With regard to the biodiversity constraint, Eq. (5), using the average
of bird density per ha over a 50-year period SBt≥MVP is problematic.
Since requiring the average bird density (over 50 years) to be greater
than the MVP ha−1 means that in some years, the bird density may
be below the MVP ha−1. In those cases, when the population goes
below the MVP, it may never recover. Thus, preferably bird density
per ha per year (SBt) should be used. However, using that as a constraint
leads to unfeasible solutions (i.e., no optimal solution is found mathematically,
see (Nghiem, 2011) for further details). Moreover, since the
context in this study was small forests (3.95 ha on average (Nghiem,
2011)), and most tropical birds are good fliers, it was assumed that
birds can migrate and return in the subsequent rotations
With regard to the biodiversity constraint, Eq. (5), using the averageof bird density per ha over a 50-year period SBt≥MVP is problematic.Since requiring the average bird density (over 50 years) to be greaterthan the MVP ha−1 means that in some years, the bird density maybe below the MVP ha−1. In those cases, when the population goesbelow the MVP, it may never recover. Thus, preferably bird densityper ha per year (SBt) should be used. However, using that as a constraintleads to unfeasible solutions (i.e., no optimal solution is found mathematically,see (Nghiem, 2011) for further details). Moreover, since thecontext in this study was small forests (3.95 ha on average (Nghiem,2011)), and most tropical birds are good fliers, it was assumed thatbirds can migrate and return in the subsequent rotations
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98aba/98abadb1435b0cfbe63f2dabdddc22693678da81" alt=""