Table 2.
Tested scenarios and their description. Treatments used at stand scale with different harvesting intensities and the percentage of annually managed area per treatment. CC + reforestation is the percentage of the replanted area after harvest by CC or CPRS, due to a lower soil seed bank and regeneration rate.
| Scenarios | Description | Code | Used treatment at stand scale and % of managed area per treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC + regeneration | CC + reforestation | CPRS | PC75% | PC50% | PC25% | |||
| Scenario-0 | No harvest scenario under natural disturbances | S0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Scenario-1 | All the annually harvested area is managed using high CRI (CC and CPRS). The establishment is based only on regeneration | S1 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Scenario-2 | BAU. Currently used scenario, where CPRS and CC are used for more than 95% of annually harvested area and 10% is managed using PCs with 25%, 50%, and 75% of CRI | S2 | From the historic, See Supplementary material 3 | |||||
| Scenario-3 | We used 75% of the annually harvested area for high CRI (CC and CPRS) and 25% for low-removal ones (PC) | S3 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.3 |
| Scenario-4 | We used 50% of the annually harvested area for high-removal treatments and 50% for low-removal ones | S4 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 16.7 |
| Scenario-5 | We used 25% of annually harvested area for high-removal treatments and 75% for low-removal ones | S5 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 |
| Scenario-6 | Extreme use of PCs (100% of annually harvested area), the opposite of scenario 1 | S6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 |