Comparisons between wildfire and forest harvesting and their implications in forest management
Abstract
Emulation silviculture is the use of silvicultural techniques that try to imitate natural disturbances such as wildfire. Emulation silviculture is becoming increasingly popular in Canada because it may help circumvent the political and environmental difficulties associated with intensive forest harvesting practices. In this review we summarize empirical evidence that illustrates disparities between forest harvesting and wildfire. As a rule, harvesting and wildfire affect biodiversity in different ways, which vary a great deal among ecosystem types, harvesting practices, and scale of disturbance. The scales of disturbance are different in that patch sizes created by logging are a small subset of the range of those of wildfire. In particular, typical forestry does not result in the large numbers of small disturbances and the small number of extremely large disturbances created by wildfires. Moreover, the frequency of timber harvesting is generally different from typical fire return intervals. The latter varies widely, with stand-replacing fires occurring in the range of 20 to 500 years in Canada. In contrast, harvest frequencies are dictated primarily by the rotational age at merchantable size, which typically ranges from 40 to 100 years. Forest harvesting does not maintain the natural stand-age distributions associated with wildfire in many regions, especially in the oldest age classes. The occurrence of fire on the landscape is largely a function of stand age and flammability, slope, aspect, valley orientation, and the location of a timely ignition event. These factors result in a complex mosaic of stand types and ages on the landscape. Timber harvesting does not generally emulate these ecological influences. The shape of cut blocks does not follow the general ellipse pattern of wind driven fires, nor do harvested stands have the ragged edges and unburned patches typically found in stand-replacing fires. Wildfire also leaves large numbers of snags and abundant coarse woody debris, while some types of harvesting typically leave few standing trees and not much large debris. Successional pathways following logging and fire often differ. Harvesting tends to favor angiosperm trees and results in less dominance by conifers. Also, understory species richness and cover do not always recover to the pre-harvest condition during the rotation periods used in typical logging, especially in eastern Canada and in old-growth forests. As well, animal species that depend on conifers or old-growth forests are affected negatively by forest harvesting in ways that may not occur after wildfire. The road networks developed for timber extraction cause erosion, reduce the areas available for reforestation, fragment the landscape for some species and ecological functions, and allow easier access by humans, whereas there is no such equivalency in a fire-disturbed forest. Key words: silviculture, forest management, clearcutting, forest conservation, wildfire, biodiversity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many forestry operations have no natural counterpart.
“Many forestry operations have no natural counterpart.See McRae et al. (2001) for a comprehensive description of the differences between wildfire and forest harvesting.”
From Adapting forestry practices to address old-growth concerns in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forests of Ontario (2003) · cites this paper as McRae et al. (2001)
Cites
Carleton, T. J., & Maclellan, P. (1994) · Ecoscience · doi:10.1080/11956860.1994.11682238 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schwilk, D. W., Keeley, J. E., Knapp, E. E., McIver, J., Bailey, J. D., Fettig, C. J., Fiedler, C. E., Harrod, R. J., Moghaddas, J. J., Outcalt, K. W., et al. (2009) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/07-1747.1 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Ecological foundations for fire management in North American forest and shrubland ecosystems
Keeley, J. E., Aplet, G. H., Christensen, N. L., Conard, S. G., Johnson, E. A., Omi, P. N., Peterson, D. L., & Swetnam, T. W. (2009) · doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-779 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
LeDuc, S. D., & Rothstein, D. E. (2007) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.05.029 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Pinto, F. (2003) · The Forestry Chronicle · doi:10.5558/tfc79613-3 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- McRae, D. J., Duchesne, L. C., Freedman, B., Lynham, T. J., & Woodley, S.
- ORCID
- Woodley, S
- Venue
- Environmental Reviews
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2001-12-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 223-260
- ISSN
- 1181-8700 (ISSN-L)
- 1208-6053
- OpenAlex
- W1963907454
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 4.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Environmental Reviews (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
- Keywords
- logging, clear-cutting, fire return interval, forest age structure, fire regimes, patch size, post-fire succession, conifer dominance, old-growth forest, road network, landscape fragmentation, forest management, Canada, eastern Canada, wind-driven fires
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