Next Article in Journal
Decoding the “Green Premium”: A Systematic Review of Multidimensional Economic Value Drivers from Urban Forests and Green Spaces
Next Article in Special Issue
Potential for Expanding Summertime Timber Harvesting on Drained Peatlands Under Operational Stand Conditions: A Site-Specific Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Contribution of GRSP to Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogen Varied with Altitude and Soil Depth in a Lowland Tropical Forest
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Forest Operations Planning on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/f17060649
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

An Immense Knowledge Gap Relative to Regulated Logging Impacts in Tropical Forests

by
Maria Fabíola Barros
1,2,
Leonardo S. Miranda
3,
João Vitor Cohen
4,5,
Ana Luisa Mangabeira Albernaz
1 and
Marcelo Tabarelli
6,*
1
Postgraduate Program in Biodiversity and Evolution, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém 66040-170, PA, Brazil
2
Vale Institute of Technology, Belém 66040-170, PA, Brazil
3
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
4
Undergraduate Research, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém 66040-170, PA, Brazil
5
Center for Natural Sciences and Technology, Universidade do Estado do Pará, Belém 66095-015, PA, Brazil
6
Department of Botany, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife 50670-420, PE, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2026, 17(6), 649; https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060649
Submission received: 26 April 2026 / Revised: 18 May 2026 / Accepted: 21 May 2026 / Published: 28 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Forestry Operations: Timber Harvesting and Transportation Engineering)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Tropical forests are facing escalating deforestation, while forest degradation, driven by a complex interplay of human-induced factors, emerges as an additional and compounding threat. In this context, regulated selective logging persists as an alternative to conciliate forest protection and economic development. This study synthesizes current knowledge on the impacts of logging, focusing on research trends, geographic distribution, ecological topics, and key variables like logging intensity, time since logging, and number of logging cycles. Since the 1970s, 641 papers listed on the Scopus platform have demonstrated a sharp increase in publication activity over the past five years, followed by a tendency toward stabilization. Papers were concentrated in Brazil and Malaysia, with few papers coming from other countries, particularly from Africa. Notably, 47% of the studies did not report logging intensity, and one-third focused almost exclusively on its impacts on forest physical structure, damage, or biomass—leaving a wide range of other topics largely unexplored until 2022. We refer to 13 topics with less than 20 studies in total, such as nutrient cycling, non-timber forest products, biological invasion, and key biological taxa. Herbs, epiphytes, fishes and amphibians were among the least investigated taxa across the regions. Furthermore, when controlling variables like region and logging intensity, most ecological topics had fewer than five dedicated studies. Research remains largely restricted to similar scenarios: first-cycle logging in old-growth forests, leaving substantial knowledge gaps. As logging operations are expected to increase, we argue for (1) mandatory long-term monitoring in logging regulations; (2) public access to monitoring data, reports and information related to regulated logging; (3) a global platform to exchange experience such as long-term monitoring, better practices, silvicultural approaches and sustainability assessment; (4) alignment among regulatory and certification agencies on sustainability standards; (5) capacity building initiatives; and (6) long-term experiments devoted to logging sustainability and better practices.

1. Introduction

Tropical forests persist as a central concern in multilateral global agendas focused on socioenvironmental issues, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1]. This reflects the tropical forest protagonism relative to biodiversity conservation, climate regulation, food security, social reproduction of traditional communities and indigenous people just to mention a few contributions [1,2]. Such an immense concern results from contributions or key roles played for global sustainability, but also due to the fact that this irreplaceable ecosystem continues to be converted into other forms of land use (e.g., crop/cattle production) or experience degradation via a combination of human drivers such as intensive/illegal logging, mining and wildfires among the more pervasive forces [3]. In the last three decades both deforestation and forest degradation covered 218.7 and 106.5 million ha respectively [4] resulting in a significant reduction in carbon storage capacity [5].
Over the past decades, numerous strategies have been proposed to enhance the socioeconomic incentives for keeping forests standing and promoting their sustainable use, benefiting a wide array of local and global stakeholders. These strategies aim to reconcile forest integrity and the provision of ecosystem services with economic activities and social development. Within this framework, selective “low-impact” logging (hereafter referred to as regulated logging) has emerged as a promising approach to achieve these objectives [6,7]. The foundation of regulated logging lies in limiting harvest intensity, both in terms of the number of trees removed and the volume of timber extracted, combined with predefined intervals between logging cycles (e.g., 25–30 years), as established by legislative frameworks [6]. Accordingly, selective logging practices that regulate extraction intensity and incorporate forest damage mitigation measures have been promoted as long-term ventures, wherein ecological sustainability is not only a legal requirement but also a moral obligation aligned with global sustainability goals [8]. However, the extent to which these goals have been effectively realized remains contested [9,10].
Since the 1970s there has been a boon of commercial and industrial operations, particularly those in public or communal lands via forestry concessions implemented by governments and organizations [11,12]. Starting in Asia/Africa, forestry concessions spread across all continents and continue to grow [13,14]. While selective logging is also adopted in private lands, industrial-scale operations across public lands respond to most of the forest submitted to this source of disturbance [15]. It is not uncommon for concessions to exceed 100.000 hectares of forest for logging [16] with public concessions achieving millions of hectares globally [15]. In Brazil, regulated logging via public concessions started in 2007 following the regulation approval by federal agencies (the Law on Public Forest Management; Law 11,284/2006 [17]) and the number of federal concessions is expected to increase rapidly in the near future [18]. There is a consistent tendency to cite studies emphasizing the sustainability of regulated selective logging in tropical forests, whereas studies documenting long-term negative impacts are cited less frequently [19]. The studies retrieved in this review reveal two strong patterns: (1) long-term negative impacts are systematic, delayed, and substantially documented, including effects persisting for 25, 30, or even 45 years [7,20,21]; and (2) much of the “positive” literature emphasizes partial recovery without proportionally integrating studies demonstrating ecological limits, regenerative collapse, persistent floristic shifts, or long-term carbon losses [22,23,24].
As expected, industrial-scale regulated logging continues to attract the attention of the research community and other stakeholders, which has investigated forest responses or the impacts imposed by this alternative of tropical forest exploitation relative to biodiversity persistence and the provision of ecosystem services associated with forest integrity [22,25,26]. Accordingly, a small set of reviews on logging impacts (e.g., soil, carbon, tree species richness) is already available [27,28,29]. However, the contracts/legislation supporting regulated logging have not been fully scrutinized, while it has been claimed, alleged or assumed to be sustainable (e.g., “sustainable forest management”) by those in charge of it from governmental agencies to companies [30,31,32]. Apparently, there has been a “green signal” for regulated logging initiatives with or without the support from the literature. As a support, we refer to reports declaring (1) both negligible impacts or a positive response from particular taxonomy groups, particularly community-level attributes such as species richness and relative abundances [26], and (2) the perspective that forest biomass and exploited populations are able to recover after the next cycle of logging [10,11].
We already know that the outstanding biodiversity of tropical forests is locally and regionally arranged into complex food webs connecting a myriad of interdependent ecological groups with contrasting levels of sensitivity to human disturbances and potential disruptions in species interactions [33,34]. Briefly, biodiversity response from the population to community levels is highly influenced by (1) biota evolutionary history [35], (2) both the historical and contemporary disturbance regime [36], (3) forest type (i.e., evergreen vs. seasonal) [37], and (4) landscape spatial configuration, particularly forest cover (i.e., the 30–40–threshold), structural connectivity and the old-growth/edge-affected habitat ratio [38]. Finally, taxonomic/ecological groups exhibit different time-lag responses [39]. Logging concessions are spatially inserted into dynamic landscapes relative to both land use and climate conditions, while they cover forest with distinct evolutionary and ecological conditions from Asia to the Neotropical region.
It is reasonable to expect that accumulated knowledge so far exhibits immense bias and gaps. In fact, most recent reviews and meta-analyses cover a limited set of logging impacts (some biological groups and ecological processes have been little or never investigated) and apparently do not consider the key explanatory variables (e.g., logging intensity and cycles) for logging impacts as mentioned earlier [6,10,29]. In this paper we examine the coverage by the available literature via papers between the years 1970 to 2021 on regulated logging impacts across topics from biodiversity conservation to provision of ecosystem services. Topics are arranged through regions, time and logging-related variables affecting forest response such as the number of logging operations/cycles, time elapsed since the last logging operation and logging intensity. By assigning papers across multiple categories, we intend (1) to document temporal and spatial asymmetries but also potential knowledge “gaps” across an immense variety of topics dialoguing with forest integrity, sustainability and certification, (2) question the empirical support for the alleged sustainability claimed by the stakeholders in charge of logging regulations but also by loggers, and (3) recommend a set of instruments in order to reduce gaps and enhance logging accountability relative to long-term ecological sustainability.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Selection Process

The literature review on tropical forest regulated logging was adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) as “a set of guidelines that were released to provide more sophisticated and uniform standards for the reporting of integrated literature or systematic reviews” [40] (Table S1). The data were obtained in June 2022 through the Scopus database, in which we applied a search query for the selected terms across title, abstract, and keywords by all documents since 1970. Review started in the 1970s as selective logging via public concession or following environmental regulation started to gain relevance with the literature emerging and becoming accessible, particularly in Asia, throughout this decade [13]. Terms were inserted in the query as follows: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (logging AND “tropical forest*”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“selective logging” AND “tropical forest*”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“logging impacts” AND “tropical forest*”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“timber exploitation” AND “tropical forest*”) AND PUBYEAR > 1969. The quotes were used to ensure that the terms returned precisely as they were entered in the query, and the asterisks (*) at the end of the word “forest” to include the alternative plural forms. We downloaded the resulting list of publications into a CSV file, containing the following general information: (1) authors, (2) title, (3) abstract, (4) publication year, (5) source title, (6) document type, and (6) DOI (Figure 1). Our database is available on GitHub (https://github.com/miralaba/logging_scientiometrics/blob/main/data/20230801_bd_cienciometria.xlsx; accessed on 20 May 2026).
Further, abstracts were screened to extract key information (see next session). Through this step, we also excluded documents that are unrelated to selective logging and/or only contributed to a general debate (Figure 1). Briefly, our query selected 1499 documents and resulted in a final dataset of 641 documents. Only 89 (~6%) documents were either books, book chapters, editorials or notes. Data was mostly extracted by JC and were reviewed and discussed by at least two of the other authors (LSM, MT and MFB) before completion.
Book chapters, notes, technical papers, theses and conference proceedings were not included since (1) they are difficult to assess, and (2) it is impossible to guarantee they were submitted to a peer-review process and have been exposed to the criticisms of the global community. Documents that did not represent original research such as comments, letters and editorials were also excluded. Exclusions were carried out based on document type general information (Figure 1). Finally, like any other review based on the literature available on web platforms, our procedures privileged English language publications. We acknowledge that these exclusions might have eliminated some studies based on original and interesting data. However, it was inevitable based on the reasons already informed, and we do not believe that these restrictions supported a “false” scenario relative to knowledge gaps.

2.2. Variables and Categories for Assessing Logging Impacts

Data extraction was performed manually by screening the documents at the abstract level and methods to cover three basic aspects relative to the research focused on the impacts posed by regulated logging and thus identify potential gaps but also the coverage by the accumulated knowledge so far. Precisely each article was assigned into mutually excluding categories relative to “explanatory” and response “variables”. As explanatory variables we refer to region and associated countries, number of logging events/rounds, time elapsed since the last event and logging intensity as detailed in Table 1. Categories largely reflect research coverage, frequency and terminology presented by the articles. Thereby they can be considered arbitrary to some extent with ecological meanings not necessarily exclusive of each category. However, these categories are useful to describe research incidence across gradients of conditions or contexts through which logging impacts express (e.g., time elapsed since the last logging round) and accumulate (number of logging round and logging intensity), e.g., the long-term impacts posed by consecutive logging rounds [41,42]. This is crucial to calibrate our current knowledge on logging impacts and probably question the assumption or presumable sustainability by regulated logging initiatives, which have been frequently asserted/alleged by stakeholders such as governmental agencies and logging corporations [31,43,44] “Presumable sustainability” (rather than proved) is a potent argument to expand logging concessions via “Sustainable Forest Management Plans” across the last tract of old-growth forests, including the Amazon region [32]. Response variables covered a list of processes related to logging impacts (including assessment), which were distributed into four major categories as follows: species richness and community organization, ecosystem level process, socioeconomic aspects and analytical tools (Table 2). Major topics and issues roughly represented what was available in the literature by published papers rather than being a previous selection intending to cover all relevant issues as this perspective is still to be developed. However, they represent basic/key topics to account for logging sustainability by covering biodiversity, forest integrity, ecosystem functioning and services.
Some abstracts did not provide all the information, and, in this case, we searched across the methods section. In the case the target information was absent, unclear and/or we did not have access to the methods section, the document was assigned as missing data (NA). Furthermore, a document was represented by more than one row in the database in the case that (1) the study area covered more than one country [or region], and (2) more than one logging effect was examined. The information extracted from each document and the metadata with the appropriate category description is available on GitHub (https://github.com/miralaba/logging_scientiometrics/blob/main/data/20230801_bd_cienciometria.xlsx; accessed on 20 May 2026). We evaluated the temporal trend by organizing the documents by year of publication, assessed the geographic distribution and measured the frequency of the information extracted by region. All analyses were done in R [70].

2.3. Potential Limitations and Caveats

Our review was based on a systematic and validated procedure, while our search was limited to the Scopus platform. However, Scopus’ extensive coverage of nearly 28,000 active titles stands as a widely recognized and comprehensive repository, minimizing the potential impact on the robustness of our review’s conclusions. By restricting the search to papers available via public platforms, we assumed that they provide a good proxy to the current accumulated knowledge on the impacts of selective logging in tropical forests. Furthermore, limiting searches to English acknowledges the language’s central role in scientific communication.

3. Results

3.1. Temporal and Spatial Trends

We detected a clear trend of increasing knowledge production since the beginning of the 1970s with a relative stabilization or even decline in recent years (Figure 2A). Briefly, four periods emerged: (1) before 1990, very few studies (less than one per year), which were conducted in Malaysia and Indonesia; (2) between 1990 and 2000, a considerable increase in the number of publications, reaching around 21 articles published in 2000; (3) between 2000 and 2015, an average of 20 publications per year was maintained; and (4) after 2015 another increase leading to an average of 40 publications per year, although 2020–2021 indicated a stabilization trend (Figure 2A). Publication or knowledge production through our focal period was spatially concentrated in the Neotropics (41%), followed by Asia (36%), but with a little contribution from Africa (16%). Brazil (n = 138), Malaysia (n = 120), Indonesia (n = 52), Bolivia (n = 32), and Uganda (n = 31) were the top five countries (Figure 2B). Controlling the original cover by tropical forests, there were many more publications in the Neotropics and Asia than in Africa. In fact, Dipterocarps forests in Malaysia and Indonesia and the Amazon forests emerged as hotspots relative to publications, i.e., 48% of all publications.

3.2. Logging Impacts

We were able to identify a major group of 29 effect-related topics or response variables among the 641 documents screened, although classificatory arrangements or alternative categories might have been used. One-third of the papers examined (almost exclusively) the impacts of logging on forest physical structure/damage/biomass (n = 203, ~32%, Figure 3). Detection techniques (n = 61), ecosystem productivity (55) and temporal dynamic/expansion of logging operations (52) were topics addressed by more than 50 documents each. Altogether, 228 documents (~36%) assessed the impacts of logging on biodiversity, with most of them addressing community-level impacts across major taxa. In this context, the main targets were birds (n = 48), some invertebrate groups (43), and tree species (33). A long list of topics received negligible attention until 2022. We refer to 13 topics (almost half of the topics) with less than 20 studies in total, such as nutrient cycling, non-timber forest products, biological invasion and key biological taxa. Herbs, epiphytes, fishes and amphibians were among the least investigated taxa across the regions (i.e., less than five documents each), regardless of the extreme diversity of these taxa with the presence of groups very sensitive to changes in forest microclimate and stream conditions. It is even worse by considering the geographic coverage: 12 topics with 1–5 studies in Africa, 11 in continental Asia, 12 in insular Asia and nine in the Neotropics (Figure 3).
Although studies examining logging impacts collectively covered a wide range of topics/response variables, we were unable to extract critical information to properly evaluate logging impacts from a substantial number of them. For instance, around 13% of accessed documents (n = 81) did not explicitly mention the time elapsed since logging operation occurred (Figure 4A). This missing information is even worse relative to the number of logging events already carried out in the research spot (22%, n = 140, Figure 4B) or about logging intensity (47%, 303, Figure 4C). Considering the available information, (1) almost a half of the studies were conducted in spots elapsed 10 years or less since the logging occurred (n = 280, Figure 4A), (2) in the context of the first logging event, i.e., the exploitation of the old-growth forest and the forest premium (415, Figure 4B), and (3) with forest stands being submitted to a logging operation of low–medium intensities (239, Figure 4C).
Finally, by distributing the papers into relevant topics to examine forest response or logging impacts (i.e., time elapsed since the last operation, logging intensity and the number of logging rounds/cycles) a concerning scenario emerged (Figure 5). First, several studies did not control the time elapsed since the last logging operation, i.e., it was not clearly informed in the paper. Second, by controlling this key force, the number of studies per category of logging intensity, ecological process and region rarely exceed five papers (which does not permit any meta-analysis). Please note that very little was produced relative to seed dispersal, a key process in the context of forest regeneration and further logging cycles. Third, very little information was available on the impacts after the second cycle of logging. Finally, Africa exhibited the worst scenario, but even Asia and the Neotropics produced a chart with immense gaps for most of the response variables.

4. Discussion

Our results suggest that selective logging continues to receive attention from researchers, although the publication peak has already occurred in 2016 following a tangible increment in the number of published articles starting in 2012. Although the absolute number of papers might be considered expressive (i.e., 641 papers) the available information on the impacts posed by selective logging on biodiversity persistence, ecosystem functioning and services is geographically biased as research appears to be concentrated in Indonesia/Malaysia (Dipterocarp forests) and Brazil/Bolivia (particularly Amazon forests) with much less information coming from Africa. Papers are also biased relative to taxonomic groups (mammals, birds and trees rather than other groups) and processes across all levels of ecological organization from the population to ecosystem levels. We acknowledge that the use of additional databases and non-English publications could expand the number of studies included in this review. However, such additions are unlikely to substantially change the broad patterns documented here, especially the strong geographic concentration of studies in Indonesia/Malaysia and Brazil, which has also been consistently reported in previous syntheses. In fact, logging impacts on aboveground biomass and carbon stocks still dominate the literature as documented here. Moreover, key taxonomic groups and ecosystem level processes remain poorly investigated, particularly in the cases that the number of logging events, logging intensity and time elapsed since the last event are considered. In other words, as few studies are properly comparable, there are few opportunities for meta-analysis and synthesis by controlling the factors modulating logging impacts. Finally, research appears to be concentrated into the same ecological context or scenario: first round across old-growth forests in the aftermath of logging operations.
While logging operations are considered “harmful” [71], selective logging has been acknowledged as ecologically sustainable or posing little impacts [72] since ecosystem processes are resilient to logging [73] and species richness is not altered across several taxonomic groups [74,75]. Thereby, logged forests are perceived as biodiversity repositories and a key source of ecosystem services of both local and global relevance [72,76]. Here we do not intend to examine in which extension logging impacts [77] are supported by empirical evidence in the case that the key modulating forces are considered: time since logging operation, logging intensity, and the number of logging cycles [78,79]. However, we can provide at least three general statements based on our findings to qualify our current level of uncertainty. First, research concentration on initial impacts/impacts by the first cycle in old-growth forests does not guarantee the lack of significant impacts as time elapses and additional cycles are imposed on logged forests. Note that selective logging, across both public forest concession (usually industrial logging) and communal forests, is planned to impose several cycles. See for instance lag impacts on tree mortality due to logging [80].
Second, there is an insufficient number of papers controlling for impact drivers to extract generalizations relative to a larger number of ecological processes such as seed dispersal, particularly seed dispersal by vertebrates [81], biological invasion and pollination, just to mention a few. Generalizations on logging impacts must be interpreted with caution and long-term sustainability is still an open question. Third, assuming cross-forest differences relative to resilience or sensitivity to human disturbances, selective logging in Africa, the leader region in industrial logging [82], is occurring into a completely blind context as we consider the available literature coming from this continent (Figure 5). Although cross-forest differences relative to reliance on logging have not been examined yet, we already know that tropical forests do not exhibit the same level of resilience relative to human disturbances from habitat fragmentation to climate changes [83,84,85]. Briefly, historical disturbance regime (both natural and anthropogenic), physical heterogeneity supporting plant functional diversity and current climate conditions influence not only the impact intensity but also the speed of forests’ recovery towards pre-disturbance conditions, i.e., resilience [83,86,87,88]. In some extensions, both historic and contemporary conditions result in biotas (as an evolutionary unity) supporting a distinct forest-dependent/disturbance-adapted species ratio, a key attribute relative to resilience [84,89]. In other words, forest resilience to long-term selective logging must be examined at each biota submitted to.
Regardless of current knowledge, uncertainty relative to the long-term ecological sustainability of selective logging is also amplified by the ecological context of logging operations that are unlikely to occur in the near future. We refer to a transition from landscapes/regions covered by old-growth forests (i.e., biodiversity-friendly landscapes) [90] towards human-modified landscapes/regions dominated by processes leading to forest degradation such as the synergetic combination of habitat loss (i.e., deforestation), edge impacts, defaunation, illegal logging and intense drought [91]. In other words, logging operation spots will be soon or later embedded into landscapes dominated by edge-affected habitats or degraded/desiccated forests [92], while exposed to climate changes such as more intense/frequent droughts [93]. In addition to higher vulnerability to wildfires produced by logging per se [71], logging operations will occur in ecological contexts favoring disturbance-adapted species rather than the old-growth assemblages consisting of forest-dependent species such as edge-affected habitats, i.e., the bulk of tropical biodiversity [89,94]. In fact, logging favors the proliferation of disturbance-adapted species even in the landscapes still dominated by old-growth forests [95].
It implies that a substantial portion of the evidence in support of logging sustainability provided so far has limited utility as the regional landscapes are changing rapidly toward ecological contexts across which even forest persistence is now questionable as tipping points or intense forest degradation approaches [86,91,93,94]. We refer to expressive habitat loss and forest degradation promoted by other land uses rather than regulated logging (e.g., crop/cattle production), embedding logging forests into degraded landscapes and then turning these forests much more vulnerable to edge effects, wildfires and defaunation for instance. In synthesis, regulated logging via presumable sustainable approaches operates and continues to expand under a high level of uncertainty, which emerges from the current knowledge gaps [31,32,43,44] plus those posed by changes in the ecological context of logging that are expected to occur. As old-growth forests become increasingly embedded within human-modified landscapes, long-term assessments of logging sustainability become more uncertain, particularly under ecological conditions that differ from those examined by the current literature [96].

5. Conclusions

It is true that regulated selective logging (via public concessions or not) is a potential instrument to (1) incorporate undesignated public lands to governance, (2) reduce illegal logging operations while establishing basic standards to be accomplished by the forestry sector, (3) create economic opportunities for several stakeholders, including traditional communities, and (4) protect forests against illegal activities or replacement by other land uses. Brazil, thanks to the Amazon region, still contains the largest old-growth tropical timber reserve [96], with public forest concessions (from federal to state level) perceived by decision-makers as a key instrument to exploit such a “renewable” resource [32]. To reduce uncertainty and honestly assign regulated logging as potentially sustainable (as self-declared by regulating agencies) we recommend: (1) long-term monitoring programs as a mandatory component of logging regulation to be followed by both public and private operations; (2) public access to monitoring data, reports and information related to regulated logging via web platforms supported by loggers; (3) a global platform to exchange experience, including criteria for long-term monitoring, better practices, silvicultural approaches and sustainability assessment; (4) agreement among regulation and certification agencies relative to sustainability assessment, including a basic set of variables relative to biodiversity persistence, forest integrity, ecosystem functioning and services and socioeconomic issues; (5) capacity building programs to qualify stakeholders (including the staff of logging corporations) relative to sustainability assessment; and (6) long-term experiments devoted to logging sustainability and better practices by research institutions. We hope that this review stimulates logging research considering the new challenges imposed by rapid land use and accelerating climate changes, with the establishment of robust criteria and instruments to account for sustainability.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f17060649/s1, Table S1. PRISMA 2020 checklist indicating the sections and locations in the manuscript where each reporting item is addressed.

Author Contributions

M.F.B.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. L.S.M.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing—review and editing. J.V.C.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft. A.L.M.A.: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing. M.T.: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Programa de Desenvolvimento da Pós-Graduação na Amazônia Legal-PDPG-AL/CAPES (Auxílio 805/2020).

Data Availability Statement

Data is available at https://github.com/miralaba/logging_scientiometrics/blob/main/data/20230801_bd_cienciometria.xlsx; accessed on 20 May 2026.

Acknowledgments

MFB (88887.687909/2022-00; PDPG-AL/PDJ scholarship), JVC (159820/2021-9), MT (317630/2023-7, CNPq/PCI scholarship), LSM (RG2-009854; DEFRA’s Global Centre on Biodiversity for Climate and the Ramboll Foundation Award) and ALA (88887.510254/2020-00, Auxílio 805/2020, Programa de Desenvolvimento da Pós-Graduação na Amazônia Legal-PDPG-AL/CAPES).

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Swamy, L.; Drazen, E.; Johnson, W.R.; Bukoski, J.J. The Future of Tropical Forests under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. J. Sustain. For. 2018, 37, 221–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Muthee, K.; Duguma, L.; Wainaina, P.; Minang, P.; Nzyoka, J. A Review of Global Policy Mechanisms Designed for Tropical Forests Conservation and Climate Risks Management. Front. For. Glob. Change 2022, 4, 748170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lewis, S.L.; Edwards, D.P.; Galbraith, D. Increasing Human Dominance of Tropical Forests. Science 2015, 349, 827–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. 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]
  5. Mitchard, E.T.A. The Tropical Forest Carbon Cycle and Climate Change. Nature 2018, 559, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Putz, F.E.; Sist, P.; Fredericksen, T.; Dykstra, D. Reduced-Impact Logging: Challenges and Opportunities. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 256, 1427–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Karsenty, A. The World Bank’s Endeavours to Reform the Forest Concessions’ Regime in Central Africa: Lessons from 25 Years of Efforts. Int. For. Rev. 2017, 19, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Franklin, J.F.; Lõhmus, A.; Baker, S.C.; Bauhus, J.; Beese, W.; Brodie, A.; Kiehl, B.; Kouki, J.; Pastur, G.M.; et al. A Major Shift to the Retention Approach for Forestry Can Help Resolve Some Global Forest Sustainability Issues. Conserv. Lett. 2012, 5, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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]
  10. Sist, P.; Piponiot, C.; Kanashiro, M.; Pena-Claros, M.; Putz, F.E.; Schulze, M.; Verissimo, A.; Vidal, E. Sustainability of Brazilian Forest Concessions. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 496, 119440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. 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]
  12. Schwab, O.; Pulkki, R.; Bull, G.Q. Reduced Impact Logging in Tropical Forests: Literature Synthesis, Analysis and Prototype Statistical Framework; Forest Production Division, Working Paper Series; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2001; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gustafsson, L.; Nasi, R.; Dennis, R.; Nguyen Hoang Nghia, N.H.N.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Dykstra, D.; Priyadi, H.; Pham Quang Thu, P.Q.T. Logging for the Ark: Improving the Conservation Value of Production Forests in South East Asia; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tegegne, Y.; Cramm, M.; Van Brusselen, J.; Linhares-Juvenal, T. Forest Concessions and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Potentials, Challenges and Ways Forward. Forests 2019, 10, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. van Hensbergen, B. Forest Concessions Past Present and Future; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016; pp. 1–76. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chan, B. Southeast Asian Forest Concessions: Small Steps Forward. Int. For. Rev. 2017, 19, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Public Forest Management for Sustainable Production. Available online: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/bra62562.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2026).
  18. Azevedo-Ramos, C.; Silva, J.N.M.; Merry, F. The Evolution of Brazilian Forest Concessions. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2015, 3, 000048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Edwards, D.P.; Woodcock, P.; Edwards, F.A.; Larsen, T.H.; Hsu, W.W.; Benedick, S.; Wilcove, D.S. Reduced-impact Logging and Biodiversity Conservation: A Case Study from Borneo. Ecol. Appl. 2012, 22, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bicknell, J.E.; Struebig, M.J.; Davies, Z.G. Reconciling Timber Extraction with Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Forests Using Reduced-impact Logging. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. 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]
  22. Chiti, T.; Perugini, L.; Vespertino, D.; Valentini, R. Effect of Selective Logging on Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics in Tropical Forests in Central and Western Africa. Plant Soil 2016, 399, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Romero, F.M.B.; Jacovine, L.A.G.; Torres, C.M.M.E.; Ribeiro, S.C.; de Morais Junior, V.T.M.; da Rocha, S.J.S.S.; Romero, R.A.B.; Gaspar, R.d.O.; Velasquez, S.I.S.; Staudhammer, C.L.; et al. Forest Management with Reduced-Impact Logging in Amazonia: Estimated Aboveground Volume and Carbon in Commercial Tree Species in Managed Forest in Brazil’s State of Acre. Forests 2021, 12, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Han, X.; Huang, J.; Yao, J.; Xu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Zang, R. Effects of Logging on the Ecological Strategy Spectrum of a Tropical Montane Rain Forest. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 128, 107812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Siry, J.P.; Cubbage, F.W.; Ahmed, M.R. Sustainable Forest Management: Global Trends and Opportunities. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Torres-Rojo, J.M.; Moreno-Sánchez, R.; Mendoza-Briseño, M.A. Sustainable Forest Management in Mexico. Curr. For. Rep. 2016, 2, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. do Prado Capanema, V.; Escada, M.I.S.; Andrade, P.R.; Landini, L.G. Assessing Logging Legislation Parameters and Forest Growth Dissimilarities in the Brazilian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 513, 120170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Barlow, J.; Gardner, T.A.; Araujo, I.S.; Ávila-Pires, T.C.; Bonaldo, A.B.; Costa, J.E.; Esposito, M.C.; Ferreira, L.V.; Hawes, J.; Hernandez, M.I.M.; et al. Quantifying the Biodiversity Value of Tropical Primary, Secondary, and Plantation Forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 18555–18560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schulze, C.H.; Waltert, M.; Kessler, P.J.A.; Pitopang, R.; Veddeler, D.; Mühlenberg, M.; Gradstein, S.R.; Leuschner, C.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Tscharntke, T. Biodiversity Indicator Groups of Tropical Land-Use Systems: Comparing Plants, Birds, and Insects. Ecol. Appl. 2004, 14, 1321–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tilman, D. The Ecological Consequences of Changes in Biodiversity: A Search for General Principles. Ecology 1999, 80, 1455–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Alroy, J. Effects of Habitat Disturbance on Tropical Forest Biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 6056–6061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Orihuela, R.L.L.; Peres, C.A.; Mendes, G.; Jarenkow, J.A.; Tabarelli, M. Markedly Divergent Tree Assemblage Responses to Tropical Forest Loss and Fragmentation across a Strong Seasonality Gradient. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0136018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Carrara, E.; Arroyo-Rodríguez, V.; Vega-Rivera, J.H.; Schondube, J.E.; de Freitas, S.M.; Fahrig, L. Impact of Landscape Composition and Configuration on Forest Specialist and Generalist Bird Species in the Fragmented Lacandona Rainforest, Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 184, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Metzger, J.P.; Martensen, A.C.; Dixo, M.; Bernacci, L.C.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Teixeira, A.M.G.; Pardini, R. Time-Lag in Biological Responses to Landscape Changes in a Highly Dynamic Atlantic Forest Region. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1166–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ernst, R.; Linsenmair, K.E.; Rödel, M.-O. Diversity Erosion beyond the Species Level: Dramatic Loss of Functional Diversity after Selective Logging in Two Tropical Amphibian Communities. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 133, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Picard, N.; Gourlet-Fleury, S.; Forni, É. Estimating Damage from Selective Logging and Implications for Tropical Forest Management. Can. J. For. Res. 2012, 42, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bawa, K.S.; Seidler, R. Natural Forest Management and Conservation of Biodiversity in Tropical Forests. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Eve, E. How Well Does Brazil’s Environmental Law Work in Practice? Environmental Impact Assessment and the Case of the Itapiranga Private Sustainable Logging Plan. Environ. Manag. 2000, 26, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fredericksen, N.J.; Fredericksen, T.S. Impacts of Selective Logging on Amphibians in a Bolivian Tropical Humid Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 191, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cosset, C.C.P.; Gilroy, J.J.; Tomassi, S.; Benedick, S.; Nelson, L.; Cannon, P.G.; Messina, S.; Kaputa, M.; Fandrem, M.; Madrid, R.S.; et al. Impacts of Tropical Selective Logging on Local-Scale Movements of Understory Birds. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 264, 109374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Castro, A.B.; Bobrowiec, P.E.D.; Castro, S.J.; Rodrigues, L.R.R.; Fadini, R.F. Influence of Reduced-impact Logging on Central Amazonian Bats Using a Before-after-control-impact Design. Anim. Conserv. 2022, 25, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Benítez, Á.; Prieto, M.; González, Y.; Aragón, G. Effects of Tropical Montane Forest Disturbance on Epiphytic Macrolichens. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 441, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dionisio, L.F.S. Efeitos a Médio Prazo Da Exploração Seletiva No Crescimento, Mortalidade e Recrutamento de Manilkara Huberi (Ducke) A. Chev. Em Uma Floresta Mazônica. Sci. For. 2020, 48, e3154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Martin-Smith, K. Biodiversity Patterns of Tropical Freshwater Fish Following Selective Timber Extraction: A Case Study from Sabah, Malaysia. Ital. J. Zool. 1998, 65, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Duclos, V.; Boudreau, S.; Chapman, C.A. Shrub Cover Influence on Seedling Growth and Survival Following Logging of a Tropical Forest. Biotropica 2013, 45, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Costa, F.; Magnusson, W. Selective Logging Effects on Abundance, Diversity, and Composition of Tropical Understory Herbs. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12, 807–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. de Moura, R.S.; Noriega, J.A.; Cerboncini, R.A.S.; Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z.; Klemann Junior, L. Dung Beetles in a Tight-Spot, but Not so Much: Quick Recovery of Dung Beetles Assemblages after Low-Impact Selective Logging in Central Brazilian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 494, 119301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Addo-Fordjour, P.; Ofosu-Bamfo, B.; Kwofie, F.; Akyea-Bobi, N.; Rahman, F.A.; Amoah, E. Changes in Liana Community Structure and Functional Traits along a Chronosequence of Selective Logging in a Moist Semi-Deciduous Forest in Ghana. Plant Ecol. Divers. 2020, 13, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Granados, A.; Bernard, H.; Brodie, J.F. The Influence of Logging on Vertebrate Responses to Mast Fruiting. J. Anim. Ecol. 2019, 88, 892–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Malcolm, J.R.; Ray, J.C. Influence of Timber Extraction Routes on Central African Small-Mammal Communities, Forest Structure, and Tree Diversity. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 1623–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vonesh, J.R. Patterns of Richness and Abundance in a Tropical African Leaf-litter Herpetofauna. Biotropica 2001, 33, 502–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Adekunle, V.A.J.; Olagoke, A.O.; Ogundare, L.F. Logging Impacts in Tropical Lowland Humid Forest on Tree Species Diversity and Environmental Conservation. J. Sustain. For. 2010, 29, 517–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tchiofo Lontsi, R.; 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]
  55. Schleuning, M.; Farwig, N.; Peters, M.K.; Bergsdorf, T.; Bleher, B.; Brandl, R.; Dalitz, H.; Fischer, G.; Freund, W.; Gikungu, M.W.; et al. Forest Fragmentation and Selective Logging Have Inconsistent Effects on Multiple Animal-Mediated Ecosystem Processes in a Tropical Forest. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e27785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Boissier, O.; Feer, F.; Henry, P.; Forget, P. Modifications of the Rain Forest Frugivore Community Are Associated with Reduced Seed Removal at the Community Level. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 30, e02086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Veldman, J.W.; Mostacedo, B.; Peña-Claros, M.; Putz, F.E. Selective Logging and Fire as Drivers of Alien Grass Invasion in a Bolivian Tropical Dry Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 1643–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Brodie, J.F.; Giordano, A.J.; Zipkin, E.F.; Bernard, H.; Mohd-Azlan, J.; Ambu, L. Correlation and Persistence of Hunting and Logging Impacts on Tropical Rainforest Mammals. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Piponiot, C.; Rutishauser, E.; Derroire, G.; Putz, F.E.; Sist, P.; West, T.A.P.; Descroix, L.; Guedes, M.C.; Coronado, E.N.H.; Kanashiro, M.; et al. Optimal Strategies for Ecosystem Services Provision in Amazonian Production Forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 124090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rist, L.; Shanley, P.; Sunderland, T.; Sheil, D.; Ndoye, O.; Liswanti, N.; Tieguhong, J. The Impacts of Selective Logging on Non-Timber Forest Products of Livelihood Importance. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 268, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Krueger, W. Effects of Future Crop Tree Flagging and Skid Trail Planning on Conventional Diameter-Limit Logging in a Bolivian Tropical Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 188, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schwartz, G.; Pereira, P.C.G.; Siviero, M.A.; Pereira, J.F.; Ruschel, A.R.; Yared, J.A.G. Enrichment Planting in Logging Gaps with Schizolobium parahyba var. amazonicum (Huber Ex Ducke) Barneby: A Financially Profitable Alternative for Degraded Tropical Forests in the Amazon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 390, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lima, T.A.; Beuchle, R.; Langner, A.; Grecchi, R.C.; Griess, V.C.; Achard, F. Comparing Sentinel-2 MSI and Landsat 8 OLI Imagery for Monitoring Selective Logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Milodowski, D.T.; Coomes, D.A.; Swinfield, T.; Jucker, T.; Riutta, T.; Malhi, Y.; Svátek, M.; Kvasnica, J.; Burslem, D.F.R.P.; Ewers, R.M.; et al. The Impact of Logging on Vertical Canopy Structure across a Gradient of Tropical Forest Degradation Intensity in Borneo. J. Appl. Ecol. 2021, 58, 1764–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2022; Version 4.2.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  66. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Kooyman, R.M.; Taylor, C.; Ward, M.; Watson, J.E.M. Recent Australian Wildfires Made Worse by Logging and Associated Forest Management. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 4, 898–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Senior, R.A.; Hill, J.K.; Benedick, S.; Edwards, D.P. Tropical Forests Are Thermally Buffered despite Intensive Selective Logging. Glob. Change Biol. 2018, 24, 1267–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ewers, R.M.; Boyle, M.J.W.; Gleave, R.A.; Plowman, N.S.; Benedick, S.; Bernard, H.; Bishop, T.R.; Bakhtiar, E.Y.; Chey, V.K.; Chung, A.Y.C.; et al. Logging Cuts the Functional Importance of Invertebrates in Tropical Rainforest. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Kpan, T.F.; Ernst, R.; Rödel, M.-O. Follow the Forest: Slow Resilience of West African Rainforest Frog Assemblages after Selective Logging. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 497, 119489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Willott, S.J.; Lim, D.C.; Compton, S.G.; Sutton, S.L. Effects of Selective Logging on the Butterflies of a Bornean Rainforest. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 1055–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cerullo, G.R.; Edwards, D.P. Actively Restoring Resilience in Selectively Logged Tropical Forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 56, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Maiwald, M.J.; Mohd-Azlan, J.; Brodie, J.F. Resilience of Terrestrial Mammals to Logging in an Active Concession in Sarawak, Borneo. Mammalia 2021, 85, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Burivalova, Z.; Lee, T.M.; Giam, X.; Şekercioğlu, Ç.H.; Wilcove, D.S.; Koh, L.P. Avian Responses to Selective Logging Shaped by Species Traits and Logging Practices. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20150164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Leverkus, A.B.; Polo, I.; Baudoux, C.; Thorn, S.; Gustafsson, L.; Rubio de Casas, R. Resilience Impacts of a Secondary Disturbance: Meta-analysis of Salvage Logging Effects on Tree Regeneration. J. Ecol. 2021, 109, 3224–3232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Amaral, M.R.M.; Lima, A.J.N.; Higuchi, F.G.; dos Santos, J.; Higuchi, N. Dynamics of Tropical Forest Twenty-Five Years after Experimental Logging in Central Amazon Mature Forest. Forests 2019, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Carvalho, E.A.R.; Hawes, J.E.; Haugaasen, T. Potential Losses of Animal-Dispersed Trees Due to Selective Logging in Amazonian Forest Concessions. Trees For. People 2022, 9, 100316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. 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]
  78. Ciemer, C.; Boers, N.; Hirota, M.; Kurths, J.; Müller-Hansen, F.; Oliveira, R.S.; Winkelmann, R. Higher Resilience to Climatic Disturbances in Tropical Vegetation Exposed to More Variable Rainfall. Nat. Geosci. 2019, 12, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cole, L.E.S.; Bhagwat, S.A.; Willis, K.J. Recovery and Resilience of Tropical Forests after Disturbance. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 3906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Huntingford, C.; Zelazowski, P.; Galbraith, D.; Mercado, L.M.; Sitch, S.; Fisher, R.; Lomas, M.; Walker, A.P.; Jones, C.D.; Booth, B.B.B.; et al. Simulated Resilience of Tropical Rainforests to CO2-Induced Climate Change. Nat. Geosci. 2013, 6, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Köpp Hollunder, R.; Garbin, M.L.; Rubio Scarano, F.; Mariotte, P. Regional and Local Determinants of Drought Resilience in Tropical Forests. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e8943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Levine, N.M.; Zhang, K.; Longo, M.; Baccini, A.; Phillips, O.L.; Lewis, S.L.; Alvarez-Dávila, E.; Segalin de Andrade, A.C.; Brienen, R.J.W.; Erwin, T.L.; et al. Ecosystem Heterogeneity Determines the Ecological Resilience of the Amazon to Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 793–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Adolf, C.; Tovar, C.; Kühn, N.; Behling, H.; Berrío, J.C.; Dominguez-Vázquez, G.; Figueroa-Rangel, B.; Gonzalez-Carranza, Z.; Islebe, G.A.; Hooghiemstra, H.; et al. Identifying Drivers of Forest Resilience in Long-Term Records from the Neotropics. Biol. Lett. 2020, 16, 20200005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Filgueiras, B.K.C.; Peres, C.A.; Melo, F.P.L.; Leal, I.R.; Tabarelli, M. Winner–Loser Species Replacements in Human-Modified Landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2021, 36, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Melo, F.P.L.; Arroyo-Rodríguez, V.; Fahrig, L.; Martínez-Ramos, M.; Tabarelli, M. On the Hope for Biodiversity-Friendly Tropical Landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lapola, D.M.; Pinho, P.; Quesada, C.A.; Strassburg, B.B.N.; Rammig, A.; Kruijt, B.; Brown, F.; Ometto, J.P.H.B.; Premebida, A.; Marengo, J.A.; et al. Limiting the High Impacts of Amazon Forest Dieback with No-Regrets Science and Policy Action. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 11671–11679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Silva Junior, C.H.L.; Pessôa, A.C.M.; Carvalho, N.S.; Reis, J.B.C.; Anderson, L.O.; Aragão, L.E.O.C. The Brazilian Amazon Deforestation Rate in 2020 Is the Greatest of the Decade. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 5, 144–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lovejoy, T.E.; Nobre, C. Amazon Tipping Point. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tabarelli, M.; Peres, C.A.; Melo, F.P.L. The ‘Few Winners and Many Losers’ Paradigm Revisited: Emerging Prospects for Tropical Forest Biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 155, 136–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jackson, S.M.; Fredericksen, T.S.; Malcolm, J.R. Area Disturbed and Residual Stand Damage Following Logging in a Bolivian Tropical Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 166, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Forzieri, G.; Dakos, V.; McDowell, N.G.; Ramdane, A.; Cescatti, A. Emerging Signals of Declining Forest Resilience under Climate Change. Nature 2022, 608, 534–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Lapola, D.M.; Pinho, P.; Barlow, J.; Aragão, L.E.O.C.; Berenguer, E.; Carmenta, R.; Liddy, H.M.; Seixas, H.; Silva, C.V.J.; Silva-Junior, C.H.L.; et al. The Drivers and Impacts of Amazon Forest Degradation. Science 2023, 379, eabp8622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Staal, A.; Fetzer, I.; Wang-Erlandsson, L.; Bosmans, J.H.C.; Dekker, S.C.; van Nes, E.H.; Rockström, J.; Tuinenburg, O.A. Hysteresis of Tropical Forests in the 21st Century. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Verbesselt, J.; Umlauf, N.; Hirota, M.; Holmgren, M.; Van Nes, E.H.; Herold, M.; Zeileis, A.; Scheffer, M. Remotely Sensed Resilience of Tropical Forests. Nat. Clim. Change 2016, 6, 1028–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sist, P.; Ferreira, F.N. Sustainability of Reduced-Impact Logging in the Eastern Amazon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 243, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Richardson, V.A.; Peres, C.A. Temporal Decay in Timber Species Composition and Value in Amazonian Logging Concessions. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Forests 17 00649 g001
Figure 1. Review approach: Query, exclusion and inclusion criteria.
Figure 1. Review approach: Query, exclusion and inclusion criteria.
Forests 17 00649 g001
Forests 17 00649 g002
Figure 2. (A) The number of papers addressing selective logging impacts in tropical forests from 1970 to 2021. (B) World map highlighting the countries supporting research on selective logging impacts. Colors inform the number of documents/studies reported.
Figure 2. (A) The number of papers addressing selective logging impacts in tropical forests from 1970 to 2021. (B) World map highlighting the countries supporting research on selective logging impacts. Colors inform the number of documents/studies reported.
Forests 17 00649 g002
Forests 17 00649 g003
Figure 3. Number of papers per topic/impacts posed by selective logging on tropical forests across the four major regions plus papers addressing more than one region (pantropical). Papers from 1970 to 2021 available in the Scopus platform were selected according to criteria in Figure 1. Vertical dashed line represents a threshold to highlight the topics with less than 20 publications.
Figure 3. Number of papers per topic/impacts posed by selective logging on tropical forests across the four major regions plus papers addressing more than one region (pantropical). Papers from 1970 to 2021 available in the Scopus platform were selected according to criteria in Figure 1. Vertical dashed line represents a threshold to highlight the topics with less than 20 publications.
Forests 17 00649 g003
Forests 17 00649 g004
Figure 4. Number of papers addressing the impacts of selective logging classified according to effect drivers and the tropical major regions. For intensity (C), low values correspond to 30 m3 or less; medium, 31–50 m3; and high intensity is more than 50 m3. Papers from 1970 to 2021 available in the Scopus platform were selected according to criteria in Figure 1.
Figure 4. Number of papers addressing the impacts of selective logging classified according to effect drivers and the tropical major regions. For intensity (C), low values correspond to 30 m3 or less; medium, 31–50 m3; and high intensity is more than 50 m3. Papers from 1970 to 2021 available in the Scopus platform were selected according to criteria in Figure 1.
Forests 17 00649 g004
Forests 17 00649 g005
Figure 5. Number of papers addressing the impacts of selective logging classified according to particular impacts (left), time since logging (bottom) and the number of logging cycles (right), across the major tropical regions. Papers from 1970 to 2021 available in the Scopus platform were selected according to criteria in Figure 1.
Figure 5. Number of papers addressing the impacts of selective logging classified according to particular impacts (left), time since logging (bottom) and the number of logging cycles (right), across the major tropical regions. Papers from 1970 to 2021 available in the Scopus platform were selected according to criteria in Figure 1.
Forests 17 00649 g005
Table 1. Variables, categories and description used to classify the articles involved in this review.
Table 1. Variables, categories and description used to classify the articles involved in this review.
VariablesCategoriesDescription
RegionsNeotropicalBrazil, French Guiana, Ecuador, Colombia, Suriname, Venezuela, Bolivian…
AfricaGhana, Congo, Uganda
Kenya, Gabon, Nigeria…
Continental AsiaIndia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, China…
Insular AsiaIndonesia, Borneo, Filipinas…
Pan-TropicalMore than one region
No. of logging events1First cycle
2Second cycle
>2More than two cycles
Time elapsed since the last logging event≤10Less than 10 years
10–30Between 10 and 30 years
30–50Between 30 and 50 years
>50More than 50 years
Logging intensityLow≤30 m3/≤4 ind. ha−1
Medium31–50 m3/5–10 ind. ha−1
High>50 m3/>10 ind. ha−1
Table 2. Major topics, main issue and suggested reading covered by the reviewed articles.
Table 2. Major topics, main issue and suggested reading covered by the reviewed articles.
Major TopicsMain IssueSuggested Reading
Species richness and community organizationAmphibians[45]
Birds[46]
Bats[47]
Epiphytes[48]
Exploited tree species[49]
Fishes[50]
Herbivory and pathogens[51]
Herbs[52]
Invertebrates[53]
Liana/vine[54]
Medium/large mammals[55]
Small mammals[56]
Reptiles[57]
Tree species[58]
Ecosystem level processesForest structure/damage/biomass[28]
Functional diversity[29]
Nutrients cycling/stocks[59]
Pollination[60]
Seed dispersal[61]
Soil/water resources[27]
Biological invasion[62]
Socioeconomic aspectsLogging and bushmeat[63]
Ecosystem productivity[64]
Impacts on non-timbers[65]
Economic viability[66]
Socioeconomic impacts[67]
Analytical toolsTemporal dynamics/expansion[68]
Detection techniques/remote sensing[69]
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

Barros, M.F.; Miranda, L.S.; Cohen, J.V.; Albernaz, A.L.M.; Tabarelli, M. An Immense Knowledge Gap Relative to Regulated Logging Impacts in Tropical Forests. Forests 2026, 17, 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060649

AMA Style

Barros MF, Miranda LS, Cohen JV, Albernaz ALM, Tabarelli M. An Immense Knowledge Gap Relative to Regulated Logging Impacts in Tropical Forests. Forests. 2026; 17(6):649. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060649

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barros, Maria Fabíola, Leonardo S. Miranda, João Vitor Cohen, Ana Luisa Mangabeira Albernaz, and Marcelo Tabarelli. 2026. "An Immense Knowledge Gap Relative to Regulated Logging Impacts in Tropical Forests" Forests 17, no. 6: 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060649

APA Style

Barros, M. F., Miranda, L. S., Cohen, J. V., Albernaz, A. L. M., & Tabarelli, M. (2026). An Immense Knowledge Gap Relative to Regulated Logging Impacts in Tropical Forests. Forests, 17(6), 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060649

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