Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Salvage Logging, Ecosystem Processes, and Biodiversity Conservation

Open access
LINDENMAYER, D.B., NOSS, R.F.·2006·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: We summarize the documented and potential impacts of salvage logging—a form of logging that removes trees and other biological material from sites after natural disturbance. Such operations may reduce or eliminate biological legacies, modify rare postdisturbance habitats, influence populations, alter community composition, impair natural vegetation recovery, facilitate the colonization of invasive species, alter soil properties and nutrient levels, increase erosion, modify hydrological regimes and aquatic ecosystems, and alter patterns of landscape heterogeneity. These impacts can be assigned to three broad and interrelated effects: (1) altered stand structural complexity; (2) altered ecosystem processes and functions; and (3) altered populations of species and community composition. Some impacts may be different from or additional to the effects of traditional logging that is not preceded by a large natural disturbance because the conditions before, during, and after salvage logging may differ from those that characterize traditional timber harvesting. The potential impacts of salvage logging often have been overlooked, partly because the processes of ecosystem recovery after natural disturbance are still poorly understood and partly because potential cumulative effects of natural and human disturbance have not been well documented. Ecologically informed policies regarding salvage logging are needed prior to major natural disturbances so that when they occur ad hoc and crisis‐mode decision making can be avoided. These policies should lead to salvage‐exemption zones and limits on the amounts of disturbance‐derived biological legacies (e.g., burned trees, logs) that are removed where salvage logging takes place. Finally, we believe new terminology is needed. The word salvage implies that something is being saved or recovered, whereas from an ecological perspective this is rarely the case.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00497.x

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 73 references

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
LINDENMAYER, D. B., & NOSS, R. F.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-06-30
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
949-958
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2097945186
Cited by
379
References
73
FWCI
10.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Salvage Logging, Ecosystem Processes, and Biodiversity Conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00497.x
The paper
LINDENMAYER, D. B., & NOSS, R. F. (2006). Salvage Logging, Ecosystem Processes, and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00497.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.