Next Article in Journal
Agroforestry in the Soil and Water Conservation of Karst Can Improve Rural Eco-Revitalization: Evidence from the Core Area of the South China Karst
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Impact of RCEP Implementation on Forest Product Exports Among Member Countries Based on a Double Machine Learning Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Private Forest Owner Typology Based on Post-Disturbance Behaviour in Slovenia
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Assessing Forest Degradation in the Congo Basin: The Need to Broaden the Focus from Logging to Small-Scale Agriculture (A Systematic Review)

by
Timothée Besisa Nguba
1,2,*,
Jan Bogaert
1,2,
Jean-Remy Makana
3,
Jean-Pierre Mate Mweru
1,2,
Kouagou Raoul Sambieni
1,2,
Julien Bwazani Balandi
1,2,
Charles Mumbere Musavandalo
1,2 and
Jean-François Bastin
2,*
1
Ecole Régionale Post-Universitaire d’Aménagement et Gestion Intégrés des Forêts et Territoires Tropicaux (ERAIFT), Kinshasa P.O. Box 15.373, Democratic Republic of the Congo
2
Teaching and Research Center (TERRA), Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech—Université de Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium
3
Faculty of Science, Université de Kisangani, Kisangani P.O. Box 2012, Democratic Republic of the Congo
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(6), 953; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060953
Submission received: 1 May 2025 / Revised: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 29 May 2025 / Published: 5 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Disturbance and Management)

Abstract

:
While the methods for monitoring deforestation are relatively well established, there is still no compromise on those for forest degradation. We propose here a systematic review on studies about forest degradation in the Congo Basin. Our analysis focused on seven key anthropogenic causes of forest degradation. Shifting agriculture emerged as the most significant driver, accounting for 61% ± 28.58% (mean ± SD) of canopy opening, 73.16% ± 16.88% aboveground carbon loss, and 30.37% ± 30.67% of tree species diversity loss over a 5–60-year period. Our analysis reveals a significant disconnect. Only 29% of the reviewed studies address this driver, while over 64% focus primarily on the consequences of industrial timber harvesting. Despite its comparatively minor contribution to degradation, with effects range from only 8.98% ± 13.63% of canopy opening, 14.79% ± 22.21 aboveground carbon loss, and 4.27 ± 21.07 tree species diversity loss over 1–20 years. Indeed, most of the methods focus on detecting changes in canopy structure associated with forest logging over a short period (0–5 years). These illustrate the need for a shift in focus in scientific research towards innovative methods, which can be developed over time, to monitor the various impacts of all causes of forest degradation.

1. Introduction

African tropical forests are one of the world’s largest forest carbon sink and reservoir of biodiversity [1,2,3] and are currently threatened by climate change and anthropogenic pressures, both contributing to deforestation and forest degradation. Deforestation and forest degradation are distinct processes with different causes and impacts on forest ecosystems [4,5,6]. However, degradation is a relatively recent subject of study, introduced with the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) initiative, primarily to address emissions from selective logging [7,8,9]. Between 2005 and 2010, emissions from tropical forest degradation accounted for around 25% of total deforestation and degradation emissions [10]. In the Brazilian Amazon, it is estimated that forest degradation contributed three times more to gross aboveground biomass loss than deforestation, accounting for 73% of 670 million tons of net carbon lost between 2010 and 2019 [11]. In the Congo Basin, the annual rate of deforestation is increasing, rising from 3.3% between 1990 and 2000 to 3.9% between 2010 and 2020 [12]. Between 2000 and 2005, the rate of forest degradation in the Congo Basin was estimated at 0.09% [13].
The governments of the Congo Basin countries have developed national strategies for the implementation of the REDD+ mechanism, encouraging the promotion of conservation, sustainable forest management, and increased forest carbon stocks [14]. However, there is still a lack of consensus on the definition and approaches to monitoring forest degradation [5,8,15], which leads to a lack of coordinated and effective action.
Recently, European Union member states agreed on a common definition of forest degradation as a structural change in forest cover taking the form of conversion of primary forest to plantation forest or other wooded land [16]. On the other hand, the governments of the Congo Basin countries propose a variety of definitions, which complicates the assessment and monitoring of forest degradation on a regional scale. The Republic of Congo and Gabon define forest degradation as a process that leads to a reduction in biomass without a reduction in forest cover [17,18], whereas, for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) forest degradation refers to the conversion of primary forests into secondary forests [19].
Moreover, the current methods for monitoring forest degradation do not cover all causes or indicators for assessing the forest ecosystems attributes [5,6,20]. Indicators of forest degradation, such as changes in structure, biodiversity, storage, and forest production, can be assessed through three types of approaches. One can rely solely on methods based on field data analysis, primarily relying on forest inventories, or solely use remote sensing tools based on satellite imagery and aerial photographs, or combine both approaches [20,21]. Moreover, assessing these indicators requires considering the temporal dimension to determine the time needed for forest characteristics to recover after a disturbance, evaluate its condition, and measure its post-disturbance resilience [5,22].
To this end, by focusing on studies referring to forest degradation, this synthesis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of current methods for characterizing degraded forests in the Congo Basin. To achieve this, we propose to discuss the following three hypothesis: (1) Forest degradation encompasses various types of anthropogenic causes that are crucial to distinguish in order to effectively characterize and monitor the degradation of tropical forest ecosystems in the Congo Basin. (2) Monitoring methods for forest degradation in the Congo Basin are not sufficiently applied to track the most important causes of forest degradation by assessing various forest properties over time. (3) In studies that take the time factor into account, the most widely measured degradation indicators are assessed over relatively short periods, which makes it impossible to determine the time required for recovery of the respective indicators measured as a result of specific anthropogenic causes of forest degradation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bibliographical Research and Articles Selection

We performed a literature search according to the PRISMA methodology [23]. We selected articles studying tropical moist forest degradation for the period 2000 to 2024 using the following inclusion criteria: (1) Forest degradation is caused by human disturbances that impact the state of the main forest attributes [5,6,20]. For example, studies focusing on soil degradation and analyzing the impact of agriculture on soil fertility to maintain field yields and studies analyzing the impact of hunting or logging on the depletion of animal populations without comparative analysis with an undisturbed forest or with a relationship to the loss of potential key functions such as seed dispersal, pollination, or pest reduction were not selected. (2) The study is not a literature review, it is localized in the dense tropical moist forests of the Congo Basin and in one of the following six Congo Basin countries: Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, the Central African Republic, the Republic of Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Figure 1). (3) The sources and type of dataset analyzed in the study are clearly described.
The first phase of the bibliographic research involved extracting studies focused on the Congo Basin region, cited in previous literature reviews at both the global and regional scales [5,6,21,24,25,26,27,28,29]. The analysis of these studies was important to identify keywords associated with the main anthropogenic drivers of forest degradation (Table 1).
Next, in December 2024, for each anthropogenic driver, we used the Scopus and Google Scholar® online databases to expand our search. The query for bibliographic search based on keywords in the article title, keywords, and abstract was structured as follows:
(keywords related to specific anthropogenic activities) AND (keywords related to forest degradation processes: “forest degradation” OR degraded OR degradation OR disturbed OR disturbance OR REDD OR sustainability OR “canopy gap”) AND (keywords related to dense rainforests and the Congo Basin region: rainforest OR “rain forest” OR “tropical moist forest” OR “tropical humid forest” OR “central Africa” OR “Congo Basin” OR Congo OR Cameroon OR Gabon OR “Equatorial Guinea”)
In Google Scholar®, the most relevant articles were selected from the first 10–15 pages of results.

2.2. Articles Analysis and Data Extraction

Each selected publication was reviewed to extract data on the anthropogenic causes of forest degradation, the indicators linked to specific forest attributes (FA) used to assess them, the different approaches used to estimate these indicators, and, when available, the monitoring time scale and the evaluation of relative importance of different causes of forest degradation due to recovered rates of specific FA.
Anthropogenic causes were initially classified according to defined categories and sub-categories. Subsequently, we undertook a detailed description of the forest degradation process for the studied causes (Table 1).
The indicators were first classified according to criteria or types of forest attributes related to structure, biodiversity, carbon storage, production, and protective functions. Then, based on their prevalence in the literature—estimated using the citation index (If %) and the relative citation index (Ifr %), respectively, derived from Equations (1) and (2) adapted from [30]—we classified the indicators used to assess the impact of forest degradation according to the three measurement approaches employed to quantify them: field data, remote sensing, or a combination of both (mixed approach). The If (%) index ranges from 0 (when the indicator is never cited) to 100 (when it is the only one estimated using a given approach), while the Ifri (%) index ranges from 0 (when the indicator is never cited) to 100 (when it is the most frequently measured by different approaches).
I f i z = 100 × f i z n c    
I f r i = z f i z ( z f i z ) m a x    
where i is the indicator for which the index is calculated, z is the type of approach used to measure indicator i, fiz is the citation frequency of indicator i measured by the z approach, and nc is the sum of the citation frequencies of all indicators measured by the z approach.
We present the temporal scale of monitoring of frequently measured indicators, with a minimum of 10% Ifr, evaluated based on the maximum number of years of monitoring following experimental methods described in the literature. These methods use diachronic monitoring or chronosequences to track forest succession or the number of years since logging.
We identified the most significant anthropogenic factors contributing to forest degradation by analyzing the variation in three most measured indicators related to aboveground carbon (AGC), forest canopy gaps, or opening area tree species diversity. This indicator was expressed as canopy gaps area fraction (%), which represents the ratio between gaps area and the total forest area of the specific case study site. FA loss ( F A ) and recovery rates of forest attributes (RFAs) for AGC and tree species richness were evaluated following Equation (3) and Equation (4), respectively:
F A = F A 0 F A i , n F A 0 100
RFA = 100 + F A    
where F A is the proportion of forest attribute loss (−) or gained (+) post disturbance, FA0 is the value of interested FA before disturbance or equivalent to nearly undisturbed primary forest (when it is not precise, an approximative value of 200 Mg/ha of AGC was used as the mean regional reference for central Africa primary forest [31]), and FAi,n is the value of interested FA after disturbance of type i in time n since disturbance. The biomass was considered to contain 50% of carbon [32].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Selected Articles

The research expression encoded in Scopus in December 2024 for each selected anthropogenic forest degradation drivers (Table 1) matched with 2.990 scientific articles (Figure 2). Those articles were completed with 57 relevant articles found in Google Scholar. In total, 442 duplicates articles were removed by human or manually abstract and title screening lead to the exclusion of 2.340 articles. Finally, 192 articles were fully read, and 116 of them were included in the synthesis.
Although the period selected for the articles is 2000–2024, the articles included in this synthesis have been published since 2003 (Figure 3). This shows that it is only more recently that researchers have begun to address the issue of forest degradation [7,8,9]. Apart from studies carried out on a regional scale, i.e., those involving at least two countries, 36 articles, or 30% of the articles analyzed, come from Cameroon (Figure 3). Only 15 to 16 articles, or about 14%, come from Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo, respectively (Figure 3), even though the latter accounts for at least 60% of the forest area in the Congo Basin region [33]. Finally, we note that, since 2016, there have been almost no studies from the Central African Republic. Generally, the Congo Basin region attracts little interest from researchers compared with the tropical regions of America and Asia [34].

3.2. Towards a Typology of Anthropogenic Causes of Forest Degradation Relevant to Monitoring Forest Degradation in the Congo Basin

Our analysis focused on seven anthropogenic causes of forest degradation identified in the preview literature reviews (Table 1), in which we identified nine specific anthropogenic causes of degradation in the dense tropical forests of the Congo Basin, which we classified into six different categories: selective wood extraction, agriculture, livestock grazing in the forest, anthropogenic fires, hunting, and harvesting of non-timber forest products (Table 2).
Examining data from REDD+ programs in developing countries, refs. [4,35] identified four main causes of forest degradation: logging for timber, logging for wood energy, uncontrolled bush fires, and cattle grazing in forests. In a more recent review of the literature on the contribution of remote sensing to monitoring the causes of forest degradation, ref. [6] also considered other causes of forest degradation, including shifting cultivation and hunting. Even more recently, ref. [36] distinguished the causes of degradation based on the industrial or artisanal nature of the human activities carried out on the forest, in particular: industrial and artisanal agriculture, industrial and artisanal logging, and industrial and artisanal mining. Regarding selective timber extraction, ref. [37] identified three main types: industrial logging, artisanal logging, and the use of wood as a source of cooking energy. However, as described below, apart from industrial logging, there are still few studies on the process of forest degradation by other anthropogenic causes most relevant to the Congo Basin.

3.2.1. Selective Industrial Timber Harvesting

The expansion of industrial logging concessions has led to the emergence of the concept of forest degradation or degraded forests in international climate change policies [8]. Although our analysis reveals that this activity is the most studied cause of forest degradation internationally and in the Congo Basin (Table 2), it is not necessarily the main driver in the region, as several studies indicate [10,36,38]. In the context of sustainable forest management, over the past two decades, initiatives aimed at promoting reduced impact logging practices have seen significant development in Central Africa. The forest legislation of the Congo Basin countries has made the development of management plans for industrial forest concessions mandatory [39]. In addition, in response to consumer concerns about sustainable forestry practices, certification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have also been adopted by some forestry companies [40]. The compliance with these standards by forestry companies explains the generally low rate of environmental damage caused by industrial logging on forest structure and carbon storage [38,41,42]. Between 2018 and 2020, in the Congo Basin region, the annual rate of degradation by industrial logging appears to be stabilizing at around 5% of the total number of clearings detected [41]. In the DRC, disturbances caused by industrial logging represent less than 1% of the total number of clearings detected [36]. Furthermore, intensive logging can significantly reduce biodiversity. In Asian tropical forests, the species richness of mammals and amphibians is halved when the logging intensity reaches removal rates of 38 m3/ha and 63 m3/ha of timber, respectively [43]. In Central Africa, high-intensity logging alters the regeneration of liana sapling layers, forbs, and grasses species [44]. However, the logging intensity in the Congo Basin is generally considered low, ranging from 1 to 4 trees/ha [45] compared to 13 to 18 trees/ha in Southeast Asia and South America [46]. Despite this lower intensity, logging concessions in Central African forests can play a complementary role in conservation by providing habitat for many of the region’s threatened animal species and maintaining key ecosystem services [42,47].
Table 2. Typology of studied anthropogenic causes of forest degradation studied in the Congo Basin in the 116 total reviewed articles.
Table 2. Typology of studied anthropogenic causes of forest degradation studied in the Congo Basin in the 116 total reviewed articles.
CategoriesSub-CategoriesOther Sub-CategoriesArticles (Number)Articles (%)Ref.
Selective wood extractionTimberIndustrial forest logging7463.8%[10,26,36,38,41,42,44,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114]
Artisanal forest logging108.7%[41,84,111,114,115,116,117,118,119,120]
No specified54.3%[121,122,123,124,125]
Wood energy Charcoal production and fuel wood production65.2%[10,115,119,126,127,128]
AgricultureShifting cultivation with slash-and-burn or small-scale agriculture3328.7%[36,41,48,52,80,84,88,90,92,99,115,117,118,119,120,123,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144]
cash crops or agroforests97.8%[36,41,129,130,133,134,142,145,146]
No specified10.9%[147]
Anthropogenic fires1412.2%[10,86,90,122,124,125,128,134,140,147,148,149,150,151]
Hunting97.8%[58,65,71,94,99,100,122,152,153]
Collection of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs)87.0%[92,100,119,122,154,155,156,157]
Livestock grazing in forest54.3%[100,122,125,128,147]

3.2.2. Selective Artisanal Forest Logging

The artisanal forest logging sector in the Congo Basin region is often described as an informal and illegal activity [158,159]. However, artisanal logging remains one of the least documented sectors regarding its ecological impacts in the Congo Basin region [158]. The available data show that studies on forest degradation caused by this activity represent approximately 9% of research conducted in the Congo Basin region (Table 2). However, in countries of the Congo Basin region, artisanal timber production far exceeds that of industrial logging. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), for example, this activity is a significant supply sector for both local and international markets, with an estimated annual production of 3.4 million cubic meters of wood, which is ten times more than industrial forest production [160]. Between 2018 and 2020, the annual rate of forest degradation caused by artisanal logging in the Congo Basin region increased, rising from approximately 5–10% of the total number of detected clearings. Moreover, 18% of these clearings were observed in intact forests [41]. The future study of emissions related to deforestation and forest degradation should focus on artisanal logging.

3.2.3. Wood Charcoal Production or Fuel Wood Production

Wood energy remains the main source of cooking energy for households in sub-Saharan African countries, filling the energy gap [161]. In the DRC, wood energy production accounts for 95% of total wood production [162]. This wood often comes from natural forests or agricultural land, and its demand continues to grow, particularly in urban areas where charcoal is widely used [163]. Although wood energy is considered a sustainable energy source within sustainable wood resource management systems [163], less efficient carbonization and cooking equipment [164], quality of governance characterized by corruption, low institutional capacity, and high rural population density [126,127] contribute to the increase in wood energy consumption. However, for the Central African region, there is still a mismatch between the high quantity reported on wood energy consumption and its less significant impact on forest degradation, most notably in the DRC [69,126]. The current methods therefore need to be adapted to establish this link through local-scale studies in the main wood energy supply basins for large urban agglomerations. However, research into forest degradation caused by this activity represents around 5% of the research carried out in the Congo Basin region (Table 2).

3.2.4. Shifting Cultivation with Slash-And-Burn

Shifting cultivation with slash-and-burn, widespread in sub-Saharan Africa, is a most important historical agriculture model for the food subsistence of rural households. This practice involves partially clearing sections of forest for short-term crops, followed by regeneration and succession of mature secondary forests [165]. It accounts for approximately 28% of studies on forest degradation in the Congo Basin (Table 2). In areas with high population density, this type of agriculture is undergoing significant changes, notably the reduction of fallow periods. This compromises the long-term productivity of forest soils and the capacity for forest regeneration, thereby increasing pressure on intact forests [166]. It is often cited as both a cause of forest degradation and deforestation. However, deforestation only occurs if the land does not regenerate into forest during the fallow period, meaning that the use of agricultural land is not necessarily a temporary use of the forest [6,124]. For example, fallows that reach at least 5 m in height after a reference year and are subsequently cleared are not considered a form of deforestation [86]. Visually, in the Congo Basin region, shifting cultivation takes the form of rural complexes, where small active fields, fallows, and secondary forests are intermingled with dwellings [41,132]. In the DRC, it accounts for 76% of the total area of rural complexes [132].
To date, in the Congo Basin region, slash-and-burn agriculture is the main cause of both deforestation and forest degradation [41,86]. It leads to the clearing of areas with a median size estimated at 1.8 ha [86]. Between 2016 and 2020, the annual rate of forest degradation corresponding to small-scale agriculture in the Congo Basin remains high, at around 70% of the total number of clearings detected each year, of which 8% are reported in intact forests [132].

3.2.5. Anthropogenic Fires

The use of fire in agriculture and grazing management has impacts on increasing carbon emissions from forest edges [90]. Carbon emissions are due to both the direct impact of fire intrusion into forests and the indirect impact of changes in local atmospheric circulations that increase forest canopy dryness [151]. Anthropogenic fires can penetrate up to 2.4 km from forest edges [167]. In 2010, fires occurred in 52% of forest edges in sub-Saharan Africa and increased the carbon deficit by 5.5 Mg C/ha [151]. Assessing the impact of fire on forest degradation accounts for around 12% of studies carried out in the Congo Basin (Table 2).

3.2.6. The Collection of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs)

Non-wood plant resources produced by tropical forests can be grouped into various categories: fruits and seeds; plant exudates (latex, gums, and resins); and vegetative structures (stems, leaves, roots, bark, and buds) [155] or caterpillar host trees. The sporadic collection of these products may have little effect on the long-term stability of the exploited tree populations [155]. However, due to the high demand in domestic and international markets, the intensive annual harvest of a high-value NTFPs, coupled with unsustainable harvesting techniques, can gradually eliminate host species or providers of high-value NTFPs from the forest [168]. In many villages in Cameroon, long distances must be traveled to collect NTFPs that were once readily available near settlements, indicating the degradation of forest ecosystems that supply NTFPs, contributing to improving livelihoods and diversifying the income sources of local populations [156]. Moreover, the collection of the majority of NTFPs often occurs in the same forest area, competing with other anthropogenic activities, including land clearing for agriculture, establishment of palm plantations, and timber logging, which negatively impact the availability of NTFPs in different types of forests [119,155,156]. However, our results show that studies on forest degradation due to NTFP collection in the Congo Basin represent only 7% of conducted studies. Future studies on monitoring forest degradation through NTFP harvesting should characterize the high socio-economic value of the NTFP exploitation system for local populations by adjusting the rate of plant regeneration to the rate of harvesting [155].

3.2.7. Hunting

In tropical regions, both rural and urban populations are heavily dependent on animal protein from unsustainable hunting, which can lead to the transformation of forest ecosystems into what [168] describes as “empty forests”. Annual bushmeat consumption in the Congo Basin exceeds 4.5 million metric tons [169]. Yet, preserving an adequate diversity of specialized animal species is important for maintaining the ecological balance of forest ecosystems. Fruit predatory herbivores play an essential role in the dispersal and regeneration of tropical forests’ many tree species and carbon storage [170]. However, defaunation can compromise this ecological function [170]. In Central Africa, the low abundance or density of large mammals is an indicator of forest degradation, especially defaunation affecting primates and ungulates [171]. An experiment conducted in the Republic of Congo showed that hunting-induced defaunation reduced the average dispersal distances of mammal-dispersed tree species by 22%. Furthermore, forests subjected to hunting had significantly lower aboveground biomass than industrial timber concessions [65]. However, our results demonstrate that studies on forest degradation related to hunting represent only about 8% of the studies reviewed (Table 2).

3.3. Approaches for Characterizing the Degradation of Dense Tropical Forests in the Congo Basin

3.3.1. Forest Degradation Indicators and Measurement Approaches

Our analysis identified 23 indicators used to characterize forest degradation in the Congo Basin. Field data, followed by remote sensing tools, remain the most used approaches for monitoring forest degradation, assessing, respectively, 20 and 10 of the 23 identified indicators. Field data have been particularly effective in evaluating indicators related to forest carbon storage capacity and biodiversity status, such as variations in aboveground biomass and changes in tree species richness. Remote sensing, on the other hand, has been widely used to assess structural changes in forests, with canopy gaps, clearings, and changes in forest cover rate being the most frequently evaluated indicators. The integration of field data and remote sensing has proven especially valuable for assessing variations in aboveground biomass on large scales (Table 3).
While field data provide detailed information on a local scale, remote sensing offers the advantage of rapid data collection over large areas. This capability has significantly contributed to the proliferation of scientific literature on forest degradation, particularly through the field of landscape ecology. Remote sensing is frequently used to assess landscape fragmentation and the extent of intact or undisturbed forests by detecting canopy openings and evaluating the forest cover rates [21]. Fragmented forests are often considered degraded due to increased edge effects, reduced connectivity, and decreased forest cover, which can lead to biodiversity loss and impact numerous ecological processes [172]. Yet, detailed studies on the impact of fragmentation on the various biodiversity forest attributes are currently lacking. An intact forest landscape is free from any signs of human activity or fragmentation, capable of maintaining all local biodiversity, including viable populations of wide-ranging species [86]. Such landscapes must have a minimum area of 500 km2, a minimum width of 10 km, and a corridor with a minimum width of 2 km [81].
Mapping canopy openings created by road networks for selective logging has enabled the quantification of forests degraded by the expansion of industrial logging concessions in Central Africa [53]. As part of the “CoforChange” project in Cameroon, the Central African Republic (CAR), and the Republic of Congo, ref. [60] used Landsat images to define a specific index called the “canopy opening index”. This index is calculated for each 500 m pixel, measuring the proportion covered by bare soil. It has helped to determine the time required for the revegetation of abandoned road networks following industrial selective logging operations [60]. Additionally, in the CAR, the combination of linear features and reflectance contrast in the red, near-infrared, and mid-infrared spectral bands has been crucial for detecting logging activities [50]. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), mapping the expansion of rural complexes and photointerpretation of clearings has distinguished the major anthropogenic causes of forest degradation, with agriculture being the most significant [36].
Given the persistence of clouds over dense tropical forests [86] and the very rapid regeneration [86], the more or less accurate detection and measurement of small, isolated point disturbances, such as the fall of an individual tree, requires the use of active sensor data, including LiDAR [103], RADAR images [173], or very high-resolution optical images acquired by drones [174]. In the Congo Basin region, ref. [173] used the Sentinel-1 RADAR sensor to develop an algorithm capable of detecting small disturbance events (maximum area 10 m × 10 m) in near-real time. Between 2019 and 2020, the DRC, for example, recorded more small-scale disturbance events representing 541 Kha out of 1431 Kha of the total loss [173]. All events with a mapped size between 0.2 and <0.5 ha could be associated with selective logging [173], yet this approach has recently been shown to miss +80% of wood extraction events [106]. Ref. [106] developed an approach based on Sentinel-1 RADAR images to intercept gaps of less than 500 m2, representing 80% of disturbances induced by selective logging, 70% of which escaped previous approaches [124,173]. Yet, the quality of the method heavily relies on exceptional data acquisitions combining field and drone inventories.
After 5 to 10 years of industrial logging, gaps, skid trails, and roads are no longer detectable by conventional remote sensing tools based on relatively high-resolution optical satellite images, notably Landsat or Sentinel-2 [9,50,60]. From this perspective, indicators of fragmentation or the index of integrity of intact forest landscapes by monitoring the road infrastructure network can only achieve short-term and partial monitoring of forest areas mainly affected by industrial selective logging.
The integration of textural image analysis of very high spatial resolution optical images acquired by UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles or drones) and satellite imagery is promising for long-term and large-scale spatial historical monitoring of the causes of forest degradation at different logging intensities [174,175]. However, the current challenges of this approach are linked to the increased source of bias associated with the interaction between the level of detail provided and variations in acquisition conditions, notably sun–screen–sensor angles [176,177]. To improve local-scale monitoring, a promising avenue lies in the regular acquisition of drone data (https://www.canobs.net/protocols, accessed on 17 April 2025) to accurately monitor the consequences of forest degradation, both in terms of structural indicators and forest composition [178]. In the Yangambi region of the DRC, using aerial photogrammetry techniques, the canopy height model produced from optical UAV images was similar to that derived from accurate LiDAR data [179]. In Gabon, in the Ivindo Forest concession, a map of canopy height variation was produced from LiDAR UAV data. However, this map was only used to select control plots in the validation of the map of potential degradation by selective industrial logging based on the variation in aboveground biomass estimated by the interferometry of RADAR images from the TanDEM-X satellite [103].
Biomass quantification is a key indicator in the evaluation process of REDD+ programs. However, scientific work using optical sensors has been limited to characterizing the disturbance induced by logging gaps and has not, at the same time, monitored the carbon balance or biomass lost [6]. In Africa, biomass mapping with a low level of uncertainty has been carried out using optical sensors with very high spatial resolution [175] and active sensors such as RADAR [180] and LiDAR [181]. However, there are still very few initiatives on the application of remote sensing to the monitoring of biomass variation in the characterization of anthropogenic causes of forest degradation in the dense tropical forests of the Congo Basin (Table 3).
In Gabon, ref. [103] produced a less accurate map for postindustrial selective logging aboveground biomass variations above 130 Mg·ha−1 on steep slopes between 2000 and 2021. In addition, the aboveground biomass map for Africa by [182], coupled with the fire impact map, demonstrated how fire accentuates the edge effect on biomass variation [151]. However, aboveground biomass maps produced from high-resolution RADAR and optical multi-sensor satellite data may present underestimates for forests with aboveground biomass above 250 Mg·ha−1 [182]. The use of optical sensors at low spatial resolutions for biomass prediction without considering the strata variability of actual biomass stocks is not appropriate for mapping biomass variations [183].
Finally, the choice of the indicator to be measured in relation to specific activities is fundamental for an accurate and sustainable assessment of forest management practices [5,6,20,22]. For example, the assessment of selective logging intensity quantified by the volume or number of stems removed per unit area of a hectare plays an important role in predicting carbon emissions [184], conserving biodiversity [43] or assessing the renewal capacity of the wood stock to be logged [39]. Remote sensing, particularly radar satellite imagery combined with field data, has proven to be an effective tool for monitoring logging intensity in the Congo Basin [106]. However, our results indicate that this indicator, often measured using field data, is only the sixth most frequently used in scientific studies on forest degradation in the region (Table 3). This highlights the need for further advancements in remote sensing techniques to strengthen the link between forest structure indicators and other key aspects of forest degradation, such as logging intensity and biodiversity functional traits.

3.3.2. Relative Importance of Different Causes of Forest Degradation

It is noticeable that the same indicators are often the most frequently measured to monitor all anthropogenic activities. The most measured indicators provide information on the evolution of three types of criteria or properties of the state of a forest: the carbon storage capacity, primarily assessed by the variation in carbon or aboveground biomass changes, forest structure, generally evaluated by the density of clearings or canopy gaps, and biodiversity, mainly evaluated by the tree species richness changes. The use of these indicators predominates in assessing the environmental impact of industrial logging and shifting agriculture with slash-and-burn.
Building on these commonly used indicators, we now explore their application in assessing the environmental impacts of different anthropogenic activities. Comparing the variation in canopy gaps, aboveground carbon loss, and tree species richness, resulting from artisanal logging, selective logging, and shifting agriculture with slash-and-burn against undisturbed old-growth primary forest (Table 4), the results show that shifting cultivation has the greatest impact on both canopy gaps, carbon loss, and tree species richness in the 0–60-year regeneration stages (respectively, 61%, 73%, and 30%). Interestingly, while the impact of artisanal logging on canopy gap is relatively low (10%) and, consequently, potentially difficult to detect, its impact on carbon and tree species richness is four times higher than the one estimated in industrial forest logging concessions (Table 4).
The separate analysis of the magnitude of forest degradation caused by various anthropogenic factors remains a significant challenge, as illustrated by the works of [13,84,185]. This complexity arises from the difficulty in specifically linking the impacts of human activities to degradation indicators without considering the temporary or permanent changes in land use, complicating the distinction between deforestation and forest degradation [6,124].
To better understand these challenges, several studies have attempted to quantify forest degradation in the Congo Basin, with varying approaches to distinguish between deforestation and degradation. The results of [13] indicate that the annual rate of forest degradation in the Congo Basin is 0.09%, which accounts for 53% of the annual deforestation rate, of which only aspects of deforestation are discussed and not forest degradation. On the other hand, ref. [185] assessed forest degradation by detecting clearings smaller than 0.5 ha without addressing their potential causes. More recently, ref. [41], by analyzing the number of canopy gaps detected, provided a new perspective by dissociating the respective impact of deforestation and forest degradation causes in their analysis of canopy openings, thus providing a clearer overview of the various anthropogenic activities.

3.3.3. Considering the Temporal Scale

In contrast to deforestation, monitoring forest degradation requires regular monitoring over time of changes in forest properties [5]. Because it is essential to distinguish between what regenerates and what does not [124]. After agriculture, studies carried out in most Amazonian and West African rainforests indicate that specific leaf area and wood density are fully restored within 20–30 years but that it takes more than a century for biomass, floristic species richness, and composition to be fully restored [186]. Moreover, for selective logging, it is crucial to ensure the renewal capacity in composition and diversity of the resources harvested [39,187]. However, due to the lack of available information, there are still many uncertainties regarding the spatiotemporal variation in the recovery rate of different indicators on the state of tropical rainforests in the Congo Basin following various types of anthropogenic disturbances.
Despite the importance of long-term monitoring in understanding forest recovery, many studies overlook the temporal dimension in their analyses, focusing solely on the immediate impact following logging [67,69,73,76,85,99]. Among the studies that do integrate this factor, short-term monitoring (0–5 years) is the most used temporal scale for assessing the primary indicator of forest degradation, namely canopy gap detection (Figure 4). This predominance is partly explained by the rapid regeneration of canopy gaps and the technical capabilities of remote sensing tools, which mainly rely on passive (optical) satellite sensors with high and medium spatial resolution [9,60].
However, mid-term monitoring (10–20 years) is more prevalent in studies assessing aboveground carbon (AGC), belowground carbon (BGC), and changes in floristic composition (Figure 4), primarily relying on forest inventory data from permanent monitoring plots or chronosequences of post-disturbance forest succession [9,60]. However, permanent plots are often small-scale, located in protected areas, and their distribution is heterogeneous, with concentrations in certain regions and vast uncovered areas, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which holds at least 60% of the Congo Basin’s forest cover [33].
The integration of very high-resolution optical imagery from UAVs with available high-quality historical datasets offers a promising solution for the long-term monitoring of the Congo Basin’s dense tropical rainforests. These historical datasets include national forest inventories, aerial photographs from 1950s missions over the Central Congo Basin, archived at the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren, Belgium [188], and declassified Corona mission imagery from the 1960s, obtained by the CIA–NASA agencies of the United States [189]. Leveraging these resources could significantly enhance our ability to track long-term forest dynamics and assess forest degradation trends with greater precision.
While long-term monitoring remains limited in the Congo Basin, studies conducted in most Amazonian and West Africa rainforests regions offer valuable insights into the varying rates of recovery for different forest parameters. Not all indicators of forest condition recover at the same temporal rate after from agriculture forest land use. For example, aboveground carbon (AGC) recovers very slowly following agricultural activities [186].
Similar trends have been observed in the Congo Basin, where small-scale slash-and-burn agriculture leads to a prolonged recovery of AGC. However, in contrast to agricultural conversion, forests subjected to industrial selective logging tend to recover their aboveground carbon rapidly (Figure 5a). In CAR, the aboveground biomass was more than 100% reconstituted after 24 years in forests subject to both low- and high-intensity selective logging [62]. Faster recovery has been reported in Gabon, where 97% and 87% of biomass was restored within just one year in FSC-certified and non-certified concessions, respectively [64]. The slow recovery of AGC in forests affected by small-scale slash-and-burn agriculture could be further exacerbated by repeated fallow cycles [136].
While carbon stocks can recover relatively quickly after selective logging, biodiversity follows a different trajectory after small-scale slash-and-burn agriculture, requiring much longer periods to return to pre-disturbance levels (Figure 5a,b). In the forests of Ituri, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, tree species richness in an industrial logging concession harvested 17 years prior was found to be higher than that of an unharvested mixed primary forest. In contrast, forests that regenerate after 10–15 and 40–60 years of agricultural use retain less than 42% and 3% of tree species, respectively, compared to undisturbed primary forests [52]. Similarly, in the forests of Upper Guinea and Central Africa, selectively logged forests contain less than 65% and abandoned farmland 76% of the tree species found in unlogged forests, even after 20 years [70].
In the context of sustainable forest management, it is important to understand the factors influencing post-disturbance recovery. Ref. [184] proposed a predictive model for biomass and carbon regeneration times, integrating key parameters such as logging intensity (volume or biomass of wood removed per hectare) and logging damage rate (biomass lost due to tree mortality). Such models could enhance selective forest logging monitoring efforts by providing more accurate recovery dynamics across various forest attributes and disturbance regimes.
The impact of selective logging on biodiversity in the Congo Basin forests varies among species and ecological communities. For animal biodiversity, logging tends to decrease the density of certain species, such as great apes, duikers, and bush pigs, while favoring others, including squirrels, insectivorous birds, and frugivorous bird species [58]. In terms of plant diversity, low-intensity logging influences forest regeneration by promoting high wood density tree species while altering the regeneration of light-demanding timber species [42]. However, high intensity logging significantly affects plant diversity by modifying species composition across different forest strata [44]. A comprehensive evaluation of forest degradation caused by industrial logging should consider multiple ecological attributes beyond forest structure and carbon storage. Integrating biodiversity, species composition, and ecosystem functioning into impact assessments would provide a more accurate understanding of the overall consequences of forest logging activities.

4. Conclusions

This analysis highlights that research on forest degradation in the Congo Basin does not yet sufficiently focus on the most significant anthropogenic drivers of degradation in the region, particularly small-scale agriculture and illegal or artisanal logging for timber and fuelwood. While industrial logging is well documented, it is not a major driver of degradation. Most indicators used to assess forest degradation primarily focus on changes in forest structure and carbon storage, but they often overlook the temporal scale, particularly in evaluating long-term effects.
Remote sensing remains the preferred method for characterizing degraded forests, especially for detecting ephemeral impacts such as canopy gaps. However, integrating more field data and leveraging technological innovations in remote sensing are necessary to assess the state of tropical forests in the Congo Basin more holistically. UAVs offer the resolution and spatial coverage needed to distinguish different types of degradation, with the advantage of precise temporal monitoring through multiple short-interval flight campaigns. For long-term monitoring, UAV data could be combined with high-quality historical datasets, such as national forest inventories, aerial photographs from 1950s missions over the Central Congo Basin stored at the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren, Belgium, or archival imagery from the CIA–NASA Corona mission from the 1960s.
These advancements could help redirect research towards the most critical yet least studied anthropogenic drivers of degradation, ultimately improving sustainable forest management policies to reduce emissions and biodiversity loss. A more refined approach could involve defining degradation thresholds for different types of selective logging by integrating additional indicators, such as post-harvest biomass variation relative to harvesting intensity and linking canopy metrics to forest structural and functional traits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.B.N., J.-F.B. and J.B.; methodology, T.B.N., J.-F.B. and J.B.; software, T.B.N., validation J.-F.B. and J.B.; formal analysis, T.B.N. and J.-F.B.; investigation, T.B.N.; resources, J.-F.B. and J.B.; data curation, T.B.N.; writing—original draft preparation, T.B.N.; writing—review and editing, T.B.N., J.-F.B., J.B., J.-R.M., J.-P.M.M., K.R.S., J.B.B. and C.M.M.; visualization, T.B.N.; supervision, J.-F.B. and J.B.; project administration, J.-F.B.; funding acquisition T.B.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by AGRINATURA-EEIG/GEIE (European Alliance on Agricultural Knowledge for Development), ULIEGE and ERAIFT consortium through the European Union-funded project on “Capacity building of biodiversity practitioners, scientists and policy makers for the sustainable management of protected areas and forest ecosystems in Africa: DCI-ENV 2020/416-397”.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Stephenson, N.L.; Das, A.J.; Condit, R.; Russo, S.E.; Baker, P.J.; Beckman, N.G.; Coomes, D.A.; Lines, E.R.; Morris, W.K.; Rüger, N.; et al. Rate of Tree Carbon Accumulation Increases Continuously with Tree Size. Nature 2014, 507, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hubau, W.; Lewis, S.L.; Phillips, O.L.; Affum-Baffoe, K.K.; Beeckman, H.; Cuni-Sanchez, A.; Daniels, A.K.; Ewango, C.E.N.; Fauset, S.; Mukinzi, J.M.; et al. Asynchronous Carbon Sink Saturation in African and Amazonian Tropical Forests. Nature 2020, 579, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Réjou-Méchain, M.; Mortier, F.; Bastin, J.-F.; Cornu, G.; Barbier, N.; Bayol, N.; Bénédet, F.; Bry, X.; Dauby, G.; Deblauwe, V.; et al. Unveiling African Rainforest Composition and Vulnerability to Global Change. Nature 2021, 593, 90–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hosonuma, N.; Herold, M.; De Sy, V.; De Fries, R.S.; Brockhaus, M.; Verchot, L.; Angelsen, A.; Romijn, E. An Assessment of Deforestation and Forest Degradation Drivers in Developing Countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 044009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vásquez-Grandón, A.; Donoso, P.J.; Gerding, V. Forest Degradation: When Is a Forest Degraded? Forests 2018, 9, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gao, Y.; Skutsch, M.; Paneque-Gálvez, J.; Ghilardi, A. Remote Sensing of Forest Degradation: A Review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 103001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nepstad, D.C.; Veríssimo, A.; Alencar, A.; Nobre, C.; Lima, E.; Lefebvre, P.; Schlesinger, P.; Potter, C.; Moutinho, P.; Mendoza, E.; et al. Large-Scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire. Nature 1999, 398, 505–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sasaki, N.; Putz, F.E. Critical Need for New Definitions of “Forest” and “Forest Degradation” in Global Climate Change Agreements. Conserv. Lett. 2009, 2, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hirschmugl, M.; Steinegger, M.; Gallaun, H.; Schardt, M. Mapping Forest Degradation Due to Selective Logging by Means of Time Series Analysis: Case Studies in Central Africa. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 756–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pearson, T.R.H.; Brown, S.; Murray, L.; Sidman, G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Tropical Forest Degradation: An Underestimated Source. Carbon Balance Manag. 2017, 12, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Qin, Y.; Xiao, X.; Wigneron, J.P.; Ciais, P.; Brandt, M.; Fan, L.; Li, X.; Crowell, S.; Wu, X.; Doughty, R.; et al. Carbon Loss from Forest Degradation Exceeds That from Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. FAO. Évaluation des Ressources Forestières Mondiales 2020, Principaux Résultats; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ernst, C.; Mayaux, P.; Verhegghen, A.; Bodart, C.; Christophe, M.; Defourny, P. National Forest Cover Change in Congo Basin: Deforestation, Reforestation, Degradation and Regeneration for the Years 1990, 2000 and 2005. Glob. Change Biol. 2013, 19, 1173–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Angelsen, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Verchot, L. (Eds.) Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2012; (In Japanese). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Simula, M. Vers une Définition de la Dégradation des Forêts: Analyse Comparative des Définitions Existantes; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  16. Conseil de l’UE. Le Conseil Approuve de Nouvelles Règles Afin de Réduire la Déforestation et la Dégradation Des Forêts à l’Échelle Mondiale. Communiqué de Presse du 28 Juin 2022. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/fr/press/press-releases/2022/06/28/council-agrees-on-new-rules-to-drive-down-deforestation-and-forest-degradation/ (accessed on 20 March 2024).
  17. République du Congo. Strategie Nationale Redd+ de la Republique du Congo. 2016. Available online: https://www.cafi.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/RCongo%20National%20REDD%2B%20Strategy-%20%20validated%20version%2016%20July%202016%29%20%281%29.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  18. Conseil National Climat de la République du Gabon. Gabon’s Proposed National REDD + Forest Reference Level. 2021. Available online: https://redd.unfccc.int/media/gabon_frl_submitted_feb2021.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  19. République du Congo. Niveau d’émission de Référence des Forêts Pour la Réduction des Émissions Dues à la Déforestation En République Démocratique du Congo. 2018. Available online: https://redd.unfccc.int/media/2018_frel_submission_drc.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  20. Thompson, I.D.; Guariguata, M.R.; Okabe, K.; Bahamondez, C.; Nasi, R.; Heymell, V.; Sabogal, C. An Operational Framework for Defining and Monitoring Forest Degradatio. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 23p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dupuis, C.; Lejeune, P.; Michez, A.; Fayolle, A. How Can Remote Sensing Help Monitor Tropical Moist Forest Degradation?—A Systematic Review. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ghazoul, J.; Burivalova, S.; Garcia-Ulloa, J.; King, A.L. Conceptualizing Forest Degradation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 622–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA, T.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Murdiyarso, D.; Skutsch, M.; Guariguata, M.; Kanninen, M.; Luttrell, C.; Verweij, P.; Martins, S.O. How Do We Measure and Monitor Forest Degradation? In Moving Ahead with REDD Issues, Options and Implications; Angelsen, A., Ed.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008; pp. 99–156. [Google Scholar]
  25. Abernethy, K.A.; Coad, L.; Taylor, G.; Lee, M.E.; Maisels, F. Extent and Ecological Consequences of Hunting in Central African Rainforests in the Twenty-First Century. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 20120303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hirschmugl, M.; Gallaun, H.; Dees, M.; Datta, P.; Deutscher, J.; Koutsias, N.; Schardt, M. Methods for Mapping Forest Disturbance and Degradation from Optical Earth Observation Data: A Review. Curr. For. Rep. 2017, 3, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Poudyal, H.B.; Maraseni, T.; Cockfield, G.; Hari Poudyal, B.; Maraseni, T.; Cockfield, G. Evolutionary Dynamics of Selective Logging in the Tropics: A Systematic Review of Impact Studies and Their Effectiveness in Sustainable Forest Management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 430, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mitchell, A.L.; Rosenqvist, A.; Mora, B. Current Remote Sensing Approaches to Monitoring Forest Degradation in Support of Countries Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) Systems for REDD+. Carbon Balance Manag. 2017, 12, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jackson, C.M.; Adam, E. Remote Sensing of Selective Logging in Tropical Forests: Current State and Future Directions. iForest 2020, 13, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. André, M.; Mahy, G.; Lejeune, P.; Bogaert, J. Vers une Synthèse de la Conception et une Définition des Zones Dans le Gradient Urbain-Rural. Base 2014, 18, 61–74. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lewis, S.L.; Sonké, B.; Sunderland, T.; Begne, S.K.; Lopez-Gonzalez, G.; van der Heijden, G.M.F.; Phillips, O.L.; Affum-Baffoe, K.; Baker, T.R.; Banin, L.; et al. Above-Ground Biomass and Structure of 260 African Tropical Forests. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 20120295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Chave, J.; Andalo, C.; Brown, S.; Cairns, M.A.; Chambers, J.Q.; Eamus, D.; Fölster, H.; Fromard, F.; Higuchi, N.; Kira, T.; et al. Tree Allometry and Improved Estimation of Carbon Stocks and Balance in Tropical Forests. Oecologia 2005, 145, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Picard, N. Dispositifs Permanents Pour le Suivi des Forêts en Afrique Centrale: Un État des Lieux. HAL 2007, cirad-00146347. [Google Scholar]
  34. White, L.J.T.; Masudi, E.B.; Ndongo, J.D.; Matondo, R.; Soudan-Nonault, A.; Ngomanda, A.; Averti, I.S.; Ewango, C.E.N.; Sonké, B.; Lewis, S.L. Congo Basin Rainforest—Invest US$150 Million in Science. Nature 2021, 598, 411–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kissinger, G.M.; Herold, V.D.S. Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation; Lexeme Consulting: Vancouver, QC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Molinario, G.; Hansen, M.; Potapov, P.; Tyukavina, A.; Stehman, S. Contextualizing Landscape-Scale Forest Cover Loss in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) between 2000 and 2015. Land 2020, 9, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tchatchou, B.; Sonwa, D.J.; Ifo, S.; Tiani, A.M. Déforestation et Dégradation des Forêts Dans le Bassin du Congo: État des Lieux, Causes Actuelles et Perspectives; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF): Bogor, Indonesia, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chervier, C.; Ximenes, A.C.; Mihigo, B.P.N.; Doumenge, C. Impact of Industrial Logging Concession on Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the DRC. World Dev. 2024, 173, 106393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bayol, N.; Borie, J.-M. Itinéraires Techniques d’aménagement Des Forêts de Production En Afrique Centrale. Bois For. Trop. 2004, 281, 35–49. [Google Scholar]
  40. Karsenty, A.; Ferron, C. Recent Evolutions of Forest Concessions Status and Dynamics in Central Africa. Int. For. Rev. 2017, 19, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shapiro, A.; D’Annunzio, R.; Desclée, B.; Jungers, Q.; Kondjo, H.K.; Iyanga, J.M.; Gangyo, F.I.; Nana, T.; Obame, C.V.; Milandou, C.; et al. Small Scale Agriculture Continues to Drive Deforestation and Degradation in Fragmented Forests in the Congo Basin (2015–2020). Land Use Policy 2023, 134, 106922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sullivan, M.K.; Vleminckx, J.; Bissiemou, P.A.M.; Niangadouma, R.; Mayoungou, M.I.; Temba, J.L.; Bénédet, F.; Abernethy, K.; Queenborough, S.A.; Comita, L.S. Low-Intensity Logging Alters Species and Functional Composition, but Does Not Negatively Impact Key Ecosystem Services in a Central African Tropical Forest. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2024, 53, e02996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Burivalova, Z.; Şekercioǧlu, Ç.H.; Koh, L.P. Thresholds of Logging Intensity to Maintain Tropical Forest Biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24, 1893–1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Decocq, G.; Beina, D.; Jamoneau, A.; Gourlet-Fleury, S.; Closset-Kopp, D. Don’t Miss the Forest for the Trees! Evidence for Vertical Differences in the Response of Plant Diversity to Disturbance in a Tropical Rain Forest. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2014, 16, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Durrieu de Madron, L.; Fontez, B.; Dipapoundji, B. Dégats d’exploitation et de Débardage En Fonction de l’intensité d’exploitation En Forêt Dense Humide d’Afrique Centrale. Bois For. Trop. 2000, 264, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sist, P.; Ferreira, F.N. Sustainability of Reduced-Impact Logging in the Eastern Amazon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 243, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Clark, C.J.; Poulsen, J.R.; Malonga, R.; Elkan, P.W. Logging Concessions Can Extend the Conservation Estate for Central African Tropical Forests. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 1281–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gemerden, V.S.B.; Shu, N.G.; Olff, H. Recovery of Conservation Values in Central African Rain Forest after Logging and Shifting Cultivation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2003, 12, 1553–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hall, J.S.; Harris, D.J.; Medjibe, V.; Ashton, P.M.S. The Effects of Selective Logging on Forest Structure and Tree Species Composition in a Central African Forest: Implications for Management of Conservation Areas. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 183, 249–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De Wasseige, C.; Defourny, P.; De Wasseige, C.; Defourny, P. Remote Sensing of Selective Logging Impact for Tropical Forest Management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 188, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Karsenty, A.; Gourlet-Fleury, S. Assessing Sustainability of Logging Practices in the Congo Basin’s Managed Forests: The Issue of Commercial Species Recovery. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Makana, J.R.; Thomas, S.C. Impacts of Selective Logging and Agricultural Clearing on Forest Structure, Floristic Composition and Diversity, and Timber Tree Regeneration in the Ituri Forest, Democratic Republic of Congo. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 1375–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Laporte, N.T.; Stabach, J.A.; Grosch, R.; Lin, T.S.; Goetz, S.J. Expansion of Industrial Logging in Central Africa. Science 2007, 316, 1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ibrahima, A.; Ze, A.D.M.; Ntonga, J.C. Fine Root Production and Distribution in the Tropical Rainforests of South-Western Cameroon: Effects of Soil Type and Selective Logging. iForest 2010, 3, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. De Madron, L.D.; Bauwens, S.; Giraud, A.; Hubert, D.; Billand, A.; De Madron, L.D.; Bauwens, S. Estimation de l’Impact de Différents Modes d’Exploitation Forestière Sur Les Stocks de Carbone En Afrique Centrale. Bois For. Trop. 2011, 308, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Daïnou, K.; Bauduin, A.; Bourland, N.; Fétéké, F.; Doucet, J. Soil Seed Bank Characteristics in Cameroonian Rainforests and Implications for Post-Logging Forest Recovery. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 1499–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ouédraogo, D.; Beina, D.; Picard, N.; Mortier, F.; Baya, F.; Gourlet-fleury, S. Thinning after Selective Logging Facilitates Floristic Composition Recovery in a Tropical Rain Forest of Central Africa. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262, 2176–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Poulsen, J.R.P.; Lark, C.J.C.; Bolker, B.M. Decoupling the Effects of Logging and Hunting on an Afrotropical Animal Community. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 1819–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nils, B.; Yao Lambert, K.; Philippe, L.; Bonaventure, S.; Julien, P.; Kasso, D.; Fousséni, F.; Jean-Loui, D. Ecology of Pericopsis Elata (Fabaceae), an Endangered Timber Species in Southeastern Cameroon. Biotropica 2012, 44, 840–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bourbier, V.G.L.; Cornu, G.; Pennec, A.; Brognoli, C.; Gond, V. Large-Scale Estimation of Forest Canopy Opening Using Remote Sensing in Central Africa. Bois For. Trop. 2013, 315, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Deutscher, J.; Perko, R.; Gutjahr, K.; Hirschmugl, M.; Schardt, M. Mapping Tropical Rainforest Canopy Disturbances in 3D by COSMO-SkyMed Spotlight InSAR-Stereo Data to Detect Areas of Forest Degradation. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 648–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gourlet-Fleury, S.; Mortier, F.; Fayolle, A.; Baya, F.; Ouédraogo, D.; Bénédet, F.; Picard, N. Tropical Forest Recovery from Logging: A 24 Year Silvicultural Experiment from Central Africa. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 20120302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Gourlet-fleury, S.; Beina, D.; Fayolle, A.; Ouédraogo, D.; Mortier, F.; Bénédet, F.; Closset-Kopp, D.; Decocq, G. Silvicultural Disturbance Has Little Impact on Tree Species Diversity in a Central African Moist Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 304, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Medjibe, V.P.; Putz, F.E.; Romero, C. Certified and Uncertified Logging Concessions Compared in Gabon: Changes in Stand Structure, Tree Species, and Biomass. Environ. Manag. 2013, 51, 524–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Poulsen, J.R.; Clark, C.J.; Palmer, T.M. Ecological Erosion of an Afrotropical Forest and Potential Consequences for Tree Recruitment and Forest Biomass. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 163, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mayaka, T.B.; Eba’a-Atyi, R.; Nkie, M.C. On Volume Recovery Index and Implications for Sustainable Logging in Congo Basin. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 313, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Neba, G.S.; Kanninen, M.; Atyi, E.R.; Sonwa, J.D. Assessment and Prediction of Above-Ground Biomass in Selectively Logged Forest Concessions Using Field Measurements and Remote Sensing Data: Case Study in South East Cameroon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 329, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Obiang, N.L.E.; Ngomanda, A.; Hymas, O.; Chézeauxl, É.; Picard, N. Diagnosing the Demographic Balance of Two Light-Demanding Tree Species Populations in Central Africa from Their Diameter Distribution. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 313, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pearson, T.R.H.H.; Brown, S.; Casarim, F.M. Carbon Emissions from Tropical Forest Degradation Caused by Logging. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 034017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cazzolla Gatti, R.; Castaldi, S.; Lindsell, J.A.; Coomes, D.A.; Marchetti, M.; Maesano, M.; Di Paola, A.; Paparella, F.; Valentini, R. The Impact of Selective Logging and Clearcutting on Forest Structure, Tree Diversity and above-Ground Biomass of African Tropical Forests. Ecol. Res. 2015, 30, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bahaa-el-din, L.; Sollmann, R.; Hunter, L.T.B.; Slotow, R.; Macdonald, D.W.; Henschel, P. Effects of Human Land-Use on Africa’s Only Forest-Dependent Felid: The African Golden Cat Caracal Aurata. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 199, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kleinschroth, F.; Healey, J.R.; Sist, P.; Mortier, F.; Gourlet-Fleury, S. How Persistent Are the Impacts of Logging Roads on Central African Forest Vegetation ? J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 1127–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Noutcheu, R.; Snook, L.K.; Tchatat, M.; Taedoumg, H.; Tchingsabe, O.; Tieguhong, J.C. Do Logging Concessions Decrease the Availability to Villagers of Foods from Timber Trees? A Quantitative Analysis for Moabi (Baillonella toxisperma), Sapelli (Entandrophragma cylindricum) and Tali (Erythrophleum suaveolens) in Cameroon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 381, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Picard, N.; Henry, M.; Fonton, N.H.; Kondaoule, J.; Fayolle, A.; Birigazzi, L.; Sola, G.; Poultouchidou, A.; Trotta, C.; Maïdou, H. Error in the Estimation of Emission Factors for Forest Degradation in Central Africa. J. For. Res. 2016, 21, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sufo Kankeu, R.; Sonwa, D.J.; Eba’a Atyi, R.; Moankang Nkal, N.M. Quantifying Post Logging Biomass Loss Using Satellite Images and Ground Measurements in Southeast Cameroon. J. For. Res. 2016, 27, 1415–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tchiadje, S.N.; Sonwa, D.J.; Nkongmeneck, B.A.; Cerbonney, L.; Sufo Kankeu, R. Preliminary Estimation of Carbon Stock in a Logging Concession with a Forest Management Plan in East Cameroon. J. Sustain. For. 2016, 35, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Carlson, B.S.; Koerner, S.E.; Medjibe, V.P.; White, L.J.T.; Poulsen, J.R. Deadwood Stocks Increase with Selective Logging and Large Tree Frequency in Gabon. Glob. Change Biol. 2017, 23, 1648–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cerutti, O.P.; Suryadarma, D.; Nasi, R.; Forni, E.; Medjibe, V.; Delion, S.; Bastin, D. The Impact of Forest Management Plans on Trees and Carbon: Modeling a Decade of Harvesting Data in Cameroon. J. For. Econ. 2017, 27, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kleinschroth, F.; Healey, J.R.; Gourlet-Fleury, S.; Mortier, F.; Stoica, R.S. Effects of Logging on Roadless Space in Intact Forest Landscapes of the Congo Basin. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Potapov, P.; Hansen, M.C.; Laestadius, L.; Turubanova, S.; Yaroshenko, A.; Thies, C.; Smith, W.; Zhuravleva, I.; Komarova, A.; Minnemeyer, S.; et al. The Last Frontiers of Wilderness: Tracking Loss of Intact Forest Landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1600821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rossi, V.; Claeys, F.; Bastin, D.; Gourlet-Fleury, S.; Guizol, P.; Eba’a-Atyi, R.; Sonwa, D.J.; Lescuyer, G.; Picard, N. Could REDD+ Mechanisms Induce Logging Companies to Reduce Forest Degradation in Central Africa? J. For. Econ. 2017, 29, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Fuller, T.L.; Narins, T.P.; Nackoney, J.; Bonebrake, T.C.; Sesink, P.; Katy, C.; Anthony, M.; Bongwele, E.; Njabo, K.Y.; Anthony, N.M.; et al. Assessing the Impact of China’s Timber Industry on Congo Basin Land Use Change. Area 2018, 51, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ibrahima, A.; Ntonga, J.C.; Ze, A.D.M. Litterfall, Litter Standing Crops and Nutrient Dynamics as Influenced by Selective Logging in Tropical Rainforest of Ebom, Southwest Cameroon. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ. 2018, 10, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kranz, O.; Schoepfer, E.; Tegtmeyer, R.; Lang, S. Earth Observation Based Multi-Scale Assessment of Logging Activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2018, 144, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Muvatsi, P.; Kahindo, J.; Snook, L.K. Can the Production of Wild Forest Foods Be Sustained in Timber Concessions ? Logging and the Availability of Edible Caterpillars Hosted by Sapelli (Entandrophragma cylindricum) and Tali (Erythrophleum suaveolens) Trees in the Democratic Republic of Co. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 410, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tyukavina, A.; Hansen, M.C.; Potapov, P.; Parker, D.; Okpa, C.; Stehman, S.V.; Kommareddy, I.; Turubanova, S. Congo Basin Forest Loss Dominated by Increasing Smallholder Clearing. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat2993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Biwolé, A.B.; Ouédraogo, D.Y.; Betti, J.L.; Picard, N.; Rossi, V.; Delion, S.; Lagoute, P.; Gourlet-Fleury, S.; Lejeune, P.; Doucet, J.L. Dynamique Des Populations d’azobé, Lophira alata Banks Ex C. F. Gaertn., et Implications Pour Sa Gestion Durable Au Cameroun. Bois For. Trop. 2019, 342, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Iponga, D.M.; Grace, R.; Joël, J.M.; Nicolas, L. The Effect of Different Anthropogenic Disturbances on Litterfall of a Dominant Pioneer Rain Forest Tree in Gabon. Afr. J. Ecol. 2020, 58, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lontsi, R.T.; Corre, M.D.; Van Straaten, O.; Veldkamp, E. Changes in Soil Organic Carbon and Nutrient Stocks in Conventional Selective Logging versus Reduced-Impact Logging in Rainforests on Highly Weathered Soils in Southern Cameroon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 451, 117522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Maxwell, S.L.; Evans, T.; Watson, J.E.M.; Morel, A.; Grantham, H.; Duncan, A.; Harris, N.; Potapov, P.; Runting, R.K.; Venter, O.; et al. Degradation and Forgone Removals Increase the Carbon Impact of Intact Forest Loss by 626%. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax2546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Morgan, D.; Strindberg, S.; Winston, W.; Stephens, C.R.; Traub, C.; Ayina, C.E.; Thony, S.; Ebika, N.; Mayoukou, W. Impacts of Selective Logging and Associated Anthropogenic Disturbance on Intact Forest Landscapes and Apes of Northern Congo. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2019, 2, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ngansop, T.M.; Biye, E.H.; Fongnzossie, F.E.; Forbi, P.F.; Chimi, D.C. Using Transect Sampling to Determine the Distribution of Some Key Non-Timber Forest Products across Habitat Types near Boumba-Bek National Park, South-East Cameroon. BMC Ecol. 2019, 19, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Umunay, P.M.; Gregoire, T.G.; Gopalakrishna, T.; Ellis, P.W.; Putz, F.E. Selective Logging Emissions and Potential Emission Reductions from Reduced-Impact Logging in the Congo Basin. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 437, 360–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ginath Yuh, Y.; N’Goran, P.K.; Dongmo, Z.N.; Tracz, W.; Tangwa, E.; Agunbiade, M.; Kühl, H.S.; Sop, T.; Fotang, C. Mapping Suitable Great Ape Habitat in and around the Lobéké National Park, South-East Cameroon. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 14282–14299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lontsi, R.T.; Corre, M.D.; Iddris, N.A.; Veldkamp, E. Soil Greenhouse Gas Fluxes Following Conventional Selective and Reduced-Impact Logging in a Congo Basin Rainforest. Biogeochemistry 2020, 151, 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Poulsen, J.R.; Medjibe, V.P.; White, L.J.T.; Miao, Z.; Chris, L.B.; Connie, B.; Cuni-sanchez, A.; Disney, M.; Lee, J.D.M.E.; Lewis, S.L.; et al. Old Growth Afrotropical Forests Critical for Maintaining Forest Carbon. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2020, 29, 1785–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tritsch, I.; Le Velly, G.; Mertens, B.; Meyfroidt, P.; Sannier, C.; Makak, J.S.; Houngbedji, K. Do Forest-Management Plans and FSC Certification Help Avoid Deforestation in the Congo Basin? Ecol. Econ. 2020, 175, 106660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Antropov, O.; Rauste, Y.; Praks, J.; Seifert, F.M.; Häme, T. Mapping Forest Disturbance Due to Selective Logging in the Congo Basin with RADARSAT-2 Time Series. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Fotang, C.; Bröring, U.; Roos, C.; Enoguanbhor, E.C.; Abwe, E.E.; Dutton, P.; Schierack, P.; Angwafo, T.E.; Birkhofer, K. Human Activity and Forest Degradation Threaten Populations of the Nigeria–Cameroon Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti) in Western Cameroon. Int. J. Primatol. 2021, 42, 105–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Maicher, V.; Clark, C.J.; Harris, D.J.; Medjibe, V.P.; Poulsen, J.R. From Town to National Park: Understanding the Long-Term Effects of Hunting and Logging on Tree Communities in Central Africa. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 499, 119571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zebaze, D.; Fayolle, A.; Daïnou, K.; Libalah, M.; Droissart, V.; Sonké, B.; Doucet, J.L. Land Use Has Little Influence on the Soil Seed Bank in a Central African Moist Forest. Biotropica 2021, 54, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Aquino, C.; Mitchard, E.T.A.; McNicol, I.M.; Carstairs, H.; Burt, A.; Puma Vilca, B.L.; Obiang Ebanéga, M.; Modinga Dikongo, A.; Dassi, C.; Mayta, S.; et al. Reliably Mapping Low-Intensity Forest Disturbance Using Satellite Radar Data. Front. For. Glob. Change 2022, 5, 1018762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Carstairs, H.; Mitchard, E.T.A.; McNicol, I.; Aquino, C.; Burt, A.; Ebanega, M.O.; Dikongo, A.M.; Bueso-Bello, J.L.; Disney, M. An Effective Method for InSAR Mapping of Tropical Forest Degradation in Hilly Areas. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Carstairs, H.; Mitchard, E.T.A.; McNicol, I.; Aquino, C.; Chezeaux, E.; Ebanega, M.O.; Dikongo, A.M.; Disney, M. Sentinel-1 Shadows Used to Quantify Canopy Loss from Selective Logging in Gabon. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 4233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sullivan, M.K.; Biessiemou, P.A.M.; Niangadouma, R.; Abernethy, K.; Queenborough, S.A.; Comita, L. A Decade of Diversity and Forest Structure: Post-Logging Patterns across Life Stages in an Afrotropical Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 513, 120169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Dupuis, C.; Fayolle, A.; Bastin, J.F.; Latte, N.; Lejeune, P. Monitoring Selective Logging Intensities in Central Africa with Sentinel-1: A Canopy Disturbance Experiment. Remote Sens. Environ. 2023, 298, 113828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Houngbégnon, F.G.A.; Gillet, J.F.; Michaux, J.; Brostaux, Y.; Zébazé, D.; Lhoest, S.; Vermeulen, C.; Sonké, B.; Doucet, J.L. Seed Dispersal by Duikers in Selectively Logged Rainforests: Overlooked Dispersal of an Important Animal Community. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 529, 120650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Tene, L.K.; Momo, C.; Stéphane, S.; Takoudjou, M.; Rodrigue, S.; Arnaud, M. Forest Activities Drive Diversity and Structure in the Tropical Rainforest. Afr. J. Ecol. 2023, 61, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Mounmemi, K.H.; Rodrigue, M.; Eku, M.; Forbi, F.P.; Paul, L.; Kabelong, R.; Tiokeng, B.; Liliane, N.; Maffo, M.; Jean, L.; et al. Heliyon Assessing Plant Diversity Change in Logged and Unlogged Dense Semi-Deciduous Production Forest of Eastern Cameroon. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Welsink, A.; Reiche, J.; De Sy, V.; Carter, S.; Slagter, B.; Suarez, D.R.; Batros, B.; Peña-Claros, M.; Herold, M. Towards the Use of Satellite-Based Tropical Forest Disturbance Alerts to Assess Selective Logging Intensities. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 18, 054023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zebaze, D.; Gorel, A.; Gillet, J.F.; Houngbégnon, F.; Barbier, N.; Ligot, G.; Lhoest, S.; Kamdem, G.; Libalah, M.; Droissart, V.; et al. Natural Regeneration in Tropical Forests along a Disturbance Gradient in South-East Cameroon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 547, 121402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Keany, J.M.; Burns, P.; Abraham, A.J.; Jantz, P.; Makaga, L.; Saatchi, S.; Maisels, F.; Abernethy, K.; Doughty, C.E. Using Multiscale Lidar to Determine Variation in Canopy Structure from African Forest Elephant Trails. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2024, 10, 655–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Mokake, S.E.; Chuyong, G.B.; Egbe, E.A. Long-Term Impacts of Selective Logging in a Tropical Rainforest in the East Region of Cameroon. Afr. J. Ecol. 2024, 62, e13341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Sagang, L.B.T.; Favrichon, S.; Dalagnol, R.; Ordway, E.M.; Medjibe, V.; Manfoumbi, F.; Obame, C.; Waggner, F.; George-Chacon, S.; White, L.; et al. Unveiling Spatial Variations of High Forest Live Biomass Carbon Stocks of Gabon Using Advanced Remote Sensing Techniques. Environ. Res. Lett. 2024, 19, 074038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Fokeng, M.R.; Gadinga Forje, W.; Meli Meli, V.; Nyuyki Bodzemo, B. Multi-Temporal Forest Cover Change Detection in the Metchie-Ngoum Protection Forest Reserve, West Region of Cameroon. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2020, 23, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Piabuo, S.M.; Minang, P.A.; Tieguhong, C.J.; Foundjem-tita, D.; Nghobuoche, F. Illegal Logging, Governance Effectiveness and Carbon Dioxide Emission in the Timber—Producing Countries of Congo Basin. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 14176–14196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Depecker, J.; Asimonyio, J.A.; Miteho, R.; Hatangi, Y.; Kambale, J.-L.; Verleysen, L.; Stoffelen, P.; Janssens, S.B.; Dhed’a, B.; Vandelook, F.; et al. The Association between Rainforest Disturbance and Recovery, Tree Community Composition, and Community Traits in the Yangambi Area in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. J. Trop. Ecol. 2022, 38, 426–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kengne, O.C.; Feukeng, S.S.K.; Ngansop, E.T.; Meyan-ya, R.G.D.; Zapfack, L. Floristic Composition, Growth Temperament and Conservation Status of Woody Plant Species in the Cameroonian Tropical Rainforests. Ecol. Process. 2022, 11, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Michel, O.O.; Yu, Y.; Fan, W.; Lubalega, T.; Chen, C.; Kachaka, C.; Kaiko, S. Impact of Land Use Change on Tree Diversity and Aboveground Carbon Storage in the Mayombe Tropical Forest of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Land 2022, 11, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Nesha, K.; Herold, M.; Reiche, J.; Masolele, R.N.; Hergoualc’h, K.; Swails, E.; Murdiyarso, D.; Ewango, C.E.N. An Assessment of Recent Peat Forest Disturbances and Their Drivers in the Cuvette Centrale, Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. 2024, 19, 104031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Mitchard, E.T.A.; Saatchi, S.S.; Lewis, S.L.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Woodhouse, I.H.; Sonké, B.; Rowland, C.; Meir, P. Measuring Biomass Changes Due to Woody Encroachment and Deforestation/Degradation in a Forest-Savanna Boundary Region of Central Africa Using Multi-Temporal L-Band Radar Backscatter. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 2861–2873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Laurance, W.F.; Carolina Useche, D.; Rendeiro, J.; Kalka, M.; Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Sloan, S.P.; Laurance, S.G.; Campbell, M.; Abernethy, K.; Alvarez, P.; et al. Averting Biodiversity Collapse in Tropical Forest Protected Areas. Nature 2012, 489, 290–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Zhuravleva, I.; Turubanova, S.; Potapov, P.; Hansen, M.; Tyukavina, A.; Minnemeyer, S.; Laporte, N.; Goetz, S.; Verbelen, F.; Thies, C. Satellite-Based Primary Forest Degradation Assessment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2000–2010. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 2000–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Vancutsem, C.; Achard, F.; Pekel, J.F.; Vieilledent, G.; Carboni, S.; Simonetti, D.; Gallego, J.; Aragão, L.E.O.C.; Nasi, R. Long-Term (1990–2019) Monitoring of Forest Cover Changes in the Humid Tropics. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabe1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Ceccarelli, V.; Ekué, M.; Fremout, T.; Gaisberger, H.; Kettle, C.; Taedoumg, H.; Wouters, H.; Vanuytrecht, E.; De Ridder, K.; Thomas, E. Vulnerability Mapping of 100 Priority Tree Species in Central Africa to Guide Conservation and Restoration Efforts. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 270, 109554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Sulaiman, C.; Abdul-rahim, A.S.; Mohd-shahwahid, H.O.; Chin, L. Wood Fuel Consumption, Institutional Quality, and Forest Degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Framework. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 74, 414–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Sulaiman, C.; Abdul-rahim, A.S. Relationship between Wood Fuel Energy Consumption and Forest Degradation at Regional and Sub—Regional Levels of Sub—Saharan Africa: The Role of Control of Corruption and Government Effectiveness. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 74512–74525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ernst, Y.; Archibald, S.; Balzter, H.; Chevallier, F.; Ciais, P.; Fischer, C.G.; Gaubert, B.; Higginbottom, T.; Higgins, S.; Lawal, S.; et al. The African Regional Greenhouse Gases Budget (2010–2019). Global. Biogeochem. Cycles 2024, 38, e2023GB008016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Waltert, M.; Bobo, K.S.; Sainge, N.M.; Fermon, H.; Mühlenberg, M. From Forest to Farmland: Habitat Effects on Afrotropical Forest Bird Diversity. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 1351–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Bobo, K.S.; Waltert, M.; Sainge, N.M.; Njokagbor, J.; Fermon, H.; Mühlenberg, M. From Forest to Farmland: Species Richness Patterns of Trees and Understorey Plants along a Gradient of Forest Conversion in Southwestern Cameroon. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 4097–4117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Robiglio, V.; Sinclair, F. Maintaining the Conservation Value of Shifting Cultivation Landscapes Requires Spatially Explicit Interventions. Environ. Manag. 2011, 48, 289–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Molinario, G.; Hansen, M.C.; Potapov, P.V.; Tyukavina, A.; Stehman, S.; Barker, B.; Humber, M. Quantification of Land Cover and Land Use within the Rural Complex of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 104001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Silatsa, F.B.T.; Yemefack, M.; Ewane-Nonga, N.; Kemga, A.; Hanna, R. Modeling Carbon Stock Dynamics under Fallow and Cocoa Agroforest Systems in the Shifting Agricultural Landscape of Central Cameroon. Agrofor. Syst. 2017, 91, 993–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Temgoua, L.F.; Momo Solefack, M.C.; Nguimdo Voufo, V.; Tagne Belibi, C.; Tanougong, A. Spatial and Temporal Dynamic of Land-Cover/Land-Use and Carbon Stocks in Eastern Cameroon: A Case Study of the Teaching and Research Forest of the University of Dschang. For. Sci. Technol. 2018, 14, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Bauters, M.; Vercleyen, O.; Vanlauwe, B.; Six, J.; Bonyoma, B.; Badjoko, H.; Hubau, W.; Hoyt, A.; Boudin, M.; Verbeeck, H.; et al. Long-Term Recovery of the Functional Community Assembly and Carbon Pools in an African Tropical Forest Succession. Biotropica 2019, 51, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Moone, P.C.J.; Verbist, B.; Bosela, F.B.; Norgrove, L.; Dondeyne, S.; Van Meerbeek, K.; Kearsley, E.; Verbeeck, H.; Vermeir, P.; Boeckx, P.; et al. Disentangling How Management Affects Biomass Stock and Productivity of Tropical Forest Fallows. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 659, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Opelele, O.M.; Fan, W.Y.; Yu, Y.; Kachaka, S.K. Analysis of Land Use/Land Cover Change and Its Prediction in the Mambasa Sector, Democratic Republic of Congo. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2020, 18, 5627–5644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Bauters, M.; Moonen, P.; Summerauer, L.; Doetterl, S.; Wasner, D.; Griepentrog, M.; Mumbanza, F.M.; Kearsley, E.; Ewango, C.; Boyemba, F.; et al. Soil Nutrient Depletion and Tree Functional Composition Shift Following Repeated Clearing in Secondary Forests of the Congo Basin. Ecosystems 2021, 24, 1422–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Makelele, I.A.; Verheyen, K.; Boeckx, P.; Cizungu, L.; Basile, N.; Bazirake, M.; Ewango, C.; Bauters, M. Journal of Vegetation Science Afrotropical Secondary Forests Exhibit Fast Diversity and Functional Recovery, but Slow Compositional and Carbon Recovery after Shifting Cultivation. J. Veg. Sci. 2021, 32, e13071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Cirezi, N.C.; Bastin, J.F.; Tshibasu, E.; Lonpi, E.T.; Chuma, G.B.; Mugumaarhahama, Y.; Sambieni, K.R.; Karume, K.C.; Lumbuenamo, R.S.; Bogaert, J. Contribution of ‘Human Induced Fires’ to Forest and Savanna Land Conversion Dynamics in the Luki Biosphere Reserve Landscape, Western Democratic Republic of Congo. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2022, 43, 6406–6429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Mumbanza, F.M.; Bauters, M.; Makelele, I.; Meunier, F.; Kearsley, E.; Boeckx, P.; Verheyen, K.; Ewango, C.; Mbula, I.M.; Lubini, C.A.; et al. Lianas Rapidly Colonize Early Stages of Tropical Forests, Presumably through Leaf Trait Diversification. J. Veg. Sci. 2022, 33, e13162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Teutscherová, N.; Maňourová, A.; Lojka, B.; Tejnecký, V.; Drábek, O.; Křížová, P.; Penížek, V.; Akama, P.D.; Šobotník, J.; Sillam-Dussès, D. Effect of Farming on the Vegetation Structure, Soil Properties and Termite Assemblages in the Northern Congo Basin. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 33, 2050–2061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Soliday, V.; Louat, A.; Miezi, E.; Fruth, B. Investigating the Impact of a Long-Term Research and Conservation Project on the Expansion of Land Use and Land Cover in a Remote Area of Central DRC. Trees For. People 2023, 11, 100368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Bernhard, K.P.; Shapiro, A.C.; D’Annunzio, R.; Kabuanga, J.M. Transboundary Central African Protected Area Complexes Demonstrate Varied Effectiveness in Reducing Predicted Risk of Deforestation Attributed to Small-Scale Agriculture. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Straaten, V.O.; Corre, M.D.; Wolf, K.; Tchienkoua, M.; Cuellar, E.; Matthews, R.B.; Veldkamp, E.; Vitousek, P.M. Conversion of Lowland Tropical Forests to Tree Cash Crop Plantations Loses up to One-Half of Stored Soil Organic Carbon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 9956–9960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Jong, Y.W.; Beirne, C.; Meunier, Q.; Mekui Biyogo, A.P.; Ebang Mbélé, A.; Stewart, C.G.; Poulsen, J.R. Expected Carbon Emissions from a Rubber Plantation in Central Africa. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 480, 118668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Ramler, I.; Sharp, R.; Haddad, N.M.; Gerber, J.S.; West, P.C.; Mandle, L.; Engstrom, P.; Baccini, A.; Sim, S.; et al. Degradation in Carbon Stocks near Tropical Forest Edges. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 10158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Kganyago, M.; Shikwambana, L. Assessing Spatio-Temporal Variability of Wildfires and Their Impact on Sub-Saharan Ecosystems and Air Quality Using Multisource Remotely Sensed Data and Trend Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Saatchi, S.; Longo, M.; Xu, L.; Wilson, S.N.; Brumby, S.; Elmore, A.C. Detecting Vulnerability of Humid Tropical Forests to Multiple Stressors Detecting Vulnerability of Humid Tropical Forests to Multiple Stressors. One Earth 2021, 4, 988–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Shapiro, A.C.; Grantham, H.S.; Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N.; Murray, N.J.; Gond, V.; Bonfils, D.; Rickenbach, O. Forest Condition in the Congo Basin for the Assessment of Ecosystem Conservation Status. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 122, 107268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Zhao, Z.; Li, W.; Ciais, P.; Santoro, M.; Cartus, O.; Peng, S.; Yin, Y.; Yue, C.; Yang, H.; Yu, L.; et al. Fire Enhances Forest Degradation within Forest Edge Zones in Africa. Nat. Geosci. 2021, 14, 479–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Vanthomme, H.; Bellé, B.; Forget, P.M. Bushmeat Hunting Alters Recruitment of Large-Seeded Plant Species in Central Africa. Biotropica 2010, 42, 672–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Beirne, C.; Meier, A.C.; Mbele, A.E.; Menie Menie, G.; Froese, G.; Okouyi, J.; Poulsen, J.R. Participatory Monitoring Reveals Village-Centered Gradients of Mammalian Defaunation in Central Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 233, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Guedje, N.M.; Lejoly, J.; Nkongmeneck, B.A.; Jonkers, W.B.J. Population Dynamics of Garcinia lucida (Clusiaceae) in Cameroonian Atlantic Forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 177, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Tchatat, M.; Ndoye, O. Étude Des Produits Forestiers Non Ligneux d’Afrique Centrale: Réalités et Perspectives. Bois For. Trop. 2006, 288, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
  156. Ndumbe, N.L.; Ingram, V.; Enukwa, E.H.; Namuene, S.K. The Socio-Economic Importance and Sustainability of the Major Non-Timber Forest Products Collected in the South West and Littoral Regions of Cameroon. Asian J. Res. Agric. For. 2022, 8, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Lonpi Tipi, E.; Sambieni Kouagou, R.; Messina Ndzomo, J.P.; Nsevolo Miankeba, P.; Looli Boyombe, L.; Lumande Kasali, J.; Khasa, D.; Malaisse, F.; Bogaert, J. Diversity and Availability of Edible Caterpillar Host Plants in the Luki Biosphere Reserve Landscape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Trees For. People 2024, 18, 100719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Lescuyer, G.; Cerutti, P.O.; Essiane Mendoula, E.; Eba’a Atyi, R.; Nasi, R. Evaluation Du Secteur Du Sciage Artisanal Dans Le Bassin Du Congo. In Les Forêts du Bassin du Congo: Etat des Forêts 2010; de Wasseige, C., de Marcken, P., Bayol, N., Hiol Hiol, F., Mayaux, P., Desclée, B., Nasi, R., Billand, A., Eds.; Office des Publications de l’Union Européenne: Luxembourg, 2012; pp. 97–107. [Google Scholar]
  159. Tshimpanga, P.O.; Lescuyer, G.; Vleminckx, J.; Abdala, B.A.; Lokombe, D. Utilité d’Une Typologie Des Exploitants Artisanaux de Bois Pour Contribuer à La Formulation d ‘ Une Politique Publique En Province Orientale (RD Congo). Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2016, 20, 468–481. [Google Scholar]
  160. Lescuyer, G.; Cerutti, P.O.; Tshimpanga Ongona, C.P.; Biloko, F.; Adebu-abdala, B.; Tsanga, R.; Yembe-Yembe, R.I.; Essiane-Mendoula, E. Le Marché Domestique du Sciage Artisanal en République Démocratique du Congo: Etat des Lieux, Opportunités, Defis. Document Occasionnel 110; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonésie, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  161. International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy Access Outlook 2017 from Poverty to Prosperity. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-access-outlook-2017 (accessed on 28 May 2025).
  162. Wright, S.J. The Future of Tropical Forests. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1195, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Schure, J.; Dkamela, G.P.; Van Der Goes, A.; Mcnally, R. An Approach to Promote REDD+ Compatible Wood-Fuel Value Chains; SNV REDD+ Energy and Agriculture Programme: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  164. Schure, J.; Pinta, F.; Cerutti, P.O.; Kasereka-Muvatsi, L. Efficiency of Charcoal Production in Sub-Saharan Africa: Solutions beyond the Kiln. Bois For. Trop. 2019, 340, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Kotto-Same, J.; Woomer, P.L.; Appolinaire, M.; Louis, Z. Carbon Dynamics in Slash-and-Burn Agriculture and Land Use Alternatives of the Humid Forest Zone in Cameroon. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1997, 65, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. De Wachter, P. Économie et Impact de l’Agriculture Itinérante Badjoué. Civilisations 1997, 44, 62–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Cochrane, M.A.; Laurance, W.F. Fire as a Large-Scale Edge Effect in Amazonian Forests. J. Trop. Ecol. 2002, 18, 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Redford, K.H. The Empty Forest. Bioscience 1992, 42, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Nasi, R.; Taber, A.; Vliet, N. Van. Empty Forests, Empty Stomachs? Bushmeat and Livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. Int. For. Rev. 2011, 13, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Osuri, A.M.; Ratnam, J.; Varma, V.; Avarez-Loayza, P.; Astaiza, J.H.; Bradford, M.; Fletcher, C.; Ndoundou-Hockemba, M.; Jansen, P.A.; Kenfack, D.; et al. Contrasting Effects of Defaunation on Aboveground Carbon Storage across the Global Tropics. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. White, L.J.T. Biomass of Rain Forest Mammals in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon. J. Anim. Ecol. 1994, 63, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Pardini, R.; Bueno, A.D.A.; Gardner, T.A.; Ina, P.; Metzger, J.P. Beyond the Fragmentation Threshold Hypothesis: Regime Shifts in Biodiversity Across Fragmented Landscapes. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Reiche, J.; Mullissa, A.; Slagter, B.; Gou, Y.; Tsendbazar, N.E.; Odongo-Braun, C.; Vollrath, A.; Weisse, M.J.; Stolle, F.; Pickens, A.; et al. Forest Disturbance Alerts for the Congo Basin Using Sentinel-1. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 024005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Bourgoin, C.; Betbeder, J.; Couteron, P.; Blanc, L.; Dessard, H.; Oszwald, J.; Le Roux, R.; Cornu, G.; Reymondin, L.; Mazzei, L.; et al. UAV-Based Canopy Textures Assess Changes in Forest Structure from Long-Term Degradation. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 15, 106386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Bastin, J.F.; Barbier, N.; Couteron, P.; Adams, B.; Shapiro, A.; Bogaert, J.; De Cannière, C. Aboveground Biomass Mapping of African Forest Mosaics Using Canopy Texture Analysis: Toward a Regional Approach. Ecol. Appl. 2014, 24, 1984–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Barbier, N.; Proisy, C.; Véga, C.; Sabatier, D.; Couteron, P. Bidirectional Texture Function of High Resolution Optical Images of Tropical Forest: An Approach Using LiDAR Hillshade Simulations. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Ploton, P.; Barbier, N.; Couteron, P.; Antin, C.M.; Ayyappan, N.; Balachandran, N.; Barathan, N.; Bastin, J.F.; Chuyong, G.; Dauby, G.; et al. Toward a General Tropical Forest Biomass Prediction Model from Very High Resolution Optical Satellite Images. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 200, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Williams, J.; Jackson, T.D.; Schönlieb, C.B.; Swinfield, T.; Irawan, B.; Achmad, E.; Zudhi, M.; Habibi, H.; Gemita, E.; Coomes, D.A. Monitoring Early-Successional Trees for Tropical Forest Restoration Using Low-Cost UAV-Based Species Classification. Front. For. Glob. Change 2022, 5, 876448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Zhang, H.; Bauters, M.; Boecks, P.; Van Oost, K. Mapping Canopy Heights in Dense Tropical Forests Using Low-Cost UAV-Derived Photogrammetric Point Clouds and Machine Learning Approaches. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Mitchard, E.T.A.; Saatchi, S.S.; Woodhouse, I.H.; Nangendo, G.; Ribeiro, N.S.; Williams, M.; Ryan, C.M.; Lewis, S.L.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Meir, P. Using Satellite Radar Backscatter to Predict Above-Ground Woody Biomass: A Consistent Relationship across Four Different African Landscapes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 36, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Xu, L.; Saatchi, S.S.; Shapiro, A.; Meyer, V.; Ferraz, A.; Yang, Y.; Bastin, J.F.; Banks, N.; Boeckx, P.; Verbeeck, H.; et al. Spatial Distribution of Carbon Stored in Forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 15030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Santoro, M.; Cartus, O.; Carvalhais, N.; Rozendaal, D.; Avitabile, V.; De Bruin, S.; Herold, M.; Quegan, S.; Veiga, P.R.; Balzter, H. The Global Above-Ground Biomass Pool for 2010 Estimated from High-Resolution Satellite Observations. Prepr. Copernic. 2020, 5174, 3927–3950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Hansen, M.C.; Potapov, P.V.; Tyukavina, A. Response to Comment on “Tropical Forests Are a Net Carbon Source Based on Aboveground Measurements of Gain and Loss”. Science 2019, 363, eaat1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Piponiot, C.; Cabon, A.; Descroix, L.; Dourdain, A.; Mazzei, L.; Ouliac, B.; Rutishauser, E.; Sist, P.; Hérault, B. A Methodological Framework to Assess the Carbon Balance of Tropical Managed Forests. Carbon Balance Manag. 2016, 11, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Rahm, M.; Van Wolvelaer, J.; Vrieling, A.; Mertens, B. Detecting Forest Degradation in The Congo Basin By Optical Remote Sensing. Proc. ESA Living Planet Symp. 2013, 722, 22. [Google Scholar]
  186. Poorter, L.; Craven, D.; Jakovac, C.C.; Van Der Sande, M.T.; Amissah, L.; Bongers, F.; Chazdon, R.L.; Farrior, C.E.; Kambach, S.; Meave, J.A. Multidimensional Tropical Forest Recovery. Science 2021, 374, 1370–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Boot, R.G.A.; Gullison, R.E. Approaches to Developing Sustainable Extraction Systems for Tropical Forest Products. Ecol. Appl. 1995, 5, 896–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Hufkens, K.; de Haulleville, T.; Kearsley, E.; Jacobsen, K.; Beeckman, H.; Stoffelen, P.; Vandelook, F.; Meeus, S.; Amara, M.; van Hirtum, L.; et al. Historical Aerial Surveys Map Long-Term Changes of Forest Cover and Structure in the Central Congo Basin. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Dashora, A.; Lohani, B.; Malik, J.N. A Repository of Earth Resource Information—CORONA Satellite Programme. Curr. Sci. 2007, 92, 926–932. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Regional study area comprising 6 countries in the Congo Basin (The background image is a satellite map from Google).
Figure 1. Regional study area comprising 6 countries in the Congo Basin (The background image is a satellite map from Google).
Forests 16 00953 g001
Figure 2. Study flow diagram (PRISMA) showing the flow of information though the different phases of the systematic review.
Figure 2. Study flow diagram (PRISMA) showing the flow of information though the different phases of the systematic review.
Forests 16 00953 g002
Figure 3. Frequency of articles according to their national or regional geographical locations.
Figure 3. Frequency of articles according to their national or regional geographical locations.
Forests 16 00953 g003
Figure 4. Temporal scales used to monitor the most measured indicators in the literature to characterize forest degradation in the Congo Basin.
Figure 4. Temporal scales used to monitor the most measured indicators in the literature to characterize forest degradation in the Congo Basin.
Forests 16 00953 g004
Figure 5. Recovery rates over time of aboveground carbon (a) and tree species richness (b) after industrial and artisanal selective forest logging and small-scale shifting and burn agriculture. The number on the point label corresponds to the reference source from which the data was taken: 1. Aquino et al. [102]; 2. Cazzolla et al. [70]; 3. Depecker et al. [117]; 4. Gourlet-Fleury et al. [62]; 5. Makelele et al. [139]; 6. Medjibe et al. [64]; 7. Michel et al. [119]; 8. Sullivan et al. [105]; 9. Umunayi et al. [93]; 10. Bauters et al. [135]; 11. Moone et al. [136]; 12. Silatsa et al. [133]; 13. Mokake et al. [113]; 14. Tene et al. [108]; 15. Poulsen et al. [96]; 16. Sagang et al. [114]; 17. Makana et al. [52]; 18. Mounmemi et al. [109]; 19. Gourlet-Fleury [63]; 20. Hall et al. [49]; 21. Maicher [100]; 22. Gemerden et al. [48]; 23. Zebaze et al. [111].
Figure 5. Recovery rates over time of aboveground carbon (a) and tree species richness (b) after industrial and artisanal selective forest logging and small-scale shifting and burn agriculture. The number on the point label corresponds to the reference source from which the data was taken: 1. Aquino et al. [102]; 2. Cazzolla et al. [70]; 3. Depecker et al. [117]; 4. Gourlet-Fleury et al. [62]; 5. Makelele et al. [139]; 6. Medjibe et al. [64]; 7. Michel et al. [119]; 8. Sullivan et al. [105]; 9. Umunayi et al. [93]; 10. Bauters et al. [135]; 11. Moone et al. [136]; 12. Silatsa et al. [133]; 13. Mokake et al. [113]; 14. Tene et al. [108]; 15. Poulsen et al. [96]; 16. Sagang et al. [114]; 17. Makana et al. [52]; 18. Mounmemi et al. [109]; 19. Gourlet-Fleury [63]; 20. Hall et al. [49]; 21. Maicher [100]; 22. Gemerden et al. [48]; 23. Zebaze et al. [111].
Forests 16 00953 g005
Table 1. Keywords associated with each of the anthropogenic causes of forest degradation identified in previews literature reviews.
Table 1. Keywords associated with each of the anthropogenic causes of forest degradation identified in previews literature reviews.
ReferenceAnthropogenic DriversKeywords
Gao et al. [6]Forest logging“logging” OR “forest logging” “timber logging” OR “selective logging”
Murdiyarso et al. [24] and Gao et al. [6]Agricultureagricultural OR cultivation OR clearing
Gao et al. [6]Wood energy“wood energy” OR “fuelwood” OR “fuelwood charcoal” OR “charcoal”
Gao et al. [6]Anthropogenic firesfire OR fires OR burn
Gao et al. [6]Livestock grazing in forestlivestock OR grazing OR “forest gazing”
Murdiyarso et al. [24]Non-timber forest products“non-timber forests products” OR NTFPs OR “non-wood forest products”
Abernethy et al. [25]Huntinghunting OR overhunting OR bushmeat
Table 3. Classification of measured indicators and type of forest attributes for assessing forest degradation in the Congo Basin by type of approach used in analyzed studies to measure them according to their citation index (If %) and index of relative frequencies (Ifr%) (mixed: combination of remote sensing and field data).
Table 3. Classification of measured indicators and type of forest attributes for assessing forest degradation in the Congo Basin by type of approach used in analyzed studies to measure them according to their citation index (If %) and index of relative frequencies (Ifr%) (mixed: combination of remote sensing and field data).
Indicators Type of Forest AttributesMixed
(If %)
Remote
Sensing
(If %)
Field Data
(If %)
Sum of
If % for All Approaches
Ifr (%)
Aboveground or below ground biomass or carbonCarbon storage5851376100
Canopy gapsStructure83444661
Forest cover changeStructure02302330
Floristic species: trees, seedlings, lianas, shrubBiodiversity00202027
Forest typesBiodiversity01441823
Logging intensityProduction8091823
CO2 or other greenhouse gas emissionsCarbon storage8531621
Tree density variationStructure00121216
Edge effectsStructure8311216
Gross primary productivityCarbon storage800811
Intact forest landscapeBiodiversity080810
Canopy and tree Height variationStructure061710
Basal area variationStructure00779
DefaunationBiodiversity02579
Regeneration of logged treesBiodiversity00557
Logging damageCarbon storage02245
Soil fertilityProtective functions00445
Mean and growth rate of tree diameterStructure00445
Litter or necromassCarbon storage00222
Wood densityCarbon storage00222
Timber stocksProduction00223
Tree volume variationProduction00111
Specific leaf areaCarbon storage00111
Table 4. Aboveground carbon loss (%), tree species loss (%), and canopy gaps loss (%) due to industrial and artisanal forms of selective logging, small-scale agriculture, or slash-and-burn agriculture (SD: standard deviation; Q1: 25th percentile; Q3: 75th percentile).
Table 4. Aboveground carbon loss (%), tree species loss (%), and canopy gaps loss (%) due to industrial and artisanal forms of selective logging, small-scale agriculture, or slash-and-burn agriculture (SD: standard deviation; Q1: 25th percentile; Q3: 75th percentile).
Aboveground Carbon Loss (%)
nMeanSDMinQ1MedianQ3MaxRef.
Industrial
forest logging
1314.7922.21−447.11731.0945.39[62,64,93,102,108,113,114]
Artisanal
forest logging
334.8211.9723.8128.4533.0940.3347.56[114,119]
Shifting
and burn agriculture
1773.1616.8826.7566.173.6583.3396.35[119,135,136,139]
Tree Species Loss (%)
nMeanSDMinQ1MedianQ3MaxRef.
Industrial
forest logging
254.2721.07−41.52−6.454.3514.9764.29[48,49,52,63,64,70,100,105,108,109,111,113]
Artisanal
forest logging
416.3315.68−1.75.8217.7528.2631.52[111,117,119]
Shifting
and burn agriculture
1330.3730.67−17.393.0340.2248.9176.19[48,52,70,119,135,139]
Canopy Gaps Area Loss (%)
nMeanSDMinQ1MedianQ3MaxRef.
Industrial
forest logging
178.9813.630.545.29.860[36,38,41,72,76,86,89,102,104,105,106,110]
Artisanal
forest logging
110-1010101010[41]
Shifting
and burn agriculture
36128.582949.5707784[36,41,86]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Besisa Nguba, T.; Bogaert, J.; Makana, J.-R.; Mate Mweru, J.-P.; Sambieni, K.R.; Bwazani Balandi, J.; Mumbere Musavandalo, C.; Bastin, J.-F. Assessing Forest Degradation in the Congo Basin: The Need to Broaden the Focus from Logging to Small-Scale Agriculture (A Systematic Review). Forests 2025, 16, 953. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060953

AMA Style

Besisa Nguba T, Bogaert J, Makana J-R, Mate Mweru J-P, Sambieni KR, Bwazani Balandi J, Mumbere Musavandalo C, Bastin J-F. Assessing Forest Degradation in the Congo Basin: The Need to Broaden the Focus from Logging to Small-Scale Agriculture (A Systematic Review). Forests. 2025; 16(6):953. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060953

Chicago/Turabian Style

Besisa Nguba, Timothée, Jan Bogaert, Jean-Remy Makana, Jean-Pierre Mate Mweru, Kouagou Raoul Sambieni, Julien Bwazani Balandi, Charles Mumbere Musavandalo, and Jean-François Bastin. 2025. "Assessing Forest Degradation in the Congo Basin: The Need to Broaden the Focus from Logging to Small-Scale Agriculture (A Systematic Review)" Forests 16, no. 6: 953. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060953

APA Style

Besisa Nguba, T., Bogaert, J., Makana, J.-R., Mate Mweru, J.-P., Sambieni, K. R., Bwazani Balandi, J., Mumbere Musavandalo, C., & Bastin, J.-F. (2025). Assessing Forest Degradation in the Congo Basin: The Need to Broaden the Focus from Logging to Small-Scale Agriculture (A Systematic Review). Forests, 16(6), 953. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060953

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop