Salvage Logging, Ecosystem Processes, and Biodiversity Conservation D.B. LINDENMAYER ∗ AND R.F. NOSS† ∗ Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia, email davidl@cres.anu.edu.au †Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida 32816–2368, U.S.A. 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 prop- erties 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. Keywords: forest management, human disturbance, natural disturbance Cosecha de Salvamento, Procesos Ecol´ ogicos y Conservaci´ on de la Biodiversidad Resumen: Resumimos los impactos documentados y potenciales de la cosecha de salvamento – una forma de cosecha de madera que remueve ´ arboles y otros materiales biol´ ogicos despu´ es de una perturbaci´ on natural. Tales operaciones pueden reducir o eliminar legados biol´ ogicos, modificar h´ abitats post perturbaci´ on, influir en poblaciones, alterar la composici´ on de comunidades, impedir la recuperaci´ on de la vegetaci´ on natural, facilitar la colonizaci´ on de especies invasoras, alterar las propiedades del suelo y de niveles de nutrientes, incrementar la erosi´ on, modificar reg´ ımenes hidrol´ ogicos y ecosistemas acu´ aticos, y alterar patrones de heterogeneidad del paisaje. Estos impactos se pueden asignar a tres efectos amplios e interrelacionados: (1) alteraci´ on de la complejidad estructural del bosque; (2) alteraci´ on de procesos y funciones ecol´ ogicas; y (3) alteraci´ on de poblaciones de especies y de la composici´ on de la comunidad. Algunos impactos pueden ser diferentes a o adicionales a los efectos de la cosecha de madera tradicional que no es precedida de una perturbaci´ on natural severa porque las condiciones antes, durante y despu´ es de la cosecha de salvamento pueden diferir de las que caracterizan a la cosecha de madera tradicional. Los impactos potenciales de la cosecha de salvamento a menudo han sido pasados por alto, en parte porque los procesos de recuperaci´ on del ecosistema despu´ es de una perturbaci´ on natural son poco conocidos y en parte porque los efectos acumulativos potenciales de Paper submitted November 9, 2005; revised manuscript accepted April 18, 2006. 949 Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 4, 949–958 C 2006 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00497.x