Salvage logging effects on regulating ecosystem services and fuel loads

Abstract

Salvage logging, or logging after natural disturbances such as wildfires, insect outbreaks, and windstorms, is carried out to recover some of a forest's natural and/or economic capital. However, trade‐offs between management objectives and a lack of consensus on the ecological consequences of salvage logging impair science‐based decision making on the management of forests after natural disturbances. We conducted a global meta‐analysis of the impacts of salvage logging on regulating ecosystem services and on fuel loads, as a frequent post‐disturbance objective is preventing subsequent wildfires that could be fueled by the accumulation of dead trunks and branches. Salvage logging affected ecosystem services in a moderately negative way, regardless of disturbance type and severity, time elapsed since salvage logging, intensity of salvage logging, and the group of regulating ecosystem services being considered. However, prolonging the time between natural disturbance and salvage logging mitigated negative effects on regulating ecosystem services. Salvage logging had no overall effect on surface fuels; rather, different fuel types responded differently depending on the time elapsed since salvage logging. Delaying salvage logging by ~2–4 years may reduce negative ecological impacts without affecting surface fuel loads.

Hillslope sediment production after wildfire and post‐fire forest management in northern California

“…This finding is comparable to previous research, which has illustrated declines in post‐fire sediment erosion associated with the presence of wood and wood mulches (Prats, Gonzalez‐Pelayo, et al, 2019; Robichaud, Lewis, Wagenbrenner, Brown, & Pierson, 2020). However, the longer‐term efficacy of wood for reducing post‐fire hillslope erosion remains uncertain, as Leverkus et al (2020) found that the effect of fine wood (twigs and branches <7.6 cm diameter) on the soil surface had largely disappeared after approximately 5 years. Recent observations from our sites indicated that, in some cases, sediment had filled the storage areas upslope of wood pieces on the salvaged logged sites, suggesting that these pieces will be ineffective at storing additional sediment over the longer‐term.…”

“…Limited research into post‐fire land management strategies has led to continued debate of their potential benefits and trade‐offs (DellaSala et al, 2006; Donato et al, 2006; Leverkus et al, 2020; Leverkus, Puerta‐Pinero, Guzman‐Alvarez, Navarro, & Castro, 2012; McIver & Starr, 2000). For example, the removal of standing and downed large wood may eliminate important structural components that can help facilitate the recovery of terrestrial and aquatic systems (Lindenmayer & Noss, 2006; Maia et al, 2014; May & Gresswell, 2003).…”

Estimating retention benchmarks for salvage logging to protect biodiversity

“…We compiled a global database of species abundances in salvage-logged and unlogged naturally disturbed plots by extending two recent reviews (Fig. 2 ) 6 , 7 . The data compilation followed a systematic review protocol to ensure high quality standards in data selection 39 .…”

“…Salvage logging is conducted in all forest types, and is common even in areas that are otherwise excluded from logging, such as national parks 4 . By extracting timber and other tree biomass from large areas 5 , salvage logging can impair ecosystem services 6 and affect the biodiversity of deadwood-dependent species 7 . Salvage logging can have more profound effects on biodiversity than natural disturbance or logging alone due to the additive and interacting effects of the two disturbances 8 , 9 .…”

Salvage logging changes the taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional successional trajectories of forest bird communities

“…Because salvage logging immediately follows the natural disturbance (i.e. up to 3 years), it acts as an additional disturbance (Lindenmayer, McBurney, Blair, Wood, & Banks, 2018; Morissette, Cobb, Brigham, & James, 2002), with possible negative effects on species richness, community recovery of various species groups (Thorn et al, 2018) and ecosystem services (Leverkus et al, 2020).…”