cash indicates need to be explored
benefits from EP Observations that families with further modeling
than sale of confirmed that must receive to understand
timber. some families plant other benefits complexity of
without cash of planting. smallscale EP.
compensation.
Note: The ELP model used in this chapter considered cash as the only benefit of planting.
Families reported non-cash benefits of fuel wood, timber for home improvements, nontimber
products, land improvement, and satisfaction of planting. For this chapter these benefits and
cash payments for EP are categorized as short term benefits. These benefits may be explored
further with an ELP model that includes noncash influences on family farming decisions.









Table 5-3. Sensitivity analyses of payment scenarios for enrichment planting.
Amount paid in Scenario 1 No Scenario 2 Subsidization Scenario 3 One-time
US$ (BR$) subsidization of of initial planting and subsidization, no further
enrichment planting continued stipend stipend
Area planted (ha)
$9 (BR$25) *
$17 (BR$50) 2.52
$34 (BR$100) 2.79
$52 (BR$150) 2.79
$69 (BR$200) 3.16
$86 (BR$250) 2.52 3.16
$103 (BR$300) 2.52 3.16
$120 (BR$350) 2.52 3.16
$137 (BR$400) 2.52 3.16
$155 (BR$450) 2.63 3.16
$172 (BR$500) 2.79 3.16
*The ELP model optimizes a family's end discretionary cash by allocating resources to activities
that can earn money. In this model, intangible noncash benefits of tree planting are not
considered. Therefore, while field observations confirmed that planting does occur in families
who receive no payments, the model does not show this activity without payment since it does
not help the model maximize family cash. It should be noted that end sale of EP timber without
other forms of payment did not induce planting.












3.5


3


2.5


2-

--*- Initial payment, no monthly stipend
~-I- Initial payment plus monthlystipend
1.5


1



0.5




$9 $17 $34 $52 $69 $86 $103 $120 $137 $155 $172
Initial payment (one time only) and monthly
stipend (US$)

Figure 5-1. ELP Sensitivity analysis results of initial payment without monthly stipend for
enrichment planting (Scenario 2) and initial payment plus monthly stipend (Scenario
3).















































Factors that influence landholders' choice to conduct enrichment planting according
to field observations and ELP model results. The factors can deter or promote EP,
depending on whether the conditions listed with each factor are met. If not met,
other factors may compensate and a landholder may still choose to conduct EP.
Some factors influence each other, such as start-up costs that may ameliorate risks if
costs are low or exacerbate risks if the costs are high. Benefits of planting need to
justify the risks and costs; the diverse benefits recognized by smallholders in this
study offer multiple opportunities for risks and costs to be justified. The individual
arrow patterns represent the distinct influence of each factor; if one/some of the
factors are weak there may be enough motivation from a different factor to initiate
planting.


Figure 5-2.









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

In this dissertation I have explored settings in which enrichment planting has taken place,

and modeled test scenarios to determine if EP could take place under new conditions. The goal

has been to determine what factors, if any, promote or hinder EP by smallholders and/or by

industrial foresters; the intended result has been to present reliable information that can guide

policy makers and land managers in decisions to employ this silvicultural technique when

appropriate or to avoid it in unfavorable contexts.

First I presented a case study of EP at Fazenda Cauaxi including a description of the

planting (Chapter 2) and a financial cost-benefit analysis (Chapter 3). These plantings incurred

the types of expenses that an industrial planting operation would require, which contrast with the

types of expenses observed in smallholder planting efforts. Large scale, industrial planting

requires purchase of seeds, seedling nursery construction expenses, paid labor and paid

supervision, vehicle and fuel expenses, and ongoing site maintenance expenses. The financial

cost-benefit analysis shows that, from the private landholder's perspective, sale prices of EP

timber do not justify the planting costs. The difficulty of reaching a positive return on the

investments in EP came from early, high expenses that were hard to balance with timber sales.

We expect that accounting for other shorter-term financial benefits within the company that may

be associated with EP, such as money saved by keeping employees rather than firing them at the

end of the harvest season and hiring new employees each year, would help justify expenses of

EP. A social appraisal of industrial scale EP may also reveal benefits to society since EP can

help sustain timber volume needed to make multiple reduced-impact timber harvests, which may

benefit local economies and society and therefore justify financial incentives that would provide

shorter-term benefits to companies that conduct responsible EP.









Land holders often look to fertilization and site preparation to boost planted seedling

growth and survivorship and therefore timber sales. Ideally, low cost, early treatments of

planting sites and/or seedlings would help make EP financially viable by increasing the number

and size of harvestable trees at each harvest cycle. In Chapter 4 I presented results of

fertilization and site preparation on species planted at Fazenda Vitoria, not far from Fazenda

Cauaxi. Fertilizer boosted short-term growth, but in the long-term resulted in slightly smaller

individuals than unfertilized groups. The differences were statistically significant, but

biologically trivial. These results indicate that the expense of fertilization may not improve the

benefit to cost ratio of EP. In contrast, the site preparation experiment showed that treatment and

species play a role in the outcome of treatments: some species benefited while others did not,

while generally most species responded best to the 'mid-level intensity' treatment of burying

seeds but not loosening the soil in which they were buried. This indicates that some investment

in site preparation may pay-off. However, planters should know if the particular species they are

using will respond to site preparation before deciding to invest in the preparation. Long-term

survivorship in this experiment was also affected by species, possibly because some species were

simply shaded by others during long-term growth in the close quarters of the experimental

layout. This suggests, again, that the needs of particular species should be considered carefully

to determine the most cost-effective planting treatments. Overall, these experiments indicate that

there may not be broadly-effective recommendations of planting treatments. Considering this

with the lessons learned from the Fazenda Cauaxi case study, we have learned that early costs

must be kept low, and therefore treatments should be kept to a minimum, and the particular

minimum treatment depends heavily on the species used for EP. As is generally known, benefits









of fertilizers and other treatments depend heavily on site characteristics too, such as soil type,

which also should be considered while determining the best minimum early treatments for EP.

The relative abundance of EP by smallholders is intriguing given the difficulties

experienced by some large companies trying to implement EP. Using Ethnographic Linear

Programming I explored EP conducted by families in a community settled in the eastern Amazon

vdrzea. The research objectives were to identify factors that make some smallholders plant trees

by comparing families that do and do not, and what factors, if any, could be brought to industrial

scale planting to make it more cost-effective. I used a form of economic analysis appropriate to

this scale to compare factors that promote or inhibit EP on family farms.

The loftiest goals and benefits of implementing EP are to reduce motivation to convert

forest to other land uses by generating financial and/or nonfinancial values that compete

favorably with forest conversion. EP can help reduce the practice of "log and leave" forestry by

helping to make long-term forest management financially attractive by generating revenue

without degrading the forest. For economic, conservation, and aesthetic reasons, I hope EP helps

landholders manage forests as an asset and possibly restore tree cover in degraded areas that

were converted from forest to another land use such as pasture.

To promote these goals and EP, I ask what encourages EP. Low costs, short-term

internal benefits, revenue, and desire for economic stability summarize the results of the previous

chapters. Differences and similarities were apparent between the scales. Table 6-1 summarizes

what encourages EP and gives cross-chapter examples. For example, for "Low risks and costs,"

I found in chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 that access to free seedlings of local, diverse, appropriate

species promoted EP (Table 6-1). I use the summaries of what encourages EP and the cross-

chapter examples to formulate suggestions of policies and practices that could promote EP.









Factors that lower risks and costs include receiving short-term benefits from EP, access to

free seedlings, access to reliable technical information, ability to multitask EP with other land

management activities, and not incurring opportunity costs by conflicting EP activities with other

land management activities. Therefore some suggestions for lowering risks and costs include 1)

Free seedlings could be provided by nonprofit, research-oriented nurseries, which could also

serve as sources of agricultural (tree planting) extension information. However more, ongoing

support is needed rather than simply providing seedlings. To develop the nurseries, choose the

best local species, and initiate research questions, use local knowledge about species and site

conditions to produce the most germane information for the landholders. Focus on long-term

results of treatments, and track economic information as well as growth and survival data. Long-

term trials could take place on landholders' properties, then the landholder could keep the trees

when the research project has finished. 2) Given the possible benefits to society of EP and long-

term, responsible forest management, the government could subsidize EP labor in production

forests during the nonharvest season to help forestry companies keep their best, trained

employees and to gain the social economic benefits of EP. They may want to do this for

companies using RIL and other "best practices," which will help those companies that have

invested in training their employees in responsible forestry practices.

The second item that I found encourages EP is short-term, internal benefits. Many

benefits of EP are external, such as maintaining the Amazon climate system or sustaining

populations of highly exploited species. The internal financial benefits currently come from

timber and/or nontimber product sales, but could come from payments for environmental

services, carbon sequestration, or other benefits of EP that could be internalized (Table 6.1). At

the small scale there are more opportunities for internal benefits because they can be









nonfinancial: satisfaction, materials for family use, insurance, and providing resources for future

generations. Based on these observations, my suggestions for increasing short-term, internal

benefits include allowing commercial thinnings (using RIL) of fast-growing species in EP sites

with a mixture of fast- and slow-growing species; encourage carbon sequestration credit sales,

environmental services payments, and other similar exchanges for external benefits. Also, the

Brazilian government could award large-scale companies that conduct long-term responsible

forest management, including EP and other silvicultural techniques when appropriate, with

forestry concessions in forests that require long-term management such as national forests. The

current policy context in Brazil includes establishment of forest concessions for logging, which

delegates exploitation rights of small (10,000ha), medium (10-40,000ha) and large (40-200,000

ha) forest areas to private Brazilian companies. The concession areas are intended to provide a

mixture of long-term forest extraction and conservation by permitting restricted logging.

Concessions will not require performance bonds but will be audited periodically; the inspections

will be paid for by the concession holders. Given the difficulties of enforcing current logging

practices, enforcement of any EP standards in forest concessions seems unlikely (Mueller, 1997;

Alston et al., 1999; Merry and Amacher, 2005) however, rewarding EP by including it in the

decision process for allocating concessions could trigger EP and would only need to be checked

during audits.

Third, EP is encouraged when it generates revenue for landholders conducting long-term

management, such as family farmers or large-scale companies practicing "best forestry" for

long-term forest management. If costs are low enough, EP generates revenue by ensuring

volume and species of future harvests without degrading the forest. It may help future forest

value equal or surpass current value. Furthermore, the tree density for future EP harvests is near









logging roads or, at the small scale, in accessible places such as near crop fields or the home. At

the large scale, this allows reuse of infrastructure and may help retain trained employees.

Therefore, one suggestion is to continue to clarify and streamline tenure security since long-term

management somewhat assumes secure tenure. Perhaps tenure programs could be expanded for

planters by making assistance available in locations where free seedlings and technical planting

information are available. Also, EP could be promoted as a compliment to RIL harvesting, as

the nonprofit organization IFT already does at their model forest at Fazenda Cauaxi. Also, as

suggested above, the government could promote EP in forests that require long-term

management, such as concession forests. Another policy suggestion is to encourage landholders

to manage forest areas as an asset. This may require shifting public perception of forests as

underutilized land. Model farms or training locations, such as Fazenda Cauaxi, help shift

opinions by showing people that more responsible forest management can generate revenue.

Convincing people to manage forests as an asset will help increase compliance with the current

policy requiring 80% of landholdings to be kept as forest cover.

Enrichment planting can contribute to economic stability, a fourth encouraging aspect.

At the small scale, diversification of economic activities contributes to stability by providing a

mixture of income sources and timing. At either scale, EP helps guarantee future harvest

volumes and species. Regionally, EP does not lend itself to "boom and bust" forestry but rather

encourages long-term use of sites and therefore capacity building of forestry employees. My

suggestions include relieving difficulties of regulatory compliance for forest management by

streamlining the forest management plan approval process and helping landholders through

forest management plan development and approval. Help may be needed especially when

management plans include diverse ventures and relatively complex management options, such as









planting mixtures of fast- and slow-growing species or trying new planting ideas. Perhaps

agencies could make assistance available in locations where seedlings and technical planting

information are supplied in order to streamline landholder access to the resources.

An interesting difference between the scales was that the final sale of the timber is not as

important to smallholders as it is to industrial planters. For smallholders, the price for timber

logs is so low and so far in the future that it was not the primary driver of EP at the small scale.

In accordance with this finding, tenure security was not as important as expected at the small

scale since the ultimate sale, or loss, of the mature trees did not have much influence on the

decision to plant. Instead, short-term benefits spurred planting. These included monthly

payments for planting, which motivated planting in all modeled cases. Without payments

planting would only occur if the family required products from planted trees, such as nuts or

firewood, and could not collect these items from their property forests or purchase them with

cash. Satisfaction of planting also motivated EP in the modeled scenarios. The satisfaction of

planting seemed to be an immediate (short-term) benefit that relied on long-term goals such as

leaving land in good condition for children, but was not affected by lack of legal tenure. Despite

short-term benefits superseding long-term benefits associated with tenure security, there is still

some assumption/hope of tenure security when conducting EP. I have included in my

suggestions to continue streamlining the tenure process and assisting landholders in achieving

tenure because it inherently contributes to EP and more importantly long-term, responsible forest

management, even if overwhelmed by the importance of short-term, internal benefits.

While examination of both scales revealed similar requirements of minimal costs and

short-term benefits, there are important differences between the scales that should be considered

by policy-makers, project coordinators, or others interested in promoting this silvicultural









technique as a conservation tool. First, the benefits perceived by industrial planters are limited to

finances; other benefits such as biodiversity conservation or local economy stability are external.

In order to make the external benefits internal, and thereby make EP more broadly applicable,

the external benefits need to be translated into shorter-term financial gains for the company. At

the small scale more benefits are internal, but families do respond well to additional internal

benefits such as payments for planting. These differences between scales should be considered

when developing policies or programs to encourage enrichment planting in this region of Brazil.

Enrichment planting is one of several silvicultural tools capable of adding long-term

value to forests. Where sustained harvests of high-value timber are essential to persistence of

forest cover (such as on private lands) or to regional conservation and socio-economic

development goals (such as in state and federal production forests) current log-and-leave

management practices are not adequate. Enrichment planting, whether in unproductive areas

such as liana patches and abandoned pastures, or in felling gaps and other sites directly impacted

by logging, directly increases stocks of valuable timber species. This and other silvicultural

approaches may be necessary to ensure that forests accumulate timber volume fast enough to

accommodate 25 to 35 year cutting cycles, and that recovery of commercial species populations

is sufficient to forestall economic, as well as biological, impoverishment of managed forests.









Table 6-1. Lessons learned about what encourages EP and suggestions for promoting EP.


What encourages EP?
Low risks and costs


Short-term, internal
benefits


How to encourage EP?
* EP is riskiest if people receive no short-term benefits; lower risk
by ensuring short-term benefits (see next row) (Chapters 1, 2, 3,
5)
* Provide free seedlings of local, diverse, appropriate species
(Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5)
* Ensure access to reliable technical info (Chapters 1, 4, 5),
including making widely available the wealth of information
already known by local landholders such as effective site-specific
planting and growing techniques (Chapter 5).
* When possible, multi-tasked EP activities such as site surveys or
maintenance with other forestry activities (Chapter 3, 5), but do
not expect it to conflict with forestry or small-farm activities,
which would increase its opportunity costs (Chapter 5).
* Internal financial benefits come from direct payments, timber
and/or nontimber product sales, payments for environmental
services, carbon sequestration payments, payments for planting
research, retaining trained employees and thereby saving hiring
and training costs, increases harvestable areas and thereby
decreases cost per area of infrastructure, access to niche markets
such as FSC certification markets (Chapter 1, 2, 3)
* Make external benefits internal. External benefits include
maintaining the Amazon climate system, sustaining populations
of highly exploited species, nutrient cycling, watershed
protection, biodiversity conservation, maintaining 'common'
goods such as air and water quality, and regional capacity
building (Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5).
* At the small scale the internal benefits can be financial such as
payments, nonfinancial such as satisfaction, materials for family
use, insurance, and providing resources for future generations
(Chapter 5).


What encourages EP? How to encourage EP?
Contributes to economic At small scale, diversification of ventures provides family
stability economic stability (Chapters 1, 5)
Helps guarantee future harvest volumes and species for forestry
companies (Chapters 2, 3)
Contributes to regional stability with long-term outputs (rather
than "boom and bust" economy) and capacity building (Chapters
1,2,3)









APPENDIX A
FINANCIAL COSTS OF ENRICHMENT PLANTING, YEARS 0-60, AT FAZENDA
CAUAXI, PARA, BRAZIL

Table A-i. Labor wages for workers at Fazenda Cauaxi


Personnel Daily wage Hourly wage
Personnel ------ ---------* -
BR$ US$ BR$ US$
Chainsaw operator 25.00 8.59 3.13 1.08
Driver 21.67 7.44 2.71 0.93
Labor 16.00 5.49 2.00 0.69
Technician 40.00 13.75 5.00 1.72
Tractor operator 31.67 10.88 3.96 1.36
Note: Wages were converted to US currency with the 2004 average exchange rate of 2.91. A
median wage was used forjobs with a range of pay scales.










Table A-2. Costs associated with enrichment planting at Fazenda Cauaxi, in US dollars (2004 average exchange rate of 2.91)
Chainsaw Tractor Vehicle Total wages
Year Activities Labor operator operator driver Technician (US$) Total cost per m3 wood


1
1


Site selection, mapping*
Purchase seeds


1 Nursery construction

1 Nursery planting
(plastic bags, collect
& bag soil, place
seeds in soil)
1 Planting site selection
1 Transport seedlings to
site
1 Planting (delineate with
flags, clean area with
tractor, mark lines and
spacing, dig holes, plant
seedlings, map planted
seedlings)
2 Maintenance (cutting all
competing vegetation in
EP area)
3 Maintenance (cutting all
competing vegetation in
EP area)
6 Maintenance (cutting
competing vegetation
within Im of saplings)
10 Maintenance (remove
any overtopping
vegetation)
14 Maintenance, timber
cruise, silvicultural
treatment


27





16

62 1





24


24


16


8 8


8 8


3.44

16.15

21.64




0.86
27.53

85.05


22.5


16.49


16.49


14.09


27.84


(US$)


0.19
0.47 (seeds)
0.90 (materials negligible on site)


1.93




0.05
1.53

6.17





0.75


0.75


0.61


0.78


1.55










Table A-2. Continued
Chainsaw Tractor Vehicle Total wages
Year Activities Labor operator operator driver Technician (US$) Total cost per m3 wood (US$)
15 Commercial thinning 12.75 4.38
(tree marking, road/deck
prep, harvest)
20 Maintenance (remove 8 8 8 27.84 1.55
competing or
overtopping vegetation)
25 Maintenance (remove 8 8 8 27.84 1.55
competing or
overtopping vegetation)
35 Maintenance (remove 8 8 8 27.84 1.55
competing or
overtopping vegetation)
45 Maintenance (remove 8 8 8 27.84 1.55
competing or
overtopping vegetation)
55 Monitoring and DBH 8 24 46.74 7.56
assessment
59 Vine cutting 8 5.50 0.30
59,60 Harvest plan and RIL 12.37 4.25
harvest
Note: Activities and costs are reported per planting area, as reported in interviews with Fazenda Cauaxi personnel. Total costs are
divided per cubic meter of wood produced in a planting area, given a yield of 18 m3. Note that this list represents the actual
activities that took place at Fazenda Cauaxi and that they plan to do in coming years; the "Low cost" scenario presented in
Table 3-1 includes only activities from Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 55, and 60. Thinning and harvest costs are based on line-item costs
of conducting inventory, felling, skidding, and log deck activities, as reported in Holmes et al. (2002), converted to 2004 prices
using an average local interest rate of 1.062%.










APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF SITE TREATMENTS AT FAZENDA VITORIA

Table B-1. Height, DBH, and survivorship results of site treatments at Fazenda Vitoria
Mean DBH
(Macmillan et al.,
Mean height in centimeters + SE; number of individuals 1998)+SE
Species Trt 1989 1990 1991 2003 2003
1. A 8.99+0.62; 27.92+3.24; 98.57+12.19; 431.3+73.05; 8 2.5+0.42
25 18 18
B 6.98+0.56; 26.44+4.40; 116.93+14.80; 428.8+59.71; 8 2.3+0.53
23 14 14
C 6.70+0.29; 38.33+2.71; 133.77+11.25; 431.5+50.88; 13 2.2+0.46
24 17 17
Antrocaryon A 13.31+0.55; 22.75+1.46; 55.25+5.25; 340.0+36.19; 5 2.9+0.23
amazonicum 25 25 24
B 11.22+0.55; 40.11+4.46; 124.78+8.51; 586.0+70.93; 10 6.6+1.22
27 27 27
C 30.46+0.30; 44.85+4.73; 124.08+11.25; 441.4+36.21; 7 4.3+0.76
27 21 21
Schizolobium A 23.52+1.56; 51.35+5.21; 96.88+13.15; 1385.0+575.0; 2 15.6+6.70
amazonicum 23 13 8
B 24.62+1.16; 70.19+4.56; 139.19+17.59; 2034+419.62; 5 22.4+6.65
27 17 16
C 30.46+1.08; 84.40+3.35; 161.64+22.28; 1670.0+0; 2 12.8+2.00
26 23 22
Stryphnodendr A 6.3+0.48; 24 28.37+3.45; 101.75+11.30;
onadstringens 23 20 752.0+106.27; 5 10.5+2.00
B 5.72+0.51; 79.39+10.62; 220.75+13.20;
21 16 16 -- -
C 5.31+0.39; 69.96+9.05; 188.79+12.65;
22 19 19 -- -
Parkia sp. A 12.98+0.56; 23.96+2.88; 66.20+13.06; 400.0+49.93; 10 3.9+0.82
17 14 10
B 10.15+0.75; 51.95+8.22; 9 170.13+34.84; 645.0+84.24; 8 6.7+1.24
20 8
C 10.67+0.67; 40.19+3.29; 107.18+11.78; 408.5+43.14; 13 3.9+0.51
27 18 17
Bagassa A -- -- -- -
guianensis B -- -- -- -
C --....
Bertholletia A -- -- -- -
excelsa B -- -- -- -
C -- -- -- -- --
Terminalia A 24.43+1.05; 43.63+3.90; 80.90+8.22; 824.0+121.59; 5 9.5+1.74
catappa 20 14 10
B 17.63+1.08; 44.18+6.24; 103.96+34.84; --
19 11 9
C 14.80+1.35; 37.30+12.10; 78.63+34.35;
12 5 4











Table B-1. Continued.
Mean DBH
(Macmillan et
Species Trt Mean height in centimeters + SE; Number of individuals al., 1998)+SE
Platonia A -- -- 54.17+3.92; 313.7+32.76; 23 1.9+0.27
insignis 20
B -- 30.10+5.33; 5 69.99+6.40; 373.1+47.37; 16 2.9+0.61
16
C 1.33+1.32; 7 33.21+5.66; 7 65.17+10.59; 322.2+56.69; 2.3+0.76
15 16
Anacardium A 32.73+1.85; 69.44+5.47; 147.18+11.47; 820.0+310.96; 3 4.9+2.53
occidentale 21 18 17
B 24.73+1.71; 98.41+12.06; 232.87+21.20; 652.5+123.92; 4 5.4+1.41
20 15 15
C 23.19+1.82; 85.03+8.63; 222.26+20.05; -
24 19 19
Cecropia A -- -- -- -
peltata B -- -- -- -
C -- -- -- -- --
Solanum A 4.05+1.85; 2 -- --
paniculatum B 5.09+1.56; 67.26+18.72; 164.00+28.51; --
13 10 10
C 1.93+1.22; 3 38.00+22.00; 127.50+62.49; --
2 2
Hymenaea A 25.70+1.69; 50.74+3.60; 92.85+7.57; 512.3+45.78; 13 3.7+0.32
courbaril 26 24 20
B 26.16+1.71; 92.05+6.15; 166.81+9.07; 644.7+39.50; 19 5.2+0.46
25 21 21
C 24.89+0.84; 67.92+4.25; 119.48+9.13; 451.2+35.03; 25 3.5+0.30
26 25 25
Orbignya A -- -- -- -
phalerata B -- -- -- -
C -- -- -- -- --
Sclerolobium A 8.16+0.65; 43.77+6.20; 218.33+30.27; 2352.0+45.55; 28.4+8.97
paniculatum 17 13 9 10
B 7.24+0.47; 60.77+ 5.06; 335.59+13.65; 2366.2+62.47; 27.4+1.93
20 17 17 13
C 6.4+0.416; 50.43+4.37; 284.58+19.76; 1933.1+135.98; 27.0+2.38
23 19 19 16
acacia A 10.98+1.52; 40.00+5.00; 2 -- --
22
B 13.58+1.74; 91.11+14.09; 511.77+48.84; 1490.9+66.84; 20.1+1.13
24 18 17 11
C 10.90+1.01; 84.86+8.80; 460.17+37.42; 1487.8+55.37; 9 22.1+2.13
25 18 18
Totals A 16.68+0.69; 39.36+1.71; 94.80+4.70; 710.2+27.34; 84 7.1+0.99
222 164 156
B 14.23+0.61; 65.42+3.07; 200.12+10.65; 985.2+78.35; 95 10.5+1.05
244 180 186
C 14.22+0.62; 61.56+2.26; 183.30+9.37; 773.3+66.38; 8.8+1.06
246 193 540 101









APPENDIX C
MEAN DIAMETER AND HEIGHT FOR FERTILIZATION EXPERIMENT AT FAZENDA
VITORIA













Table C-1. Mean diameter and height of species with and without NPK fertilizer and addition of manure, administered in the first year

after planting (mean of replications + SE, number of individuals).

Species MEAN DIAMETER, NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS MEAN HEIGHT, NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS


1989 1990 1991 2003


Anacardium

occidental

Annona

murcata

Astrocarpus


Bactns

gasipaes

Bertholletia

excelsa

Bixa

orelana

- Byrsonlma

crassifoha

Cedrela

odorata

Citrus sp.


Cocos

nucifera sp.

Dipteryx

odorata

Eugenia

brasihensis

Eugenia

jambos

Genpa
nma rtcana


6.0 0.3, 8

5.20.3, 10

6.30.2, 10

6.5 0.2, 10

3.30.3, 10

3.20.2, 9




5.3 0.3, 10

5.3 0.2, 10

5.00.3, 10

4.20.2, 9

1.7 0.2, 8

1.4 0.2, 10

2.3 0.3, 10

2.3 0.3, 9

23.5 1.2, 10

24.7 1.4, 9




4.9 0.2, 8

5.10.1, 9

4.80.2, 10

5.0 0.2, 10

7.00.4, 9

47.12.4, 9

5.90.6, 8
60 n+ 05 8


1.44, 8

2.41, 10

1.29, 10

1.30, 10

0.61, 10

1.65, 8




0.92, 10

0.85, 10

1.73, 9

3.61,9

1.63, 8

3.31,9

1.24, 10

2.38,9

2.37, 10

2.18,8


8.5 0.63, 8

9.80.55,9

9.60.70, 10

10.4 0.83, 10

10.30.65, 8

75.85.0, 8

9.60.80, 8
25 4+3 93 R


70.33.60, 8

71.3 7.36, 10

22.6 3.67, 10

37.1 2.44, 10

30.15.73, 10

30.24.00, 8




29.6 2.62, 10

24.5 2.25, 10

35.4 2.09, 9

53.7 2.30, 9

52.05.13, 8

39.05.88, 9

36.3 4.58, 10

36.3 6.66, 9

24.4 2.27, 10

35.53.66, 8




20.5 1.82, 8

20.1 1.92, 9

13.0 0.57, 10

14.4 1.13, 10

17.31.56, 8

110.69.46, 8

12.11.81, 8
44 6+6 43 R


116.3 13.08,6

125.017.35,3

0

29.5 1.50,2

70.914.51. 7

126.939.90, 7




223.6 13.05, 10

222.3 23.5, 10

0

0

132.2 6.01. 5

91.3 14.45 6

104.0 15.8, 10

117.4 13.70,9

0

0




145.0 9.00, 8

138.4 10.57,9

40.13.25, 10

31.78.02, 10

21.0---, 1

213.0---,1

69.06.70, 2*
103 3+7 17 R*


1989

30.81.3, 8

28.50.9, 10

47.31.3, 10

48.10.8, 10

21.7 4.3, 10

21.52.4,9

28.0 0.65, 10

28.40.8, 9

39.0 1.01, 10

41.21.0, 10

60.0 2.13, 10

60.21.8,9

140.8 1.06, 8

93.80.5, 10

11.1 1.35, 10

11.11.6, 9

75.8 2.28,10

66.75.0, 9

72.9 2.44, 9

73.14.4, 8

33.6 1.62, 8

34.91.4,9

36.20.94, 10

33.91.45, 10

7.10.35, 10

40.62.1, 10

24.81.69, 8
25 4+1 6 R


2003

661.7125.0, 6

756.737.6, 3

0

360.0120.0, 2

518.6 53.3, 7

682.9115.9, 7

947.5+-71.8, 8

903.3110.7, 9

1323.0 105.7,

1423.0131.9, 1

0


1990

153.6 10.85. 8

182.212.1, 10

93.78.86, 10

121.67.38, 10

92.9 6.21, 10

112.98.68, 8

57.0 5.97, 10

72.29.1,9

91.8 6.13, 10

89.88.0, 10

102.3 9.57. 9

157.28.7 9

251.1 12.75. 8

217.49.8. 9

66.1 4.32, 10

70.613.4,9

91.8 4.29, 10

87.58.2, 8

96.7 5.27, 9

112.54.5, 8.0

73.57.95, 8

86.88.0, 9

66.8 3.59, 10

75.55.6, 10

10.61.02,7

68.16.7, 7

32.32.74. 8
85 6+17 4 R


1991

259.4 23.80. 8

346.834.2, 10

140.813.34, 10

204.38.87, 10

155.3 9.40, 10

180.316.68, 8

111.6 11.25, 9

123.020.9, 9

148.7 6.72, 10

140.611.0, 10

193.2 13.25. 9

210.86.7 9

860.0 22.16. 8

728.317.9, 9

155.8 16.60, 10

162.633.5, 9

121.0 8.37, 10

144.314.7, 8

154.2 9.43, 9

222.623.4, 8

210.0 19.41, 8

207.823.3, 9

114.2 7.84, 10

122.69.8, 10

24.22.04, 5

133.813.6, 5

43.09.17 8
184 3+2773


0

860.0+-93.4, 5

728.346.4, 6

1089.0 120.7, 10

1047.8109.3, 9

0

0

518.8 82.10, 8

755.7107.8, 7

951.358.35, 8

963.323.3, 9

451.042.46, 10

475.025.5, 10

35.39.82, 3

286.786.7, 3

680.060.0, 2*
R82 0+330 R*


600 8 25 39 8 82 0.3 0 8. .













Table C-1. Continued.

MEAN DIAMETER, NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS


MEAN HEIGHT, NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS


Species

Manglfera
indica

Mangifera
indica var.

Mamlkara

sapota

Platonma

insignis

Parkia sp.


Poutera

caimito

Richardella


Rollinia

mucosa

Spondius
mombin

Swietenma


Theobroma


Tabebula


1989

6.30.4, 9

6.40.5, 8

20.80.7, 8

20.70.5, 9

3.30.1, 10

3.40.2, 10

2.50.2, 8

2.90.2, 8

3.30.3, 10

2.70.2, 10

3.50.2, 10

3.90.1, 10

3.30.2, 9

3.50.2, 10

4.00.0, 10

3.80.1, 9

2.10.1, 10

2.10.1, 7

6.70.4, 10

6.40.4, 9




2.31.7, 9


1990

20.61.94, 9

22.62.10, 8

25.11.13, 8

29.91.03, 9

5.60.45, 10

7.80.59, 10

5.50.57, 8

5.60.53, 7

18.11.49, 10

22.61.52, 9

7.30.57, 10

9.31.27,9

8.60.77, 9

9.30.91, 10

11.91.11, 8

21.02.36, 9

9.21.71, 10

38.94.28, 7

15.51.51, 10

27.53.85, 9

7.40.34, 9

12.00.46, 8

7.40.88, 9


1991

39.83.14,9

65.123.49, 8

35.72.46, 8

55.63.54, 9

12.91.09, 10

15.31.10, 10

11.21.43, 8

9.81.84, 7

44.63.00, 10

47.01.88, 9

16.01.74, 10

19.93.15,9

22.22.81, 9

21.33.23, 10

26.93.89, 7

52.39.17, 9

14.33.14, 10

67.28.31, 7

47.73.29, 10

58.64.77, 9

12.20.50, 9

64.40.83, 8

17.63.24, 9


2003

54. 06.52, 4

105. 810.70. 4

84.0 ---, 1

119.410.99, 5

71.08.28, 10

69.07.04, 10

80.418.94, 8

85.622.15, 7

158.817.74,9

167.014.80, 9

53.017.05, 4
0

114.314.98,9

114.710.88, 9

86.0 ---, 1
0

0
0

205.819.97, 10

223.911.43,9

42.31.03, 4

33.922.06, 5

83.014.29, 8


1989

45.01.37, 9

38.43.3, 8

103.72.10, 8

97.42.8, 9

15.90.65, 10

15.50.5, 10

11.21.07, 8

12.41.5, 8

13.80.61, 10

13.20.4, 10

32.40.92, 10

31.80.9, 10

26.11.21, 9

26.91.3, 10

28.60.41, 10

28.50.6, 9

11.70.41, 10

13.21.6, 7

40.21.24, 10

38.41.1,9

37.41.6, 10

34.1+-1.3, 10

12.33.83, 9


serratifoha trt 3.20.1, 9 10.91.44, 9 27.03.32, 9 109.911.17, 8 14.80.4, 9
Note: Underlined results indicate significant growth response to treatment in 2003 (ANOVA


1990

130.87.74, 9

132.510.1, 8

128.35.05, 8

162.87.3. 9

47.56.01, 10

62.86.5, 10

49.06.40, 8

34.66.9, 7

90.711.28, 10

115.612.5 9

71.48.38,9

64.26.9, 9

78.49.49, 9

71.59.2, 10

80.89.84, 8

113.313.6. 9

60.18.04, 10

152.912.2. 7

102.38.70, 10

190.817.0. 9

51.92.23, 9

44.13.6, 8

63.112.29, 9

80.311.8,9
, P<0.05).


1991 2003

243.614.0, 9 427.530.38, 4

218.036.4, 8 567.540.9, 4

179.412.50, 8 320.0 ---, 1
250.08.8. 9 678.066.2, 5

109.710.39, 10 636.058.92, 10

140.010.7, 10 619.048.8, 10

95.511.90, 8 655.0115.11, 8

80.120.4, 7 915.7111.5, 7

294.335.02, 10 972.288.16, 9

300.421.0. 9 1023.396.9, 9

146.122.29, 9 403.3117.24, 3

140.819.0, 9 0

158.917.93,9 888.951.17, 9

146.122.0, 10 900.0100.1, 9

165.717.27, 7 570.0---, 1
222.530.0. 9 0

72.79.57, 10 0

210.724.2. 7 0

323.420.00, 10 1338.067.90, 10
403.946.8. 9 1396.755.4, 9

89.03.84, 9 525.043.50, 4

83.06.6, 8 454.042.0, 5

140.324.70, 9 831.399.54, 8

199.025.4, 9 1071.368.4, 8
Asterisk indicates significant


effect of fertilization on survivorship between treatment and control (Fisher's Exact Two-tail Chi Square test, P<0.05).









LIST OF REFERENCES


Acosta, R.T., 2006. Smallholders and communities in plantation development: Lessons from two
ITTO-supported projects. Proceedings of the International Conference on Timber
Plantation Development, online at http://www.fao.org/

Adjers, G., Hadengganan, S., Kuusipalo, J., Nuryanto, K., Vesa, L., 1995. Enrichment planting
of Dipterocarps in logged-over secondary forests: effect of width, direction and
maintenance method of planting line on selected .\/iu eat species. Forest Ecology and
Management 73, 259-270.

Alavalapati, J.R.R., Mercer, D.E., 2004. Valuing Agroforestry Systems Methods and
Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA U.S.A.

Alder, D., Silva, J.N.M., 2001. Sustentabilidade da producao volumetrica: Um estudo de caso na
Floresta Nacional do Tapaj6s com o auxilio do modelo do cresimento Cafogram. In: Silva,
J.N.M. (Ed.), A Silvicultura na Amaz6nia Oriental Contribuic6es do Projeto
EMBRAPA/DFID. EMBRAPA Amaz6nia Oriental: DFID, Belem, 459 pp.

Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D., Mueller, B., 1999. Titles, Conflict, and Land Use: The Development
of Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazilian Amazon Frontier. The University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Alves, D.S., Soares, J.V., Amaral, S., Mello, E.M.K., Almeida, S.A.S., DaSilva, O.F., Silveira,
A.M., 1997. Biomass of primary and secondary vegetation in Rondonia, Western Brazilian
Amazon. Global Change Biology 3, 451-461.

Angelsen, A., 1999. Agricultural expansion and deforestation: modeling the impact of
population, market forces and property rights. Journal of Development Economics 58, 185-
218.

Ares, A., Falcao, N., Yuyama, K., Yost, R., Clement, C., 2003. Response to fertilization and
nutrient deficiency diagnostics in peach palm in Central Amazonia. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 66, 221-232.

Arnold, J.E.M., 1997. The social dimensions of forestry's contribution to sustainable
development. Unasylva 190/191.

Asner, G., Keller, M., Silva, J., 2004. Spatial and temporal dynamics of forest canopy gaps
following selective logging in the eastern Amazon. Global Change Biology 10, 755-783.

Avila, M., Roumas-set, J., Perrin, R.K., Gladwin, C.H., Gellatly, C., Navarro, L., Chavas, J.-P.,
Arcia, G., 1977. Risk and Uncertainty for Small Farmers in the Developing Countries.
American Journal of Agricultural Ecomomics, Proceedings from the annual meeting of the
American Agricultural Economics Association held 31 July-3 August 1977 in San Diego,
California 59, 1099.









Balee, W., Campbell, D., 1990. Evidence for the successional status of liana forest (Xingu River
Basin, Amazonia, Brazil). Biotropica 22, 36-47.

Barreto, P., Amaral, P., Vidal, E., Uhl, C., 1998. Costs and benefits of forest management for
timber production in eastern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 108, 9-26.

Barros, A.C., Uhl, C., 1999. The economic and social significance of logging operations on the
floodplains of the Amazon estuary and prospects for ecological sustainability. In: Padoch,
C., Ayres, J.M., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Henderson, A. (Eds.), Varzea. New York Botanical
Garden Press, New York, NY USA.

Bernard, H.R., 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology, Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Alta Mira Press, Division of Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New
York.

Best, C., Jenkins, M., 1999. Capital Markets and Sustainable Forestry: Opportunities for
Investment. A Report for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 108 pp.

BNDES (Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econ6mico e Social) 2007. Taxa de Juros de
Longo Prazo (revised 19 January 2007). Departamento de Politica Financeira AF/DEPOL,
Brazil. Available at http://www.bndes.gov.br/produtos/download/tjlp.pdf. Accessed
February 13, 2007.

Boggess, W.G., Anaman, K.A., 1984. Farm risks in north Florida: Importance, causes and
farmers' responses. Florida Food and Resource Economics, Publication of the Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, UF, Florida Cooperative Extension Service No. 60.

Borders, B.E., Bailey, R.L., 2001. Loblolly Pine-Pushing the Limits of Growth. Southern
Journal of Applied Forestry 25, 69-74.

Bray, D., 2004. Community Forestry as a Strategy for Sustainable Management: Perspectives
from Quintana Roo, Mexico. In: Zarin, D., Putz, F.J., Schmink, M., Alavalapati, J. (Eds.),
Working Forests in the Tropics: Conservation through Sustainable Management?
Columbia University Press, New York USA.

Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Benjamin, C.E., 2003. Crafting conservation globally and
locally: complex organizations and governance regimes. In: Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen,
P.R., Fortwangler, C.L., West, P.C. (Eds.), Contested Nature: Promoting International
Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century. State University of New York
Press., Albany, NY, pp. 159-182.

Breuer, N.E., 2003. Linking sustainability, food security, and improved worker livelihoods in an
Ecuadorian agroecosystem. PhD dissertation, The Graduate School, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, USA.

Brienen, R.J.W., Zuidema, P.A., 2006. The use of tree rings in tropical forest management:
Projecting timber yields of four Bolivian tree species. Forest Ecology and Management
226: 256-267.









Brondizio, E.S., 2004. From Staple to Fashion Food: Shifting Cycles and Shifting Opportunities
in the Development of the Acai Palm Fruit (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) Economy in the
Amazon Estuary. In: Zarin, D.J., Alavalapati, J.R., Putz, F.E., Schmink, M. (Eds.),
Working Forests in the Neotropics: Conservation through Sustainable Management?
Columbia University Press, New York.

Browder, J.O., Matricardi, E.A.T., Abdala, W.S., 1996. Is sustainable tropical timber production
financially viable? A comparative analysis of mahogany silviculture among small farmers
in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics 16, 147-159.

Browder, J.O., Pedlowski, M.A., 2000. Agroforestry performance on small farms in Amazonia:
Findings from the Rondonia agroforestry pilot project. Agroforestry Systems 49, 63-83.

Brown, S., Gillespie, A., Lugo, A., 1989. Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with
applications to forest inventory data. Forest Science 35, 881-902.

Brown, N., Jennings, S., Clements, T., 2003. The ecology, silviculture and biogeography of
mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla): a critical review of the evidence. Perspectives in Plant
Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 6, 37-49.

Buongiorno, J., Gilless, J.K., 2003. Decision Methods for Forest Resource Management.
Academic Press, New York.

Burns, E.B., 1965. Manaus, 1910-Portrait of a Boom Town. Journal of Interamerican Studies
and World Affairs 7, 400-421.

Camargo, J.L.C., Ferraz, I.D.K., Imakawa, A.M., 2002. Rehabilitation of degraded areas of
central Amazonia using direct sowing of forest tree seeds. Restoration Ecology 10, 636-
644.

Campbell, H., Brown, R., 2003. Benefit-Cost Analysis Financial and Economic Appraisal Using
Spreadsheets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 345 pp.

Cardille, J.A., Foley, J.A., 2003. Agricultural land-use change in Brazilian Amaz6nia between
1980 and 1995: Evidence from integrated satellite and census data. Remote Sensing of
Environment 87, 551-562.

Chambers, J.Q., Santos, J.d., Ribeiro, R.J., Higuchi, N., 2001. Tree damage, allometric
relationships, and above-ground net primary production in central Amazon forest. Forest
Ecology and Management 152, 73-84.

Church, P., Sowers, F., Kumar, K., Kernan, B., 2000. Forestry and the environment: Pakistan
case study. PN-ABW-001, USAID, 89 pp.

Clark, D., Clark, D., 1990. Distribution and effects on tree growth of lianas and woody
hemiepiphytes in a Costa Rican tropical wet forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6: 321-
331.









Cochrane, M.A., Alencar, A., Schulze, M.D., Souza, C.M., Nepstad, D.C., Lefebvre, P.,
Davidson, E.A., 1999. Positive feedbacks in the fire dynamic of closed canopy tropical
forests. Science 284, 1832-1835.

Condit, R., Hubbell, S.P., Foster, R.B., 1993. Identifying fast-growing native trees from the
Neotropics using data from a large, permanent census plot. Forest Ecology and
Management 62, 123-143.

Coomes, O.T., Grimard, F., Burt, G.J., 2000. Tropical forests and shifting cultivation: secondary
forest fallow dynamics among traditional farmers of the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological
Economics 32, 109-124.

Coomes, O.T., Grimard, F., Potvin, C., Sima, P., 2008. The fate of the tropical forest: Carbon or
cattle? Ecological Economics 65, 207-121.

Costa, M., Foley, J., 1998. A comparison of precipitation datasets for the Amazon basin.
Geophysical Research Letters 25: 155-158.

Costa, P.M., 1995. Innoprise-Face Foundation Rainforest Rehabilitation Project (INFAPRO)
Danum Valley Field Centre DRAFT Results and Recommendations for the Research
Programme, 1992 to 1995, 55 pp.

Current, D., Scherr, S.J., 1995. Farmer costs and benefits from agroforestry and farm forestry
projects in Central America and the Caribbean-Implications for policy. Agroforestry
Systems 30, 87-103.

D'Antona, A.O., VanWey, L.K., Hayashi, C.M., 2006. Property size and land cover change in the
Brazilian amazon. Population and Environment 27, 373-396.

Dauber, E., Fredericksen, T.S., Pefia, M., 2005. Sustainability of timber harvesting in Bolivian
tropical forests. Forest Ecology and Management 214, 294-304.

Davidson, R., Gagnon, D., Mauffette, Y., Hernandez, H., 1998. Early survival, growth and foliar
nutrients in native Ecuadorian trees planted on degraded volcanic soil. Forest Ecology and
Management 105, 1-19.

Davidson, R., Mauffette, Y., Gagnon, D., 2002. Light requirements of seedlings: a method for
selecting tropical trees for plantation forestry. Basic and Applied Ecology 3, 209-220.

Dawkins, H.C., 1961. New methods of improving stand composition in tropical forests.
Caribbean Forester Jan-Jun, 12-20.

Dawkins, H.C., Philip, M.S., 1998. Tropical Moist Silviculture and Management: History of
Success and Failure. CAB International, New York.

Dewees, P.A., 1995. Trees on Farms in Malawi: Private Investment, Public Policy, and Farmer
Choice. World Development 23, 1085-1102.









d'Oliveira, M., 2000. Artificial regeneration in gaps and skidding trails after mechanized forest
exploitation in Acre, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 127, 67-76.

Dubois, M.R., Glover, G.R., Straka, T.J., Sutton, M.O., 2001. Historic and Projected Economic
Returns to Alternative Site Preparation Treatments: The Fayette Study. Southern Journal of
Applied Forestry 25: 53-59.

Dunisch, O., Azevedo, C.P., Gasparotto, L., Mont6ia, G.R., Silva, G.J.d., Schwarz, T., 2002a.
Light, water, and nutrient demand for the growth of three high quality timber species
(Meliaceae) of the Amazon. Journal of Applied Botany-Angewandte Botanik 76, 29-40.

Dunisch, O., Schwarz, T., Neves, E.J.M., 2002b. Nutrient fluxes and growth of Carapa
guianensis Aubl. in two plantation systems in the central Amazon. Forest Ecology and
Management 166, 55-68.

Evans, T.P., Moran, E.F., 2002. Spatial Integration of Social and Biophysical Factors Related to
Landcover Change. In: Lutz, W., Prskawetz, a., Sanderson, W.C. (Eds.), Population and
Environment: Methods of Analysis. The Population Council, Inc., New York, pp. 165-186.

Fearnside, P.M., 1993. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia-The effect of population and land
tenure. Ambio 22, 537-545.

Fearnside, P.M., 2000. Global warming and tropical land-use change: Greenhouse gas emissions
from biomass burning, decomposition and soils in forest conversion, shifting cultivation
and secondary vegetation. Climatic Change 46, 115-158.

Fearnside, P.M., 2001a. Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: an issue
that divides the environmental movement. Ecological Economics 39, 167-184.

Fearnside, P.M., 2001b. Land-tenure issues as factors in environmental destruction in Brazilian
Amazonia: The case of southern Para. World Development 29, 1361-1372.

Fearnside, P.M., 2005. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia History, Rates, and Consequences.
Conservation Biology 19, 680-688.

Fearnside, P.M., Guimardes, W.M., 1996. Carbon uptake by secondary forests in Brazilian
Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 80, 35-46.

Fredericksen, T., Putz, F., Pattie, P., Pariona, W., Pefia-Claros, M., 2003. Sustainable forestry in
Bolivia: beyond planned logging. Journal of Forestry 101, 37-40.

Garrido, M., 1975. Silvicultural characters of some indigenous species in pure and mixed stands.
Institute Florestal, Sdo Paulo 9, 63-71.

Gehring, C., Denich, M., Kanashiro, M., Vlek, P.L.G., 1999. Response of secondary vegetation
in Eastern Amazonia to relaxed nutrient availability constraints. Biogeochemistry 45, 223-
241.









Geist, H.J., Lambin, E., 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical
deforestation. Bioscience 52, 143-150.

Gerwing, J., 2001. Testing liana cutting and controlled burning as silvicultural treatments for a
logged forest in the eastern Amazon. Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 1264-1276.

Gerwing, J., 2004. Life history diversity among six species of canopy lianas in an old-growth
forest of the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 190, 57-72.

Gerwing, J., Farias, D., 2000. Integrating liana abundance and forest stature into an estimate of
aboveground biomass for an eastern Amazonian forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16,
327-336.

Gittinger, J., 1982. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore.

Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., Zech, W., 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of
highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal-a review. Biology and Fertility of
Soils 35, 219-230.

Globalwood, 2004. Tropical Timber Product Price Trends. Accessed April 2008 online at
http://www.globalwood.org/.

Gobbi, J.A., 2000. Is biodiversity-friendly coffee financially viable? An analysis of five different
coffee production systems in western El Salvador. Ecological Economics 33, 267-281.

Gomez-Pompa, A., Flores, J.S., Sosa, V., 1987. The "pet kot": a man-made tropical forest of the
Maya. Interciencia 12, 10-15.

Gourlet-Fleury, S., Favrichon, V., Schmitt, L., Petronelli, P., 2004. Consequences of silvicultural
treatments on stand dynamics at Paracou. Elsevier, Paris.

Gordon, B.L.R., 1983. A Panama forest and shore: natural history and Amerindian culture in
Bocas del Toro. Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, California, USA.

Grauel, W., Putz, F., 2004. Effects of lianas on growth and regeneration of Prioria copaifera in
Darien, Panama. Forest Ecology and Management 190, 99-108.

Grogan, J., Barreto, P., Verissimo, A., 2002. Mahogany in the Brazilian Amazon: Ecology and
Perspectives in Management. IMAZON, Belem, Para, Brazil.

Grogan, J., Vidal, E., Schulze, M., 2005. Apoio cientifico para os padres de manejo de madeira
na floresta amaz6nica-a questdo da sustentabilidade. Ci6ncia & Ambiente 32, 103-117.

Grogan, J.E., 2001. Bigleaf Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla King) in southeast Para, Brazil: a
life history study with management guidelines for sustained production from natural forest.
PhD Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.









Grogan, J., S. Jennings, R. M. Landis, M. Schulze, A. Baima, J. Carmo, J. Norghauer, R.
Oliveira, F. Pantoja, D. Pinto, J. Silva, E. Vidal, and B. Zimmerman. 2008. What loggers
leave behind: mahogany population structure and potential for recovery in the Brazilian
Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 269-281.

Gullison, R., Panfil, S., Strouse, J., Hubbell, S., 1996. Ecology and management of mahogany
(Swietenia macrophylla King) in the Chimanes Forest, Beni, Bolivia. Botanical Journal of
the Linnean Society 122, 9-34.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, 4th edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

Hecht, S., Noorgard, R.B., Possio, G., 1988. The economics of cattle ranching in the Eastern
Amazon. Interciencia 13, 233-240.

Heckenberger, M.J., Kuikuro, A., Kuikuro, U.T., Russell, J.C., Schmidt, M., Fausto, C.,
Franchetto, B., 2003. Amazonia 1492: Pristine Forest or Cultural Parkland? Science 301,
1710-1714.

Heinsdijk, D., Miranda Bastos, A., 1963. Inventarios Florestais na Amaz6nia. Bol. 6, Ministerio
de Agriculture, Servigo Florestal, Setor de Inventarios Florestais, Rio de Janeiro.

Hildebrand, P.E., 1986a. Chapter 3 Economic characteristics of small family-farm systems,
section two: On the non-neutrality of scale of agricultural research. In: Hildebrand, P.E.
(Ed.), Perspectives on Farming Systems Research and Extension. Lynne Rienner
Publishers, Boulder, CO, USA, p. 212.

Hildebrand, P.E., 1986b. Perspectives on Farming Systems Research and Extension. Lynne
Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO, USA.

Hoffmann, W., Poorter, H., 2002. Avoiding bias in calculations of relative growth rate. Annals of
Botany 80, 37-42.

Holdsworth, A., Uhl, C., 1997. Fire in eastern Amazonian logged rain forest and the potential for
fire reduction. Ecological Applications 7, 713-725.

Holmes, T., Blate, G., Zweede, J., Pereira, R.J., Barreto, P., Boltz, F., Bauch, R., 2002. Financial
and ecological indicators of reduced impact logging performance in the eastern Amazon.
Forest Ecology and Management 163, 93-110.

INPE, 2007. Institute Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Ministererio da Ciencia Tecnologia.
online at http://www.inpe.br/, accessed 20 November, 2007.

ITTO, 2007. Market Trends. accessed April 2008
http://www.itto.or.jp/live/PageDisplayHandler?pageld=1

Johns, S., Barreto, P., Uhl, C., 1996. Logging damage during planned and unplanned logging
operations in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 89, 59-77.









Justiniano, M., Frederickson, T., Nash, D., 2000. Ecologia y Silvicultura de Especies Menos
Conocidas: Tabijos o Lapchos. BOLFOR, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

Kaimowitz, D., Angelsen, A., 1998. Economic models of tropical deforestation: A review.
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. 139 pp.

Kainer, K., Duryea, M., Costa de Macedo, N. and K. Williams, 1998. Brazil nut seedling
establishment and autecology in extractive reserves of Acre, Brazil. Ecological
Applications 8, 397-410.

Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., Gomes-Silva, D.A.P., Capanu, M., 2006. Liana loads and their
association with Bertholletia excelsa fruit and nut production, diameter growth and crown
attributes. Journal of Tropical Ecology 22, 147-154.

Kammesheidt, L., 2002. Perspectives on secondary forest management in tropical humid lowland
America. Ambio 31, 243-250.

Kaya, B., Hildebrand, P.E., Nair, P.K.R., 2000. Modeling changes in farming systems with the
adoption of improved fallows in southern Mali. Agricultural Systems 66, 51-68.

Keller, M., Palace, M., Asner, G., Pereira, R., Silva, J., 2004. Coarse woody debris in
undisturbed and logged forests in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Global Change Biology
10, 784-795.

Keller, M., Palace, M., Hurtt, G., 2001. Biomass estimation in the Tapajos National Forest,
Brazil Examination of sampling and allometric uncertainties. Forest Ecology and
Management 154, 371-382.

Lamb, D., Erskine, P.D., Parrotta, J., 2005. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes.
Science 310, 1628-1632.

Lamb, F., 1966. Mahogany of Tropical America: Its Ecology and Management. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Lambin, E., Geist, H., 2003. Regional Differences in Tropical Deforestation. Environment 45,
22-36.

Landis, R.M., Peart, D.R., 2005. Early Performance Predicts Canopy Attainment across Life
Histories in Subalpine Forest Trees. Ecology 86: 63-72.

Lehmann, J., Jr., J.P.d.S., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., Glaser, B., 2003. Nutrient availability
and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin:
fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant and Soil 249, 343-357.

Lentini, M., Verissimo, A., Sobral, L., 2003. Fatos Florestais da Amaz6nia 2003. Institute do
Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amaz6nia (Imazon), Belem, Para.









Litow, P., Baker, M., Hildebrand, P., Swidden. 2001. Agriculture in a Forest Society: Livelihood
Strategies in the Maya Biosphere Reserve Community of Uaxactun, Peten, Guatemala.
Available online at
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/aged/research/bakerpaul.pdf#search='ethnographic%201inear%20
programming' Accessed June 2008.

Long, A.J., Nair, P.K.R., 1999. Trees outside forests: agro-, community, and urban forestry. New
Forests 17, 145-174.

Lowe, R., Walker, P., 1977. Classification of canopy, stem, crown status, and climber infestation
in natural tropical forest in Nigeria. Journal of Applied Ecology 14, 897- 903.

Lundell, C.L., 1938. The vegetation of Peten. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington,
DC, USA.

Lynch, O.J., 1992. Securing community-based tenurial rights in the tropical forests of Asia. PN-
ACB-404, World Resources Institute, 12 pp.

Macmillan, D., Harley, D., Morrison, R., 1998. Cost-effectiveness analysis of woodland
ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics 27, 313-324.

Markewitz, D., Davidson, E., Figueiredo, R., Victoria, R., Krusche, A., 2001. Control of cation
concentrations in stream waters by surface soil processes in an Amazonian watershed.
Nature 410, 802-805.

Mattos, M., Uhl, C.F., 1994. Economic and ecological perspectives on ranching in the Eastern
Amazon. World Development 22, 145-158

Mayhew, J.E., Newton, A.C., 1998. The Silviculture of Mahogany. CABI Publishing, New York,
New York, USA.

McCracken, S.D., Brondizio, E.S., Nelson, D., Moran, E.F., Siqueira, A.D., Rodriguez-Pedraza,
C., 1999. Remote sensing and GIS at farm property level: Demography and deforestation
in the Brazilian Amazon. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65,
1311-1320.

Mead, D., 2005. Opportunities for improving plantation productivity. How much? How quickly?
How realistic? Biomass & Bioenergy 28, 249-266.

Merry, E., 2001. Effects of vine cutting on understory birds in a Bolivian lowland forest:
implications for management. MS Thesis University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.

Merry, F.D., Amacher, G.S., 2005. Forest Taxes, Timber Concessions, and Policy Choices in the
Amazon. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 20, 15-44.

Merry, F.D., Hildebrand, P.E., Pattie, P., Carter, D.R., 2002. An analysis of land conversion from
sustainable forestry to pasture: a case study in the Bolivian Lowlands. Land Use Policy 19,
207-215.









Mertens, B., Poccard-Chapuis, R., Piketty, M.-G., Lacques, A.-E., Venturieri, A., 2002. Crossing
spatial analyses and livestock economics to understand deforestation processes in the
Brazilian Amazon: the case of Sdo Felix do Xingu in South Para. Agricultural Economics
27, 269-294.

Ministerio do Meio Ambiente (MMA), 2001. National Forests Program PNF. Ministry of the
Environment, Brasilia, Brazil, 56 pp. Retrieved on 14 October 2004 from
http://www.mma.gov.br

Montagnini, F., Eibl, B., Grance, L., Maiocco, D. and D. Nozzi, 1997. Enrichment planting in
overexploited subtropical forests of the Paranaense region of Missiones, Argentina. Forest
Ecology and Management 99, 237-246.

Montagnini, F., Jordan, C.F., 2005. Tropical forest ecology: the basis for conservation and
management Springer, New York. 295 pp.

Mueller, B., 1997. Property rights and the evolution of a frontier. Land Economics 73, 42-57.

Murray, G.F., 1987. Chapter 17 The domestication of wood in Haiti: A case study in applied
evolution. In: Wulff, R., Fiske, S. (Eds.), Anthropological Praxis: Translating Knowledge
into Action. Westview, Boulder, CO, USA, 223-240 pp.

Myster, R.W., 2002. Foliar pathogen and insect herbivore effects on two landslide tree species in
Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management 169, 231-242.

Nelson, B., 1994. Natural forest disturbance and change in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote
Sensing Reviews 10, 105-125.

Nelson, B., Kapos, V., Adams, J., Oliveira, W., Braun, O., Amaral, I., 1994. Forest disturbance
by large blowdowns in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecology 75, 853-858.

Nelson, B.W., Mesquita, R., Pereira, J.L.G., de Souza, S.G.A., Batista, G.T., Couto, L.B., 1999.
Allometric regressions for improved estimate of secondary forest biomass in the central
Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 117, 149-167.

Nepstad, D., Carvalho, G., Barros, A.C., Alencar, A., Capobianco, J.P., Bishop, J., Moutinho, P.,
Lefebvre, P., Jr., U.L.S., Prins, E., 2001. Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the
future of Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154, 395-407.

Nepstad, D., Uhl, C., Pereira, C. and Jose Maria Cardoso da Silva, 1998. Comparative do
cresimento de arvores em pastos abandonados e florestas adults da Amazonia oriental.
Chapter 13 in Floresta Amazonica: Dinamica, Regeneracao e Manejo. Gascon, C. and P.
Montinho, eds. INPA.

Nepstad, D.C., Moreira, A.G., Alencar, A.A., 1999. A Floresta em Chamas: Origens, Impactos e
Prevencgo de Fogo na Amaz6nia. Program Piloto para a Protecgo das Florestas Tropicais
do Brasil, Brasilia, Brasil.









Nepstad, D.C., Uhl, C., Serrao, E.A.S., 1991. Recuperation of a degraded Amazonian landscape:
forest recovery and agricultural restoration. Ambio 20, 248-255.

Nghiep, L.T., 1986. The land rotation farming system in northern Brazil: Conditions for its
continuation and transition to the sedentary cultivation system. No. 34, International
Development Center of Japan (IDJC), Tokyo, Japan.

Nichols, J.D., Rosemeyer, M.E., Carpenter, F.L., Kettler, J., 2001. Intercropping legume trees
with native timber trees rapidly restores cover to eroded tropical pasture without
fertilization. Forest Ecology and Management 152, 195-209.

Nogueira, E.M., Nelson, B.W., Fearnside, P.M., 2005. Wood density in dense forest in central
Amazonia, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 208, 261-286.

Otsuka, K., Quisumbing, A., Payongayong, E., Aidoo, J., 2003. Land tenure and the management
of land and trees: the case of customary land tenure areas of Ghana. Environment and
Development Economics 8, 77-104.

Overman, J.P.M., Witte, H.J.L., Saldarriaga, J.G., 1994. Evaluation of regression models for
above-ground biomass determination in Amazon rainforest. Journal of Tropical Ecology
10, 207-218.

Padoch, C., Ayres, J.M., Pinedo-Vaquez, M., Henderson, A., 1999. Varzea Diversity,
Development, and Conservation of Amazonia's Whitewater Floodplains. The New York
Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, New York USA.

Peart, D., 1996. Enrichment planting with native species to increase the economic value of
selectively-logged rain forest. PN-ABY-024, USAID/Indonesia, 29 pp.

Pena-Claros, M., Boot, R.G.A., Dorado-Lora, J., Zonta, A., 2002. Enrichment planting of
Bertholletia excelsa in secondary forest in the Bolivian Amazon: effect of cutting line
width on survival, growth and crown traits. Forest Ecology and Management 161, 159-
168.

Pereira, C., Uhl, C., 1998. Crescimento de arvores de valor econ6mico em areas de pastagens
abandonadas no nordeste do estado do Para. Chapter 16 in Floresta Amaz6nica: Dindmica,
Regeneracgo e Manejo. Gascon, C. and P. Montinho, eds. INPA 249-260.

Pereira, R., Zweede, J., Asner, G.P., Keller, M., 2002. Forest canopy damage and recovery in
reduced-impact and conventional selective logging in eastern Para, Brazil. Forest Ecology
and Management 168, 77-89.

Perez-Salicrup, D., Schnitzer, S., Putz, F., 2004. Community ecology and management of lianas.
Forest Ecology and Management 190, 1-2.

Perreault, T., 2005. Why Chacras (swidden gardens) persist: agrobiodiversity, food security, and
cultural identity in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Human Organization 64, 327-339.









Perz, S.G., 2001. Household demographic factors as life cycle determinants of land use in the
Amazon. Population Research and Policy Review 20, 159-186.

Perz, S.G., 2003. Social Determinants and Land Use Correlates of Agricultural Technology
Adoption in a Forest Frontier: A Case Study in the Brazilian Amazon. Human Ecology 31,
133-165.

Perz, S.G., Skole, D.L., 2003. Secondary Forest Expansion in the Brazilian Amazon and the
Refinement of Forest Transition Theory. Society and Natural Resources 16, 277-294.

Phillips, P.D., Azevedo, C.P.d., Degen, B., Thompson, I.S., J.N.M.Silva, Gardingen, P.R.v.,
2004. An individual-based spatially explicit simulation model for strategic forest
management planning in the eastern Amazon. Ecological Modeling 173, 335-354.

Pimentel, D., Stachow, U., Takacs, D.A., Brubaker, H.W., Dumas, A.R., Meaney, J.J., O'Neal,
J.A.S., Onsi, D.E., Corzilius, D.B., 1992. Conserving biological diversity in
agricultural/forestry systems. Bioscience 42, 354-362.

Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Zarin, D.J., Coffey, K., Padoch, C., Rabelo, F., 2001. Post-boom logging in
Amazonia. Human Ecology 29.

Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Zarin, D., Jipp, P., 1992. Economic returns from forest conversion in the
Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Economics 6, 163-173.

Pires, J., Prance, G., 1985. The vegetation types of the Brazilian Amazon. In: Prance, G.,
Lovejoy, T. (Eds.), Key Environments Amazonia. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England UK.

Pukkala, T., 1998. Multiple risks in multi-objective forest planning: integration and importance.
Forest Ecology and Management 11, 265-284.

Putz, F., 1984. The natural history of lianas on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Ecology 65,
1713-1724.

Putz, F., 1995. Vines in treetops: consequences of mechanical dependence. In: Lowman, M.,
Nadkarni, N. (Eds.), Forest Canopies. Academic Press, San Diego CA USA, pp. 311-323.

Putz, F.E., Redford, K.H., Robinson, J.G., Fimbel, R., Blate, G.M., 2000. Biodiversity
Conservation in the Context of Tropical Forest Management. Washington DC, USA, 80
pp.

RADAMBRASIL, 1974. Levantamento de Recursos Naturais. Ministerio das Minas e Energia,
Departamento de Producgo Mineral, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Ragsdale, C.T., 2007. Spreadsheet Modeling and Decision Analysis A Practical Introduction to
Management Science, Fifth edition. Thompson Higher Education, Mason, Ohio.

Ramirez, A., Sere, C., Uquillas, J., 1992. An Economic-Analysis of Improved Agroforestry
Practices in the Amazon Lowlands of Ecuador. Agroforestry Systems 17, 65-86.









Ramos, J.M., Amo, S.d., 1992. Enrichment planting in a tropical secondary forest in Veracruz,
Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 54, 289-304.

Ricker, M., Mendelsohn, R.O., Daly, D.C., Angeles, G., 1999. Enriching the rainforest with
native fruit trees: an ecological and economic analysis in Los Tuxtlas (Veracruz, Mexico).
Ecological Economics 31, 439-448.

Rockwell, C., Kainer, K.A., Marcondes, N., Baraloto, C., 2007. Ecological limitations of
reduced-impact logging at the smallholder scale. Forest Ecology and Management 238,
365-374.

Rolim, S., Couto, H., Jesus, R., Franca, J., 2006. Volumetric models for Tapirape-Aquiri
National Forest (Para, Brazil). Acta Amazonia 36, 107-114.

Saatchi, S.S., Houghton, R.A., Santos, R.C.D., Soares, J.V., Yu, Y., 2007. Distribution of
aboveground live biomass in the Amazon basin. Global Change Biology 13, 816-837.

Sack, L., Grubb, P.J., 2001. Why do species of woody seedlings change rank in relative growth
rate between low and high irradiance? Functional Ecology 15, 145-154.

Salleh, M.N., 1997. Enhancing the productive functions of tropical rain forest: a challenging
goal. Unasylva 190/191. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/

Santos, V., Ledesma, S., Negreros, C., 1998. Community Based Forest Management:
Organizacion de ejidos productores forestales en la zona Maya (OEPFZM) Management.
Mexico. [special] The World Bank/ WBI's CBNRM Initiative. The World Bank, 6

SAS Institute Inc., 1996. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements through Release
6.11, Cary, NC, USA.

Schroth, G., D'Angelo, S.A., Teixeira, W.G., Haag, D., Lieberei, R., 2002. Conversion of
secondary forest into agroforestry and monoculture plantations in Amazonia: consequences
for biomass, litter and soil carbon stocks after 7 years. Forest Ecology and Management
163, 131-150.

Schroth, G., Silva, L.F.d., Seixas, R., Teixeira, W.G., Macedo, J.L.V., Zech, W., 1999. Subsoil
accumulation of mineral nitrogen under polyculture and monoculture plantations, fallow
and primary forest in a ferralitic Amazonian upland soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 75, 109-120.

Schulze, M., 2003. Ecology and behavior of nine timber tree species in Para, Brazil: Links
between species life history, forest management and conservation. PhD dissertation,
Graduate School College of Science, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA.

Schulze, M., 2008. Technical and financial analysis of enrichment planting in logging gaps as a
potential component of forest management in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and
Management 255, 866-879.









Schulze, P.C., Leighton, M., Peart, D.R., 1994. Enrichment planting in selectively logged rain
forest: A combined ecological and economic analysis. Ecological Applications 43, 581-
592.

Schulze, M., Vidal, E., Grogan, J., Zweede, J., Zarin, D., 2005. Madeiras nobres em perigo:
praticas e leis atuais de manejo florestal ndo garantem a exploracgo sustentavel. Ci6ncia
Hoje 36, 66-69.

Schulze, M., Zweede, J., 2006. Canopy dynamics in unlogged and logged forest stands in the
eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 236, 56-64.

Sears, R.R., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., 2004. Chapter 14 Axing the trees, growing the forest:
smallholder timber production on the Amazon varzea. In: Zarin, D.J., Schmink, M., Putz,
F.E., Alavalapati, J. (Eds.), Working Forests in the Tropics-Conservation through
Sustainable Management? Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 258-275.

Shriar, A.J., 2002. Food security and land use deforestation in northern Guatemala. Food Policy
27, 395-414.

Silva, J.F.d., Viegas, I.d.J.M., Frazdo, D.A.C., Thomas, M.A.A., Silveira, J.L., 2002a. Avaliacgo
do efeito da adubacgo NPK no cresimento de Gravioleira no municipio de Sao Francisco
do Para. Ministerio da Agricultura, Pecuaria e Abastecimento Comunicado Tecnico.

Silva, J.N.M., 1989. The Behavior of the Tropical Rain Forest of the Brazilian Amazon after
Logging. PhD dissertation, Oxford Forestry Institute Department of Plant Sciences,
University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.

Silva, J.N.M., 2001. Manejo Florestal. Embrapa Amazonia Oriental, Brasilia, Brasil.

Silva, J.N.M., Carvalho, M., 1984. Equac6es de volume para uma floresta secundaria no planalto
do Tapaj6s-Belterra, PA. Boletim do Pesquisa Florestal Curitiba 8/9, 1-15.

Silva, J.N.M., Carvalho, J.O.P.d., Lopes, J.D.A., Dealmeida, B.F., Costa, D.H.M., DeOliveira,
L.C., Vanclay, J.K., Skovsgaard, J.P., 1995. Growth and yield of a tropical rain forest in
the Brazilian Amazon 13 years after logging. Forest Ecology and Management 71, 267-
274.

Silva, J.N.M., Carvalho, J.O.P.d., Lopes, J.d.C.A., Oliveira, R.P.d., Oliveira, L.C.d., 1996.
Growth and yield studies in the Tapaj6s region, Central Brazilian Amazon.
Commonwealth Forestry Review 75, 325-329.

Silva, M., 2005. The Brazilian protected areas program. Conservation Biology 19, 608-611.

Silva, R.P.d., Santos, J.d., Tribuzy, E.S., Chambers, J.Q., Nakamura, S., Higuchi, N., 2002b.
Diameter increment and growth patterns for individual trees growing in Central Amazon,
Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 166, 295-301.









Simmons, C.S., Walker, R.T., Wood, C.H., 2002. Tree planting by small producers in the
tropics: A comparitive study of Brazil and Panama. Agroforestry Systems 56, 89-105.

Smith, J., Applegate, G., 2004. Could payments for forest carbon contribute to improved tropical
forest management? Forest Policy and Economics 6, 153-167.

Smith, S.C., 1997. Environment, Debt, and Development: Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon
Rain Forest. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., New York, USA.

Snook, L., 1993. Stand dynamics of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla King) and associated
species after fire and hurricane in the tropical forests of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.
PhD dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT USA.

South, D., Harris, S., Barnett, J., Hainds, M., Gjerstad, D., 2005. Effect of container type and
seedling size on survival and early height growth of Pinuspalustris seedlings in Alabama,
USA. Forest Ecology and Management 204, 385-398.

South, D., Zwolinski, J., Donald, D., 1993. Interactions among seedling diameter grade, weed-
control, and soil cultivation for Pinus radiata in South Africa. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 23, 2078-2082.

Souza, D.R.D., Souza, A.L.D., Silva, M.L.d., Rodrigues, F.L., 2004. Optimum economic cutting
cycle in a terra firme dense ombrophylous forest under sustained management, eastern
Amazon. Revista Arvore 28, 681-689.

Souza, R.P.D., Valio, I.F.M., 2001. Seed size, seed germination, and seedling survival of
Brazilian tropical tree species differing in successional status. Biotropica 33, 447-457.

Stainback, G.A., Alavalapati, J.R.R., 2002. Economic analysis of slash pine forest carbon
sequestration in the southern U.S. Journal of Forest Economics 8, 105-117.

Summers, P.M., Browder, J.O., Pedlowski, M.A., 2004. Tropical forest management and
silvicultural practices by small farmers in the Brazilian Amazon: recent farm-level
evidence from Rond6nia. Forest Ecology and Management 192, 161-177.

Thacher, T., Lee, D.R., Schelhas, J., 1997. Farmer participation in reforestation incentive
programs in Costa Rica Agroforestry Systems. Agroforestry Systems 35, 269-289.

Tinker, P.B., Ingrama, J.S.I., Struweb, S., 1996. Effects of slash-and-burn agriculture and
deforestation on climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 58, 13-22.

Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Vosti, S.A., Witcover, J., 1998. Agricultural development
with rainforest conservation: Methods for seeking best bet alternatives to slash-and-burn,
with applications to Brazil and Indonesia. Agricultural Economics 19, 159-174.

Uhl, C., 1987. Factors controlling succession following slash-and-burn agriculture in Amazonia.
Journal of Ecology 75, 377-407.









Uhl, C., Barreto, P., Verissimo, A., Vidal, E., Amaral, P., Barros, A.C., Jr., C.S., Johns, J.,
Gerwing, J., 1997. Natural resource management in the Brazilian Amazon. Bioscience 47,
160-168.

Uhl, C., Clark, K., Dezzeo, N., Maquirino, P., 1988. Vegetation dynamics in Amazonian treefall
gaps. Ecology 69, 751-763.

Uhl, C., Nepstad, D., Silva, J.M.C.d., Vieira, I., 1991. RestoraCgo da Floresta em Pastagens
Degradadas. Ci6ncia Hoje 141-149.

Valle, D., Phillips, P., Vidal, E., Schulze, M., Grogan, J., Sales, M., Gardigen, P.v., 2007.
Adaptation of a spatially explicit individual tree-based growth and yield model and long-
term comparison between reduced-impact and conventional logging in eastern Amazonia,
Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 243, 187-198.

Valle, D., Schulze, M., Vidal, E., Grogan, J., Sales, M., 2006. Identifying bias in stand-level
growth and yield estimations: a case study in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology
and Management 236, 127-135.

van Gardingen, P., Valle, D., Thompson, I., 2006. Evaluation of yield regulation options for
primary forest in Tapaj6s National Forest, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 231,
184-195.

Verissimo, A., 2005. Forest management and conservation in the Brazilian Amazon. Presentation
at Working Forests in the Tropics: Policy and Market Impacts on Conservation and
Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.

Verissimo, A., Cochrane, M.A., Jr., C.S., Salomdo, R., 2002. Priority Areas for Establishing
National Forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Conservation Ecology 6, 4.

Vidal, E.J., 2004. Dindmica de Florestas Manejadas e sob ExploraCgo Convencional na
Amaz8nia Oriental. Doctoral dissertation, Ciencias da Engenharia Ambiental, Escola de
Engenharia de Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo.

Vidal, E., Viana, V., Batista, J., 2002. Crescimento de floresta tropical tr6s anos ap6s colheita de
madeira com e sem manejo florestal na Amaz6nia oriental. Scientia Forestalis 61, 133-143.

Vielhauer, K., Kanashiro, M., Sa, T.D.D.A., Denich, M., Technology development of slash-and-
mulch and of fallow enrichment in shifting cultivation systems of the Eastern Amazon,
1998. In, Proceedings of the Third SHIFT Workshop, Manaus, Brasil, March 15-19, 1998,
Studies on Human Impact on Forests and Floodplains in the Tropics: A German-Brazilian
Program, pp. 49-59.

Virginia Tech, 1996. Planting the seeds of change in the ashes of the rainforest. The Fredonia
Agroforestry Pilot Project. Available online at
http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/1999resmag/change.html









Vliet, O.V., Faaij, A., Dieperink, C., 2003. Forestry projects under the clean development
mechanism? Modelling of the Uncertainties in Carbon Mitigation and Related Costs of
Plantation Forestry Projects. Climatic Change 61, 123-156.

Wadsworth, F., Zweede, J., 2006. Liberation: acceptable production of tropical forest timber.
Forest Ecology and Management 233, 45-51. Forest Ecology and Management 233, 45-51.

Walker, R., 2003. Mapping process to pattern in the landscape change of the Amazonian
Frontier. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93, 376-398.

Walker, R., Moran, E., Anselin, L., 2000. Deforestation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian
Amazon: External capital and household processes. World Development 28, 683-699.

Walters, B.B., 1997. Human ecological questions for tropical restoration: experiences from
planting native upland trees and mangroves in the Philippines. Forest Ecology and
Management 99, 275-290.

Winterbottom, R., Hazelwood, P.T., 1987. Agroforestry and sustainable development: making
the connection. Ambio 16, 100-110.

Wise, R., Cacho, 0., 2005. A bioeconomic analysis of carbon sequestration in farm forestry: a
simulation study of Gliricidia sepium. Agroforestry Systems 64, 237-250.

Wiseman, F.M., 1978. Agricultural and Historical Ecology of the Maya Lowlands, pages 63-115
in Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture. University of New Mexico Press, USA.

Witcover, J., Vosti, S.A., Carpentier, C.L., Gomes, T., 2006. Impacts of soil quality differences
on deforestation, use of cleared land, and farm income. Environment and Development
Economics 11: 343-370.

World Resources Institute (WRI), 1985. Tropical Forests: A Call for Action, Part I The Plan and
Part II Case Studies. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. Part I: 49 pp., Part II, 55
pp.

Yamada, M., Gholz, H.L., 2002. Growth and yield of some indigenous trees in an Amazonian
agroforestry system: a rural-history-based analysis. Agroforestry Systems 55, 17-26.

Zarin, D., Schulze, M., Vidal, E., Lentini, M., 2007. Beyond reaping the first harvest:
Management objectives for timber production inthe Brazilian Amazon. Conservation
Biology 21, 916-925.

Zhou, W., 1999. Risk-based selection of forest regeneration methods. Forest Ecology and
Management 115, 85-92.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kelly Keefe's experience in tropical forest ecology and conservation includes a BA from

New College of Florida, with undergraduate thesis research in Belize, and an MA from Yale

University based on field research in Costa Rica. She is a member of the Board of Directors of

the Institute of Tropical Ecology and Conservation (ITEC), which does conservation and

education in Panama, and the director of ITEC's Forest Restoration program in Panama.

Participation in local conservation is also important to Kelly, so she is a member of Gainesville's

Watershed Action Volunteers and worked with the Alachua County Environmental Protection

Department's "Alachua County Forever" program as a land biologist intern during her doctoral

studies.





PAGE 1

ENRICHMENT PLANTING OF NATI VE TREE SPECIES IN THE EASTERN AMAZON OF BRAZIL: SILVICULTURAL, FINANCIAL, AND HOUSEHOLD ASSESSMENTS By KELLY JEAN KEEFE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Kelly Jean Keefe 2

PAGE 3

To Suzana 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the Instituto Floresta Tropical for inspiration and ongoing support; the gracious families and logging professionals who hosted me and answered my endless questions; Dr. Daniel Zarin, Dr. Janaki Alavalapati, Dr. Peter Hildebrand, Dr. Karen Kainer, and Dr. Jack Putz of my advi sory committee for thorough and insightful coaching; Lucas Fortini for tireless transl ating and assistance (and photography!); Dr. Mark Schulze for valuable ideas and inpu t; and Dr. Daniel Nepstad for access to interesting long-term tree growth data. I th ank my family and friends for their steadfast support. Funding was provided by a Working Fo rests in the Tropics fellowship at the University of Florida, supported by th e National Science Foundation (DGE-0221599). 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... .9ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 12Research Objectives and Methods ..........................................................................................14Costs of Long-Term Tree Care ...............................................................................................15Long-Term Effects of Treatments ..........................................................................................18Conclusion and Implications ..................................................................................................2 02 ENRICHMENT PLANTING AS A SI LVICULTURAL OPTION IN THE EASTERN AMAZON: CASE STUDY OF FAZENDA CAUAXI .......................................22Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........22Methods ..................................................................................................................................25Planting Site Description .................................................................................................25Site Preparation and Enrichment Methodology ..............................................................26Analysis of Enrichment Planting .....................................................................................28Results .....................................................................................................................................31Distribution of Liana Forest at Cauaxi ............................................................................31Species Performance in Liana Forest Enrichment Planting Areas ..................................32Projections of Harvest Ti mes and Future Yields .............................................................33Discussion .................................................................................................................... ...........34Growth .............................................................................................................................34Tending Regime ..............................................................................................................35Production Potential ........................................................................................................35Staggered Harvests from Liana Forest Enrichment Sites: The Paric, Mogno, Ip Model .................................................................................................................36Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ..........373 IS ENRICHMENT PLANTING WORTH ITS COSTS? A FINANCIAL COSTBENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR AN AMAZON FOREST .........................................................49Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........49Methods ..................................................................................................................................51 5

PAGE 6

Results .....................................................................................................................................56Discussion .................................................................................................................... ...........57Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ..........634 EARLY PLANTING TREATMENT EX PERIMENTS: GROWTH AND SURVIVAL OF PLANTED FRUIT AND TIMBER SPECIES WITH AND WITHOUT TREATMENTS IN PA RAGOMINAS, PAR, BRAZIL ..................................67Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........67Site Description ......................................................................................................................68Experiment One: Site Prepar ation and Maintenance Study ...................................................68Site Preparation and Maintenance Results .............................................................................69Treatment Effects ............................................................................................................6 9Species Effects .................................................................................................................70Species X Treatment Effects ...........................................................................................71Experiment Two: Fertilization Study .....................................................................................71Discussion and Conclusions ...................................................................................................745 ANALYSIS OF ENRICHMENT PLANTING BY SMALLHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY OF MAZAGO, AMAPA, BRAZIL ...........................................................80Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........80Materials and methods ......................................................................................................... ...82Family Farming Systems .................................................................................................82Model ......................................................................................................................... ......83Observations .................................................................................................................. ..84Model Formulation ..........................................................................................................85Scenarios ..................................................................................................................... .....88Results .....................................................................................................................................89Discussion and Conclusions: Lessons Offered by Vrzea Farmers .......................................906 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... ...98 APPENDIX A FINANCIAL COSTS OF ENRICHME NT PLANTING, YEARS 0-60, AT FAZENDA CAUAXI, PAR, BRAZIL ...............................................................................107B RESULTS OF SITE TREATMENTS AT FAZENDA VITORIA.......................................110C MEAN DIAMETER AND HEIGHT FOR FE RTILIZATION EXPERIMENT AT FAZENDA VITORIA ...........................................................................................................112LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................115BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................132 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Vine tangle enrichment planti ng sites at Fazenda Cauaxi ................................................ 402-2 Extent of liana forest in 560 ha of unlogged forest, Fazenda Cauaxi ............................... 412-3 Mean annual diameter growth rates of tree seedlings in vine forest enrichment plantings, Fazenda Cauaxi ................................................................................................ 412-4 Projected size (DBH in cm) at year 30 after planting for in dividuals of three timber tree species in vine-forest enrich ment plantings based on observed sizes and growth rates of individuals in experimental planting areas from 1997-2005, Fazenda Cauaxi ................................................................................................................ 423-1 Scenarios of enrichment planting in cond itions of alternate cost s, alternate yields, additional benefits, and policy support. ............................................................................ 653-2 Sensitivity analysis of influences on en richment planting economic indicators. ............. 664-1 Fertilization experiment growth rate results ..................................................................... 795-1 Factors that influence landholders decision to conduct EP ............................................. 935-2 Hypotheses, test methods, results, and in terpretations of mode led EP scenarios on farm systems in Mazago community .............................................................................. 945-3 Sensitivity analyses of payment scenarios for enrichment planting. ................................ 956-1 Lessons learned about what encourages EP and suggestions for promoting EP. ........... 106A-1 Labor wages for workers at Fazenda Cauaxi .................................................................. 107A-2 Costs associated with enrichment plan ting at Fazenda Cauaxi, in US dollars (2004 average exchange rate of 2.91) ....................................................................................... 108B-1 Height, DBH, and survivorship results of site treatments at Fazenda Vitoria ................ 110C-1 Mean diameter and height of species with and without NPK fertilizer and addition of manure, administered in the first year after planting .................................................. 113 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Size distribution of liana forest patches in harv est blocks at Cikel .................................. 432-2 Stand maps of two management blocks at Fazenda Cauaxi ............................................. 442-3 Commercial timber volume (nondefectiv e stems of commercial species) per hectare ....................................................................................................................... ........ 452-4 Species mean and 75th growth rates in years 1-8 af ter planting in liana forest enrichment planting areas, Fazenda Cauaxi ...................................................................... 462-5 Species mean, 75th percentile and maximum diameters in years 1-8 after planting seedlings in vine-forest enrichment planting areas, Fazenda Cauaxi. .............................. 472-6 Staggered tree development and harvest in a three-species enrichment planting ............. 484-1 Treatment effects: Mean height of site preparation treatment groups in 1991, 2003 ....... 764-2 Treatment effects: Mean DBH in 2003 of site preparation treatment groups in 2003................................................................................................................................... 764-3 Species effects: Mean height of each species with treatments in1991 ............................. 774-4 Species effects: Mean height of each species with treatments in 2003 ............................ 774-5 Species effects: Mean diameter at breast height (DBH) of each species with treatments in 2003 ............................................................................................................ 785-1 ELP Sensitivity analysis results of in itial payment without monthly stipend for enrichment planting (Scenario 2) and in itial payment plus monthly stipend (Scenario 3). ...................................................................................................................... 96 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BCR Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) indicates th e monetary value of a project per money invested. It is calculated using present values for project costs and benefits. ELP Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP ) is an Excel-based model based on Linear Programming used in Decision Sc iences. Family activities, timing, and cultural factors such as division of la bor between men, women and children are included in ELP. EP Enrichment planting (EP) here refers to a set of techniques used to increase densities of native tree species when natural regeneration does not meet land management goals. IRR Internal rate of return (IRR) is a meas ure of investment success. It is the yearly increase (or decrease) in yield that can be attained from an investment. NPV Net present value (NPV) is the current fi nancial value of a project given costs and benefits that may occur in the future, wh ich have been translated into todays values. RIL Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) refers to a harvest system that includes careful planning and execution of all phases of a logging operation with the goals of limiting damage to the residual stand, im proving efficiency of operations, and reducing waste. RIL involves substantial investment in training of personnel and in preharvest operations ff that are essential to sound forest management. 9

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ENRICHMENT PLANTING OF NA TIVE TREE SPECIES IN THE EASTERN AMAZON OF BRAZIL: SILVICULTURAL, FINANCIAL, AND HOUSEHOLD ASSESSMENTS By Kelly Jean Keefe August 2008 Chair: Daniel Zarin Major: Forest Resources and Conservation Enrichment planting (EP) is a silvicultura l tool capable of adding long-term value to forests. Here EP case studies and experime ntal trials are assessed at two scales: large industrial and family farm planting. Tree growth responses to treatments are reported. Financial cost-benefit analysis (CBA) a nd Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) are used to determine sensitivity to shortand long-term costs and benefits. The goal is to define factors that promote or hinder EP in order to help inform landholders and policy makers of effective use of EP. A case study in the Brazilian Amazon revealed that EP produces multiple timber harvests but may be expensive without shortterm financial benefits. Sensitivity analysis of costs and benefits showed that revenue fr om activities additional to EP, such as carbon sequestration payments, can make EP profitable. A social appraisa l of EP may reveal social benefits that would justify gover nmental, financial, and policy support. Fertilization and site preparation experiments showed that they produce little benefit in growth and survival and therefore may incur unnecessary expenses in these settings. Considering the finding of the CBA results and the treatment experiments, it is suggested

PAGE 11

11 that early costs be kept low and therefore planting treatments kept to a minimum. The particular minimum treatment depends on species and site conditions. Relative abundance of EP by smallholders is intriguing given difficulties some large companies experience when implemen ting EP. ELP was used to assess planting conducted by Amazon smallholders. Diverse short-term benefits, multitasking, low opportunity costs, low start-up costs, reliable tree survivor ship and ability to care for planted trees promoted EP among smallholders. As for industrial foresters, monetary payments for EP are also an effective incentive. Both industrial planters and smallholders need short-term benefits and minimal costs but there are differences between the sc ales. Industrial planters perceive financial benefits; biodiversity conservation or local economy stability are external. To make them internal, and thereby make EP more feasible, ex ternal benefits need to be translated into shorter-term financial gains for the companie s. Smallholders respond well to payments and other non-financial benefits. Differences between scales should be considered when developing policies or programs to encourage EP.

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Our study examined enrichment planting practic ed at industrial and small farm scales, including its costs and benefits, and settings which seem to en courage or discourage planting. Enrichment planting (EP) here refers to a set of techniques used to increase densities of native tree species when natural regene ration does not meet land management goals. Specifically, my focus is on timber species for future harvest in the eastern Amazon. Enrichment planting includes stocking of stands that have uneven distribution of natural regeneration (partial planting) as well as restocking a site that has poor natural regeneration overall. Types of EP include line, strip, gap, group, and diffuse plan tings as well as underplanting (Costa, 1995; Mayhew and Newton, 1998; Monta gnini, 1997; Schulze, 2003; Silva, 1989; Vielhauer et al., 1998). The goal of this dissertati on is to provide information that may help conservationists, forest managers, and policy makers decide if and how to encourage EP. Lessons from this research may apply broadly to tropical forested regions, but should be generalized only with caution since the research consists of case studies from the eastern Amazon. Our study contributes to existing knowle dge regarding tree planting by providing a synthesis of published information about enrichment planting in the Br azillian Amazon (Chapter 1), descriptions of case studies (Chapters 2 and 5), deta iled cost and benefit informati on and results of financial cost benefit analyses (Chapter 3), l ong-term results of experimental tree planting treatments (Chapter 4), and an economic analysis of small farm tree planting using a modeling technique geared specially for smallholder economic analysis (Cha pter 5). The disserta tion concludes with a summary of the lessons learned from industrial and smallholde r planting, and suggestions for encouraging EP. The information in this dissert ation may guide decisions regarding the scale at 12

PAGE 13

which to conduct enrichment plan ting, cost-effective treatments fo r seedlings, and benefits that encourage planting by landholders. Enrichment enhances the value of the future forest and therefore may make conservation of forest cover more appealing to private landhol ders when conducted unde r the right conditions. Maintaining the Amazon climate system depends pr incipally on the maintenance of forest cover and, while the Brazilian Forest Code requires th at 80% of any private property within the Amazon forest region remain forested, many landhol ders routinely violate this policy because it is financially unattractive (Fearnside, 2005; Nepstad et al., 2001; Verssimo et al., 2002). Enrichment planting may increase monetary returns from multiple harvests, thereby providing incentive for owners to maintain their forests as an asset and contribute to the abatement of forest loss and climate change (Browder et al. 1996; Schulze et al., 1994). Financial benefits of EP incl ude increased density of valuab le trees per hectare within areas that already have good access to reusable roads, such as land-holdings that conduct reduced-impact logging (RIL). In such operati ons EP also provides work opportunities during the wet season when many laborers in the forestry sector are underor unemployed. This could reduce turnover of trained employees, which w ould maintain consistency and prevent loss of training investments. Enrichment planting has th e potential to sustain highly exploited species such as Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany) and Tabebuia serratifolia (ip), which have economic as well as aesthetic value (Browder et al., 1996; Salleh, 1997; Zweede, 2004 Personal Communication). Enrichment planting also has costs. These incl ude the direct costs of labor, equipment, training, site preparation, and tr ansport of materials to and from markets, and the opportunity costs associated with not pursuing a more profitable activity such as ranching. EP also has risks, 13

PAGE 14

including mortality of the planted trees (Kammesheidt, 2002; Schulze et al., 1994). Costs and risks vary with locati on of planting: planting ol d fields may require more labor and have higher risk of burning in escaped fires, whereas trees pl anted in more protected forest gaps require less labor but have higher transport costs and more variable light conditions (Kainer et al ., 1998). Also, some costs may be lower for small-scale fa rmers than for larger firms, as explored in chapters 3 and 4 of this disserta tion, but others may be higher, es pecially if they have a higher burden of regulatory compliance (Merry et al., 2002). In general the costs of EP at any site are high relative to the present value of benefits due to long harvest periods and high discount rates (Ricker et al., 1999; Schulze et al ., 1994). Essentially, EP requires two c onditions: a suitable growing environment for the planted trees and willingness of the landholder to wait for long-term returns from their efforts. Ecological factors such as site conditions and treatments, and socioeconomics factors such as tenure security, labor and opportunity costs, and di scount rates influence the suitability of these conditions in any given scenario. The scale of plan ting may alter the effects of these factors. My goal is to clarify some situations that are appr opriate or inappropriate for EP in the eastern Amazon of Brazil, considering longterm effects of site treatments and socioeconomic factors on smalland large-scale planting. Research Objectives and Methods The objective of this disserta tion is to explore enrichment planting with a focus on case studies in the eastern Amazon of Brazil in order to provide land holders and policy makers with information regarding cost-effec tive planting and benefits that encourage planting by landholders at industrial or smallholder scales. A variety of methods are used to reach this goal. In Chapter 2, the description of industrial scale pl anting includes silvicu ltural analys is of tree growth rates and years needed for planted trees to reach harvestable size. The 17 planting areas 14

PAGE 15

described in Chapter 2 were created for demonstr ation purposes rather than experimental and statistical rigor, but enough repl ication of four species among the areas allowed for reliable analysis of growth rates and planti ng results. In Chapter 3 financ ial cost-benefit analysis is used to evaluate EP described in the previous chap ter and to explore hypotheti cal scenarios such as giving land holders payments for atmospheric carbon sequestered in the planted trees and sensitivity analyses. Chapter 4 consists of two planting experiments, implemented in 1988 and revisited in 2003 to assess long te rm effects of treatments given at the time of planting. In Chapter 5, Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) is used to evaluate enrichment planting conducted by eight smallholder families. The ELP method is novel compared to traditional financial cost-benefit analysis in that it produces a model of family economics that includes financial and non-financial costs an d benefits; social influences su ch as norms of division of labor among men, women, and children; and it includes timing of activ ities within the family so that an activity such as tree pl anting cannot be conducted at the same time as crop-planting if food security is at risk. The re sults of these chapters offer less ons regarding enrichment planting by industrial foresters and smallhol ders, summarized in Chapter 6. Costs of Long-Term Tree Care Large scale enrichment planting (EP) of timbe r species in the neotropics has repeatedly failed. These failures often have resulted from lack of tending, due in part to a lack of knowledge about the most efficient and effectiv e planting/tending methods The prospect of tending over the life of the trees increases the ma gnitude of time and labor investments in EP since timber trees in this region ca n take 15 to 100+ years to reach harvestable size. The lack of knowledge of effective planting/tending methods in cludes a near absence of information about the economic consequences of the scale of planting, which has long-term effects on EPs economic feasibility for each landholder, especially in terms of costs of planting and tending. 15

PAGE 16

Planting sometimes requires landhold ers to wait a lifetime or l onger for the financial returns from their investments. There is also a need for information about the effectiveness of treatments such as fertilization and site prepara tion. The scarcity of info rmation has exacerbated uninformed decision-making in EP ventures, which has, unfortunate ly, contributed to expensive failures (Putz et al., 2000; Schulze, 2003; Silva et al., 2002b). Planting is facilitated by technical skills, depe ndable growth and survival of the species, access to markets if costs are to be recuperated by sale of timber or tree products, favorable discount rates and low opportunity costs, and a supportive policy environment. These constraints are evidenced by peoples willingness/ unwillingness to participate in tree planting programs offered by governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Internationally, participation of smallholders in such projects has depe nded on their percepti on of secure tenure; technical capacity and/or access to extension servi ces; choice of appropriate species for planting; availability of farm land for planting vs. othe r options for that land; value of incentives; perceptions of risks of the pl anting vs. risks of other farm activities; and supportive policy contexts especially in regard to tenure (Church et al., 2000; Lynch, 1992; Murray, 1987; Peart, 1996; Santos et al., 1998; Thacher et al., 1997). Under what conditions will a private landhol der gain or lose by conducting EP? The answer may depend in part on scale. In th e eastern Amazon and other neotropical regions smallholders often conduct mixed perennial pl antings on their property including some timber species. This practice seems to have pers isted since prehistoric times (Gomez-Pompa et al., 1987; Gordon, 1983; Lundell, 1938; Putz et al., 2000; Wiseman, 1978). Smallholders may be better able than firms to diversify their plantin gs, reduce labor and opportun ity costs, and accept higher internal rates of return. For example, sm all-farm family members or hired labor may be 16

PAGE 17

available to plant and tend trees during down time between pe riods of high labor demand, or they may multi-task these activ ities with other farm work. Multi-tasking was observed in shifting cultivation plots on small farms in the western Amazon, where only minimal extra labor was needed to tend trees in conc urrence with the maintenance of farm crops (Kainer, 1998). In this setting, non-monetary benefits may also be important, such as the satisfaction of planting trees that may benefit the next generation. In contrast, industria l forestry operations have only hired labor, typically contract ed only during the season of hi gh demand for logging, and these workers have little opportunity to conduct planting or maintenan ce. Enrichment planting and maintenance would have to be a separate activ ity for them, requiring wages, oversight, training, and transportation, which amount to more costs fo r their employer, the large-scale landholder. The labor costs are high, and this may be exacerb ated by low value of nonmonetary benefits of planting. Given these factors, small family farm s seem more amenable to enrichment planting than large industrial forestry settings. These observations are supported by evaluation of enrichment planting using financial cost-benefit analysis and ethnograp hic linear programming (Chapter 3 and 5). These analyses revealed that smallholders in the eastern Amazo n with a secure percep tion of land tenure are likely to plant if they have family members or other low-cost labor available, if they have enough land that tree planting does not compete with subs istence farming, if their time is not better spent on more profitable activities such as off-farm work, and if they believe that planting could serve as insurance or benefit future generations. Th ese factors effectively lower costs and increase benefits. It should be noted that other activities can provide thes e benefits to landholders. For example, other land uses such as cattle ranching may also provide such insurance, and be more 17

PAGE 18

immediately available (Gittinger, 1982; Hecht et al., 1988; Mattos and Uhl, 1994; Walker et al., 2000). At the large scale, EP may require forestry operations that hire y ear-round labor and that have long-term forest management goals. A financ ial cost-benefit analysis of EP from the point of view of Cikel, a large-scale, private logging company near Paragominas, Para, Brazil, was conducted in response to the perceived potential of EP to augment their long-term forest harvesting and management plans. The analysis showed that their EP, as conducted since 1997, is cost-prohibitive. In the analysis the highest costs were associated with early expenses combined with long waiting periods until benefits could be realized (Chapter 3). This analysis also provided insight into costs that could be could be cut and be nefits that could be expanded. Large-scale EP may require mostly fast-growing sp ecies to reduce the waiting time for financial benefits, and there may be opportunities to multitask some EP activities with other work to reduce costs. External benefits of EP may warra nt external financial s upport that would reduce costs or shorten the waiting time fo r financial benefits of planting. Long-Term Effects of Treatments Seedling growth environment requirements in the eastern Amazon and similar tropical regions include light, water av ailability, soil nutrients; and protection from fire, vine overtopping, and herbivores (Dunisch et al., 2002a; Gerwing, 2001; Kammesheidt, 2002; Schulze, 2003; Souza and Vlio, 2001). Planting e xperiments in the 1920s in Belize showed that mahogany seedlings needed liberation from comp etition, especially for light (Mayhew and Newton, 1998). More recently, Kainer et al. (1998) found that competition for light, nutrients and water limited the growth of Brazil nut trees ( Bertholletia excelsa ) planted in forest gaps. Vines can limit growth or even kill planted seedlings (Gerwing, 2001). Interactions among factors may be as important as any of them individually and optimal conditions for species can 18

PAGE 19

change throughout germination, s eedling, sapling, and mature stages of life (Davidson et al., 2002; Dunisch et al ., 2002b). These interactions can be complex in situ and little is known about the long-term effects of attempts to modify them. Short-term analyses in this region and beyond have shown that treatments such as fertilization or removal of competing vegetation often have a positive effect on seedling growth, and presumably survival within a few years of treatment (Ares et al., 2003; Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Davidson et al., 2002; Gehring et al., 1999; Glaser et al., 2002; Lehmann et al., 2003; Nepstad, 1998; Pereira an d Uhl, 1998; Schulze, 2003; Silva et al., 2002a; Uhl, 1987) although seedling diamet er at the time of planting may override these effects on survival and growth for some species (Mead, 2005; South et al., 1993, South et al., 2005). However, these results are short-term and tend to focus on marketable-fruit trees or short-rotation timber trees. Few researchers have measured long-term tree growth in the region (Silva et al., 1995; Silva et al., 1996; Silva et al., 2002b; Souza et al., 2004; Yamada and Gholz, 2002;) or investigated the effects of treatme nts on native timber species (Dunisch et al., 2002a; Dunisch et al., 2002b; Mayhew and Newton, 1998; Schulze, 2003; Silva et al., 1995; Souza et al., 2004). Many questions remain regarding the long-term va lue of implementing site treatments on planted species (Vidal, 2004). Two experiments initiated by Nepstad, Pereira, and Uhl in 1988 in the eastern Amazon offer some answers to the questi ons about long-term effects of planting treatments. The first experiment tested for effects of planting site preparation by comparing re sults of deep planting holes, loosened fill-soil, and removal of competing vegetation around the hole for 16 planted species. The second experiment consisted of fertilization of 26 planted species at the time of planting, accompanied by no other maintenance beyond the first year after planting. Analysis of 19

PAGE 20

the growth and survival of the trees showed that planting seeds by burying them at 1cm depth in unloosened soil and weeding around the seedlings pr oduced larger individuals in the shortand long-term for most species, while fertilization ha d long-term effects on only a few species. Such mixed results imply that landholders could eas ily lose investments in treatments if appropriateness for the site and sp ecies is not considered (or know n). However, the results also imply that informed application of treatments could boost the benefits of planting for the landholder and help to create a succe ssful EP scenario (Chapter 3). Conclusion and Implications The difference in feasibility of EP between the scales lies in costs and values. This is observed at the small scale where trees planted near the home can be mo nitored and maintained relatively easily with low costs in terms of labor or land. The ability of these landholders to wait for the financial benefits can be higher than industrial foresters sin ce they also perceive benefits such as knowing they have insurance and that they may leave something of value for their children. Since large-scale forestry companies must c onsider finances more strongly than other values, short-term benefits are greatly reduced or not present unless they consider benefits such as retaining trained employees beyond the harv esting season. In additi on, their planting labor costs are higher than family farmers conducting EP due to lack of multi-tasking of planting and maintenance activities. The implications of this are that there are fewer scenarios in which EP makes sense at the large scale. The scope of these scenarios may be widened with government or private support that would lessen the time th at these companies must wait until they receive benefits of value to them. In this dissertation the effects of scale will be explored with a financial cost benefit analysis of EP by an industrial-scale logging co mpany and an ethnographic-economic analysis of 20

PAGE 21

21 smallholder tree planting on family farms. In these evaluations, scale appears to affect land holders perceptions of the costs and benefits of planting and therefore influences the decision to conduct EP. The literature also provides examples of scale altering outcomes of land and forest management (Hildebrand, 1986a; McCracken et al., 1999; Perz, 2001; Rockwell et al., 2007) Given evidence of the influence of scale presented in this dissertation and in the literature, scale should be addressed in forest conservation and management policy in Brazil to reach forest management objectives more eff ectively (Zarin et al., 2007).

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 2 ENRICHMENT PLANTING AS A SILVIC ULTURAL OPTION IN THE EASTERN AMAZON: CASE STUDY OF FAZENDA CAUAXI Introduction Conservationists and policy-makers are increa singly recognizing that a transformation of the timber sector is fundamental to both soci o-economic development and conservation goals in the Brazilian Amazon (Ministerio do Meio Ambi ente [MMA], 2001; Silva, 2005). Destructive logging practices have degraded th e forest resource base and promot ed deforestation in much of the eastern and southern Amazon (Nepstad et al ., 1999). Efforts to br ing order to the Amazon forest frontier involve resolving land tenure chaos, regulating logging on private and public lands, and pushing the industry towards adopting alternative forest management systems that generate revenues without degrading th e forest resource (Verssimo, 2005). Promoters of sustainable forest manageme nt have focused for the past 15 years on developing and promoting reduced impact logging (RIL). Amazonian RIL systems have been described in detail many times (Barreto et al., 199 8; Holmes et al., 2002; Johns et al., 1996). The essence of RIL is careful planning and execution of all phases of the logging operation with the goals of limiting damage to the residual stand, improving efficiency of operations, and reducing waste. Reduced impact logging involves substan tial investment in traini ng of personnel and in preharvest operations (e.g., complete stand in ventories) that are essential to sound forest management. These investments can pay for them selves by reducing costs of the most expensive harvest operations (e.g., log ski dding), and increasing timber yiel ds from volume felled relative to conventional logging, in whic h operations are inefficient and wood is wasted through poor felling, tree-finding and log-skidding (Barreto et al., 1998; Holmes et al., 2002). Reduced impact logging is an integrated preharvest and harvest system that increas es the potential for sustainable forest management by prot ecting the residual stand. 22

PAGE 23

In the design and regulation of Amazonian fo rest management, silvic ulture has received less attention than have preharve st and harvest operations. Even in current examples of bestpractices forestry, RIL itself is typically the only silvicultural pr escription (Fredericksen et al., 2003; Schulze et al., 2008). Reduced impact l ogging improves prospects for sustained timber production by limiting damage to future harvest trees and regeneration of commercial species (Uhl et al., 1997; Vidal, 2004). It does not by itself guarant ee sustainability or maximize financial returns of future harvests (Frederick sen et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 2004; Valle et al., 2007). Given projections that RIL harvests under cu rrent forest regulations will lead to declines in harvestable volume and populations of high-value timber species over multiple cutting cycles (Grogan et al., 2008; Kell er et al., 2004; Phillips et al., 2004; Schulze et al., 2005; Valle et al., 2006, 2007; van Gardingen et al., 2006;), development of silvicultural treatme nts are essential to maintain long-term forest value. The Instituto Floresta Tropical (IFT), a Braz ilian NGO dedicated to training and research in forest management, has been working since 1996 to refine RIL operations and test silvicultural treatments to improve ecological an d economic sustainability of forest management. Two key silvicultural questions for Amazonian forests concern wh ether growth rates of residual commercial stems in logged forest are adequate to support harvests at projected intensities and cutting cycles (20-35 m3 ha-1 and 25-35 yrs, respectively), and whether commercial species regeneration is sufficient to maintain long-term productivity (Grogan et al., 2005). Silvicultural research at IFT has focused on improving growth rates of future harvest trees through liberation thinning (Wadsworth and Zweed e, 2006) and enhancing regene ration of commercial species using gap enrichment planting (Schulze 2003, 2008; Zweede, unpublished). Here we report on a 23

PAGE 24

pilot effort to enhance regeneration in an ot herwise unproductive forest area: liana-dominated forest patches. Amazonian forests are mosaics of patches wi th different structur al characteristics. Patches of tall, closed forest with relatively ope n understory altern ate with nearly impenetrable liana-dominated thickets in whic h large trees are rare and crowns of smaller trees are engulfed by the liana canopy on a scale as small as hundreds or even tens of square meters (Gerwing, 2004; Gerwing and Farias, 2000). The structural variation in Amazonian fo rests can be traced to a rich history of natural and anthropogenic disturbance of varying spatia l and temporal scales (Bale and Campbell, 1990; Nelson et al., 1994). At one end of the spectrum, individual treefalls occur throughout the year and open canopy gaps of 25 to 400 m2; over time this process leads to patches of differing successional stages and structure interspersed over small spatial scales (Grogan, 2001; Schulze, 2003; Uhl et al., 1988). Large-scale disturbance events, such as blowdowns, can level swaths of forests up to 3,000 ha (most commonly 5-100 ha; Nelson, 1994; Nelson et al., 1994) but occur in frequently. It has been hypothesi zed that past human, climatic, and biotic mega-disturbancesblowdowns, fire and floodsaccount for many of the large patches of liana forest and bamboo forest occurring in Am azonia (Bale and Campbell, 1990; Gerwing, 2001; Heckenberger et al ., 2003; Nelson et al., 1994; Pire s and Prance, 1985). In the eastern Amazon, liana forest patches are common (Gerwing and Farias, 2000). For the forest manager, liana forests constr ain both current and future timber production. For timber, these liana forests are essentially nonproductive areas (Gerwing, 2001). Very few adult trees of commercial species occur within the liana forests, and poor stocking of submerchantable stems combined with poor stem form, low growth rates, and high mortality rates of liana-infested trees, mean that prospect s for future timber harvests from current liana 24

PAGE 25

forest patches are extremely limited (Gerwing, 2001). Anecdotal evidence suggests that, once established, liana forest areas can persist fo r decades or more (Putz, 1995). Many of the investments made in a commercial logging ope ratione.g., road infrastructure and forest inventoryare related to total forest area rather than productive forest area. Thus, nonproductive areas within the management block reduce profit margins from forest management. If liana forests could be brought into production through silvicultural intervention, the financial prospects in future cutting cycles would improve. IFT began experimental enrichment plantings in liana forest in 1997 to evaluate the feasibility of converting unproductive forest patc hes into future sources of timber. Through 2006, 17 liana forest areas, totali ng 4.4 ha have been prepared a nd planted. In this paper we present initial results from enri chment plantings and evaluate th e potential of this silvilcutural intervention to increase long-term productivity. We also outline some operational and ecological questions that must be addressed before liana forest enrichment can be added to the menu of silvicultural options fo r Amazonian forests. Methods Planting Site Description Planting was conducted near Paragominas, Par (3 3S; 48 48W) on the Rio Capim and Cauaxi properties of the Ci kel Brasil Verde Madeireiras company. The terrain, formed from the residua l tertiary plateau, is undulating terra firme (upland) with creeks that drain to the Capim River, and oxisol soils with an argillic horizon (RadamBrasil, 1974). Tropical moist forest, with mean upper canopy height of 30-40 m and scattered emergent trees up to 50 m tall, covers the majority of each property. The yearly average rainfall is 2200 mm, with a pronounced dry season from June to November (Asner et al., 2004; Costa and Foley, 1998). Within the 178,000 ha combined area of the properties, IFT 25

PAGE 26

operates the largest forest management demonstr ation and training area in the Brazilian Amazon, with more than 3,000 ha of forest under management. In the Cikel forest, as throughout much of the eastern Amazon, liana density is relatively high% of the canopy trees have moderate to heavy loads of lianas, and patches of low, broken-canopied liana forest occur within the ta ller forest (Schulze, 2003) These liana forest areas, which generally have little commercial-sized timber, cover ca. 15% of the total forest area, in patches that range in size from <0.25 ha to well over 10 ha. When liana forest areas are included with other areas excluded from production, such as riparian buffer zones and permanent forest reserves, roughly 25% of the forest area on the FSC-certified Cike l Rio Capim property is effectively out of production (area of rese rve and buffer zones = 13,700 ha; SCS 2006). The enrichment planting conducted by IFT is intended to display EP possibilities to forest managers who visit the site for harvest training; the plante d areas were not designed for experimental or statistical rigor. This chapter c ontains analyses of four species that were repeated in the 17 EP display planting areas. Repetition of the four species allowed for reliable analysis of growth rates and years needed until trees would reach harvestable size. Site Preparation and Enrichment Methodology Any attempt to bring liana-dominated areas into timber production must involve some treatment to reduce or remove liana competition. Repeatedly, high loads of lianas in tree crowns have been shown to curtail growth and fruit production, and increase mo rtality rates (Gerwing, 2001; Grogan, 2001; Kainer et al ., 2006; Schulze, 2003; Vidal, 2004). In a nearby forest, Gerwing (2001) found that blanket liana cutting in liana-dominated forest reduced canopy loads of lianas and improved growth rates of standing tr ees. Controlled burning of liana tangles at the nearby site was not successful in improving tree growth rates or in shifting the competitive balance in favor of trees (Gerwing, 2001). Moreover, both liana-cutting and burning depend 26

PAGE 27

either on the recovery of esta blished tree stems that have be en suppressed and damaged under severe liana loads for many years or decades or on natural seedi ng and recruitment of commercial tree species before lia na populations recover. Gerwi ngs research suggests that a more aggressive approach may be required if lia na areas are to become productive within a 30or 60-year interval compatible with projec ted harvest cycles in the eastern Amazon. In this study we reset the competition between lianas and trees through mechanized site preparation and planting of nursery seedlings. At the beginn ing of the wet season, a tractor worked from the periphery to the center of each liana patch, leveling vegetation towards the center of the area and avoiding dama ge to surrounding forest. The few large trees present in the liana patches were cut down with chain saws and cut into pieces small enough to not disrupt planting. Multiple passes over the felled vegeta tion broke up liana stems into small pieces without scraping the organic horizon of the soil or removing leaf and stem debris from the site. Once the site was prepared, the planting team marked planting locations at 4 meter spacing throughout the clearing, avoiding th e edges where seedlings are likely to become overtopped quickly by the spreading crowns of nearby fore st trees. No herbicide or other chemical treatments were used to prepare the sites. Seedlings of commercial species were raised on site in 1 kg plasti c nursery bags from seed or seedlings transplanted from the forest understory. IFT personnel made best efforts to plant seedlings of similar size and vigor, usuall y the largest and most vi gorous of those growing in the nursery, to initiate the best growth in th e planting areas. Plantings were made in soil with relatively high organic matter collected from ne arby forest and fertil izer was not given. Production of seedlings began in the middle to late dry season, when the majority of the study timber species produce seed, and seedlings were rea dy to plant in the early rainy season, after 1-3 27

PAGE 28

months of development in the nursery. While in the nursery, seedlings received water when needed but after planting they were not watere d. Planting was conducted early in the wet season and seedlings received enough rain in subsequent months to avert any need for irrigation. Trials included a suite of timber species, with an emphasis on two species types: high value commercial species with light demanding seedlings; and low to medium value species with pioneer-like traits and ca pacity for rapid growth. The first enrichment trials employed 6 species, while trials after 1999 focused on two planting sche mes: single species plantings with the longlived pioneer Ceiba pentandra; and mixed species plantings with one pioneer species, Schizolobium amazonicum and two high-value timber species with relatively fast ( Swietenia macrophylla ) and slow ( Tabebuia serratifolia ) growth rates. Enrichment plantings from 19972005 are detailed in Table 2-1, including species composition, stem numbers and size of planting area. All enrichment plantings were mainta ined annually through manual clearing of competing vegetation by workers with machetes who cut all competing ve getation in the planting area to ground level. Naturally recruiting seedlings of commercial species were also maintained and favored during site maintenance. IFT technicians measured diameter at breast height of all planted saplings yearly, beginni ng 1 to 2 years after planting. Analysis of Enrichment Planting We mapped areas of liana forest in six forest stands as part of forest inventory protocol. Liana forests were identified in the field ba sed on structurelow, broken canopies with high liana density in the understory, few adult trees and heavy liana-load ing in tree crownsand mapped in relation to a trail grid with 50 m inte rvals. Field maps we re digitized in a GIS database (ArcView version 3.2, Environmental Systems Research Institute 1999), and the total 28

PAGE 29

area of liana forest per planting area and sizes of individual liana patches were calculated (Table 2-2). We analyzed species performance (size a nd diameter growth ra te) in enrichment plantings each year after planting with the objective of providing reliabl e estimates of growth rates and years needed until planted trees would reach harvestable size. The planting areas were considered replicates, and means, 75th percentiles and maximum values calculated for each area. To compare data from areas planted in different years we used the number of years after planting rather than calendar year. For se veral species, growth data were limited, either because planting trials began relatively recently ( Tabebuia serratifolia and Ceiba pentandra) or only one or two planting area replicates were available ( Cordia goeldiana ; Cedrela odorata ). We present initial growth measurements for these species, but limit projections of growth and recruitment to three species with large, replicated sa mples and 7-8 year time series (Parkia gigantocarpa ; Schizolobium amazonicum ; Swietenia macrophylla ) (Tables 2-3 and 2-4). In order to make predictions about the potential to raise seedlings to harvestable trees in liana forest enrichment sites, we projected growth rates observed in years 5-8 forward from year five to estimate the time required for each spec ies to attain commercial size assuming mean and rapid (75th percentile) growth. For the mean and rapi d growth scenarios the average of planting area mean and 75th percentile diameters at year five were used, respectively, as the starting diameter for projections. We used constant grow th rates over time in each projection scenario for several reasons: By year 8, pl anted trees either were in th e developing canopy or had a clear path to it, meaning light and other conditions (com petition) affecting growth are likely to remain favorable throughout recruitment to commercial size. Studies of timber species growth incorporating large samples spanning all diameter size classes have found that diameter growth 29

PAGE 30

potential, as estimated from the growth rates of th e fastest-growing stems in each size class, does not vary with size; growth rate s of individuals are strongly correlated with growth conditions (Grogan, 2001; Schulze, 2003; Vidal, 2004, J. Lockman, pers. comm.). Analyses of growth rings of trees in both tropical a nd temperate forests have shown st rongly autocorrelated growth in successfully recruiting adults, with those individuals displaying re latively fast diameter growth throughout recruitment to the canopy (Brienen and Zuidema, 2006; Landis and Peart, 2005). Projected tree diameters at the time of harv est were converted to volume estimates using a single-entry and two double-en try equations: [eq.1] ln Vol = (7.62812 + 2.18090 (ln) (DBH)) (Silva et al., 1984), [eq.2] vol = Basal area COMMERCI AL HEIGHT *0.7 (Heinsdijk and Bastos, 1963; Brown et al., 1989), [eq.3] vol = 0.077476+0.517897*(DBH2* COMMERCIAL HEIGHT) (Rolim et al., 2006). For P. gigantocarpa and S. amazonicum the mean of estimates from equations 1-3 was used in each simulation. In the case of S. macrophylla unusually short harvestable boles mean t that only equations 2 and 3 were appropriate. We expect that the growth rates of the most vigorous 25% of planted individuals will be maintained by a selective thinning conducted mid-harvest cycle. For the purposes of this chapter, we include thinning as a means of mainta ining growth rates; in the enrichment planting cost-benefit analysis in chapter 3 we include sale of thinned trees as a financial return of EP. We estimated the potential stocking of adult trees in enrichment plots by calculating the stocking of trees >= 45 cm in unlogged forest at Cauaxi and calculating a mean distance between stems assuming a regular distribution of stems through the stand. Using this esti mate of mean distance we then calculated the number of adults per he ctare that could be expected in enrichment plantings assuming optimal spacing. From these es timates we could then project the volume of 30

PAGE 31

timber that could be raised in liana forest enri chment plantings if 5% of a 100-ha management block were treated. Results Distribution of Liana Forest at Cauaxi Liana forest patches accounted for almost 22% of the total area of the six management blocks we inventoried (Table 2-1). However, lo cal variability was quite high, with less than 10% of one block and more than 40% of another com posed of liana forest. Individual liana forest patches ranged in size from < 0.2 to > 8.0 ha. The median size of mapped liana patches was 0.43 ha with the vast majority (>70%) of patches < 1 ha (Figure 2-1). Li ana patches tend to be dispersed throughout forest stands at Cauaxi rather than in disc rete clusters. Because forest infrastructure (roads, log decks and skid trails) is built systematically in RIL, most liana patches within a management block can be accessed easil y without increasing the residual forest area impacted by heavy machinery (Figure 2-2). This means that additional impacts of liana forest enrichment planting on forest structure should be limited to clearing the liana patches, and to additional tractor passes over sectio ns of road and skid trails. Little harvestable timber is located in liana areas, and they contain few submerchantable timber trees to supply future harvests (Figure 2-3) Commercial volume in liana forest is < 20% of that found in the adjacent tall fo rest, and those trees that do ex ist are primarily large old trees that likely survived the disturbance that produced the liana forests (Schulze, 2003). Submerchantable stems occur at lo w densities in liana forests comp ared with tall forest (<30% of both number and volume). Moreover, the majority of trees (ca. 70%; Gerwing, 2001; Schulze, 2003) in liana forests have moderate to high li ana infestation rates, a trait that has been repeatedly observed to correlate with low growth and high mortality rates (Clark and Clark, 31

PAGE 32

1990; Gerwing, 2001; Grauel and Putz, 2004; Gr ogan, 2001; Lowe and Walker, 1977; Putz, 1984; Kainer et al., 2006). Species Performance in Liana Forest Enrichment Planting Areas Annual growth rates of seedlings planted in lia na forest enrichment areas were generally at the upper range of values observed for each species in Amazonian forests (Garrido, 1975; Grogan 2001; Gullison et al., 1996; Justiniano et al., 2000; Lamb 1966; Schulze, 2003; Snook, 1993; Vidal, 2004; Vidal et al., 2002). This trend reflects the large size of openings created in liana forest areas relative to natural treefall or felling gaps and the near absence of competition with lianas, pioneers, and other weedy species (maintained via annua l thinnings). The mean area of enrichment canopy openings (2500m2 or 0.25 ha) was 15 times the mean size recorded for natural treefall gaps (mean 174 m2) and 9 times mean logging gap area (277 m2 or 0.0277 ha) at Cauaxi (Schulze and Zweede, 2006). Based on m easurements of logging gap area and light intensity in RIL stands at Cauaxi, in which the largest gaps measured 450 m2 (or 0.045 ha) and 55% percent of the total incident light was transmitted by the canopy (Schulze, 2003), we can assume that most enrichment plots received well over 55% of incident light since they are much larger than canopy gaps and have open canopies. Timber species diameter growth rates were hi ghest in the first two years, declining and then leveling off for years 3 to 8 (Figure 2-4). The most vigorous individuals of pioneer timber species Parkia gigantocarpa and Schizolobium amazonicum in each enrichment site grew at rates well above 1 cm diameter per year (rates were initially > 2 cm yr -1), and attained dominant canopy positions and diameters equal to those of small canopy trees in the surrounding forest (in general, trees 20 cm DBH are in the mid to upper canopy in the Cauaxi forest) within eight years of planting (Figure 2-5). Limited data on Ceiba pentandra plantings at the site indicate a similar trajectory for this species (Table 2-3); indeed in an older experimental planting at the 32

PAGE 33

Cauaxi field camp Ceiba plants attained diameters of 40 cm and heights of 25 m within eight years (Zweede, unpublished data). The most vigor ous mahogany plants also generally grew at least 1 cm per year in enrichment areas, but will take longer to attain dominant positions (Figure 2-5). Initial results with Tabebuia serratifolia indicate that this species will take much longer to reach the canopy than any of the other timber species tested (Table 2-3). Projections of Harvest Times and Future Yields Simulations of long-term growth in liana forest enrichment areas suggest that both Parkia and Schizolobium will attain commercial size within 30 years of planting, or by the second timber harvest, if planted immediately following the first (Table 2-3). This prediction holds true whether conservative or more optimistic growth rates are projected. Under the higher growth scenario (i.e., rates we observed from the most vigorous 25% of stems a nd can reasonably expect of individuals that ultimately reach commercial size under selec tive thinning), trees would be 15 to 20 cm larger than the minimum harvestable diam eter of 50 cm in year 30. Hence, each tree would yield ca. 2.1 to 3.5 m3 under the conservative projection and up to 4.3 to 4.8 m3 if rapid growth can be maintained over time. For mahogany, even sustained growth at the upp er range of what we observed would not produce harvestable trees within 30 years. Howeve r, even the conservative growth rates predict trees with DBHs more than half of commercia l size. These simulations suggest that mahogany planted in liana forest enrichment sites immedi ately following the first harvest would attain commercial size by the third harvest at year 60, a nd very likely would do so within 45 to 50 years. Mahogany enrichment plantings could therefore either contribute to the value of third harvests, or if legally authorized, provide a source of revenue during the interval between 2nd and 3rd harvests. By year 60, mahogany boles of 1.1 to 1.9 m3 can be expected (assuming a commercial height of 6 m; see disc ussion of mahogany shootborer, below). 33

PAGE 34

In unlogged forest at Cauaxi, there were 59.3 canopy trees 35 cm DBH per hectare, or a mean distance of 13 m between canopy trees (Z weede, unpublished forest inventory data). Similarly, crown diameters of 45-60 cm diameter trees of eight timber species averaged 11.5 m (Schulze, 2003). From these numbers, we estimate that 20 to 60 commercial-sized trees could be raised per hectare in liana forest enrichment plantings. Discussion Growth Consistently rapid growth and low mortality of planted seedlings of all the timber species tested in this study suggest that liana forest enrichment plantin g has substantial potential to contribute to timber stocks in sec ond and third harvests of managed forests in the study area. We attribute the excellent performan ce to three primary factors: very high light relati ve to typical forest and forest gap conditions; largely intact soil with abundant organic material and minimal compaction; and low competition rates maintained by annual weeding. Because enrichment sites were all much larger than most natural or logging canopy gaps, th e environment was likely ideal for the light-demanding species tested in this study. Even the slow-growing Tabebuia is lightdemanding as a seedling, and does not show nega tive response to high light intensity. Young seedlings of more shade tolerant timber spec ies might not perform well in these large canopy openings. Similar high growth rates have been recorded for Parkia Schizolobium Swietenia Tabebuia and other light-demanding timber species pl anted in canopy gaps at felling sites in Cauaxi and nearby forests (Schulze, 2003; Vidal, 2004; Zweede, unpublished), indicating that somewhat smaller liana tangle enrichment sites than the ones used here could al so be successful. Mahogany plantations in the neotropics ha ve been plagued by the mahogany shootborer ( Hypsipyla grandella ), the larval form of a nocturnal mo th, which kills the apical leader on seedlings and saplings and thr ough repeated attacks can reduce gr owth rates, destroy growth 34

PAGE 35

form, and eventually result in death of weakened seedlings (G rogan, 2001; Grogan et al., 2002). Mahogany in liana forest enrichment plantings in this study also suffered nearly 100% attack rates by the shoot borer. Earl y branching and poor stem formation can be seen in many individuals, but careful pruning of secondary shoots and culling of poorly formed stems has resulted in the establishment of a cohort of well-formed young trees, that will yield at least a single 6 m log when fully mature. More re cent experiments with fertilization of young mahogany plants indicate that this treatment holds promise for maintaining vigorous growth despite shootborer attack (Zweede, unpublished). Tending Regime The annual tending regime employed in this study is probably more frequent, and therefore more costly than necessary. Annual liber ation of seedlings is es sential for at least the first three years after planting, ot herwise lianas and weedy species are sure to overwhelm all but the most robust and fastest-growing individuals. However, after year three or four less intensive tendingremoving any lianas entwined on commercial stems and killing any pioneer plant that overtops a planted treemay be ad equate to maintain high growth and survival rates. After eight years, fast-g rowing species like Schizolobium appear to no longer require any tending, as they have consolidated canopy positions. Slower growing species might require occasional lowintensity tending through the first decade or more. Production Potential Projections of stand recovery from eastern Amazonian RIL harvests without post-harvest silvicultural interventions s uggest a steady decline in timb er productiona drop of 1.2 to 15.5 m3 ha-1 from the 1st to 2nd and 3.5 to 24.1 m3 ha-1 from the 1st to 3rd harvestwith successive harvests (Phillips et al., 2004; Valle et al., 2007; van Gardingen et al ., 2006). This is particularly true for high value timber species; over two or three harvests much of the projected harvestable 35

PAGE 36

volume is contributed by low-value lightwood speci es (Phillips et al., 2004 ; Schulze et al., 2005). Timber produced in enrichment plantings could provide 2.8 to 13.6 m3 per hectare if liana forest in 5% of stands were treated (assumi ng 20 to 60 trees per ha and 2.8 to 4.5 m3 per tree). Thus, much of the projected decline in harvest volume in second and third RIL harvests could be offset by enrichment planting, improving prosp ects for sustained-yield forestry. Staggered Harvests from Liana Forest Enrichment Sites: The Paric, Mogno, Ip Model The above projections of timber species recruitm ent rates to commercial size suggest that staggered harvests of mixed species enrichment pl antings may be possible, with low-value, fastgrowing species providing a relativ ely rapid return on the investme nt and more valuable species providing export-quality timber from the same areas over longer in tervals. IFT has tested a three-species model with S. amazonicum S. macrophylla and T. serratifolia. These species could provide three different harvests from a single enrichment planting, with S. amazonicum harvested for plywood after 25 to 30 years, high-value S. macrophylla logs harvested after 45 to 60 years, and T. serratifolia furnishing a final harvest. While the short time that Tabebuia plantings have been monitored precludes projections of harvest potential, all the available evidence suggests that an exp ectation of harvestable timber by year 60 would be overly optimistic (Schulze, 2003; Schul ze et al., 2005; Schulze, 2008). Tabebuia harvests would likely not occur until the fourth harvest, or the interval between 3rd and 4th harvests (Figure 2-6). When planted optimally and felled carefully, trees of each species could be raised to commercial size in turn, as each harvest re leases subadults of the slower growing species without damaging them. In this way, more total timber volume could be extracted from each enrichment site over the long run, and enrichment sites would remain productive fo r at least 60 years. In a staggered harvest system with S. amazonicum and S. macrophylla, as much as 7.6 m3 ha-1 could be produced in the 2nd harvest and 3.4 m3 ha-1 in the third (assuming that the staggered development of these of 36

PAGE 37

these two specieswith relatively small S. macrophylla developing below the tall but thin crowns of S. amazonicum until the second harvest opens canopy space) would allow high stocking initially and eventual production of 35 trees of each species per hectare. Natural regeneration below the established adults should allow these enrichment sites to return to more typical forest structure and composition after the 1st or 2nd harvest. Conclusion Enrichment planting has emerged and reemerged in the literature as a suggested means to increase forest value for landholders and thereby save forests from conversion to other land uses (Dawkins, 1961; Putz et al., 2000; Silva, 1989). Enrichment planting appears capable of guaranteeing a future forest valu e that is at least equal to th e current value. Liana forest enrichment planting is one of several silvicultu ral tools that are capable of adding long-term value to production forests. However, EP protocol s that have been promoted in the past have not always been effective or appropr iate (Salleh, 1997). Enrichment planting is not appropriate in every context, just as liberati on thinning and other silvicultural techniques are not. At Fazenda Cauaxi, liana forest EP shows promise becau se the property contains large patches of unproductive forest, trees can be planted and maintained there rather easi ly with existing logging infrastructure, and trees in the planted areas surv ive and grow at mostly satisfactory rates, much more than would have resulted from the liana patches without treatment. In addition, Fazenda Cauaxi is a private production forest in which sust aining timber yields is critical to maintaining standing forest and the ecosystem services that even a modified fo rest provides. In the following chapters we evaluate the financ ial costs and benefits of EP in order to help land managers increase their forest value with EP and, in partic ular, whether the plantings at Cauaxi justify the costs of producing timber in lia na patches (Chapter 3). We ev aluate the shortand long-term results of some planting treatments to help managers choose the most efficient protocols for 37

PAGE 38

planting (Chapter 4). Finally, we assess EP at the small, family-farm scale in order to learn whether EP may be more appropriate fo r largeor small-scale (Chapter 5). In the Fazenda Cauaxi setting, ecological cost s and risks may be incurred that could reduce the ecological benefits of RIL, such as smaller canopy openings and reduced forest fragmentation (Asner et al., 2004; Johns et al., 1996; Pereira et al ., 2002). Clearing liana patches may cause increased canopy openings that would make surrounding forest more vulnerable to tree falls (Gourlet-Fluery et al ., 2004; Schulze and Zweede, 2006) a nd ground fires, a serious risk for forests in the eastern and southern Amazon (Cochrane et al., 1999; Holdsworth and Uhl, 1997). In addition, eliminating liana forest patches reduces habitat for specie s that are adapted to the patches and may thereby influence the speci es composition of the landholding (Merry, 2001; Perez-Salicrup et al., 2004). The benefits of EP should be weighed against these ecological risks and EP sites should be carefully selected to prio ritize areas adjacent to roads, patios and primary skid trails, which will remain open for several y ears after planting and are considered permanent infrastructure in most management operations. Where management is held to a sustainability standard, such as private lands that have been certified as sustainable or public forests with concession s awarded to logging companies, sustained harvests of high-value timber are essent ial to maintain the long-term use of the forest while protecting the forest ecosystems. Als o, sustained harvests are necessary for socioeconomic development goals that hinge on harvesti ng of forest products (i .e., state and federal production forests). In these cases current log-and-leave management practices are not adequate. Liberation of future crop trees may help sustain multiple harvests by increasing growth rates and volume accumulation (Dauber et al., 2005; Wadswo rth and Zweede, 2006), but is dependent on adequate stocking of sub-merchant able trees. As shown in this case study EP increases stocks of 38

PAGE 39

39 valuable timber species in unproductive areas such as liana patches; it may also increase stocks if conducted in felling gaps or other sites directly impacted by logging. EP and liberation may be necessary to ensure that production forests accumulate timber volume at rates permitting relatively short cutting cycles (2535 years), and that recovery of commercial species populations is sufficient to forestall economic, as well as bi ological, impoverishment of managed forests. Policymakers and forest managers in the Brazili an Amazon should consider the potential for EP and other silvicultural interventi ons to maintain long-term forest value within timber concessions on public lands.

PAGE 40

Table 2-1. Vine tangle enrichment planting sites at Fazenda Cauaxi Number of seedlings planted Planting Area Year installed Planting area (m) Spacing (m) Schizolobium amazonicum Tabebuia serratifolia Swietenia macrophylla Ceiba pentandra Parkia gigantocarpa Cordia goeldiana Cedrela odorata AMF1 UT2-1 1997 2,259 3 36 -86 -66 --AMF1 UT2-2 1997 3,825 3 169 -70 -104 --AMF1 UT2-3 1997 1,854 3 78 -38 -60 --AMF1 UT3-1 1997 4,185 3 --154 -170 --AMF1 UT2-4 1999 1,683 3 59 -52 --29 29 AMF2 UTB1-1 2001 5,745 3.5 76 87 162 -125 --AMF1 UT3-1 2002 1,923 3.5 58 20 49 10 -8 -AMF2 UTB2-1 2003 2,009 3.5 102 -47 ----AMF2 UTC1-1 2003 2,275 5 ---81 ---AMF2 UTC2-1 2003 1,727 3.5 64 30 35 ----AM 2 UTC2-2 2004 1,923 3.5 71 36 36 ----AMF2 UTA1-1 2004 3,781 3.5 144 74 68 ----AMF2 UTC2-3 2004 4,900 5 ---181 ---AMF1 UT5-1 2005 1,544 3.5 58 30 28 ----AMF2 UTC2-4 2005 1,286 3.5 47 25 22 ----AMF3 UTB4-1 2005 1,666 3.5 57 31 34 ----AMF3 UTD4-1 2005 1,325 5 ---44 ---TOTAL 43,911 (4.3911 ha) 1,019 333 881 316 525 37 29 40

PAGE 41

Table 2-2. Extent of liana forest in 560 ha of unlogged forest, Fazenda Cauaxi Management block Total area (ha) Vine forest area (ha) Percent vine forest A1 100 34.0 34.0 B2 100 11.0 11.0 C3 110 17.8 16.2 C5 100 9.4 9.4 C2 100 42.9 42.9 T5 50 7.8 15.6 Total 560 122.8 21.9 Table 2-3. Mean annual diameter growth rates of tree seedlings in vine forest enrichment plantings, Fazenda Cauaxi Mean growth (cm yr -1) a Maximum growth (cm yr -1) Range of published mean (maximum in parentheses) growth rates from Amazonian forest sites b Cedrela odorata 0.50 1.30 0.3 0.6 (1.48) c Ceiba pentandra 2.25 5.62 0.43 0.75 (7.37) d Cordia goeldiana 2.03 2.43 0.24 0.33 (1.5)eParkia gigantocarpa 2.44 4.88 0.74 (1.7) f Schizolobium amazonicum 2.14 5.30 0.6 1.5 (2.8)g Swietenia macrophylla 1.17 3.19 0.26 1.09 (>2.0) h Tabebuia serratifolia 0.75 1.90 0.17 0.84 (>1.0) i a Only data from areas planted 19972003 presented (see Table 2-1 for sample sizes); values are means of planting area mean a nd maximum annual growth rates b From published studies of tree growth in forest (either unlogged or l ogged; no plantations or nonforest sites included) in the Amazon c dOliveira, 2000; Dauber et al., 20 05; Vidal, 2004 ; Vidal et al., 2002 d Condit et al. 1993; Putz 1984 e Schulze 2003; Vidal 2004 ; Vidal et al., 2002 f Vidal et al., 2002; Vidal 2004 g Dauber et al. 2005; Justiniano et al. 2000; Vidal et al 2002; Vidal 2004 h Dauber et al. 2005; Grogan 2001; Gullison et al.1996 ; Lamb 1966; Snook 1993 i Dauber et al. 2005; Garrido 1975; Justin iano et al. 2000; Schulze, 2003; Vidal 2004 41

PAGE 42

42 Table 2-4. Projected size (DBH in cm) at year 30 after planting for indivi duals of three timber tree species in vine-forest enrichment pl antings based on observed sizes and growth rates of individuals in experimental planting areas from 1997-2005, Fazenda Cauaxi Mean DBH 1 75th percentile DBH 2 Parkia gigantocarpa 57.4 74.7 Schizolobium amazonicum 50.5 76.1 Swietenia macrophylla 30.2 42.4 1 In the mean growth scenario, mean observed diam eter at breast height (average of 3-6 planting area means) at year 5 was used as the starting si ze, with mean observed gr owth rate (average of 3-6 planting area means) during years 5-7 used to project growth during years 6 30. 2 In the rapid growth scenario, observed 75th percentile DBH (average of 3-6 planting area 75th percentile sizes) at year 5 was used as the starting size, with observed 75th percentile growth (average of 3-6 planting area 75th percentile growth rates) du ring years 5-7 used to project growth during years 6-30.

PAGE 43

Liana forest patch size (ha)Percent 9.6 8.8 8.07.26.45.6 4.8 4.03.22.41.6 0.8 0.0 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 2-1. Size distribution of liana forest patches in harvest blocks at Cikel 43

PAGE 44

500 meters A 500 metersB Figure 2-2. Stand maps of two management blocks at Fazenda Cauaxi with moderate (A%) and high (B%) densities of vine forest. Dark gray areas are vine patches with low, broken canopies, few adult trees and little commercial potential. Light gray areas represent the remaining forest area, from which the vast majority of timber was harvested. In (B), black lines, in descending order by thickness, show main access roads, secondary roads and skid trails created during the initial harvest. White shapes are log decks. This logging infrastructure provides direct access to virtually all vine patches in these stands, allowing for efficient transportation of equipment to vine forest enrichment planting sites. 44

PAGE 45

Commercial Volume (m) per hectare 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Vine tangles Remaining forestA 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Vine tangles Remaining forestB Figure 2-3. Commercial timber vol ume (nondefective stems of commer cial species) per hectare (A) above and (B) below the minimum felli ng diameter of 50 cm found within vine tangles and in the surrounding forest in three 100 ha management blocks, Fazenda Cauaxi. Values are means (n=3 blocks) with standard deviations. Paired t-tests were significant at p = 0.02 and p = 0.06, respectively. 45

PAGE 46

Parkia gigantocarpa 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1234567 Years since plantingDiameter Increment (cm)A Schizolobium amazonicum 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 12345678 Years since plantingDiameter Increment (cm)B Swietenia macrophylla 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 12345678 Years since plantingDiameter Increment (cm)C Figure 2-4. Species mean ( std. error; thin dashed lines) and 75th growth rates (heavy lines) in years 1-8 after planting in lia na forest enrichment planti ng areas, Fazenda Cauaxi 46

PAGE 47

Parkia gigantocarpa 0 5 10 15 20 25 1234567 Years since plantingDBH (cm)A Schizolobium amazonicum 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345678 Years since plantingDBH (cm) B Swietenia macrophylla 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 12345678 Years since plantingDBH (cm)C Figure 2-5. Species mean ( std. error; thin dashed lines), 75th percentile (heavy dashed lines) and maximum diameters (solid lines) in y ears 1-8 after planting seedlings in vineforest enrichment planting areas, Fazenda Cauaxi. 47

PAGE 48

Figure 2-6. Staggered tree development and harvest in a three-sp ecies enrichment planting, with the fast-growing Schizolobium amazonicum providing a plywood logs by year thirty after planting, Swietenia macrophylla high-value sawlogs by year 60, and Tabebuia serratifolia dense, specialty timber within 90 ye ars. Note: Although not shown here, spaces left by harvested trees may fill with natural regeneration that can be cleared during maintenance or may be allowed to grow if seedlings are of merchantable species. Additional planting may be conducted in the spaces as well. Such scenarios of additional trees are not incl uded in the EP description of Chapter 2 or the financial cost-benefit analysis of Chapter 3. 48

PAGE 49

CHAPTER 3 IS ENRICHMENT PLANTING WORTH ITS COSTS? A FINANCIAL COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR AN AMAZON FOREST Introduction Tropical forest lands have a history of landscape conversion that has boosted the mining, logging, and agriculture industries while also causing degradation of ecosystems and loss of forest habitat. Much attention has been focused on the negative eff ects of deforestation on biodiversity (Brechin et al., 2003; Pimentel et al., 1992; Putz et al., 2000) and on the direct contribution of deforestation to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Fearnside, 2000; Schroth et al., 2002; Tinker et al., 1996). Replacement of large areas of forest with agricultural fields and pasture also has the potential to alter regional climate by increasing albedo and decreasing evapotranspiration, th ereby enhancing a positive fee dback between a drier climate and increased frequency and severity of wildfires (Nepstad et al., 1991; Nepstad et al., 2001; Tinker et al., 1996), further contributing to clim ate change and decrea sing the ecological integrity of forests. Despite growing awaren ess of potential negative outcomes, conversion of tropical forest to agriculture, cattle ranching and other land uses continues to erode forest cover (INPE, 2007; Lentini et al., 2003). While conservationists value tropical fore sts for their diversity, nutrient cycling, watershed protection, and role in regulating climate, these values rarely translate into financial benefits for landowners in forested regions. Rath er, the financial return from converting tropical forest land to agriculture or ranching often dwarfs that of mainta ining forest cover (Cardille and Foley, 2003; Geist and Lambin, 2002; Kaimowitz and Angelsen, 1998; Lambin and Geist, 2003; Perz and Skole, 2003). One strategy for enhanc ing the value of forests is to increase the concentration of economically im portant, indigenous tree species by planting seeds or seedlings for future harvest (Brown et al. 2003; Dawkin s, 1961; Dawkins and Philips, 1998; Montagnini 49

PAGE 50

and Jordan, 2005; Salleh, 1997). This can be acco mplished with enrichment planting (EP), and it may help make forest management financially at tractive to landholders a nd thereby reduce forest conversion to other uses. Enri chment planting has been employed internationally with varying degrees of success (Putz, 2000; Sears and Pinedo-Vasquez, 2004; World Resources Institute [WRI], 1985) but there has been little systema tic research on the fact ors that constrain its successful implementation. In particular, there have been few studies of EP in the eastern Amazon and, although their quality may be good, mo st are short-term (Camargo et al., 2002; dOliviera, 2000; Pena-Claros, 2002; Schulze, 20 08), and have not included economic and/or financial analyses. There are many factors that can deter landhol ders from planting trees in this region, including labor and maintenance costs (Long and Nair, 1999; Ramirez et al., 1992; Virginia Tech, 1996), uncertainty regarding land tenure (Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Murray, 1987), risk of escaped fire damage to the trees (McCracken et al., 1999), lack of technical outreach and training (Simmons et al., 2002; Virginia Tech, 1996) and la ck of reliable information about the long-term benefits of planting and maintenance treatments (Pukkala, 1998; Virginia Tech, 1996). To explore these factors and to provide insights about long-term results of enrichment planting, a financial appraisal of the enrich ment planting in liana forest pa tches described in Chapter 2 was conducted from the point of view of Cikel, a large-scale, private logging company near Paragominas, Par, Brazil. Cikel has Forest Stew ardship Council certification of its harvesting operations, which include Reduced Impact Loggi ng (RIL) procedures. The RIL setting was chosen for this study because RIL harvesting tec hniques are designed for repeated harvests over periods of 60 years or more, making the system a potentially supportive context in which to 50

PAGE 51

conduct EP. For this financial appraisal the co sts and benefits of en richment planting were calculated as an activity that coul d be conducted in addition to RIL. Given the mixed results of EP internationally, combined with its apparent potential to contribute to conservation efforts by increasing forest financial va lue, one of the objectives of this study was to determine if EP is financially beneficial for a private landholder in the eastern Amazon region of Brazil for a 60-year period. We include 7 alternate EP scenarios: high and low financial costs, low timber yield, additional revenue from ca rbon sequestration payments or higher timber prices, and examples of possible go vernment support in the form of free seedlings or subsidized interest rates (Table 3-1). A sensitivity analysis of carbon payment amounts, timber prices, and discount rates is presented to show the effects of a range of timber price increases, and the price or rate needed to ma ke EP profitable in term s of net present value (Table 3-2). The simulations and long-term financial information in this chapter are intended to help policy makers and forest landholders by pr oviding economic indicators of the investment value of EP. Methods The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) presented here consists of a commercial appraisal using market prices to assess the profitability of enrichment planting from the private forest management company perspective. Costs and benefits are estimated for 60 years into the future, a time period in which some high-value spec ies may reach harvestable size (Silva 2001, Chapter 2). This is not a social appraisal, whic h would be done from societys point of view to assess whether societys welfare would be improve d, although an assessment from this point of view would be a valuable compliment to this an alysis and would provide needed information to policy makers. Financial cost-benefit analyses that include pure mark et values can neglect values that have worth to society, such as capacity-building and main tenance of common 51

PAGE 52

(shared) goods. These wider ranging costs and benefits do not always fit into a CBA from a private landholders perspective, but can be included more reasonably in a CBA from societys perspective. Such a CBA evaluates consequences of project activities and choices over time and between various subsets within a society (Campell and Brown 2003). Cost information was collected by interviewi ng employees of Cikel and of the Instituto Floresta Tropical (IFT), a nonprofit RIL training organization that works with Cikel. Estimates of expenses such as wages to be paid for hourly work or use of equipm ent were based on data recorded for enrichment planting activities by IF T personnel, interviews with Cikel executives, expense information reported in Holmes et al. (2002), agro-business supply websites, and similar data recorded by D. Nepstad and C. Uhl for planting done at a nearby location (Nepstad and Uhl, unpublished data). Since this appraisal is base d on the operations of one company, the results should only be generalized with caution. The activities included in the cost-benefit an alysis begin with site selection and seed purchase in year 1, maintenance of planting ar eas and seedlings at years 2, 3, 4, 6, and 10, a commercial thinning at year 15, continued main tenance in years 20, 25, 30, 35, 45, and 55, and a harvest at year 60. Costs of EP included mark ing harvest maps with potential planting sites, building a plant nursery, acquiri ng seeds and seedlings, and nurs ery seedling tending, transport of seedlings to planting sites, site preparati on, planting, subsequent maintenance, thinning, and harvests. The first two scenarios, costs and benefits of two maintenance schedules, were assessed based on suggestions of Schulze (2003) a nd IFT personnel: effects of reducing expenses of EP were explored by removing items from th e list of nursery care and long-term maintenance tasks (Appendix A). Items were removed based on observations at the s ite and recommendations of planters regarding which activities would not be necessary to maintain growth rates if the EP 52

PAGE 53

sites were not kept accessible and attractive to visitors participati ng in training courses, as they currently are at Fazenda Cauaxi. The maintenan ce of sites at Fazenda Cauaxi is more thorough and expensive than needed for EP conducted at sites not used for display. Removed items include site clearing with mach etes of competing vegetation dur ing years 6, 10, and 20 45; this scenario represents the lower limit of maintenan ce that would probably be needed to maintain growth of planted seedlings while keeping costs low. To project costs and benefits we considered the area that would be planted, the species that would be planted, and two estimated yields for comparison: a reasonable yield projection of 18 cubic meter (m3) per planting area and a low yield projection of 6 m3 per planting area (Scenario 3). The reasonable projection was ba sed on observations of growth rates of these species on this site and others (Schulze, 2003, 2008). The low yield projection is based on growth data collected from trees growing in an unmanaged forest th at we presume included competition for light, water, and nutrients, whic h could reduce the growth rates of the trees measured there (Silva, 2001; Silva et al., 1996) The reasonable yield of 3x the low projection may be attainable given site preparation and care of seedlings planted in EP areas. The resulting timber volume per planting area was used to divide benefits and costs, whic h resulted in benefit and cost information per cubic meter of timber. We use the reasonable yield for all scenarios presented here except Scenario 3 which gives fina ncial results of the lo w yield for comparison. The low yield results are important for landholders and policy makers because they may approximate the results of enrichment plan ting not followed by site maintenance. Two sources of additional revenue were incl uded in our analyses. Scenario 4 includes payments for atmospheric carbon sequestered in wood grown in EP areas and Scenario 5 includes higher timber sale prices for EP wood. These factors are considered uncertain, meaning 53

PAGE 54

they are difficult to estimate as a probabilistic function; they are ambi guous. While some factors are considered quantifiabl e risks and can be incl uded in an analysis as a probability, uncertain factors may or may not happen and are more effec tively evaluated using sensitivity analysis. For Scenarios 4 and 5 we conducted sensitivity an alyses of carbon payment amounts and timber prices. In the carbon sequestra tion scenario we used allometr ic equations developed in the region (Silva and Carvalho 1984) to convert yearly diameter increas e of planted trees to yearly increases of metric tons of carbon stored in the trees. The sensitivity analysis consists of three rates of payment issued: US$3 per metric ton of atmospheric carbon as suggested recently by the Brazilian government, US$10 per metric ton sugg ested in refereed lite rature (Fearnside 2000, Fearnside 2001a), and US$30 per metric ton, which is the rate on the current European market ( http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/cme accessed June 2008). We issued the payments in 5-year increments during the time from planting to ha rvest of each species and used a 9.75% discount rate to determine the present values of the paym ents (Table 3-2) based on the rates specified by the Development Bank of Brazil (BNDES 2008). The timber price sensitivity analysis presents economic indicator results for a range of timber price increases, starting with the 150% increase described by Globalwood (2004), a 300% increas e for comparison, and a 500% price increase required to make EP feasible in terms of NPV. Price increase pe rcentages are relative to prices reported in Holmes et al. (2002). Scenarios 6 and 7 show forms of possible gov ernment or policy support. Scenario 6, in which forest managers are given free seedlings to conduct EP, provides an example of lowering initial costs of EP. Since ini tial costs can easily ove rwhelm the long-term (and therefore largely discounted) benefits of future harvests (Lamb et al., 2005), we assess this method of supporting EP by reducing the early costs for planters. Government policy may also support EP by 54

PAGE 55

providing low interest rate loans, tax breaks, or other forms of subsidization to mitigate early costs of EP for private landholders. Given the benefits that EP may provide to society, which are external benefits to the private landholders as described above, policy makers may have ample justification for creating such subs idies. We provide a sensitivity analysis of discount rates and show the rate that would make net present va lues of EP profitable for large scale forest landholders in the region (Table 3-2). The discount rates represent effects of policy subsidization such as low interest loans or tax breaks. The planting area and species were assessed as follows: Area: The planting takes place in liana forest patches that often occupy 15-20% of forest landholdings (Chapter 2). Typical planting areas at Fazenda Cauaxi are 200 m2. During interviews, IFT employees reported cost inform ation in terms of the costs of preparing and planting each 200 m2 planting area. For this analysis costs and benefits were then divided by the number of cubic meters of wood expected from the area, resulting in costbenefit data reporte d in terms of BR$/m3 of wood produced by EP. Species: parica ( Schizolobium amazonicum ), fava ( Parkia gigantocarpa ), mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla King), and ip (Tabebuia serratifolia). Growth rates and prices: The EP areas contai n a mixture of fast-growing, lower priced species (S. amazonicum and P. gigantocarpa) and slower-growing, higher priced species ( S. macrophylla and T. serratifolia ). A mid-rotation commerci al thinning is included during which fast-growing species may be ha rvested to provide short-term financial benefits to offset ongoing costs of maintenan ce. Current Brazilian forest policy does not permit re-entry for timber harvest before th e 30th year, but we included this 15th-year thinning with the expectation that it woul d be permitted under the evolving regulatory framework (Zweede, personal communicati on). The slower gr owing species are harvested at Year 60 in this CBA, based on gr owth rates projected in Chapter 2. Except in scenarios 3 and 5, it was assumed that costs and timber market prices would not change enough to alter the re venue projections from those reported in Holmes et al. (2002). Discount rate: A rate of 9.75% was used in calc ulations of the net pr esent value (NPV) of EP seedlings to be harvested in the fu ture (BNDES, 2007) except for Scenario 7. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Bene fit Cost Ratio (BCR) were calculated in addition to NPV for the seven EP scenarios. Inte rnal rate of return is an indicator of the profitability of an inve stment; it is the discount rate at whic h the net present value of a project 55

PAGE 56

will equal zero. It is usually used to compare investment options: if a project has a high IRR compared to another investment option, the proj ect would have to be subjected to a higher discount rate for the net present va lue to fall to zero. Therefore, the project with the highest IRR would be the most desirable (other factors e qual) because it would have higher likelihood of showing profitable growth. In addition to project vs. project comparisons, one can also compare a projects IRR to return rates of financial markets such as the St andard & Poors 500 to determine if project money would be better inve sted in the market (B orders and Bailey, 2001; Campbell and Brown, 2003; Dubois and Glover, 2001). Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is also informative for policy makers: the BCR tells ho w much financial value a project will yield compared to the amount spent on the project. In settings of monetary constraints, which many industrial and policy-making set tings are, the BCR can be more informative than the NPV because BCR tells how much money a project will return per dollar invested. The indicators we report in this chapter can be used together to determine if privat e investments in EP and/or policy support of EP are economically justifiable. Results Scenario 1, our as-is scenario of EP as conducted at Fazenda Cauaxi is not financially cost effective without accounting for benefits to the company aside from the sale of timber grown in EP areas. At the 9.75% discount rate, the current EP practices conducted at Fazenda Cauaxi result in a net present value (NPV) of US$-12.15/m3. Scenario 2, the low cost scenario resulted in a NPV of US$-11/m3, an IRR of 0.043 and a BCR of 0.24. The highest net costs are associated with seedling cultiv ation and planting, which includ e costs of building a nursery, purchasing or gathering seeds, collecting planting soil with a tract or, care for seedlings in the nursery, transport to planting site site preparation, and planting of the seedlings (Appendix A). Scenario 3 shows what may happen if seedlings are planted but not tend ed. Low yield provides 56

PAGE 57

less revenue at the commercial thinning and harvest, resulting in an NPV of US$-38.7, IRR of 0.012 and BCR of 0.06 even though high maintenan ce expenses were not incurred. Given a reasonable yield from an EP area, ad ditional sources of revenue can make EP profitable for private industrial landholders. For example, the sensitivity analysis of carbon payments (Scenario 4) showed that payments of $30/metric ton resulted in a positive NPV of US$0.94, an IRR of 0.54 and a BCR of 1.07. A tim ber price increase of 500% (Scenario 5) results in a positive NPV of US$2.53, IRR of 0.14 and BCR of 1.18. Sensitivity analysis results showed that lower carbon and timber prices resulted in negative NPVs: US$3/ metric ton of carbon paid every 5 years result in NPV of US$-9.81, IRR of 0.14, and a BCR of 0.32. US$10/metric ton of carbon, paid every 5 years result in an NPV of US$-7.02, an IRR of 0.30 and BCR of 0.51 (Table 3-2). A timber price in crease of 150% resulted in an NPV of US$5.93/m3, and IRR of 0.07, and a BCR of 0.59; an increas e of 300% in timber prices resulted in an NPV of US$-4.24, IRR of 0.10, and a BCR of 0.71 (Table 3-2). Government support in the form of free se edlings did not reduce early costs enough to result in a positive NPV. In Scenario 6, free seedlings resulted in NPV of US$-7.55, IRR of 0.052, and BCR of 0.31. The Scenario 7 sensitivity analysis of discount rates showed that a rate of 3% results in a positiv e NPV of US$3.70, IRR of 0.01, and BCR of 1.11 (Table 3-2). Discussion The first assessment of enrichment planting showed that extensive nursery, planting, and maintenance expenses can overwhelm the financial benefits of EP. The high expenses in this case probably result from extensive care given to keep the EP areas visually appealing for demonstration and training. For more industrial fo rests not used for demonstration or training it would be realistic to reduce cost s by reducing some nursery expe nses and many years of planting site maintenance without reducing growth rates of the trees. However, despite lower costs, the 57

PAGE 58

low cost scenario also resulted in a negative NPV. Since costs are incu rred early and financial benefits are not gained until thinning and harvest, just lowering costs to a minimal level alone did not result in a positive NPV. This result agrees with reports of enrichment planting profitability depending on sales of short term, non-timber products from the trees before year of harvest (Schulze et al. 1994) and cases of EP with fast-growing species that can be harvested within 10 years of planting (Adjers et al., 1995; Lamb et al., 2005) Non-timber products and/or short harvest cycles provide fina ncial benefits to planters fast er; short term benefits may be necessary to attain a pos itive NPV for planting. Carbon sequestration payments may provide frequent, short term, financial benefits for planters (Coomes et al., 2008; Smith and Applegate, 2004; Stainback and Alavalapati, 2002; Wise and Cacho, 2005). In the carbon payment scenario economic indicators show that EP combined with carbon payments is a financially justifiable option, although this depends in part on the price paid to forest holders for carbon credits. The sensitivity analysis of carbon sequestration prices revealed that the price suggested by the Brazilian government, US$3 per metric ton, is too low to make the NPV positive for planting. However, the price of US$30, the current European market price, resulted in positive NPV and fa vorable IRR and BCR. It should be noted that in this analysis, operational cost s that may be incurred to receive the payments would reduce the net value of receiving carbon payments (Vliet et al., 2003). Potentially costly activities include more frequent monitoring and an alysis of tree growth and administrative costs of reporting growth. In order to fully asse ss appropriate pricing, pr ofitability of carbon sequestration at the suggested pr ices should include any cost incr eases associated with receiving payments. To further complete a carbon paymen t appraisal, the costs and benefits of this scenario should be compared with profitability of EP with alternate tr ee species (i.e., species 58

PAGE 59

with traits such as faster grow ing or higher wood dens ity) and the profitability of other land uses. It also should be noted that there are various allo metric equations in the literature that could be used to calculate the amount of carbon stored in growing trees, sp ecies of trees hold different amounts of carbon per cubic meter, and research has resulted in range of reported biomass estimates for Amazon forests (Alves et al., 1997; Chambers et al., 2001; Fearnside and Guimares, 1996; Keller et al., 2001; Nelson et al., 1999; Nogueira et al., 2005; Overman et al., 1994; Saatchi et al., 2007). Policies that encourag e carbon credit sales should be based on careful review of the most reliable information available for these forests. If timber prices increase 500% from those re ported in Holmes et al. (2002), the NPV of enrichment planting becomes positive. The chances of such an increase are reasonable for high value species, given trends in tropical wood sa le prices reported by th e International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO, 2007). In addition, wood certified by Smartwood can sell for higher prices than those from noncertified forests and therefore EP may be more profitable in a certified forest setting. Governmental and nongovernmental organizations internationa lly have supported distribution of free seedlings to promote reforestation and forest restoration in degraded areas. Many reports on such planting projects cite lack of secure tenure or lack of ample land as deterrents to tree planti ng (Murray, 1987; Otsuka et al., 2003; Summers et al., 2004) and, perhaps inadvertentl y, imply that planting costs are not a de terrent when seedlings are provided. Here the financial analysis showed that NPV remained negative despite money saved by using free seedlings. In addition, new costs may be in curred if forest managers have to transport seedlings from a point of distribution to their planting site, which was not included in the free seedling scenario. Given transportation costs EP may become more expensive if planters use the 59

PAGE 60

provided seedlings. Free seeds or seedlings may be more beneficial to planters when the species produce short term products, such as fruits or non-timber products, and when timber is only one of multiple, internal benefits of growing the trees. If the only benefit of planting free seedlings is timber, then free seedlings may not be incentive enough to overcome enrichment planting costs. Policy mechanisms that could reduce EP co sts include subsidies and tax policies that encourage longer harvest rotations to increase biomass produced and incr ease proportion of more permanent timber products by encouraging saw timber production (Stainback and Alavalapati, 2002). The scenario of lowered discount rates re ported here simulates th e effect of financial support of EP through such policies. A discount rate of 3% resulted in positive NPV, which is lower than the rates usually observed in Brazil. Policy support that decreas es EP discount rate to 3% could be justified by the benefits to societ y of EP. Although not quant ified here, the social benefits of EP may be substantial. They include alleviation of high unemployment among logging sector in the wet season, ability of logging industry in long-term locations rather than boom-and-bust forest product economy (Burns, 1965; Lambin and Geist, 2003), rare species conservation (Zweede, personal communication), and maintaining trained employees through the non-harvest wet season when most forest work ers are laid off may help landowners reduce turnover and training costs. Bene fits to society are mostly ex ternal to private landholders. Policy makers may be interested in promoting EP with financial incentives, an internal benefit for the land holders, for the external benefits that can boost socioeconomic and ecological wellbeing. While much attention is given to NPV results the IRR and BCR indicato rs also are useful for forest managers and policy makers. Calc ulating the NPV requires an assumption of the discount rate, which can be very hard to pred ict for the long time span of a timber project. 60

PAGE 61

Internal rate of return does not require a discount rate and therefore reduces uncertainty in equation. In this chapter the NPV and BCR give consistent indications of the investment feasibility for each scenario: Those with the highest NPV also have the highest ratio of benefits per money invested. The scenarios with the best NPV and BCR were carbon sequestration sales at US$30/metric ton and the scenario of 3% discount rate. The indi cator that does not use discounted values, the IRR, showed that carbon sa les and higher priced timber sales would be the most profitable scenarios. Carbon sales rank high when using or not using discount rates because they bring a steady stream of revenue even early in the life of the project. Therefore, the revenue is high even when discount rates lower the payments from the end of the project to almost nothing. Carbon payment scenarios also rank high when not using discount rates because the full value of all of the paym ents and the timber sales sum to a relatively very profitable amount compared with the other scenarios. Usin g the discounted indicators, 3% discount rate ranked second; using the non-disco unted indicator, higher pri ced timber sales ranked second. The second ranked scenarios are actu ally very similar given the indicators that ranked them: the indicators both ranked second the scenario that would provide the most revenue from timber sales. NPV and BCR ranked the 3% discount rate, which was the lowest of all the scenarios, because that low rate caused the least amount of reduction in the revenue from timber sales. Similarly, the IRR favored the high timber pri ce because, since IRR is calculated without discount rates, the sale of the logs in this scenario was the highest of all scenarios. The EP scenarios included a mixture of fast and slowgrowing species in a forested setting, however, currently in the region most timbe r planting consists of fast-growing monoculture plantations. We did not perform data collection and cost-b enefit analysis of a hypothetical scenario of EP in liana clearings with a monoculture of fast-growing species 61

PAGE 62

although land managers would probabl y have interest in this scenar io. We suspect that benefits of planting fast-growers in liana patches and ha rvesting them on shorter ro tations, such as the 30yr legal minimum, would not exceed financial bene fits of planting mixed species. Planting costs and harvest costs would remain the major expens es regardless of species planted and therefore little expense would be saved by changing the sp ecies or harvesting earlier. The costs of planting would be recuperated sooner in this scenario, subjecting th e timber sales to less discounting, but the fast-growers tend to have lo wer sale prices and this reduces the financial benefits of sale despite shorter discounting. In addition the landholder would have to plant new seedlings after the 30-year harv est to start the next rotation, and to continue receiving carbon sequestration payments, which would incur a repeat of the planti ng costs. Landholders conducting EP with a mixture of fa stand slow-growers can incur planting costs once, recuperate costs early with a commercial thinning or 30-yr ha rvest of the fast-growers, and harvest the slowgrowing, higher value species in later rotations. In a setting of long-term management, such as this FSC certified forest where landholders ar e implementing RIL harvesting, planting a mixture of species helps ensure expected timber volum es of high value species for multiple harvest rotations, thus supporting the long-term plans of the landholder. In a scenario where the landholder is also receiving carbon sequestration payments, planti ng mixed species can provide a source of carbon payments for multiple rotations without repeated costs of planting seedlings. In comparison to the cost-benefit analysis of industrial scale EP, research about EP on small family farms in the region suggests that multitasking of tree care helps make EP economically viable at the family farm scale (Chapter 5). The difference may be due to lower costs of smallholder EP in terms of capital and opportunity costs, since smallholders plant during down times and not in conflict wi th planting or harvest times fo r crops. Smallholder costs are 62

PAGE 63

also low due to opportunistic use of seeds and seedlings from their propert y. Smallholders also may gain more diverse internal benefits fr om planting such as land improvement, nontimber products for sale or use by the family, insurance against financial hardsh ip, and satisfaction of planting (Chapter 5). The lower costs incurred by planting on a family farm scale, combined with the diverse values of financial and non-fina ncial benefits for families, support the findings in this chapter that EP appears most feasible in a setting of low costs and multiple internal benefits in addition to lo ng-term harvest of timber. Conclusion If the primary goal is to achieve profit fr om enrichment planting, a landholder would not conduct EP of slow-growing species at the industrial scale if costs will be similar to those shown here and if no other, short term, benefits are av ailable from planting. However, costs could be lowered and external benefits of EP could be ma de internal. Costs coul d be lowered by reducing planting and maintenance costs to a minimum (S cenario 2), access to free seedlings or other services (Scenario 6) and/or pol icies that lower discount rates for planters (Scenario 7). In Chapter 6, I suggest that seedlings and other resources such as techni cal planting information could be supplied by a governmental agency or a nonprofit NGO that provides diverse, local, appropriate seedlings for free at nurseries that conduc t research and planting trials. If the nurseries are easily accessed, they could help reduce risks and costs associated with EP by providing seedlings, supplies, in formation, and possibly assistance with other processes that encourage EP such as management plan writi ng and tenure applications Based on observations of smallholder EP reported in Chapter 5, it al so may be possible to lower costs of EP by following the example of smallholders who plan t when other farm demands are not pressing (down-times) and who multitask planting and mainte nance activities with other farm activities. 63

PAGE 64

64 At the industrial scale, the dow n times would be during the nonharvest season and multi-tasked activities could include site cleari ng during road clearing or site surveys during forest surveys. Revenue of EP could be increased to make it financially justifiable and competitive with other land uses. Brazilian policy could boos t EP revenue greatly by facilitating carbon sequestration payments. EP may have far reaching, external benefits that could be captured in a social appraisal that would justify po licy and/or external support of EP.

PAGE 65

Table 3-1. Scenarios of enrichment planti ng in conditions of alternate costs, alternate yields, additional benefits, and policy support. Since the Scenario 1 cost accounting was not used for other scenarios it is not repor ted here but can be found in the results section of the text. All scenarios show n here are calculated using Scenario 2 mi nimum expenses. All scenarios assume a yield of 18 m3 wood per EP area except the low yield scen ario (#3) that uses a 6 m3 yiel d. All scenarios use a wood price of US$16.81/m3 for low value wood harvested at thinning, and US$91.65/m3 for high value wood harvested at Yr 60 (Holmes et al., 2002, converted to 2004 dolla rs), except Scenario 5 which simulates a 500% increase. Values in each row of years are not discounted, but discounted sums and a net present value are reported in the Present Value (PV) row using a discount rate of 9.75%. Scenario 7 us es a 3% discount rate, which made EP net present value po sitive. Results are reported in US dollars per cubic meter of wood produced, us ing average 2004 currency conve rsion rate of 2.95 between Brazilian and US currency. Alternate costs Alternate yields Additional revenue Policy support Scenario 2 Low cost Scenario 3 Low yield Scenario 4 EP with US$10/ton carbon payments Scenario 5 higher wood prices (500% increase) Scenario 6 Free seedlings Scenario 7 Low discount rate (3%) Yr Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net Bene Cost Net 1 0 -10.99 -10.9 0 -32.9 -32.9 0 -10.9 -10.9 0 -10.9 -10.9 0 -7.55 -7.55 0 -10.9 -10.9 2 0 -0.75 -0.75 0 -2.71 -2.71 0 -0.75 -0.75 0 -0.75 -0.9 0 -0.75 -0.75 0 -0.75 -0.75 3 0 -0.68 -0.68 0 -2.71 -2.71 0 -0.68 -0.68 0 -0.68 -0.9 0 -0.68 -0.68 0 -0.68 -0.68 4 0 -0.42 -0.42 0 -1.8 -1.8 0 -0.42 -0.42 0 -0.42 -0.6 0 -0.42 -0.42 0 -0.42 -0.42 15 16.8 -6.03 10.77 16.8 -10.6 6.2 16.8 -6.03 10.7 111 -6.03 105 16.8 -6.03 10.7 16.8 -6.03 10.7 55 0 -4.30 -4.30 0 -12.9 -12.6 0 -4.30 -4. 30 0 -4.30 -4.30 0 -4. 30 -4.30 0 -4.30 -4.30 60 91.2 -6.03 85.2 91.2 -6.03 85.2 91.2 -6.03 85 .2 608 -6.03 602 91.2 -6.03 85.2 91.2 -6.03 85.2 Sum 108 -29.2 78.8 108 -69.6 -38.2 137* -29.2 166 719 -29.2 689 108 -25.7 82.3 108 -29.2 78.8 PV 3.38 -14.1 -11.6 2.41 -41.1 -38.7 7.36 -14.1 -7.02 9.1 -14.1 -5.0 3.38 -10.9 -7.5 35.9 -32.2 3.7 IRR 0.043 0.012 0.30 0.14 0.052 0.043 BCR 0.23 0.06 1.54 1.18 0.31 1.11 65 Note : Year 1 activities include germ ination and planting, Yrs 2-4 incl ude site maintenance, Yr 15 in cludes site maintenance and a commercial thinning, Yr 55 includes DBH monitoring and vine cutting, and Yr 60 incl udes RIL harvest. *Carbon payments issued every 5 years add to the sum, NPV, IRR, and BCR of Scenario 4. Nondiscounted payments of US$3/t on, starting at year 5, reported per m3 of wood produced, were $0.27, $0.72, $1.21, $0.70 (first payment after thinning), $0.93, $1.17, $1.39, $1.66, $1.92, $2.19, $2.45, $2.73. Payments of US$10/ton were $0.91, $2.39, $4.03, $2.34, $3.10, $3.89, $4.63, $5.55, $6.41, $7.28, $8.18, $9.09. Payments of $30/ton were $361.81, $847.14, $1379.80, $7.01, $9.30, $11.67, $13.89, $16.64, $19.22, $21.85, $24.54, $27.27.

PAGE 66

Table 3-2. Sensitivity analysis of influences on enrichment planting economic indicators. Payments for sequestered atmospheric ca rbon, increases in wood prices, lowered discount rates were assessed. Results reported in US dollars per cubic meter of harvested timber (US$/m3) given a yield of 18m3/planting area. Scenario Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Carbon payments US$3/ton US$10/ton US$30/ton Payments sum, NPV $17.34, $-9.81 $57.79, $-7.02 $173.38, $0.94 IRR, BCR 0.14, 0.32 0.30, 0.51 0.54, 1.07 Timber prices 150% increase 300% increase 500% increase Sales sum, NPV $216, $-5.93 $325, $-4.24 $541, $2.53 IRR, BCR 0.07, 0.59 0.10, 0.71 0.14, 1.18 Discount rate 3% 6% 9.75% Sales sum, NPV $ 108.34, $3.70 $108.34, $-4.46 $108.34, $-11.00 IRR, BCR 0.01, 1.11, 0.02, 0.72 0.05, 0.24 66

PAGE 67

CHAPTER 4 EARLY PLANTING TREATMEN T EXPERIMENTS: GROWTH AND SURVIVAL OF PLANTED FRUIT AND TIMBER SPECIES WITH AND WITHOUT TREATMENTS IN PARAGOMINAS, PAR, BRAZIL Introduction Large areas of the eastern Am azon of Brazil have been degraded by overgrazing of cattle and subsequently abandoned. One strategy for restoring economic and ec ological productivity to such areas is enrichment planti ng of native tree species (Nepstad et al., 1991; Nghiep, 1986; Pereira and Uhl, 1998; Uhl et al. 1991). There is little information available to help land managers choose species, site preparation and plan ting techniques, and silvicultural treatments. As shown in Chapter 3, planting treatments must be chosen carefully because the early expenses easily outweigh long-term financial benefits of enrichment planting. There is a need for data on the long-term results of early treatments in orde r for land managers to choose the most efficient planting and maintenance methods; short-term data on growth rates and tr eatment responses are currently available for some perennial specie s in the region (Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Nepstad et al., 1998; Pereira a nd Uhl, 1998; Schulze, 2003) but few long-term analyses of growth or treatment response have been published (Alder and Silva, 2001; Schroth et al., 2002; Yamada and Gholz, 2002). Here we present the results of two studies: a site preparation and weeding experiment, and a fertilization experiment. Both studies in clude fruit and timber species chosen for their economic value and usefulness to landholders. They were planted in 1988 in cattle pastures that had been abandoned for one year (Pereira and Uhl, 1998) (Appendix B) Our objective is to provide growth and survivorship results of th e two experiments through 2003 so that landholders in the region who plant trees will know which early efforts may bring the most beneficial outcome. 67

PAGE 68

To evaluate the first experiment on site prep aration and maintenance effects, we analyzed shortand long-term height, diameter, and surviv al of 16 locally important species of fruit and timber trees planted in 1988. Site treatments included depth of planting hole and weeding. To asses the second experiment on fertilization eff ects we monitored the shortand long-term height, diameter, and survival of 26 native perennial species plan ted in an abandoned pasture in 1988. Evaluation of early preparation, weeding and fertilization is appropriate for this setting where planted areas may receive sh ort-term care but not extensive l ong-term care due to resource constraints (Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Simmons et al., 2002). Site Description The two experiments took place at Fazenda Vitoria, 6.5 km northwest of Paragominas, Par, Brazil (2 59 S, 47 31 W). The area is upland terra firme with a slightly rolling topography (slopes approximately 6%), elevatio n of approximately 200 m, and a mean annual temperature of 26.3 C. The so ils of the site are weathered, kaolin clays (Oxisols) and the precipitation (2277 mm per year) is seasonal with a wet season from December to June (Pereira and Uhl, 1998; Markewitz et al., 2001). Experiment One: Site Preparation and Maintenance Study Each of the 16 species was subjected to three treatments: seeds were buried at 1cm; seeds were buried at 1 cm and the area was weeded; and seeds were buried at 1cm in a 30 cm hole filled w/ loose soil and the area was weeded. The treatments are referred to as buried (B), buried/weeded (BW), and buried/weeded/so il (BWS). The three treatments were administered in mainplots composed of 3 adjace nt subplots. Each mai nplot contained 27 seeds of one species allocated equally among the subplots (nine seeds pe r subplot). Each subplot was given one of the three treatments. The mainplots were replicated three times in three blocks for a 68

PAGE 69

total of 432 planted seeds per treatment. Locations of the mai nplots within the three blocks were randomized. Subplots were the unit of analysis. Our null hypothesis was that treatments woul d have no shortor long-term effects on growth and/or survivorship (South et al., 1993). We used SPSS to perform univariate ANOVAs on survivorship, height, and diameter at breast height (DBH) for each treatment, species, and treatment-species interaction. He ight and percent survivorship results are presented for 1991 and 2003 to give shortand long-term data, but DBH results are given only for 2003 since many individuals were not tall enough in 1991 for this measurement. Survivorship was calculated as the percent of individuals surviving of those that were planted (Myster, 2002). Post-hoc testing included multiple comparisons of treatment and species means using Bonferroni and Scheffe analyses. Relative growth rates were compared to determine fastest growing species across treatments (Hoffmann and Poorter, 2002; Sack and Grubb, 2001). Site Preparation and Maintenance Results Treatment Effects Treatment effects were significant in the shortand long-term (1991 height P< 0.001, 2003 height P= 0.001, 2003 DBH P= 0.029) with different directions of effects per treatment, which we explored further with post-hoc analysis The post-hoc analyses showed that treatment B (seeds buried at 1 cm), produced the shortest, smallest diameter individuals in 1991 and 2003, with 44% and 22% survivorship, respectively (1991 height P< 0.001 between B and BW, and P< 0.001 between B and BWC; 2003 height P< 0.001 between B and BW, and 0.31 between B and BWC; 2003 DBH P< 0.001 between B and BW, a nd P< 0.001 between B and BWC). Treatment BW, where seeds were buried at 1cm and the area was weeded, produced the tallest and largest diameter individuals in 1991 and 2003 with su rvivorship of 48% and 24%, respectively (1991 height P< 0.001 between B and BW, and 0.08 between BW and BWC; 2003 height P< 0.001 69

PAGE 70

between BW and B, and BW and BWS; 2003 DBH P< 0.001 between BW and B, and 0.25 between BW and BWS). Treatmen t BWC, where seeds were buried at 1cm in loosened soil and the area was weeded, differed from B in the shor tbut not long-term a nd its survivorship was 45%, 22%, respectively (1991 he ight P< 0.001 between BWS and B, and P=0.75 between BWS and BW; 2003 height P= 0.31 between BWS and B, and P< 0.001 between BWS and BW; 2003 DBH P= 0.22 between BWS and B, and 0.25 between BWS and BW) (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Differences in short-term survivorship we re significant among treatments (P= 0.007), and we explored the differences furt her with post-hoc anal ysis. The post-hoc an alysis showed that only the effects of planting at 1 cm (treatment B) and planting at 1cm with weeding (treatment BW) were significant, with treatment B resu lting in lower survivorship (1991 P=0.006). However, in practical terms the treatments made little difference: all treatments resulted in approximately 46% or ~200 surviving seedlings in 1991. The statistical differences in survivorship were lost by 2003 (P= 0.152) and all treatments resulted in 22%-24% survivorship (Appendix C). Species Effects Species effect on growth and survivorship was significant in shor tand long-term for height, diameter, and survi vorship among species (1991 a nd 2003 P values = 0.00), with different directions of effect per species (Appendix C). Regardless of treatment, species grew to different sizes and ultimately range d in height from 3m to 23m with diameters of 2cm to 28cm (Figures 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5), and survivorship of 0-90%. Thirteen specie s differed significantly from others in survivorship; of these, Bagassa guianensis Bertholletia excelsa and Orbignya phalerata had the lowest survivorship and Ximenia americana L., Hymenaea courbaril and Platonia insignis had the highest (Appendix C). Relative growth rate (RGR) comparisons of 70

PAGE 71

heights revealed that P. insignis and Sclerolobium paniculatum were the fastest growers over the 15 years of the study, respectively, with S. adstringens and Acacia sp. tied for third fastest. Species X Treatment Effects Interactions of the treatment and species were significant in most years for height (1989 P< 0.001; 1990 P= 0.002; 1991 P= 0.79; 2003 P=0.01) but not for DBH (2003 P= 0.522). This indicates that treatment affected height for some species more than others, but not DBH. Treatment also affected survivorship for some species more than others: treatment and species interactions were significant in 1991 (P< 0.001) and 2003 (P<0.001). Overall, treatment is important although the effect vari es from species to species. Experiment Two: Fertilization Study Within a one-hectare area recently abandoned pa sture, 26 study species were planted in a randomized split-plot design of twen ty lines that were paired into 10 blocks. Each line contained one representative of the 26 species. For each sp ecies, twenty similar-sized seedlings purchased locally were planted early in the wet season (January 22 February 2, 1989). Among the species, seedlings ranged in height from 10-100 cm. The pasture was burned prior to planting and lines were delineated 5 m apart, with planting holes every 5 m. Top soil and ash were mixed in the planting holes and, after waiting 10 days, the cont ainerized seedlings were introduced. Within each block, seedlings in one line received 50 g of NPK 10-10-10 fertilizer and 10 l of cattle manure at the time of planting. At the beginning of the second year, treatment seedlings each received an additional 50 g of NP K 10-10-10 fertilizer and 3 l of cattle manure. For 2 years, the area was maintained twice per year by using a machete to clear co mpeting vegetation from an 80 cm radius around the seedlings (Pereira and Uhl, 1998). Height and basal diameter (1 cm above root collars) of seedlings were measured annually until 1991. In 2003 diameters were measured using diameter tape at 1.3 m height (DBH). 71

PAGE 72

We evaluated the performance of each speci es and six mutually exclusive groups that were characterized by low va riance in their 2003 growth data: four family groups (Anacardiaceae, Arecaceae, Myrtaceae, and Sapotaceae), other timber species, and other fruit species. We averaged relative growth rates (R GRs) of individuals with in each species to rank the slowest and fastest growing species for diam eter and height (Table 4-1) (Hoffmann and Poorter, 2002; Sack and Grubb, 2001) and assessed whether these categories were characterized by differences in survivorship. We then regr essed the average diameter and height growth between 1990-1991 against the average diameter and height yield in 2003 and tested for homogeneity of the slopes between control and treatment groups to evaluate whether short-term growth rates were a reliable indicator of long-te rm performance, and whether this relationship was affected by fertilization (Hair et al., 1995). We used Fisher 's Exact Two-tail Chi Square tests on data for each measured year to determine whether survivorship was influenced by fertilization (Summers et al., 2004). To assess the effects of fertilization on shortand long-term growth, we conducted a repeated measures ANOVA on the 1990-1991 height and diameter data and a standard ANOVA on the height and diameter data collected in 2003. For the 2003 data, the interaction of block and treatment was not significant for any group, so we dropped the interaction term from the ANOVA model. For the 2003 data, we followed the ANOVA with Least Squares Means analyses to determine treatment effects at the species level, and we used a null model likelihood ratio test to calculate the relative heights a nd diameters of each species in order to find the direction and quantities of treatment effects. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS (SAS Institute Inc., 1996). Fertilization results Most of the fastest growers were timber species, including Cedrela odorata Tabebuia serratifolia and Parkia sp., as well the small tree Platonia insignis of the 72

PAGE 73

other fruit species group (Table 4-1). Mean survivorship among the fastest growers was 79%, compared to an average 56% survivorship of the remaining species (Appendix C). The slowest growers included species from four of the six functional groups: Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae group), Annona muricata (other fruit species group) and Eugenia jambos (Myrtaceae group) (Table 4-1). Mean survivorship of the slowest growing species was 42%. No species of Citrus sp. and Bixa orelana (other fruit species group), and Spondias mombin (Anacardiaceae group) survived to 2003. Our regression analysis showed that short-term growth rate s are moderately useful as predictors of long-term growth performance, and the ability to pred ict long-term growth trajectories from short-term growth data was not affected by treatment (Diameter R2= 0.294, P=0.516; Height R2=0.209, P=0.363). The chi-square analysis showed that treatment also had very little impact on surv ivorship, affecting only Genipa americana in 2003 (negative effect, P = 0.0230), consistent with previous work in Ec uador that showed that the seedlings of 15 native tree species did not re spond to fertilizer (Davidson et al., 1998). The re peated measures ANOVA revealed that during the 1990-1991 period, treatment, species, and their interaction (P<0.001) had significant effects on growth. Fertilized individuals in 1990-1991 were an average of 52 cm taller than control trees, a diffe rence of 24%, while fertilized individuals were an average of ~1 mm larger in diameter than cont rol individuals in the short-term (17%). The positive short-term impact of fertilization a nd weeding on growth that we report here is consistent with previous work in the region (Ares et al., 2003; Schroth et al., 1999; Silva et al., 2002a;). Despite the short term effects, in 2003 fe rtilized trees were an av erage of 3.2 cm shorter than those that did not receive fertilizer, a statistically signifi cant (P <0.01) but substantively trivial difference of 0.4%; diameters of fertilized trees were an average of <1 cm larger than 73

PAGE 74

untreated trees, again a statistically significan t but trivial difference (0.9%). Species-level analysis revealed that by 2003 the early fert ilization had a positive effect on diameters of Astrocarpus heterophyllus (other fruit species group) and Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae group). Two species reacted negatively in height to the treatment: Anacardium occidentale (Anacardiaceae group), and Swietenia macrophylla (timber group) (Appendix C). Discussion and Conclusions In general, studies of the longer-term imp act of early treatments on neotropical tree plantings are lacking although the information is needed for mixed-species management initiatives such as in-forest en richment planting for future harv est and/or restoration planting. Our results show that, when combined, planting site treatment and species affected height, DBH and survivorship of the planted species such that the medium-intensity treatment, BW (buried at 1 cm depth and weeding) produced the larges t and longest-surviving individuals. When treatment was assessed alone, results showed that planting hole preparation and weeding affect growth: individuals that were bur ied at 1 cm and maintained with weeding (Treatment BW) grew tallest and largest in diameter. Simply burying seeds at 1 cm (Treatment B) produced shortest, smallest diameter individuals. Burying them in loosened soil and weeding the planting sites (Treatment BWS) produced individuals that were usually larger than Treatment B but smaller than Treatment BW. The treatments did not aff ect long term survivorship: in the short-term Treatment B resulted in signifi cantly lower survivorsh ip than the other treatments, although in practical terms the treatments made little difference in numbe r of survivors. Long-term survivorship showed no significant difference per treatment and was influenced more by species traits. The planting arrangement may have influen ced the survival of some species. Since they were planted in close proximity, interactions may have occurred that were not measured. For example, trees overtopped the shrubs before the long-term data were collected, which may have 74

PAGE 75

caused the demise of sun-loving sh rub species regardless of treatme nt. If studied further, we suggest that species could be planted in arrangements that avoid such interactions. Results of the fertilization experiment showed that early ferti lization alone is not justified by the long-term growth results. This conclusion is consistent w ith shorter-term analyses in the neotropics of the effects of competition, planting arrangement, soil quality, and other siteand species-specific qualities (Ares et al., 2003; Davidson et al., 1998; Gehring et al., 1999; Glaser et al., 2002; Lehmann et al., 2003; Silva et al., 2002a; Uhl, 1987). Elsewhere in the Amazon, researchers found that after 7 years of continuous fertilization, trees that received more fertilizer had significantly more biomass, but such a scen ario is more typical of monoculture, industrial plantations than mixed-species efforts at enrich ment planting and/or habi tat restoration (Schroth et al., 2002). As shown in Chapter 3, land holders seeking financial gain from planting trees in this region need to apply only the most efficient plan ting and site preparation treatments. Since early costs can outweigh the long-term fi nancial benefits of harvesting trees, there is little room for error in choosing the early treatments. With the planting-site treatment and fertilization information presented in this paper, land holders in the region may be able to make more informed, efficient management decisions for grow ing these species. It should be noted that effectiveness of treatments, especially fertiliz ation, depends on many factors related to the site and species and therefore management recommendations should be made in terms of site conditions and species. 75

PAGE 76

Figure 4-1. Treatment effects: Mean height of site preparat ion treatment groups in 1991, 2003 (Experiment 1). The graph shows effects of treatments B (seeds buried at 1 cm depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm and area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1 cm, area weeded, soil in planting hole was loosened). Effects are reported for 1991 and 2003. Figure 4-2. Treatment effects: Mean DBH in 2003 of site preparation treatment groups in 2003 (Experiment 1). The graph shows effects of treat ments B (seeds buried at 1 cm depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm and area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1 cm, area weeded, soil in planting hole was loosened). 76

PAGE 77

0 50 100 150 200 250 300A na c ar d i u m oc c i d e n t al e H y m en ae a c ou r b a r i l P a r k i a s p P l a t o n i a i n s i gn i s S c h i z o l o bi u m am a zo n i cu m S ol a nu m pa ni c ul a t um S t r y ph no d e n dr o n a ds t r i n ge ns T er m i n a l i a c at a p paSpeciesHeight (cm) Treatment B Treatment BW Treatment BWS Figure 4-3. Species effects: Mean height of each species with treatments in1991 (Experiment 1). Treatments included B (seeds buried at 1 cm depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm and area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1 cm, area weeded, soil in planting hole was loosened). 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500An a ca rd ium o cci den t a l e Hy me n aea courba r i l Pa rk ia sp Plat o n i a insig n is Schi z o lo b ium a ma z on i cu m S ol a num pani cu lat u m S tr yp h n od e n d ro n ad s tr in g e ns T e r min a l ia ca t a p paSpeciesHeight (cm) Treatment B Treatment BW Treatment BWS Figure 4-4. Species effects: Mean height of each species with treatments in 2003 (Experiment 1). Treatments included B (seeds buried at 1 cm depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm and area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1 cm, area weeded, soil in planting hole was loosened). 77

PAGE 78

0 5 10 15 20 25An a c a rdiu m occid e n t ale Hym e n a ea c o u rbaril Par k ia sp. P la t o nia in s ig n is Schizolo b iu m a ma z onicu m S t r y phnod e ndron adstring e ns Te rmina lia catap p aSpeciesDBH (cm) Treatment B Treatment BW Treatment BWS Figure 4-5. Species effects: Mean diameter at breast height (DBH) of each species with treatments in 2003 (Experiment 1). Treat ments included B (seeds buried at 1 cm depth), BW (seeds buried at 1 cm and area was weeded), BWS (seeds buried at 1 cm, area weeded, soil in planting hole was loosened). 78

PAGE 79

79 Table 4-1. Fertilization experiment growth rate results (Experiment 2) FASTEST GROWERS 2003 Species DIAMETER (RGR > 4.0 mm/mm/yr) Species HEIGHT (RGR > 4.0 cm/cm/yr) Control Treatment Control Treatment Parkia sp. x Cedrela odorata x x Parkia sp. x x Platonia insignis x x Tabebuia serratifolia x x SLOWEST GROWERS 2003 Species DIAMETER (RGR < 2.0 mm/mm/yr) Species HEIGHT (RGR < 2.0 cm/mm/yr) Control Treatment Control Treatment Mangifera indica var. x Annona muricata x Eugenia jambos x Eugenia jambos x x Annona muricata x Mangifera indica var. x x Note : Species are ranked as fastest and slowest grow ing for diameter and height in the control and treatment blocks. Species averages were used to calculate the relative growth rates (RGRs) (Hoffmann and Poorter 2002, Sack and Grubb 2001). Species that did not survive until 2003 were Citrus sp., B. orelana, and S. mombin

PAGE 80

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF ENRICHMENT PLANTING BY SMALLHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY OF MAZAGO, AMAPA, BRAZIL Introduction In areas where timber harvesting and forest clearing exceed the reproduction rate of forest tree species, planting may help maintain forest systems and provide for future timber harvests. Maintenance of forest systems and fu ture harvest trees may benefit local economies and conservation efforts (Arnold, 19 97; Best and Jenkins, 1999; Ricker et al., 1999; Smith, 1997). Planting timber species in additio n to naturally regene rating species, or enrichment planting (EP), may enhance the financ ial value of forests by increasing the monetary returns of conducting multiple, well-planned, reduced-impact harvests, thereby providing incentive for owners to maintain their fore sts as an asset (Murra y, 1987; Winterbottom and Hazelwood, 1987). On family farms, EP may also support nonfinancial values of land-holders such as providing materials used in the hom e, which may make EP more feasible for smallholders than industrial forest managers. Many organizations have tried to engage smallscale land holders in tr ee planting projects in order to promote economic and ecological we ll-being, with variable success (Murray, 1987; Simmons et al., 2002; Virginia Tech, 1996; Walters 1997; Winterbottom and Hazelwood, 1987) While planting in such projects is supposed to be beneficial to landholders, and while EP may help make forest management financially attr active (and thereby reduce forest conversion to other uses) some landholders choose not to participat e in planting projects. There has been little systematic research on the factors that influenc e the decisions among smallh olders to plant trees on their family farms. It can be hypothesized th at low rates of planting by smallholders result from factors such as uncertainty regarding benefits to be gain ed from the trees, financial or opportunity costs of conducting planting, or a lack of technical information or ability to care for 80

PAGE 81

planted trees. This hypothesis is based on re search on adoption of farming technology, which has shown the ability to adopt new methods depe nds in part on the size and type of landholding, perceptions of financial risks and uncertainties regarding new techniques, opportunity costs of land and labor, financial costs, ab ility to care for planted trees, perceptions of benefits including financial or other outcomes, ability to sell or use the products of the planted trees, and an economic setting in which trees provide a buffer against financial hardship (Table 5.1) (Alavalapati and Mercer, 2004; Avila et al., 1977; Boggess and Anaman, 1984; Browder et al., 1996; Dewees, 1995; Gobbi, 2000; Hildebrand, 1986b). Ecological factors play a role as well, since planters need species that are adaptable, ab le to thrive without intensive maintenance, and grow quickly enough to provide anticipated be nefits (Alavalapati a nd Mercer, 2004; Camargo et al., 2002; d'Oliveira, 2000; Kainer, 1998; Mont agnini et al., 1997; Perz, 2001; Schulze, 2003 Zhou, 1999). The first objective of this research is to identify whether conditions of uncertainty, financial and/or opportunity costs, lack of labor to care for trees, or inab ility to sell products of planted trees hinder planting on family farms. The study is based on planting observed on family farms in a small community in the vrzea of the eastern Amazon of Brazil. Although tree planting initiatives have met mixed reactions and smallholders often choose not to participate, in many cases pl anting has been observed on family farms in developing countries despite a lack of local projects, subsidies, or other external support for planting. The second objective of this research is to identify the conditions that motivate smallholders to conduct EP and thereby fill a gap in our understanding of what drives smallholders to plant trees. This study of family land management and enrichment planting on family lands took place in a community in the forested floodplain of the Amazon River near Mazago, in the state 81

PAGE 82

of Amap, Brazil. The community is in a region that has the largest concentration of logging and milling operations in the Amazon basin (Barros and Uhl, 1999; Pinedo-Vasquez et al., 2001), indicating the importance of fore stry in the economy of the region. In the study community many families have ample land for planting timber to sell to local sawmills. However, some families do not conduct EP while others do, thus providing a natural site for comparison of the two groups in an attempt to determine factors th at encourage or discoura ge enrichment planting by smallholders. Although the stud y may be limited to a particular region in Brazil, the methods and results may be relevant to forest conser vation and management by smallholders in many forested, developing tr opical regions. Materials and methods Family Farming Systems The study community is populated mostly by caboclos descendants of indigenous Amazonian populations and African slaves who ha ve inhabited the area for multiple generations (Padoch et al., 1999). The loosely knit community cons ists of households situated on tributaries of the Amazon River in an area that experiences daily tidal fl ooding. Families have access to markets by river transport; they can bring products to market using family boats or they can sell products to middlemen who travel by boat from farm to farm, to purchase products that they resell for profit in the nearest ci ties that require 1-3 days of tr avel to reach. Families invest earnings in farm and family items and store limite d cash in their homes to meet off-season and emergency needs. There is variation among the families in the community. Those with the least financial resources live hand-to-mouth by growing food, ha rvesting non-timber products from forests, hunting, fishing, and even stealing food from nei ghboring land for sustenance (typically newer settlers, not yet established). Othe rs appear economically stable with diverse, reliable sources of 82

PAGE 83

income such as off-farm work as market middl e-men and/or local school employees. They meet food needs with reliable family farm crops of rice, corn, and fruits, and from non-timber forest products from their land. They fish and hunt to meet family protein needs. Although still considered poor, they have cash to buy food a nd other products at stores and small outposts within a day of river travel from their farms. The families in the most economically well-off group in the community also have meager homes in the town of Mazago Velho, within a day of river travel from the community. Most families in the community harvest fruits of the native palm Euterpe oleracea known as aai, for family consump tion and as a cash crop (Brondizio, 2004). Many families plant fruit trees near thei r homes, and some also plant local timber species. Model To assess influences on the families land management and EP, I developed an Ethnographic Linear Programming model (ELP) of participants land and forest management. ELP modeling is an adaptation of general linea r programming used in engineering and other fields where management plans are developed to optimize the allocation of limited resources among competing activities (Buongi orno and Gilless, 2003; Kaya et al., 2000) It is adapted to Linear Programming is a tool used in the field of decision management science called Mathematical Programming (MP), which is also know n as optimization. MP is the science of finding the most efficient way to use limited res ources to reach an objective. It is used by individuals and businesses: A business may us e MP to determine the mix of products to manufacture most efficiently to maximize profits with limited resources. An individuals example of MP would be financial planning that optimizes the amount of retirement money available while avoiding pe nalties or taxes. MP scenarios always contain constraints decisions, and an objective, which are expressed mathematically. For example, constraints on resources are expressed as less than or equal t o, greater than or equal to, or equal to, a specified value. In this type of mathematical expression, the resources are known as the left-hand-side (LHS) and the constraints are the right -hand-side (RHS). The objective also is written mathematically in an expression that maximizes (or minimizes) the end result of the resource -use decisions without violating the resource constraint s. MP problems are often solved using spreadsheets to process 83

PAGE 84

assess farming systems by including ethnographi c data such as resource endowments (land, labor, and capital) and home food consumption, and it can include multiple objectives such as desire for home improvements or education. By including descriptive ethnographic data, ELP models allow researchers to incorporate more complexity in the modeled system. Like the general form of LP modeling, an ELP adjusts levels of production in parts of a work system to find the combination that maximizes a specified goal but remains within cons traints such as time and capital (Alavalapati and Merc er, 2004). When applied to a sm allholder system like a family farm, constraints include the soci oeconomic and ethnographic factors described in this chapter. No ELP models that assess enrich ment planting have been developed previously in this region. Observations Twenty families were identified as potential participants by using the Snowball method with community members (Bernard, 2002; Perr eault, 2005). The families were named as good candidates for this research because they had si milar family sizes, economic class, size of land holdings, and their land contained a similar composition of aai, pe rennial fruiting species, and forest. Similarities were sought in orde r to reduce confounding va riables in the study by focusing on one economic level within the community. Further study could compare multiple economic levels by choosing enough families throughout the community to represent the levels proportionately. The potential participant familie s contained 8 to12 individuals, they lived on 80 to 100 ha of land and were considered neither poor nor elite. After inte rviewing all 20 families I chose 8, half of which were participating in a local tree planting project promoted by a and track the series of decisions that lead to optimization. One MP spreadsheet method is Linear Programming, in which the objective functions an d constraints are linear (Ragsdale, 2007). Linear Programming has been modified by some researchers to assess family optimization decisions, and this modified form is known as Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP), the spreadsheet modeling tool used in this chapter (Alavalapa ti and Mercer, 2004; Hildebrand, 1986b; Litow et al., 2001; Ragsdale, 2007). ELP will be explained in more detail later in this chapter. 84

PAGE 85

conservation NGO. The project gives paym ents of BR$200 (approximately US$69) to smallholders for tending Calycophyllum spruceanum (pau mulato) timber seedlings in small nurseries, planting them, and then maintaining the planted areas to favor the pau mulato seedlings. One goal of the NGOs project is to promote family use of these planted trees for household supplies such as timbe r and firewood rather than extracting the materials from surrounding forests. Observations took place over 3 years during dr y season visits. Observations were not made during the wet season; instead interview questions were used to obtain information for modeling wet season land management. The initial visit to the site consisted of 1-week stays with 2 families to become familiar with them and identify the twenty families that were good candidates for the study. Subsequent visits during the 2nd and 3rd years consisted of 2 to 4-week stays with the eight families. While living with the families, I conversed with all family members daily, participated in farm management and home activities, observe d labor and time allocation, and interviewed family members. Interview questions addresse d land use, time and la bor allocation, spending and earning of money, and changes in harvesting, planting, and land management that occur over time. Interview answers were confirmed by observations and cross checking during conversations with multiple family members. Model Formulation The ELP model requires an objective of the family farm and constraints on resources, identified during observations and interviews. An objective may be to maximize discretionary cash available for the family; constraints may be the minimum amount of food required for family food security, the maximum amount of land available for crops, and the maximum amount of labor available for crops. Given this in formation, the solver engine tries thousands of 85

PAGE 86

combinations of resource-use decisions to find the combination that optimizes the final objective while remaining within the constraints. For example, for a family that raises ducks and pigs and has the objective of maximizing cash earned from sale of the animals, the following variables and constraints woul d be considered: Cash available Labor time available Cost to purchase animals to raise Cost to feed animals Cash required for medicines and care Labor required to raise animals Labor required to care for offspring Time required for animals to mature or be ready for market Cash and time needed to transport animals to market Sale price of animals Number of animals needed for consumption by the family Cash or labor conflicts with ot her farm work (opportunity cost) In this example, if ducks cost less to purchase and feed, do not require labor or medicines, have offspring readily, mature quic kly, and do not have high opportunity cost then they may be the ideal animals for the familys farm However, if the sale price of ducks is low and people do not often buy them, and the sale price of pork is high, then pigs may be more profitable for a family if the family can afford the higher costs of piglet purchase, feeding, and care. In an ELP model, all cash, labor, and land requirements are considered against the final objective to determine the combin ation of decisions that lead to optimization. The model resembles this example but considers many more options than simply ducks and pigs. In the study families, options of items to sell include ducks, chickens, pigs, corn, rice, palm fruits, other fruits, shrimp, medicines, timber, and labor. Ability to raise, catc h or hunt the products optimally had to be balanced with family consum ption of items that would not be sold, such as fish or hunted meat. 86

PAGE 87

Importantly, ELP models also consider cultur al factors such as male and female labor hours available and the type of work conducted by males and females (or children, or elders, etc.), rather than generic labor hours. Therefore, if raising pi gs is only practiced by men, then pigs may be ideal animals for a family with ampl e male labor available but raising ducks may be best in a family with lit tle male labor available. Linear Programming models also include constraint ch anges over time; Ethnographic Linear Programming models consider how the fa milies change. Changes can include number of offspring of animals for future sale, family composition changes over time: more labor may be available as children mature but less available when they move to their own households, and sale prices or other values may change. Accoun ting for changes over ti me makes ELP modeling especially relevant to economics at this scal e. In the Mazago study, the ELP model objective was to maximize cash available to the family from selling raw materials, goods, produce and meat, and/or payment for off-farm labor. Constraints included time, labor, cash, land, and a required minimum of food for the family. Thes e Right Hand Side (RHS) constraints impose inflexible limits on the system. In the 20-year model used for this chapter, changes to family composition over time were not included, but should be included in further exploration of the effects of composition changes on enrichment planting choices. Farm and family activities such as cleari ng land, harvesting, prepar ing food, and planting, were included in the model and called Activitie s. Allocation of time or resources to these activities is flexible as long as the RHS constraints are met. During each run, resource allocation to the activities gets shuffled and rebalanced thousands of times as the model searches for the combination that achieves a final goal such as m aximize available discretionary cash at end of year 20. In this research, the model was used to develop scenarios that would result from 87

PAGE 88

changes in RHS constraints and/or farm activities. In particular, scenarios were sought that were conducive to enrichment planting. In each case, I had to give start-up cash to th e family during the first year of the model. I did this based on data regarding their sources of cash, for exam ple, one family included an elderly woman who receives retire ment money monthly and they receive a monthly stipend for participating in the tree planting project, so I used the sum of these amounts as their start-up cash. The hypotheses tested and scenarios used to te st them explored the e ffects of risk of tree loss, opportunity costs of EP, start-up costs, ability to care for planted seedlings and meet their ecological requirements, and the e ffect of diverse benefits. H ypotheses and tests are summarized in Table 5-2. Scenarios The following EP scenarios take place in co mbination with aai growing and harvesting, cultivating of crops, and other farm activities: Scenario 1: No subsidizatio n of enrichment planting The families bear all costs of conducting enri chment planting on their property, including seedling germination, planting, ongoing maintenance of planting areas, and harvest expenses if they choose to harvest and sell the timber produc ed. This scenario represents the actual conditions faced by the smallholders in the study who are not participan ts in the local tree planting project and may show how they allocate their resources so that they can include EP without project support. Scenario 2: Subsidization of initia l planting and continued stipend In this scenario a monthly subsidy is given to families who conduct EP on their property. Planting costs are subsidized with start-up cash equal to one monthly stipend payment given before planting takes place. Payments continue as long as the family maintains the EP areas on 88

PAGE 89

their property. This scenario represents the act ual conditions faced by th e participants in the local tree planting project who are paid US$69 (BR$200) monthly. A sensitivity analysis of stipend amounts is conducted to find an approxi mate minimum stipend n eeded to induce planting and maintenance of 1 ha, the amount required by the local tree planting project (Table 5-3). Scenario 3: One-time subsidization of initial planting, no further stipend This scenario explores the possibility that EP could be supported by reducing or eliminating expenses associated with planting but without payment for con tinued tree care. This is a hypothetical scenario that doe s not represent an actual subset of families in the study, but shows what the effects would be of a program that may provide free seedlings or one-time financial benefits to encourage planting. Intern ationally many tree planting initiatives use such methods. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to determine the approximate amount needed to induce planting (Table 5.3). Results Model outcomes revealed that Uncertainty of future timber harvest did not influence th e decision to conduct EP Planting that incurred opportuni ty costs that conflicted with other crops would not take place Start-up costs needed to be low or free Multi-tasking kept labor costs (and opportunity costs) low and increased families ability to care for planted trees Families conducted EP when they received shor t-term benefits of planting. Short-term benefits in the ELP model included initial payments and stipends (Table 5-2). The model also showed the strong influence of monthly planting payments. Analysis of family income and expenses showed that planti ng payments were 20% to 30% of the monthly income for each recipient family, and at times would pay for half of the monthly expenses. Monthly payments appear to be an effective short-term benefit that boosts family income and promotes retention of forest cover on family la nd. Sensitivity analyses showed that a one-time 89

PAGE 90

payment of US$65 $85 would be needed to motiv ate smallholders to conduct EP on at least 1 ha of their land. A start-up payment plus ongoi ng payments of US$10 $17 per month are the minimum needed for smallholders in this study to conduct EP on at least 1 ha of their land. Ongoing payments of US$69 (BR$200), the amount th at participants in the local tree planting project receive for thei r EP, can support approximately 3 ha of planting although the project does not require more than 1 ha. Payment effectiven ess and family satisfaction regarding the amount of payment were also expresse d in interviews, where family members said the stipend was plenty to compensate them for time a nd land dedicated to th e planting areas. Field observations showed that stipends we re not required for smallholders to conduct EP, but provided a very convincing incentive. All participants who received payments spent more time than other participants caring for seed lings and tending planti ng areas, and all reported that this was possible because of the payments Participants who conducted EP but did not receive payments believed the other benefits were worth the effort of plan ting; the benefits cited were investment in their property, insurance pr ovided by trees, timber for home improvements, mixture of long-term benefits of timber trees combined with shor ter-term benefits of other crops, short-term products provided by trees such as nut s and fuel wood, and sati sfaction of feeling like land was being well-treated for heirs in the tradi tion of the landholders parents. These non-cash benefits were not included in the model used fo r this chapter due to difficulties incorporating them in the model but will be included in further ELP analysis of tree planting on family farms. Discussion and Conclusion s: Lessons Offered by Vrzea Farmers Families who conducted EP were influenced by short term benefits including cash, as evaluated by the ELP model, and other, diverse, short term benefits desc ribed in interviews. The ELP model and field observations showed that short term benefits outweighed uncertainties regarding tree loss (such as from tr ee death or lack of tenure), whic h is a notable contradiction to 90

PAGE 91

many reports in forest conservation literature (Acosta, 2006; Fearnsid e, 2001b; Lambin and Geist, 2003). The contradiction suggests that policy makers and conservation organizations should consider actual local conditions before im plementing new projects to influence local land management. A factor that may be very important in one setting, such as tenure, may be outweighed by other priorities in different settings. In this case, family priorities of food security and cash, non-timber forest products, and satisfac tion of planting were overriding influences on landholders. Importantly, the size of land holding may influence the importance of factors that policy makers should consid er (Hildebrand, 1986a; Zarin et al., 2007). In this case enrichment planting gave multiple benefits to families, noted in interviews and observations, but some of the benefits such as family use of non-timber products were specific to this scale and would not influence industrial scale EP, as discussed in Chapter 3. Model results revealed that EP on family fa rms requires low planting costs or a one-time cash payment that would compensate costs. The model also showed that EP requires low costs of labor for ongoing maintenance of planted areas, which can not conflict with labor required for food crops. Free seedlings, free labor, and multitasking keep maintenance costs low but labor requirements can still conflict with food security and cash crop demands. These results suggest that free seedling programs may be helpful to promote tree planting, but landholders may also need start-up cash, compensation, and/or mitigati on of labor costs to conduct EP on their farms and continue even minimal care for the growing trees. The model confir med field observations that in this setting the benefits of end sales of timber from the trees do not compensate farmers for tree planting and ongoing care and are not the primary reason for conducting EP. Rather, the long-term benefits of selling the timber are almost meaningles s to landholders in this study, probably because of low timber prices for unprocessed logs in the region. 91

PAGE 92

Modeling combined with field observati ons provide a good understanding of what motivates or prevents EP at this scale and lead to the conclusion smallholders are likely to choose to conduct EP on their family farms given low costs and some short term compensation in the form of cash or non-cash benefits. The co sts for smallholders ap pear lower than costs incurred by industrial scale planting, and the bene fits to families are more diverse than those recognized by industrial forestry companies. 92

PAGE 93

Table 5-1 Factors that influence landholders decision to conduct EP, based on literature review and field observations. DECISION FACTOR EXPLANATION UNCERTAINTIES tenure loss1 tree mortality2Loss of planted trees can cause the landholder to lose all benefits of planting the trees. OPPORTUNITY COSTS misallocation of labor or land to trees3 without food security, priority of EP would be low 4 flexibility or seasonality of labor demands may help EP5 Spending labor or using land for other crops may bring better benefits to farmers, in which case conducting EP could cost farmers those benefits. START-UP COSTS Access to free seeds, seedlings, materials; low germination and planting costs6Since trees require years until they produce harvestable products, early costs of planting are not recovered quickly. This may be difficult for farmers to withstand if the costs are high. KNOWLEDGE/ABILITY TO CARE FOR TREES access to extension services, technical information; knowledge of species and site7 -labor8Planters need to have knowledge about the species ecological needs, and time to tend to the needs in order to prevent tree mortality or low productivity. MARKET ACCESS transport tree products; sell tree products9Farmers without access to markets could not sell products from EP, therefore benefits of EP would be limited to their familys use or local use of the products. ATTRACTIVENESS OF DIVERSE BENEFITS sell, use nontimber and timber tree products; satisfaction of planting; land care and improvement; assets for heirs; insurance10 Farmers may choose to conduct EP although they do not have access to some of the benefits; this happens because other benefits are available. For example, although trees may not provide an annual crop to sell, they provide insurance against economic hardship because they can be harvested in times of economic need. 1 Bray, 2004; Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Fearns ide, 1993; Fearnside, 2001; Mertens et al., 2002; Murray, 1987; Pinedo-Vasquez et al., 1992; Shriar, 2002; Simmons et al., 2002; Smith, 1997; Tomich et al., 1998 2 Schulze et al., 1994 3 Browder and Pedlowski, 2000; Coomes et al., 2000; D'Antona et al., 2006; McCracken et al., 1999; Perz, 2003; Witcover, J. 2006 4 Breuer, 2003; Browder et al., 1996; Perreault, 2005 ; Perz, 2003; Shriar, 2002; Tomich et al., 1998 5 Coomes et al., 2000; Perreault, 2005; Sears and Pi nedo-Vasquez, 2004; Summers et al., 2004; Tomich et al., 1998 6 Browder et al., 1996; Hildebrand, 1986b; Pe rreault, 2005; Sears and Pinedo-Vasquez, 2004 7 Acosta, 2006; Arnold, 1997; Current and Scherr, 1995; Hildebrand, 1986a; Ramos and Amo, 1992; Simmons et al., 2002 8 Browder et al., 1996; Coomes et al., 2000; Perreault, 2005; Schulze, 2003; Tomich et al., 1998; Summers et al., 2004 9 Angelsen, 1999; Evans and Moran, 2002; Mertens et al., 2002; Simmons et al., 2002; Walker, 2003 10 Browder et al., 1996; Nichols et al., 2001; Sears and Pinedo-Vasquez, 2004 ; Schulze et al., 1994 93

PAGE 94

Table 5-2 Hypotheses, test methods, results, and in terpretations of mode led EP scenarios on farm systems in Mazago community E ach model test required setting model parameters as specified, then observing whether the resulting modeled system includes EP. The factor Market Access is discussed frequently in literature, but was not tested in this study. FACTORS HYPOTHESIS TEST SCENARIO RESULTS INTERPRETATION UNCERTAINTIES EP will only take place with little uncertainty of losing tree access before final timber sale. Tree harvests not included in model but planting will remain an option. Lack of timber sale did not affect EP decision. For planters, short term benefits of planting are more influential than final timber sale. OPPORTUNITY COSTS EP will only take place if planting and care do not conflict with food security or financial needs. Planting and care conflicting with food or cash needs vs. not conflicting. No EP in conflict with labor or land for crops grown for sale or food security. Benefits must exceed costs; EP benefits does not overcome food security threats. START-UP COSTS EP will only be feasible if cash start-up costs are low. Compare costly vs. not-costly planting No EP without free seedlings, materials, and low-cost labor. Cash constraints on families impose another opportunity cost of EP. ABILITY TO CARE FOR TREES EP requires knowledgeable, unpaid or multitasked labor such as family labor, labor exchange, or labor during other activities. Compare efficient (knowledgeable) low-cost care vs. less efficient, expensive care. No EP without low cost, free, or multitasked labor. Planters plant species known for success, in known planting conditions. Multitasked and family labor reduced expenses. DIVERSE BENEFITS Landholders must receive more benefits from EP than sale of timber. Was not tested with this model. Observations confirmed that some families plant without cash compensation. EP without cash indicates that families must receive other benefits of planting. Non-cash benefits need to be explored with further modeling to understand complexity of smallscale EP. Note: The ELP model used in this chapter cons idered cash as the onl y benefit of planting. Families reported non-cash benefits of fuel wood, timber for home improvements, nontimber products, land improvement, and satisfaction of pl anting. For this chapter these benefits and cash payments for EP are categorized as short te rm benefits. These benefits may be explored further with an ELP model that includes non cash influences on family farming decisions. 94

PAGE 95

Table 5-3. Sensitivity analyses of paym ent scenarios for enrichment planting. Amount paid in US$ (BR$) Scenario 1 No subsidization of enrichment planting Scenario 2 Subsidization of initial planting and continued stipend Scenario 3 One-time subsidization, no further stipend Area planted (ha) $9 (BR$25) $17 (BR$50) 2.52 $34 (BR$100) 2.79 $52 (BR$150) 2.79 $69 (BR$200) 3.16 $86 (BR$250) 2.52 3.16 $103 (BR$300) 2.52 3.16 $120 (BR$350) 2.52 3.16 $137 (BR$400) 2.52 3.16 $155 (BR$450) 2.63 3.16 $172 (BR$500) 2.79 3.16 *The ELP model optimizes a familys end discreti onary cash by allocating resources to activities that can earn money. In this model, intangi ble noncash benefits of tree planting are not considered. Therefore, while field observations confirmed that planting does occur in families who receive no payments, the model does not show this activity without payment since it does not help the model maximize family cash. It should be noted that end sale of EP timber without other forms of payment did not induce planting. 95

PAGE 96

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 $9$17$34$52$69$86$103$120$137$155$172 Initial payment (one time only) and monthly stipend (US$)Hectares planted Initial payment, no monthly stipend Initial payment plus monthlystipend Figure 5-1. ELP Sensitivity analysis results of initial payment without monthly stipend for enrichment planting (Scenario 2) and initia l payment plus monthl y stipend (Scenario 3). 96

PAGE 97

Figure 5-2. Factors that influence landholders choice to conduc t enrichment planting according to field observations and ELP model results. The factors can deter or promote EP, depending on whether the conditions listed with each factor are met. If not met, other factors may compensate and a landholder may still choose to conduct EP. Some factors influence each other, such as start-up costs that may ameliorate risks if costs are low or exacerbate risks if the cost s are high. Benefits of planting need to justify the risks and costs; the diverse be nefits recognized by smallholders in this study offer multiple opportunities for risks and costs to be justified. The individual arrow patterns represent the distinct infl uence of each factor; if one/some of the factors are weak there may be enough motivation from a different factor to initiate planting. 97

PAGE 98

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION In this dissertation I have explored settings in which enrichment planting has taken place, and modeled test scenarios to determine if EP could take place under new conditions. The goal has been to determine what factors, if any, promote or hinder EP by smallholders and/or by industrial foresters; the intended result has been to present reliab le information that can guide policy makers and land managers in decisions to employ this silvicultural technique when appropriate or to avoid it in unfavorable contexts. First I presented a case study of EP at Faze nda Cauaxi including a description of the planting (Chapter 2) and a financia l cost-benefit analysis (Chapter 3). These plantings incurred the types of expenses that an i ndustrial planting operation would re quire, which contrast with the types of expenses observed in smallholder planti ng efforts. Large scale, industrial planting requires purchase of seeds, seedling nursery construction expenses, paid labor and paid supervision, vehicle and fuel e xpenses, and ongoing site maintenance expenses. The financial cost-benefit analysis show s that, from the private landholders perspective, sale prices of EP timber do not justify the planting costs. The difficulty of reaching a positive return on the investments in EP came from early, high expenses th at were hard to balance with timber sales. We expect that accounting for othe r shorter-term financial benefits within the company that may be associated with EP, such as money saved by k eeping employees rather than firing them at the end of the harvest season and hiring new employees each year, would help justify expenses of EP. A social appraisal of industrial scale EP ma y also reveal benefits to society since EP can help sustain timber volume needed to make mu ltiple reduced-impact timber harvests, which may benefit local economies and society and therefore justify financial incenti ves that would provide shorter-term benefits to compan ies that conduct responsible EP. 98

PAGE 99

Land holders often look to fertilization and site preparation to boost planted seedling growth and survivorship and th erefore timber sales. Ideally, low cost, early treatments of planting sites and/or seedlings would help make EP financially viable by increasing the number and size of harvestable trees at each harvest cy cle. In Chapter 4 I presented results of fertilization and site preparation on species plan ted at Fazenda Vitoria, not far from Fazenda Cauaxi. Fertilizer boosted shortterm growth, but in the long-ter m resulted in slightly smaller individuals than unfertilized gr oups. The differences were st atistically significant, but biologically trivial. These resu lts indicate that the expense of fertilization may not improve the benefit to cost ratio of EP. In contrast, the site preparation expe riment showed that treatment and species play a role in the outcome of treatment s: some species benefite d while others did not, while generally most species responded best to the mid-level intensity treatment of burying seeds but not loosening the soil in which they were buried. This indicates that some investment in site preparation may pay-off. However, planters should know if the particular species they are using will respond to site prepar ation before deciding to invest in the preparation. Long-term survivorship in this experiment was also affected by species, possibly because some species were simply shaded by others during long-term growth in the close quarters of the experimental layout. This suggests, again, that the needs of pa rticular species should be considered carefully to determine the most cost-effective planting treatm ents. Overall, these experiments indicate that there may not be broadly-effective recommendations of planting treatments. Considering this with the lessons learned from the Fazenda Caua xi case study, we have learned that early costs must be kept low, and therefore treatments s hould be kept to a minimum, and the particular minimum treatment depends heavily on the species us ed for EP. As is ge nerally known, benefits 99

PAGE 100

of fertilizers and other treatments depend heavily on site characteristics too, such as soil type, which also should be considered while determining the best mi nimum early treatments for EP. The relative abundance of EP by smallholde rs is intriguing given the difficulties experienced by some large companies trying to implement EP. Using Ethnographic Linear Programming I explored EP conduc ted by families in a community settled in the eastern Amazon vrzea The research objectives were to identify factors that make some smallholders plant trees by comparing families that do and do not, and what factors, if any, could be brought to industrial scale planting to make it more cost-effective. I used a form of economic analysis appropriate to this scale to compare factors that pr omote or inhibit EP on family farms. The loftiest goals and benefits of implemen ting EP are to reduce motivation to convert forest to other land uses by generating financ ial and/or nonfinancial values that compete favorably with forest conversion. EP can help reduce the practice of log and leave forestry by helping to make long-term forest management financially attractive by generating revenue without degrading the forest. For economic, cons ervation, and aesthetic r easons, I hope EP helps landholders manage forests as an asset and possi bly restore tree cover in degraded areas that were converted from forest to a nother land use such as pasture. To promote these goals and EP, I ask what encourages EP. Low costs, short-term internal benefits, revenue, and desire for economic stability summarize the results of the previous chapters. Differences and similarities were a pparent between the scales Table 6-1 summarizes what encourages EP and gives cross-chapter exam ples. For example, for Low risks and costs, I found in chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 that access to free seedlings of local, diverse, appropriate species promoted EP (Table 6-1). I use the summaries of what encourages EP and the crosschapter examples to formulate suggestions of policies and practices th at could promote EP. 100

PAGE 101

Factors that lower risks and co sts include receiving short-term benefits from EP, access to free seedlings, access to reliable technical info rmation, ability to multitask EP with other land management activities, and not in curring opportunity costs by conf licting EP activities with other land management activities. Therefore some suggestions for lowering risks and costs include 1) Free seedlings could be provide d by nonprofit, research -oriented nurseries, which could also serve as sources of agricultural (tree planting) extension information. However more, ongoing support is needed rather than simply providing seedlings. To develop the nurseries, choose the best local species, and initiate research questi ons, use local knowledge about species and site conditions to produce the most germane inform ation for the landholders. Focus on long-term results of treatments, and track economic informa tion as well as growth and survival data. Longterm trials could take place on landholders properties, then the landholder could keep the trees when the research project has finished. 2) Give n the possible benefits to society of EP and longterm, responsible forest management, the govern ment could subsidize EP labor in production forests during the nonharvest season to help fo restry companies keep their best, trained employees and to gain the social economic bene fits of EP. They may want to do this for companies using RIL and other best practices, which will help those companies that have invested in training their employees in responsible forestry practices. The second item that I found encourages EP is short-term, internal benefits. Many benefits of EP are external, such as maintaining the Amazon climate system or sustaining populations of highly exploited spec ies. The internal financial benefits currently come from timber and/or nontimber product sales, but coul d come from payments for environmental services, carbon sequestration, or other benefits of EP that could be internalized (Table 6.1). At the small scale there are more opportunities fo r internal benefits because they can be 101

PAGE 102

nonfinancial: satisfaction, materials for family us e, insurance, and providing resources for future generations. Based on these observations, my su ggestions for increasing short-term, internal benefits include allowing commerc ial thinnings (using RIL) of fa st-growing species in EP sites with a mixture of fastand slow-growing specie s; encourage carbon seque stration credit sales, environmental services payments, and other simila r exchanges for external benefits. Also, the Brazilian government could award large-scale companies that conduct long-term responsible forest management, including EP and other silv icultural techniques wh en appropriate, with forestry concessions in forests th at require long-term management such as national forests. The current policy context in Brazil in cludes establishment of forest concessions for logging, which delegates exploitation right s of small (10,000ha), medium (10-40,000ha) and large (40-200,000 ha) forest areas to private Brazilian companies. The concession areas ar e intended to provide a mixture of long-term forest extraction and conservation by permitting restricted logging. Concessions will not require perf ormance bonds but will be audited periodically; the inspections will be paid for by the concession holders. Gi ven the difficulties of enforcing current logging practices, enforcement of any EP standards in forest concessions seems unlikely (Mueller, 1997; Alston et al., 1999; Merry and Amacher, 2005) however, rewarding EP by including it in the decision process for allocating c oncessions could trigger EP and would only need to be checked during audits. Third, EP is encouraged when it generate s revenue for landholders conducting long-term management, such as family farmers or largescale companies practicing best forestry for long-term forest management. If costs ar e low enough, EP generates revenue by ensuring volume and species of future harv ests without degrading the forest. It may help future forest value equal or surpass current valu e. Furthermore, the tree density for future EP harvests is near 102

PAGE 103

logging roads or, at the small scale, in accessible pl aces such as near crop fi elds or the home. At the large scale, this allows reuse of infrastr ucture and may help retain trained employees. Therefore, one suggestion is to continue to clar ify and streamline tenure s ecurity since long-term management somewhat assumes secure tenure. Perhaps tenure programs could be expanded for planters by making assistance available in locations where free seedlings and technical planting information are available. Also, EP could be promoted as a compliment to RIL harvesting, as the nonprofit organization IFT already does at thei r model forest at Fazenda Cauaxi. Also, as suggested above, the government could promot e EP in forests that require long-term management, such as concession forests. Anot her policy suggestion is to encourage landholders to manage forest areas as an asset. This may require shifting public pe rception of forests as underutilized land. Model farms or training loca tions, such as Fazenda Cauaxi, help shift opinions by showing people that more responsible forest management can generate revenue. Convincing people to manage forests as an asse t will help increase comp liance with the current policy requiring 80% of landholdings to be kept as forest cover. Enrichment planting can contribute to economic stability, a fourth encouraging aspect. At the small scale, diversification of economic activities contributes to stability by providing a mixture of income sources and timing. At either scale, EP helps guarantee future harvest volumes and species. Regionally, EP does not lend itself to boom and bust forestry but rather encourages long-term use of sites and therefore capacity building of forestry employees. My suggestions include relieving di fficulties of regulatory compliance for forest management by streamlining the forest management plan appr oval process and helping landholders through forest management plan development and approval. Help may be needed especially when management plans include diverse ventures and relatively comple x management options, such as 103

PAGE 104

planting mixtures of fastand slow-growing sp ecies or trying new planting ideas. Perhaps agencies could make assistance available in lo cations where seedlings and technical planting information are supplied in order to str eamline landholder acce ss to the resources. An interesting difference between the scales was that the final sale of the timber is not as important to smallholders as it is to industrial planters. For smallholders, the price for timber logs is so low and so far in the future that it was not the primary driver of EP at the small scale. In accordance with this finding, tenure security wa s not as important as expected at the small scale since the ultimate sale, or loss, of the mature trees did not have much influence on the decision to plant. Instead, short-term bene fits spurred planting. These included monthly payments for planting, which motivated planting in all modeled cases. Without payments planting would only occur if the family required products from planted trees, such as nuts or firewood, and could not collect these items from their property forests or purchase them with cash. Satisfaction of planting also motivated EP in the modeled scenarios. The satisfaction of planting seemed to be an immediate (short-term) benefit that relied on long-term goals such as leaving land in good condition for children, but was not affected by lack of legal tenure. Despite short-term benefits superseding long-term benefits associated with tenure security, there is still some assumption/hope of tenure security when conducting EP. I have included in my suggestions to continue streamlining the tenure process and assisting la ndholders in achieving tenure because it inherently contributes to EP and more importantly long-term, responsible forest management, even if overwhelmed by the importance of short-term, internal benefits. While examination of both scales revealed similar requirements of minimal costs and short-term benefits, ther e are important differences between th e scales that should be considered by policy-makers, project coordina tors, or others interested in promoting this silvicultural 104

PAGE 105

technique as a conservation tool. First, the benefits perceived by industria l planters are limited to finances; other benefits such as biodiversity co nservation or local economy stability are external. In order to make the external benefits internal and thereby make EP mo re broadly applicable, the external benefits need to be translated into shorter-term fi nancial gains for the company. At the small scale more benefits are internal, bu t families do respond well to additional internal benefits such as payments for planting. These differences between scales should be considered when developing policies or programs to encourage en richment planting in this region of Brazil. Enrichment planting is one of several silv icultural tools capable of adding long-term value to forests. Where sustained harvests of high-value timber are essential to persistence of forest cover (such as on private lands) or to regional conserva tion and socio-economic development goals (such as in state and fede ral production forests) current log-and-leave management practices are not adequate. Enri chment planting, whether in unproductive areas such as liana patches and abandone d pastures, or in felling gaps and other sites directly impacted by logging, directly increases stocks of valuable timber species. This and other silvicultural approaches may be necessary to ensure that forests accumulate timber volume fast enough to accommodate 25 to 35 year cutting cycles, and that recovery of commercial species populations is sufficient to forestall economic, as well as biological, impoverishmen t of managed forests. 105

PAGE 106

106 Table 6-1. Lessons learned about what encourages EP and suggestions for promoting EP. What encourages EP? How to encourage EP? Low risks and costs EP is riskiest if people receive no short-term benefits; lower risk by ensuring short-term benefits (s ee next row) (Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5) Provide free seedlings of local diverse, appropriate species (Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5) Ensure access to reliable tec hnical info (Chapters 1, 4, 5), including making widely availabl e the wealth of information already known by local landholders su ch as effective site-specific planting and growing tec hniques (Chapter 5). When possible, multi-tasked EP activities such as site surveys or maintenance with other forestry activities (Chapter 3, 5), but do not expect it to conflict with forestry or small-farm activities, which would increase its oppor tunity costs (Chapter 5). Short-term, internal benefits Internal financial benefits come from direct payments, timber and/or nontimber product sales, payments for environmental services, carbon sequestration payments, payments for planting research, retaining trained empl oyees and thereby saving hiring and training costs, increases harvestable areas and thereby decreases cost per area of infrastructure, access to niche markets such as FSC certification markets (Chapter 1, 2, 3) Make external benefits intern al. External benefits include maintaining the Amazon climate system, sustaining populations of highly exploited species, nutrient cycling, watershed protection, biodiversity conservation, maintaining common goods such as air and water qu ality, and regional capacity building (Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5). At the small scale the internal benefits can be financial such as payments, nonfinancial such as satisfaction, materials for family use, insurance, and providing resources for future generations (Chapter 5). What encourages EP? How to encourage EP? Contributes to economic stability At small scale, diversification of ventures provides family economic stability (Chapters 1, 5) Helps guarantee future harvest volumes and species for forestry companies (Chapters 2, 3) Contributes to regional stability with long-term outputs (rather than boom and bust economy) and capacity building (Chapters 1, 2, 3)

PAGE 107

APPENDIX A FINANCIAL COSTS OF ENRICHMENT PLANTING, YEARS 0-60, AT FAZENDA CAUAXI, PAR, BRAZIL Table A-1. Labor wages for workers at Fazenda Cauaxi Personnel Daily wage Hourly wage BR$ US$ BR$ US$ Chainsaw operator 25.00 8.59 3.13 1.08 Driver 21.67 7.44 2.71 0.93 Labor 16.00 5.49 2.00 0.69 Technician 40.00 13.75 5.00 1.72 Tractor operator 31.67 10.88 3.96 1.36 Note : Wages were converted to US currency wi th the 2004 average exchange rate of 2.91. A median wage was used for jobs with a range of pay scales. 107

PAGE 108

Table A-2. Costs associated with enrichment planting at Fazenda Cauaxi, in US do llars (2004 average exchange rate of 2.91) Year Activities Labor Chainsaw operator Tractor operator Vehicle driver Technician Total wages (US$) Total cost per m3 wood (US$) 1 Site selection, mapping* 1 Purchase seeds 2 3.44 0.19 0.47 (seeds) 1 Nursery construction 16 3 16.15 0.90 (materials negligible on site) 1 Nursery planting (plastic bags, collect & bag soil, place seeds in soil) 27 1 1 21.64 1.93 1 Planting site selection 0.5 0.86 0.05 1 Transport seedlings to site 16 3 8 27.53 1.53 1 Planting (delineate with flags, clean area with tractor, mark lines and spacing, dig holes, plant seedlings, map planted seedlings) 62 1 2 22.5 85.05 6.17 2 Maintenance (cutting all competing vegetation in EP area) 24 16.49 0.75 3 Maintenance (cutting all competing vegetation in EP area) 24 16.49 0.75 6 Maintenance (cutting competing vegetation within 1m of saplings) 16 11 0.61 10 Maintenance (remove any overtopping vegetation) 8 8 14.09 0.78 14 Maintenance, timber cruise, silvicultural treatment 8 8 8 27.84 1.55 108

PAGE 109

109 Table A-2. Continued Year Activities Labor Chainsaw operator Tractor operator Vehicle driver Technician Total wages (US$) Total cost per m3 wood (US$) 15 Commercial thinning (tree marking, road/deck prep, harvest) 12.75 4.38 20 Maintenance (remove competing or overtopping vegetation) 8 8 8 27.84 1.55 25 Maintenance (remove competing or overtopping vegetation) 8 8 8 27.84 1.55 35 Maintenance (remove competing or overtopping vegetation) 8 8 8 27.84 1.55 45 Maintenance (remove competing or overtopping vegetation) 8 8 8 27.84 1.55 55 Monitoring and DBH assessment 8 24 46.74 7.56 59 Vine cutting 8 5.50 0.30 59,60 Harvest plan and RIL harvest 12.37 4.25 Note: Activities and costs are report ed per planting area, as reported in interviews with Fazenda Caua xi personnel. Total costs ar e divided per cubic meter of wood produced in a planting area, given a yield of 18 m3. Note that this list represents the actual activities that took place at Fazenda Cauaxi and that they plan to do in coming years; the Low cost scenario presented in Table 3-1 includes only activities from Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 55, and 60. Thinni ng and harvest costs are based on line-item co sts of conducting inventory, felling, skidding, and log deck activities, as reported in Holmes et al. (2002), converted to 2004 pri ces using an average local interest rate of 1.062%.

PAGE 110

APPENDIX B RESULTS OF SITE TREATMENTS AT FAZENDA VITORIA Table B-1. Height, DBH, and survivorship resu lts of site treatments at Fazenda VitoriaSpecies Trt Mean height in centimeters + SE; number of individuals Mean DBH (Macmillan et al., 1998) + SE 1989 1990 1991 2003 2003 1. A 8.99 + 0.62; 25 27.92 + 3.24; 18 98.57 + 12.19; 18 431.3 + 73.05; 8 2.5 + 0.42 B 6.98 + 0.56; 23 26.44 + 4.40; 14 116.93 + 14.80; 14 428.8 + 59.71; 8 2.3 + 0.53 C 6.70 + 0.29; 24 38.33 + 2.71; 17 133.77 + 11.25; 17 431.5 + 50.88; 13 2.2 + 0.46 Antrocaryon amazonicum A 13.31 + 0.55; 25 22.75 + 1.46; 25 55.25 + 5.25; 24 340.0 + 36.19; 5 2.9 + 0.23 B 11.22+ 0.55; 27 40.11 + 4.46; 27 124.78 + 8.51; 27 586.0 + 70.93; 10 6.6 + 1.22 C 30.46+ 0.30; 27 44.85 + 4.73; 21 124.08 + 11.25; 21 441.4 + 36.21; 7 4.3 + 0.76 Schizolobium amazonicum A 23.52 + 1.56; 23 51.35 + 5.21; 13 96.88 + 13.15; 8 1385.0 + 575.0; 2 15.6 + 6.70 B 24.62+ 1.16; 27 70.19 + 4.56; 17 139.19 + 17.59; 16 2034+ 419.62; 5 22.4 + 6.65 C 30.46+ 1.08; 26 84.40 + 3.35; 23 161.64 + 22.28; 22 1670.0 + 0; 2 12.8 + 2.00 Stryphnodendr onadstringens A 6.3+ 0.48; 24 28.37 + 3.45; 23 101.75 + 11.30; 20 752.0 + 106.27; 5 10.5 + 2.00 B 5.72 + 0.51; 21 79.39 + 10.62; 16 220.75 + 13.20; 16 --C 5.31 + 0.39; 22 69.96 + 9.05; 19 188.79 + 12.65; 19 --Parkia sp. A 12.98 + 0.56; 17 23.96 + 2.88; 14 66.20 + 13.06; 10 400.0 + 49.93; 10 3.9 + 0.82 B 10.15+ 0.75; 20 51.95 + 8.22; 9 170.13 + 34.84; 8 645.0 + 84.24; 8 6.7 + 1.24 C 10.67+ 0.67; 27 40.19 + 3.29; 18 107.18 + 11.78; 17 408.5 + 43.14; 13 3.9 + 0.51 Bagassa guianensis A -----B -----C -----Bertholletia excelsa A -----B -----C -----Terminalia catappa A 24.43 + 1.05; 20 43.63 + 3.90; 14 80.90 + 8.22; 10 824.0 + 121.59; 5 9.5 + 1.74 B 17.63+ 1.08; 19 44.18 + 6.24; 11 103.96 + 34.84; 9 --C 14.80+ 1.35; 12 37.30 + 12.10; 5 78.63 + 34.35; 4 --110

PAGE 111

111 Table B-1. Continued. Species Trt Mean height in centimeters + SE; Number of individuals Mean DBH (Macmillan et al., 1998) + SE Platonia insignis A --54.17 + 3.92; 20 313.7 + 32.76; 23 1.9 + 0.27 B -30.10 + 5.33; 5 69.99 + 6.40; 16 373.1 + 47.37; 16 2.9 + 0.61 C 1.33 + 1.32; 7 33.21 + 5.66; 7 65.17 + 10.59; 15 322.2 + 56.69; 16 2.3 + 0.76 Anacardium occidentale A 32.73 + 1.85; 21 69.44 + 5.47; 18 147.18 + 11.47; 17 820.0 + 310.96; 3 4.9 + 2.53 B 24.73+ 1.71; 20 98.41 + 12.06; 15 232.87 + 21.20; 15 652.5 + 123.92; 4 5.4 + 1.41 C 23.19+ 1.82; 24 85.03 + 8.63; 19 222.26 + 20.05; 19 --Cecropia peltata A -----B -----C -----Solanum paniculatum A 4.05 + 1.85; 2 ----B 5.09 + 1.56; 13 67.26 + 18.72; 10 164.00 + 28.51; 10 --C 1.93 + 1.22; 3 38.00 + 22.00; 2 127.50 + 62.49; 2 --Hymenaea courbaril A 25.70 + 1.69; 26 50.74 + 3.60; 24 92.85 + 7.57; 20 512.3 + 45.78; 13 3.7 + 0.32 B 26.16+ 1.71; 25 92.05 + 6.15; 21 166.81 + 9.07; 21 644.7 + 39.50; 19 5.2 + 0.46 C 24.89+ 0.84; 26 67.92 + 4.25; 25 119.48 + 9.13; 25 451.2 + 35.03; 25 3.5 + 0.30 Orbignya phalerata A -----B -----C -----Sclerolobium paniculatum A 8.16 + 0.65; 17 43.77 + 6.20; 13 218.33 + 30.27; 9 2352.0 + 45.55; 10 28.4 + 8.97 B 7.24 + 0.47; 20 60.77 + 5.06; 17 335.59 + 13.65; 17 2366.2 + 62.47; 13 27.4 + 1.93 C 6.4 + 0.416; 23 50.43 + 4.37; 19 284.58 + 19.76; 19 1933.1 + 135.98; 16 27.0 + 2.38 acacia A 10.98 + 1.52; 22 40.00 + 5.00; 2 ---B 13.58+ 1.74; 24 91.11 + 14.09; 18 511.77 + 48.84; 17 1490.9 + 66.84; 11 20.1 + 1.13 C 10.90+ 1.01; 25 84.86 + 8.80; 18 460.17 + 37.42; 18 1487.8 + 55.37; 9 22.1 + 2.13 Totals A 16.68+ 0.69; 222 39.36 + 1.71; 164 94.80 + 4.70; 156 710.2 + 27.34; 84 7.1 + 0.99 B 14.23+ 0.61; 244 65.42 + 3.07; 180 200.12 + 10.65; 186 985.2 + 78.35; 95 10.5 + 1.05 C 14.22+ 0.62; 246 61.56 + 2.26; 193 183.30 + 9.37; 540 773.3 + 66.38; 101 8.8 + 1.06

PAGE 112

APPENDIX C MEAN DIAMETER AND HEIGHT FOR FERTILIZATION EXPERIMENT AT FAZENDA VITORIA 112

PAGE 113

Table C-1. Mean diameter and height of sp ecies with and without NPK fe rtilizer and addition of manure, administered in the firs t year after planting (mean of replications SE, number of individuals). Species MEAN DIAMETER NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS MEAN HEIGHT NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS 1989 1990 1991 2003 1989 1990 1991 2003 Anacardium occidentale cntrl 6.0 0.3 8 32.0 1.44 8 70.3.60 8 116.3 13.08 6 30.8.3 8 153.6 10.85 8 259.4 23.80 8 661.725.0 6 tr t 5.2.3 10 35.1.41 10 71.3 7.36 10 125.07.35 3 28.5.9 10 182.22.1 10 346.84.2 10 756.77.6 3 Annona muricata cntrl 6.3.2 10 12.1 1.29 10 22.6 3.67 10 0 47.3.3 10 93.7.86 10 140.83.34 10 0 tr t 6.5 0.2 10 20.2 1.30 10 37.1 2.44 10 29.5 1.50 2 48.1.8 10 121.6.38 10 204.3.87 10 360.020.0 2 Astrocarpus hetero p h y llus cntrl 3.3.3 10 12.2.61 10 30.1.73 10 70.9.51 7 21.7 4.3 10 92.9 6.21 10 155.3 9.40 10 518.6 53.3 7 tr t 3.2.2 9 15.0.65 8 30.2.00 8 126.99.90 7 21.5.4 9 112.9.68 8 180.36.68 8 682.915.9 7 Bactris g asi p aes cntrl . 28.0 0.65 10 57.0 5.97 10 111.6 11.25 9 947.5+-71.8 8 tr t .28.4.8 9 72.2.1 9 123.00.9 9 903.310.7 9 Bertholletia excelsa cntrl 5.3 0.3 10 11.2 0.92 10 29.6 2.62 10 223.6 13.05 10 39.0 1.01 10 91.8 6.13 10 148.7 6.72 10 1323.0 105.7 10 tr t 5.3 0.2 10 11.4.85 10 24.5 2.25 10 222.3 23.5 10 41.2.0 10 89.8.0 10 140.61.0 10 1423.0131.9 10 Bixa orelana cntrl 5.0.3 10 16.2 1.73 9 35.4 2.09 9 0 60.0 2.13 10 102.3 9.57 9 193.2 13.25 9 0 tr t 4.2.2 9 37.4 3.61 9 53.7 2.30 9 0 60.2.8 9 157.2.7 9 210.8.7 9 0 Byrsonima crassi f olia cntrl 1.7 0.2 8 17.5 1.63 8 52.0.13 8 132.2 6.01 5113 140.8 1.06 8 251.1 12.75 8 860.0 22.16 8 860.0+-93.4 5 tr t 1.4 0.2 10 15.2.31 9 39.0.88 9 91.3 14.45 6 93.8.5 10 217.4.8 9 728.37.9 9 728.36.4 6 Cedrela odorata cntrl 2.3 0.3 10 13.5 1.24 10 36.3 4.58 10 104.0 15.8 10 11.1 1.35 10 66.1 4.32 10 155.8 16.60 10 1089.0 120.7 10 tr t 2.3 0.3 9 14.0 2.38 9 36.3 6.66 9 117.4 13.70 9 11.1.6 9 70.6.4 9 162.63.5 9 1047.8109.3 9 Citrus sp. cntrl 23.5 1.2 10 22.2 2.37 10 24.4 2.27 10 0 75.8 2.28 10 91.8 4.29 10 121.0 8.37 10 0 tr t 24.7 1.4 9 26.4 2.18 8 35.5.66 8 0 66.7.0 9 87.5.2 8 144.34.7 80 Cocos nuci f era s p cntrl . 72.9 2.44 9 96.7 5.27 9 154.2 9.43 9 518.8 82.10 8 tr t .73.1.4 8 112.5.5 8.0 222.63.4 8 755.707.8 7 Dipteryx odorata cntrl 4.9 0.2 8 8.5 0.63 8 20.5 1.82 8 145.0 9.00 8 33.6 1.62 8 73.5.95 8 210.0 19.41 8 951.38.35 8 tr t 5.1.1 9 9.8.55 9 20.1 1.92 9 138.4 10.57 9 34.9.4 9 86.8.0 9 207.83.3 9 963.33.3 9 Eugenia brasiliensis cntrl 4.8.2 10 9.6.70 10 13.0 0.57 10 40.1.25 10 36.2.94 10 66.8 3.59 10 114.2 7.84 10 451.02.46 10 tr t 5.0 0.2 10 10.4 0.83 10 14.4 1.13 10 31.7.02 10 33.9.45 10 75.5.6 10 122.6.8 10 475.05.5 10 Eugenia j ambos cntrl 7.0.4 9 10.3.65 8 17.3.56 8 21.0 --, 1 7.1.35 10 10.6.02 7 24.2.04 5 35.3.82 3 tr t 47.1.4 9 75.8.0 8 110.6.46 8 213.0--, 1 40.6.1 10 68.1.7 7 133.83.6 5 286.76.7 3 Genipa americana cntrl 5.9.6 8 9.6.80 8 12.1.81 8 69.0.70 2 24.8.69 8 32.3.74 8 43.0.17 8 680.00.0 2 tr t 6.0.5 8 25.4.93 8 44.6.43 8 103.3.17 8 25.4.6 8 85.6.4 8 820.03.0 8 184.37.3 8

PAGE 114

114 Table C-1. Continued S p ecies MEAN DIAMETER NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS MEAN HEIGHT NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS 1989 1990 1991 2003 1989 1990 1991 2003 Mangifera indica cntrl 6.3.4 9 20.6.94 9 39.8.14 9 54. 0.52 4 45.0.37 9 130.8.74 9 243.64.0 9 427.50.38 4 tr t 6.4.5 8 22.6.10 8 65.1.49 8 105. 8.70 4 38.4.3 8 132.50.1 8 218.06.4 8 567.50.9 4 Mangifera indica var. cntrl 20.8.7 8 25.1.13 8 35.7.46 8 84.0 --, 1 103.7.10 8 128.3.05 8 179.42.50 8 320.0 --, 1 tr t 20.7.5 9 29.9.03 9 55.6.54 9 119.40.99 5 97.4.8 9 162.8.3 9 250.0.8 9 678.06.2 5 Manilkara s a p ota cntrl 3.3.1 10 5.6.45 10 12.9.09 10 71.0.28 10 15.9.65 10 47.5.01 10 109.70.39 10 636.08.92 10 tr t 3.4.2 10 7.8.59 10 15.3.10 10 69.0.04 10 15.5.5 10 62.8.5 10 140.00.7 10 619.08.8 10 Platonia insi g nis cntrl 2.5.2 8 5.5.57 8 11.2.43 8 80.4.94 8 11.2.07 8 49.0.40 8 95.5.90 8 655.015.11 8 tr t 2.9.2 8 5.6.53 7 9.8.84 7 85.6.15 7 12.4.5 8 34.6.9 7 80.1.4 7 915.711.5 7 Parkia sp. cntrl 3.3.3 10 18.1.49 10 44.6.00 10 158.87.74 9 13.8.61 10 90.7.28 10 294.35.02 10 972.28.16 9 tr t 2.7.2 10 22.6.52 9 47.0.88 9 167.04.80 9 13.2.4 10 115.62.5 9 300.41.0 9 1023.396.9 9 Pouteria caimito cntrl 3.5.2 10 7.3.57 10 16.0.74 10 53.0.05 4 32.4.92 10 71.4.38 9 146.12.29 9 403.317.24 3 tr t 3.9.1 10 9.3.27 9 19.9.15 9 0 31.8.9 10 64.2.9 9 140.89.0 90 Richardella macro p h y lla cntrl 3.3.2 9 8.6.77 9 22.2.81 9 114.34.98 9 26.1.21 9 78.4.49 9 158.97.93 9 888.91.17 9 tr t 3.5.2 10 9.3.91 10 21.3.23 10 114.70.88 9 26.9.3 10 71.5.2 10 146.12.0 10 900.000.1 9 Rollinia mucosa cntrl 4.0.0 10 11.9.11 8 26.9.89 7 86.0 --, 1 28.6.41 10 80.8.84 8 165.77.27 7 570.0--, 1 tr t 3.8.1 9 21.0.36 9 52.3.17 9 0 28.5.6 9 113.33.6 9 222.50.0 9 0 Spondius mombin cntrl 2.1.1 10 9.2.71 10 14.3.14 10 0 11.7.41 10 60.1.04 10 72.7.57 10 0 tr t 2.1.1 7 38.9.28 7 67.2.31 7 0 13.2.6 7 152.92.2 7 210.74.2 7 0 Swietenia macro p h y lla cntrl 6.7.4 10 15.5.51 10 47.7.29 10 205.89.97 10 40.2.24 10 102.3.70 10 323.40.00 10 1338.067.90 10 tr t 6.4.4 9 27.5.85 9 58.6.77 9 223.91.43 9 38.4.1 9 190.87.0 9 403.96.8 9 1396.755.4 9 Theobroma g randi f lorum cntrl 7.4.34 9 12.2.50 9 42.3.03 4 37.4.6 10 51.9.23 9 89.0.84 9 525.03.50 4 tr t 12.0.46 8 64.4.83 8 33.9.06 5 34.1+-1.3 10 44.1.6 8 83.0.6 8 454.02.0 5 Tabebuia s errati f olia cntrl 2.3.7 9 7.4.88 9 17.6.24 9 83.0.29 8 12.3.83 9 63.1.29 9 140.34.70 9 831.39.54 8 tr t 3.2.1 9 10.9.44 9 27.0.32 9 109.91.17 8 14.8.4 9 80.3.8 9 199.05.4 9 1071.368.4 8Note : Underlined results indicate significant growth response to treatment in 2003 (ANOVA, P<0.05). Asterisk indicates significant effect of fertilization on survivorship between treatment and control (Fishers Exact Two-tail Chi Square test, P<0.05).

PAGE 115

LIST OF REFERENCES Acosta, R.T., 2006. Smallholders and communities in plantation development: Lessons from two ITTO-supported projects. Proceedings of th e International Conference on Timber Plantation Development, online at http://www.fao.org/ Adjers, G., Hadengganan, S., Kuusipalo, J., Nu ryanto, K., Vesa, L., 1995. Enrichment planting of Dipterocarps in logged-over secondary forests: effect of width, direction and maintenance method of planting line on selected Shorea species. Forest Ecology and Management 73, 259-270. Alavalapati, J.R.R., Mercer, D.E., 2004. Va luing Agroforestry Systems Methods and Applications. Kluwer Academic P ublishers, Norwell, MA U.S.A. Alder, D., Silva, J.N.M., 2001. Sustentabilidade da produo volumtrica: Um estudo de caso na Floresta Nacional do Tapajs com o auxlio do modelo do cresimento Cafogram. In: Silva, J.N.M. (Ed.), A Silvicultura na Amaz nia Oriental Contri buies do Projeto EMBRAPA/DFID. EMBRAPA Amaznia Oriental: DFID, Belem, 459 pp. Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D., Mueller, B., 1999. Title s, Conflict, and Land Use: The Development of Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazi lian Amazon Frontier. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Alves, D.S., Soares, J.V., Amaral, S., Mello, E.M.K., Almeida, S.A.S., DaSilva, O.F., Silveira, A.M., 1997. Biomass of primary and secondary vegetation in Rondonia, Western Brazilian Amazon. Global Change Biology 3, 451-461. Angelsen, A., 1999. Agricultural expansion and deforestation: mode ling the impact of population, market forces and property rights Journal of Development Economics 58, 185218. Ares, A., Falcao, N., Yuyama, K., Yost, R., Cl ement, C., 2003. Response to fertilization and nutrient deficiency diagnostics in peach palm in Central Amazonia. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 66, 221-232. Arnold, J.E.M., 1997. The social dimensions of forestry's contribution to sustainable development. Unasylva 190/191. Asner, G., Keller, M., Silva, J., 2004. Spatial and temporal dynamics of forest canopy gaps following selective logging in the eastern Amazon. Global Change Biology 10, 755-783. Avila, M., Roumas-set, J., Perrin, R.K., Gladwin, C.H., Gellatly, C., Navarro, L., Chavas, J.-P., Arcia, G., 1977. Risk and Uncertainty for Small Farmers in the Developing Countries. American Journal of Agricultural Ecomomics, Proceedings from the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Associati on held 31 July-3 August 1977 in San Diego, California 59, 1099. 115

PAGE 116

Bale, W., Campbell, D., 1990. Evidence for the succes sional status of liana forest (Xingu River Basin, Amazonia, Brazil). Biotropica 22, 36-47. Barreto, P., Amaral, P., Vidal, E., Uhl, C., 1998. Costs and benefits of forest management for timber production in eastern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 108, 9-26. Barros, A.C., Uhl, C., 1999. The economic and so cial significance of logging operations on the floodplains of the Amazon estuary and prospect s for ecological sustainability. In: Padoch, C., Ayres, J.M., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Henders on, A. (Eds.), Varzea. New York Botanical Garden Press, New York, NY USA. Bernard, H.R., 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Alta Mira Press, Division of Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York. Best, C., Jenkins, M., 1999. Capital Markets and Sustainable Forestry: Opportunities for Investment. A Report for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 108 pp. BNDES (Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econmico e Social) 2007. Taxa de Juros de Longo Prazo (revised 19 January 2007). Depart amento de Politica Financeira AF/DEPOL, Brazil. Available at http://www.bndes.gov.br/produtos/download/tjlp.pdf Accessed February 13, 2007. Boggess, W.G., Anaman, K.A., 1984. Farm risks in north Florida: Importance, causes and farmers' responses. Florida Food and Resource Economics, Publication of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, UF, Florid a Cooperative Extension Service No. 60. Borders, B.E., Bailey, R.L., 2001. Loblolly Pine Pushing the Limits of Growth. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 25, 69-74. Bray, D., 2004. Community Forestry as a Strate gy for Sustainable Management: Perspectives from Quintana Roo, Mexico. In: Zarin, D., Putz, F.J., Schmink, M., Alavalapati, J. (Eds.), Working Forests in the Tropics: Conser vation through Sustainable Management? Columbia University Press, New York USA. Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Benjamin, C.E., 2003. Crafting conservation globally and locally: complex organizations and governan ce regimes. In: Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L., West, P.C. (Eds.), Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty -first Century. State University of New York Press., Albany, NY, pp. 159-182. Breuer, N.E., 2003. Linking sustainability, food secu rity, and improved worker livelihoods in an Ecuadorian agroecosystem. PhD dissertation, The Graduate School, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Brienen, R.J.W., Zuidema, P.A., 2006. The use of tree rings in tropical forest management: Projecting timber yields of f our Bolivian tree species. Fo rest Ecology and Management 226: 256-267. 116

PAGE 117

Brondizio, E.S., 2004. From Staple to Fashion F ood: Shifting Cycles and Shifting Opportunities in the Development of the Aa Palm Fruit ( Euterpe oleracea Mart.) Economy in the Amazon Estuary. In: Zarin, D.J., Alavalapati, J.R., Putz, F.E., Schmink, M. (Eds.), Working Forests in the Neotropics: Cons ervation through Sustainable Management? Columbia University Press, New York. Browder, J.O., Matricardi, E.A.T., Abdala, W. S., 1996. Is sustainable tropical timber production financially viable? A comparative analysis of mahogany silviculture among small farmers in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics 16, 147-159. Browder, J.O., Pedlowski, M.A., 2000. Agroforestry performance on small farms in Amazonia: Findings from the Rondonia agroforestry p ilot project. Agroforestry Systems 49, 63-83. Brown, S., Gillespie, A., Lugo, A., 1989. Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with applications to forest inventor y data. Forest Science 35, 881-902. Brown, N., Jennings, S., Clements, T., 2003. The ecology, silviculture and biogeography of mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla): a critical review of the ev idence. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 6, 37. Buongiorno, J., Gilless, J.K., 2003. Decision Me thods for Forest Resource Management. Academic Press, New York. Burns, E.B., 1965. Manaus, 1910Portr ait of a Boom Town. Journa l of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 7, 400-421. Camargo, J.L.C., Ferraz, I.D.K., Imakawa, A. M., 2002. Rehabilitation of degraded areas of central Amazonia using direct sowing of forest tree seeds. Restoration Ecology 10, 636644. Campbell, H., Brown, R., 2003. Benefit-Cost Analysis Financial and Economic Appraisal Using Spreadsheets Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 345 pp. Cardille, J.A., Foley, J.A., 2003. Agricultural la nd-use change in Brazilian Amaznia between 1980 and 1995: Evidence from integrated satellite and census data. Remote Sensing of Environment 87, 551-562. Chambers, J.Q., Santos, J.d., Ribeiro, R.J., Higuchi, N., 2001. Tree damage, allometric relationships, and above-ground net primary pr oduction in central Amazon forest. Forest Ecology and Management 152, 73-84. Church, P., Sowers, F., Kumar, K., Kernan, B ., 2000. Forestry and the environment: Pakistan case study. PN-ABW-001, USAID, 89 pp. Clark, D., Clark, D., 1990. Distribution and effects on tree growth of lianas and woody hemiepiphytes in a Costa Rican tropical we t forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6: 321331. 117

PAGE 118

Cochrane, M.A., Alencar, A., Schulze, M.D., Souza, C.M., Nepstad, D.C., Lefebvre, P., Davidson, E.A., 1999. Positive feedbacks in th e fire dynamic of closed canopy tropical forests. Science 284, 1832-1835. Condit, R., Hubbell, S.P., Foster, R.B., 1993. Identifying fast-growing native trees from the Neotropics using data from a large, pe rmanent census plot. Forest Ecology and Management 62, 123-143. Coomes, O.T., Grimard, F., Burt, G.J., 2000. Tropical forests and shifting cu ltivation: secondary forest fallow dynamics among traditional farmers of the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Economics 32, 109-124. Coomes, O.T., Grimard, F., Potvin, C., Sima, P., 2008. The fate of the tropical forest: Carbon or cattle? Ecological Economics 65, 207-121. Costa, M., Foley, J., 1998. A comparison of precipitation datasets for the Amazon basin. Geophysical Research Letters 25: 155-158. Costa, P.M., 1995. Innoprise-Face Foundation Rain forest Rehabilitation Project (INFAPRO) Danum Valley Field Centre DRAFT Results and Recommendations for the Research Programme, 1992 to 1995, 55 pp. Current, D., Scherr, S.J., 1995. Farmer costs and be nefits from agroforest ry and farm forestry projects in Central America and the CaribbeanImplications for policy. Agroforestry Systems 30, 87-103. D'Antona, A.O., VanWey, L.K., Hayashi, C.M., 2006. Property size and land cover change in the Brazilian amazon. Population and Environment 27, 373-396. Dauber, E., Fredericksen, T.S., Pea, M., 2005. Sustainability of timber harvesting in Bolivian tropical forests. Forest Ecology and Management 214, 294-304. Davidson, R., Gagnon, D., Mauffette, Y., Hernandez, H., 1998. Early survival, growth and foliar nutrients in native Ecuadorian trees planted on degraded volcanic soil. Forest Ecology and Management 105, 1-19. Davidson, R., Mauffette, Y., Gagnon, D., 2002. Light requirements of seedlings: a method for selecting tropical trees fo r plantation forestry. Basi c and Applied Ecology 3, 209-220. Dawkins, H.C., 1961. New methods of improving stand composition in tropical forests. Caribbean Forester Jan-Jun, 12-20. Dawkins, H.C., Philip, M.S., 1998. Tropical Moist Silviculture and Mana gement: History of Success and Failure. CAB International, New York. Dewees, P.A., 1995. Trees on Farms in Malawi: Priv ate Investment, Public Policy, and Farmer Choice. World Development 23, 1085-1102. 118

PAGE 119

d'Oliveira, M., 2000. Artificial rege neration in gaps and skidding trails after mechanized forest exploitation in Acre, Brazil. Fore st Ecology and Management 127, 67-76. Dubois, M.R., Glover, G.R., Straka, T.J., Sutto n, M.O., 2001. Historic and Projected Economic Returns to Alternative Site Preparation Treatments: The Faye tte Study. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 25: 53-59. Dunisch, O., Azevedo, C.P., Gasparotto, L., Montia, G.R., Silva, G.J.d., Schwarz, T., 2002a. Light, water, and nutrient demand for the grow th of three high qua lity timber species (Meliaceae) of the Amazon. Journal of Applied BotanyAngewandte Botanik 76, 29-40. Dunisch, O., Schwarz, T., Neves, E.J.M., 2002b. Nutrient fluxes and growth of Carapa guianensis Aubl. in two plantation systems in the central Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 166, 55-68. Evans, T.P., Moran, E.F., 2002. Spatial Integration of Social and Biophysical Factors Related to Landcover Change. In: Lutz, W., Prskawetz, a., Sanderson, W.C. (Eds.), Population and Environment: Methods of Analysis. The P opulation Council, Inc., New York, pp. 165-186. Fearnside, P.M., 1993. Deforestation in Brazilian AmazoniaThe effect of population and land tenure. Ambio 22, 537-545. Fearnside, P.M., 2000. Global warming and tropi cal land-use change: Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning, decomposition and soils in forest conversion, shifting cultivation and secondary vegetation. Climatic Change 46, 115-158. Fearnside, P.M., 2001a. Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: an issue that divides the environmental mo vement. Ecological Economics 39, 167-184. Fearnside, P.M., 2001b. Land-tenure issues as fact ors in environmental de struction in Brazilian Amazonia: The case of southern Par. World Development 29, 1361-1372. Fearnside, P.M., 2005. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia History, Rates, and Consequences. Conservation Biology 19, 680-688. Fearnside, P.M., Guimares, W.M., 1996. Carbon uptake by secondary forests in Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 80, 35-46. Fredericksen, T., Putz, F., Pattie, P., Pariona, W., Pea-Claros, M., 2003. Sustainable forestry in Bolivia: beyond planned logging. Journal of Forestry 101, 37-40. Garrido, M., 1975. Silvicultural characters of some indigenous species in pure and mixed stands. Instituto Florestal, So Paulo 9, 63-71. Gehring, C., Denich, M., Kanash iro, M., Vlek, P.L.G., 1999. Res ponse of secondary vegetation in Eastern Amazonia to relaxed nutrient availability constraints. Biogeochemistry 45, 223241. 119

PAGE 120

Geist, H.J., Lambin, E., 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52, 143-150. Gerwing, J., 2001. Testing liana cutting and controll ed burning as silvicultural treatments for a logged forest in the eastern Amazon. Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 1264-1276. Gerwing, J., 2004. Life history diversity among six species of canopy lianas in an old-growth forest of the eastern Brazilian Amazo n. Forest Ecology and Management 190, 57-72. Gerwing, J., Farias, D., 2000. Integr ating liana abundance and forest stature into an estimate of aboveground biomass for an eastern Amazonian forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16, 327-336. Gittinger, J., 1982. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., Zech, W., 2002. Amelio rating physical and chem ical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoala review. Biology and Fertility of Soils 35, 219-230. Globalwood, 2004. Tropical Timber Product Price Trends. Accessed April 2008 online at http://www.globalwood.org/ Gobbi, J.A., 2000. Is biodiversity-fri endly coffee financially viable? An analysis of five different coffee production systems in western El Salvador. Ecological Economics 33, 267-281. Gomez-Pompa, A., Flores, J.S., Sosa, V., 1987. The "pet kot": a man-made tropical forest of the Maya. Interciencia 12, 10-15. Gourlet-Fleury, S., Favrichon, V., Schmitt, L., Petr onelli, P., 2004. Consequences of silvicultural treatments on stand dynamics at Paracou. Elsevier, Paris. Gordon, B.L.R., 1983. A Panama forest and shore: natural history and Amerindian culture in Bocas del Toro. Boxwood Press, Pa cific Grove, California, USA. Grauel, W., Putz, F., 2004. Effects of lianas on grow th and regeneration of Prioria copaifera in Darien, Panama. Forest Ecol ogy and Management 190, 99-108. Grogan, J., Barreto, P., Verssimo, A., 2002. Ma hogany in the Brazilian Amazon: Ecology and Perspectives in Management. IMAZON, Belm, Par, Brazil. Grogan, J., Vidal, E., Schulze, M., 2005. Apoio cienti fico para os padres de manejo de madeira na floresta amaznicaa questo da sustentabilidade. Cincia & Ambiente 32, 103-117. Grogan, J.E., 2001. Bigleaf Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla King) in southeast Para, Brazil: a life history study with management guidelines for sustained production from natural forest. PhD Dissertation, Yale Univ ersity, New Haven, CT. 120

PAGE 121

Grogan, J., S. Jennings, R. M. Landis, M. Schul ze, A. Baima, J. Carmo, J. Norghauer, R. Oliveira, F. Pantoja, D. Pinto, J. Silva, E. Vidal, and B. Zimmer man. 2008. What loggers leave behind: mahogany population structure and potential for recovery in the Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 269-281. Gullison, R., Panfil, S., Strouse, J., Hubbell, S., 1996. Ecology and management of mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla King) in the Chimanes Forest, Be ni, Bolivia. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 122, 9-34. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 4th edition. Prentice Ha ll, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA. Hecht, S., Noorgard, R.B., Possio, G., 1988. The economics of cattle ranching in the Eastern Amazon. Interciencia 13, 233-240. Heckenberger, M.J., Kuikuro, A., Kuikuro, U.T ., Russell, J.C., Schmidt, M., Fausto, C., Franchetto, B., 2003. Amazonia 1492: Pristine Fo rest or Cultural Pa rkland? Science 301, 1710-1714. Heinsdijk, D., Miranda Bastos, A., 1963. Inventario s Florestais na Amaznia. Bol. 6, Ministrio de Agricultura, Servio Florestal, Setor de Inventrios Florestais, Rio de Janeiro. Hildebrand, P.E., 1986a. Chapter 3 Economic charact eristics of small family-farm systems, section two: On the non-neutrali ty of scale of agricultural research. In: Hildebrand, P.E. (Ed.), Perspectives on Farming Systems Research and Extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO, USA, p. 212. Hildebrand, P.E., 1986b. Perspectives on Farmin g Systems Research and Extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO, USA. Hoffmann, W., Poorter, H., 2002. Avoiding bias in cal culations of relative gr owth rate. Annals of Botany 80, 37-42. Holdsworth, A., Uhl, C., 1997. Fire in eastern Amaz onian logged rain forest and the potential for fire reduction. Ecological Applications 7, 713-725. Holmes, T., Blate, G., Zweede, J., Pereira, R. J., Barreto, P., Boltz, F., Bauch, R., 2002. Financial and ecological indicators of reduced impact logging performance in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 163, 93-110. INPE, 2007. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaci ais, Ministerrio da Cincia Tecnologia. online at http://www.inpe.br/ accessed 20 November, 2007. ITTO, 2007. Market Trends. accessed April 2008 http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Page DisplayHandler?pageId=1 Johns, S., Barreto, P., Uhl, C., 1996. Logging damage during planned and unplanned logging operations in the eastern Amazon. Fore st Ecology and Management 89, 59-77. 121

PAGE 122

Justiniano, M., Frederickson, T., Nash, D., 2000. Ec ologia y Silvicultura de Especies Menos Conocidas: Tabijos o Lapchos. BOLFOR, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Kaimowitz, D., Angelsen, A., 1998. Economic models of tropical deforestation: A review. Center for International Forestry Res earch (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. 139 pp. Kainer, K., Duryea, M., Costa de Macedo, N. and K. Williams, 1998. Brazil nut seedling establishment and autecology in extractiv e reserves of Acre, Brazil. Ecological Applications 8, 397-410. Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., Gomes-Silva, D.A.P., Capanu, M., 2006. Liana loads and their association with Bertholletia excelsa fruit and nut production, diameter growth and crown attributes. Journal of Tropical Ecology 22, 147-154. Kammesheidt, L., 2002. Perspectives on secondary forest management in tropical humid lowland America. Ambio 31, 243-250. Kaya, B., Hildebrand, P.E., Nair, P.K.R., 2000. M odeling changes in farming systems with the adoption of improved fallows in southern Mali. Agricultural Systems 66, 51-68. Keller, M., Palace, M., Asner, G., Pereira, R., Silva, J., 2004. Coarse woody debris in undisturbed and logged forests in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Global Change Biology 10, 784-795. Keller, M., Palace, M., Hurtt, G., 2001. Bioma ss estimation in the Tapajos National Forest, Brazil Examination of sampling and allome tric uncertainties. Forest Ecology and Management 154, 371-382. Lamb, D., Erskine, P.D., Parrotta, J., 2005. Restora tion of degraded tropic al forest landscapes. Science 310, 1628-1632. Lamb, F., 1966. Mahogany of Tropical America: Its Ecology and Management. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Lambin, E., Geist, H., 2003. Regional Differences in Tropical Deforestation. Environment 45, 22-36. Landis, R.M., Peart, D.R., 2005. Early Performance Predicts Canopy Attainment across Life Histories in Subalpine Fo rest Trees. Ecology 86: 63-72. Lehmann, J., Jr., J.P.d.S., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., Glaser, B., 2003. Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol a nd a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant and Soil 249, 343-357. Lentini, M., Verssimo, A., Sobral, L., 2003. Fa tos Florestais da Amaznia 2003. Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amaznia (Imazon), Belm, Para. 122

PAGE 123

Litow, P., Baker, M., Hildebrand, P., Swidden. 2001. Agriculture in a Forest Society: Livelihood Strategies in the Maya Biosphere Reserve Community of Uaxactn, Petn, Guatemala. Available online at http://www.depts.ttu.edu/age d/research/bakerpaul.pdf#search='ethnographic%20linear%20 programming Accessed June 2008. Long, A.J., Nair, P.K.R., 1999. Trees outside forest s: agro-, community, a nd urban forestry. New Forests 17, 145-174. Lowe, R., Walker, P., 1977. Classification of canopy, stem, crown status, and climber infestation in natural tropical forest in Nigeria. Journal of Applied Ecology 14, 897903. Lundell, C.L., 1938. The vegetation of Petn. Carn egie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC, USA. Lynch, O.J., 1992. Securing community-based tenurial rights in the tropical forests of Asia. PNACB-404, World Resources Institute, 12 pp. Macmillan, D., Harley, D., Morrison, R., 1998. Co st-effectiveness analysis of woodland ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics 27, 313-324. Markewitz, D., Davidson, E., Figueiredo, R., Vict oria, R., Krusche, A., 2001. Control of cation concentrations in stream waters by surface so il processes in an Amazonian watershed. Nature 410, 802-805. Mattos, M., Uhl, C.F., 1994. Economic and ecologi cal perspectives on ra nching in the Eastern Amazon. World Development 22, 145-158 Mayhew, J.E., Newton, A.C., 1998. The Silviculture of Mahogany. CABI Publishing, New York, New York, USA. McCracken, S.D., Brondizio, E.S., Nelson, D., Moran, E.F., Siqueira, A.D., Rodriguez-Pedraza, C., 1999. Remote sensing and GIS at farm property level: Demography and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65, 1311-1320. Mead, D., 2005. Opportunities for improving plan tation productivity. How much? How quickly? How realistic? Biomass & Bioenergy 28, 249-266. Merry, E., 2001. Effects of vine cutting on understory birds in a Bolivian lowland forest: implications for management. MS Thesis Univ ersity of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA. Merry, F.D., Amacher, G.S., 2005. Forest Taxes, Ti mber Concessions, and Policy Choices in the Amazon. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 20, 15-44. Merry, F.D., Hildebrand, P.E., Pattie, P., Carter, D.R., 2002. An analysis of land conversion from sustainable forestry to pasture: a case st udy in the Bolivian Lowlands. Land Use Policy 19, 207-215. 123

PAGE 124

Mertens, B., Poccard-Chapuis, R., Piketty, M.-G ., Lacques, A.-E., Venturieri, A., 2002. Crossing spatial analyses and livestock economics to understand deforestation processes in the Brazilian Amazon: the case of So Flix do Xi ng in South Par. Agricultural Economics 27, 269. Ministerio do Meio Ambiente (MMA), 2001. Nati onal Forests Program PNF. Ministry of the Environment, Brasilia, Brazil, 56 pp. Retrieved on 14 October 2004 from http://www.mma.gov.br Montagnini, F., Eibl, B., Gran ce, L., Maiocco, D. and D. Nozzi, 1997. Enrichment planting in overexploited subtropical forests of the Paran aense region of Missiones Argentina. Forest Ecology and Management 99, 237-246. Montagnini, F., Jordan, C.F., 2005. Tropical forest ecology: the basis for conservation and management Springer, New York. 295 pp. Mueller, B., 1997. Property rights and the evol ution of a frontier. Land Economics 73, 42-57. Murray, G.F., 1987. Chapter 17 The domestication of wood in Haiti: A case study in applied evolution. In: Wulff, R., Fiske, S. (Eds.), Anthropological Praxis: Translating Knowledge into Action. Westview, Boulder, CO, USA, 223-240 pp. Myster, R.W., 2002. Foliar pathogen and insect herb ivore effects on two landslide tree species in Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management 169, 231-242. Nelson, B., 1994. Natural forest disturbance a nd change in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote Sensing Reviews 10, 105-125. Nelson, B., Kapos, V., Adams, J., Oliveira, W., Braun, O., Amaral, I., 1994. Forest disturbance by large blowdowns in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecology 75, 853-858. Nelson, B.W., Mesquita, R., Pereira, J.L.G., de Souza, S.G.A., Batista, G.T., Couto, L.B., 1999. Allometric regressions for improved estimate of secondary forest biomass in the central Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 117, 149-167. Nepstad, D., Carvalho, G., Barros, A.C., Alencar A., Capobianco, J.P., Bishop, J., Moutinho, P., Lefebvre, P., Jr., U.L.S., Prins, E., 2001. Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests. Fore st Ecology and Management 154, 395-407. Nepstad, D., Uhl, C., Pereira, C. and Jos Maria Cardoso da S ilva, 1998. Comparativo do cresimento de rvores em pastos abandonados e florestas adultas da Amazonia oriental. Chapter 13 in Floresta Amazonica: Dinamica, Regeneracao e Manejo. Gascon, C. and P. Montinho, eds. INPA. Nepstad, D.C., Moreira, A.G., Alencar, A.A., 1999. A Floresta em Chamas: Origens, Impactos e Preveno de Fogo na Amaznia. Programa Pilo to para a Proteo das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil, Braslia, Brasil. 124

PAGE 125

Nepstad, D.C., Uhl, C., Serrao, E.A.S., 1991. Rec uperation of a degraded Amazonian landscape: forest recovery and agricultu ral restoration. Ambio 20, 248-255. Nghiep, L.T., 1986. The land rotation farming system in northern Brazil: Conditions for its continuation and transition to the sedentar y cultivation system. No. 34, International Development Center of Japan (IDJC), Tokyo, Japan. Nichols, J.D., Rosemeyer, M.E., Carpenter, F.L., Kettler, J., 2001. Intercropping legume trees with native timber trees rapidly restores cover to eroded trop ical pasture without fertilization. Forest Ecology and Management 152, 195-209. Nogueira, E.M., Nelson, B.W., Fearnside, P.M., 2005. Wood density in dens e forest in central Amazonia, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 208, 261-286. Otsuka, K., Quisumbing, A., Payongayong, E., Aidoo, J., 2003. Land tenure and the management of land and trees: the case of customary la nd tenure areas of Ghan a. Environment and Development Economics 8, 77-104. Overman, J.P.M., Witte, H.J.L., Saldarriaga, J.G., 1994. Evaluation of regression models for above-ground biomass determination in Amaz on rainforest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 10, 207-218. Padoch, C., Ayres, J.M., Pinedo-Vaquez, M., Henderson, A., 1999. Vrzea Diversity, Development, and Conservation of Amazoni a's Whitewater Floodplains. The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, New York USA. Peart, D., 1996. Enrichment plan ting with native species to increase the economic value of selectively-logged rain forest. PN-ABY-024, USAID/Indonesia, 29 pp. Pena-Claros, M., Boot, R.G.A., Dorado-Lora, J., Zonta, A., 2002. Enrichment planting of Bertholletia excelsa in secondary forest in the Bolivian Amazon: effect of cutting line width on survival, growth and crown traits. Forest Ecology and Management 161, 159168. Pereira, C., Uhl, C., 1998. Crescimento de rvores de valor econmico em reas de pastagens abandonadas no nordeste do estado do Par. Chap ter 16 in Floresta Amaznica: Dinmica, Regenerao e Manejo. Gascon, C. and P. Montinho, eds. INPA 249-260. Pereira, R., Zweede, J., Asner, G.P., Keller, M., 2002. Forest canopy damage and recovery in reduced-impact and conventional selective logging in eastern Para, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 168, 77-89. Prez-Salicrup, D., Schnitzer, S., Putz, F., 2004. Community ecology and management of lianas. Forest Ecology and Management 190, 1-2. Perreault, T., 2005. Why Chacras (s widden gardens) persist: agrobiodiversity, food security, and cultural identity in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Human Organization 64, 327-339. 125

PAGE 126

Perz, S.G., 2001. Household demographic factors as life cycle determinants of land use in the Amazon. Population Research and Policy Review 20, 159-186. Perz, S.G., 2003. Social Determinants and La nd Use Correlates of Agricultural Technology Adoption in a Forest Frontier: A Case St udy in the Brazilian Amazon. Human Ecology 31, 133-165. Perz, S.G., Skole, D.L., 2003. Secondary Forest Expansion in the Brazilian Amazon and the Refinement of Forest Transition Theor y. Society and Natural Resources 16, 277-294. Phillips, P.D., Azevedo, C.P.d., Degen, B., Th ompson, I.S., J.N.M.Silva, Gardingen, P.R.v., 2004. An individual-based spatially explicit simulation model for strategic forest management planning in the eastern Amazon. Ecological Modeling 173, 335-354. Pimentel, D., Stachow, U., Takacs, D.A., Brubake r, H.W., Dumas, A.R., Meaney, J.J., O'Neal, J.A.S., Onsi, D.E., Corzilius, D.B., 1992. Conserving biologi cal diversity in agricultural/forestry syst ems. Bioscience 42, 354-362. Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Zarin, D.J., Coffey, K., Pa doch, C., Rabelo, F., 2001. Post-boom logging in Amazonia. Human Ecology 29. Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Zarin, D., Jipp, P., 1992. Econo mic returns from forest conversion in the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Economics 6, 163-173. Pires, J., Prance, G., 1985. The vegetation types of the Brazilian Amazon. In: Prance, G., Lovejoy, T. (Eds.), Key Environments Amaz onia. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England UK. Pukkala, T., 1998. Multiple risks in multi-objective forest planning: integration and importance. Forest Ecology and Management 11, 265-284. Putz, F., 1984. The natural history of lianas on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Ecology 65, 1713-1724. Putz, F., 1995. Vines in treetops: consequences of mechanical dependence. In: Lowman, M., Nadkarni, N. (Eds.), Forest Canopies. Acad emic Press, San Diego CA USA, pp. 311-323. Putz, F.E., Redford, K.H., Robinson, J.G., Fimbel, R., Blate, G.M., 2000. Biodiversity Conservation in the Context of Tropical Forest Management. Wash ington DC, USA, 80 pp. RADAMBRASIL, 1974. Levantamento de Recursos Naturais. Ministrio das Minas e Energia, Departamento de Produo Mineral, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Ragsdale, C.T., 2007. Spreadsheet Modeling and D ecision Analysis A Prac tical Introduction to Management Science, Fifth edition. Th ompson Higher Education, Mason, Ohio. Ramirez, A., Sere, C., Uquillas, J., 1992. An Economic-Analysis of Improved Agroforestry Practices in the Amazon Lowlands of Ecuador. Agroforestry Systems 17, 65-86. 126

PAGE 127

Ramos, J.M., Amo, S.d., 1992. Enrichment planting in a tropical secondary forest in Veracruz, Mexico. Forest Ecology a nd Management 54, 289-304. Ricker, M., Mendelsohn, R.O., Daly, D.C., nge les, G., 1999. Enriching the rainforest with native fruit trees: an ecological and economic analysis in Lo s Tuxtlas (Veracruz, Mexico). Ecological Economics 31, 439-448. Rockwell, C., Kainer, K.A., Marcondes, N., Baraloto, C., 2007. Ecological limitations of reduced-impact logging at the smallholder scale. Forest Ecolo gy and Management 238, 365-374. Rolim, S., Couto, H., Jesus, R., Frana, J., 2006. Volumetric models for Tapirap-Aquir National Forest (Par, Br azil). Acta Amazonia 36, 107-114. Saatchi, S.S., Houghton, R.A., Santos, R.C.D., Soares, J.V., Yu, Y ., 2007. Distribution of aboveground live biomass in the Amaz on basin. Global Change Biology 13, 816-837. Sack, L., Grubb, P.J., 2001. Why do species of woody seedlings change rank in relative growth rate between low and high irra diance? Functional Ecology 15, 145-154. Salleh, M.N., 1997. Enhancing the productive functions of tropical rain forest: a challenging goal. Unasylva 190/191. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/ Santos, V., Ledesma, S., Negreros, C., 1998. Community Based Forest Management: Organizacion de ejidos productores forestales en la zona Maya (OEPFZM) Management. Mexico. [special] The World Bank/ WBIs CBNRM Initiative. The World Bank, 6 SAS Institute Inc., 1996. SAS/STAT Software : Changes and Enhancements through Release 6.11, Cary, NC, USA. Schroth, G., D'Angelo, S.A., Teixeira, W.G ., Haag, D., Lieberei, R., 2002. Conversion of secondary forest into agroforestry and monocul ture plantations in Amazonia: consequences for biomass, litter and soil carbon stocks af ter 7 years. Forest Ecology and Management 163, 131-150. Schroth, G., Silva, L.F.d., Seixas, R., Teixei ra, W.G., Macdo, J.L.V., Zech, W., 1999. Subsoil accumulation of mineral nitrogen under polyculture and monoculture plantations, fallow and primary forest in a ferralitic Amazonian upland soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 75, 109-120. Schulze, M., 2003. Ecology and behavior of nine timber tree species in Par, Brazil: Links between species life history, forest mana gement and conservation. PhD dissertation, Graduate School College of Science, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA. Schulze, M., 2008. Technical and fina ncial analysis of enrichment planting in logging gaps as a potential component of forest management in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 255, 866-879. 127

PAGE 128

Schulze, P.C., Leighton, M., Peart, D.R., 1994. En richment planting in selectively logged rain forest: A combined ecological and economic analysis. Ecological Applications 43, 581592. Schulze, M., Vidal, E., Grogan, J., Zweede, J ., Zarin, D., 2005. Madeir as nobres em perigo: prticas e leis atuais de manejo florestal no garantem a explorao sustentvel. Cincia Hoje 36, 66-69. Schulze, M., Zweede, J., 2006. Canopy dynamics in unlogged and logged forest stands in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecol ogy and Management 236, 56-64. Sears, R.R., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., 2004. Chapte r 14 Axing the trees, growing the forest: smallholder timber production on the Amazon v rzea. In: Zarin, D.J., Schmink, M., Putz, F.E., Alavalapati, J. (Eds.), Working Forests in the TropicsConservation through Sustainable Management? Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 258-275. Shriar, A.J., 2002. Food security and land use defo restation in northern Guatemala. Food Policy 27, 395-414. Silva, J.F.d., Vigas, I.d.J.M., Frazo, D.A.C., Thomas, M.A.A., Silveira, J.L., 2002a. Avaliao do efeito da adubao NPK no cresimento de Gravioleira no municpio de So Francisco do Par. Ministrio da Agri cultura, Pecuria e Abaste cimento Comunicado Tcnico. Silva, J.N.M., 1989. The Behavior of the Tropical Rain Forest of the Brazilian Amazon after Logging. PhD dissertation, Oxford Forestry In stitute Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK. Silva, J.N.M., 2001. Manejo Florestal. Embr apa Amazonia Oriental, Brasilia, Brasil. Silva, J.N.M., Carvalho, M., 1984. Equaes de vol ume para uma floresta secundria no planalto do Tapajs-Belterra, PA. Boletim do Pes quisa Florestal Curitiba 8/9, 1-15. Silva, J.N.M., Carvalho, J.O.P.d., Lopes, J.D.A., Dealmeida, B.F., Costa, D.H.M., DeOliveira, L.C., Vanclay, J.K., Skovsgaard, J.P., 1995. Growth and yield of a tropical rain forest in the Brazilian Amazon 13 years after loggi ng. Forest Ecology and Management 71, 267274. Silva, J.N.M., Carvalho, J.O.P.d., Lopes, J.d.C.A., Oliveira, R.P.d., Oliveira, L.C.d., 1996. Growth and yield studies in the Tapa js region, Central Brazilian Amazon. Commonwealth Forestry Review 75, 325-329. Silva, M., 2005. The Brazilian protected areas program. Conservation Biology 19, 608-611. Silva, R.P.d., Santos, J.d., Tribuzy, E.S., Ch ambers, J.Q., Nakamura, S., Higuchi, N., 2002b. Diameter increment and growth patterns for individual trees growing in Central Amazon, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 166, 295-301. 128

PAGE 129

Simmons, C.S., Walker, R.T., Wood, C.H., 2002. Tree planting by small producers in the tropics: A comparitive study of Brazil and Panama. Agroforestry Systems 56, 89-105. Smith, J., Applegate, G., 2004. Could payments for fo rest carbon contribute to improved tropical forest management? Forest Policy and Economics 6, 153-167. Smith, S.C., 1997. Environment, Debt, and Devel opment: Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon Rain Forest. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., New York, USA. Snook, L., 1993. Stand dynamics of mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla King) and associated species after fire and hurricane in the tropical forests of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. PhD dissertation, Yale Univer sity, New Haven, CT USA. South, D., Harris, S., Barnett, J., Hainds, M., Gjerstad, D., 2005. Effect of container type and seedling size on survival and early height growth of Pinus palustris seedlings in Alabama, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 204, 385-398. South, D., Zwolinski, J., Donald, D., 1993. Intera ctions among seedling diameter grade, weedcontrol, and soil cultivation for Pinus radiata in South Africa. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23, 2078-2082. Souza, D.R.D., Souza, A.L.D., Silva, M.L.d., Rodrigues, F.L., 2004. Optimum economic cutting cycle in a terra firme dense ombrophylous forest under sustained management, eastern Amazon. Revista Arvore 28, 681-689. Souza, R.P.D., Vlio, I.F.M., 2001. Seed size, seed germination, and seedling survival of Brazilian tropical tree species differing in successional status. Biotropica 33, 447-457. Stainback, G.A., Alavalapati, J.R.R., 2002. Econo mic analysis of slash pine forest carbon sequestration in the southern U.S. Journal of Forest Economics 8, 105-117. Summers, P.M., Browder, J.O., Pedlowski, M.A., 2004. Tropical forest management and silvicultural practices by small farmers in the Brazilian Amazon: recent farm-level evidence from Rondnia. Forest Ecology and Management 192, 161-177. Thacher, T., Lee, D.R., Schelhas, J., 1997. Farmer participation in reforestation incentive programs in Costa Rica Agroforestry Sy stems. Agroforestry Systems 35, 269-289. Tinker, P.B., Ingrama, J.S.I., Struweb, S., 1996. Effects of slash-andburn agriculture and deforestation on climate change. Agricultu re, Ecosystems & Environment 58, 13-22. Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Vosti, S.A., Witcover, J., 1998. Agricultural development with rainforest conservation: Methods for seeking best bet alternativ es to slash-and-burn, with applications to Brazil and Indon esia. Agricultural Economics 19, 159-174. Uhl, C., 1987. Factors controlling succession follo wing slash-and-burn agriculture in Amazonia. Journal of Ecology 75, 377-407. 129

PAGE 130

Uhl, C., Barreto, P., Verssimo, A., Vidal, E., Amaral, P., Barros, A.C., Jr., C.S., Johns, J., Gerwing, J., 1997. Natural resource management in the Brazilian Amazon. Bioscience 47, 160-168. Uhl, C., Clark, K., Dezzeo, N., Maquirino, P., 1988. Vegetation dynamics in Amazonian treefall gaps. Ecology 69, 751-763. Uhl, C., Nepstad, D., Silva, J.M.C.d., Vieira, I ., 1991. Restorao da Floresta em Pastagens Degradadas. Cincia Hoje 141-149. Valle, D., Phillips, P., Vidal, E., Schulze, M., Grogan, J., Sales, M., Gardigen, P.v., 2007. Adaptation of a spatially exp licit individual tr ee-based growth and yield model and longterm comparison between reduced-impact and conventional logging in eastern Amazonia, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 243, 187-198. Valle, D., Schulze, M., Vidal, E., Grogan, J., Sales, M., 2006. Identifying bias in stand-level growth and yield estimations: a case study in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 236, 127-135. van Gardingen, P., Valle, D., Thompson, I., 2006. Evaluation of yield regulation options for primary forest in Tapajs National Forest, Brazil. Forest Ecolo gy and Management 231, 184-195. Verssimo, A., 2005. Forest management and cons ervation in the Brazilian Amazon. Presentation at Working Forests in the Tropics: Polic y and Market Impacts on Conservation and Management, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Verssimo, A., Cochrane, M.A., Jr., C.S., Salo mo, R., 2002. Priority Areas for Establishing National Forests in the Brazilia n Amazon. Conservation Ecology 6, 4. Vidal, E.J., 2004. Dinmica de Florestas Mane jadas e sob Explorao Convencional na Amaznia Oriental. Doctoral dissertation, Cin cias da Engenharia Ambiental, Escola de Engenharia de So Carlos, So Paulo. Vidal, E., Viana, V., Batista, J., 2002. Crescimento de floresta tropical trs anos aps colheita de madeira com e sem manejo florestal na Amaz nia oriental. Scientia Forestalis 61, 133-143. Vielhauer, K., Kanashiro, M., S, T.D.D.A., De nich, M., Technology development of slash-andmulch and of fallow enrichment in shifting cultivation systems of the Eastern Amazon, 1998. In, Proceedings of the Third SHIFT Workshop, Manaus, Brasil, March 15-19, 1998, Studies on Human Impact on Fore sts and Floodplains in the Tropics: A German-Brazilian Program, pp. 49-59. Virginia Tech, 1996. Planting the seeds of change in the ashes of the rainforest. The Fredonia Agroforestry Pilot Project. Available online at http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/1999resmag/change.html 130

PAGE 131

Vliet, O.V., Faaij, A., Dieperink, C., 2003. Forestry projects under the clean development mechanism? Modelling of th e Uncertainties in Carbon Mitig ation and Related Costs of Plantation Forestry Projects. Climatic Change 61, 123-156. Wadsworth, F., Zweede, J., 2006. Liberation: accept able production of tropical forest timber. Forest Ecology and Management 233, 45-51. Forest Ecology and Management 233, 45-51. Walker, R., 2003. Mapping process to pattern in the landscape change of the Amazonian Frontier. Annals of th e Association of Ameri can Geographers 93, 376-398. Walker, R., Moran, E., Anselin, L., 2000. Deforest ation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: External capital and household processes. World Development 28, 683-699. Walters, B.B., 1997. Human ecological questions fo r tropical restoration: experiences from planting native upland trees and mangroves in the Philippines. Forest Ecology and Management 99, 275-290. Winterbottom, R., Hazelwood, P.T., 1987. Agrofore stry and sustainable development: making the connection. Ambio 16, 100-110. Wise, R., Cacho, O., 2005. A bioeconomic analysis of carbon sequestration in farm forestry: a simulation study of Gliricidia sepi um. Agroforestry Systems 64, 237-250. Wiseman, F.M., 1978. Agricultural and Historical Ecology of the Maya Lowlands, pages 63-115 in Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture. Univ ersity of New Mexico Press, USA. Witcover, J., Vosti, S.A., Carpentier, C.L., Go mes, T., 2006. Impacts of soil quality differences on deforestation, use of clea red land, and farm income. Environment and Development Economics 11: 343-370. World Resources Institute (WRI), 1985. Tropical Fo rests: A Call for Action, Part I The Plan and Part II Case Studies. World Re sources Institute, Washington DC Part I: 49 pp., Part II, 55 pp. Yamada, M., Gholz, H.L., 2002. Growth and yield of some indigenous trees in an Amazonian agroforestry system: a rural-history-based analysis. Agroforestry Systems 55, 17-26. Zarin, D., Schulze, M., Vidal, E., Lentini, M., 2007. Beyond reaping the first harvest: Management objectives for timber produc tion inthe Brazilian Amazon. Conservation Biology 21, 916-925. Zhou, W., 1999. Risk-based selection of forest regeneration methods. Forest Ecology and Management 115, 85-92. 131

PAGE 132

132 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kelly Keefes experience in tropical forest ecology and conservation includes a BA from New College of Florida, with undergraduate thesis research in Belize, and an MA from Yale University based on field research in Costa Rica. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Institute of Tropical Ec ology and Conservation (ITEC), which does conservation and education in Panama, and the director of ITEC s Forest Restoration program in Panama. Participation in local conservation is also important to Kelly, so she is a member of Gainesvilles Watershed Action Volunteers and worked with the Alachua County Environmental Protection Departments Alachua County Fo rever program as a land biologi st intern during her doctoral studies.