Forests are increasingly affected by natural disturbances. Subsequent salvage logging, a widespread management practice conducted predominantly to recover economic capital, produces further disturbance and impacts biodiversity worldwide. Hence, naturally disturbed forests are among the most threatened habitats in the world, with consequences for their associated biodiversity. However, there are no evidence-based benchmarks for the proportion of area of naturally disturbed forests to be excluded from salvage logging to conserve biodiversity. We apply a mixed rarefaction/extrapolation approach to a global multi-taxa dataset from disturbed forests, including birds, plants, insects and fungi, to close this gap. We find that 75 ± 7% (mean ± SD) of a naturally disturbed area of a forest needs to be left unlogged to maintain 90% richness of its unique species, whereas retaining 50% of a naturally disturbed forest unlogged maintains 73 ± 12% of its unique species richness. These values do not change with the time elapsed since disturbance but vary considerably among taxonomic groups.

Bavarian Forest National Park Freyunger Str 2 94481 Grafenau Germany

Department of Agriculture Forestry and Bioresources Seoul National University Seoul 08826 Korea

Department of Animal Ecology 1 Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research University of Bayreuth 95447 Bayreuth Germany

Department of Biodiversity Conservation Goethe University Frankfurt Faculty of Biological Sciences Institute for Ecology Evolution and Diversity Max von Laue Str 13 D 60438 Frankfurt am Main Germany

Department of Botany Ecology and Plant Physiology Universidad de La Laguna 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna Spain

Department of Ecology University of Granada Campus Fuentenueva s n 18071 Granada Spain

Department of Environmental Sciences University of Girona Facultat de Ciències Carrer Maria Aurèlia Capmany Campus de Montilivi 17003 Girona Catalonia Spain

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society Oregon State University 321 Richardson Hall Corvallis OR 97331 USA

Department of Renewable Resources University of Alberta Edmonton AB T6G 2H1 Canada

Division of Biological Sciences University of Montana Missoula MT 59812 USA

Environmental and Conservation Sciences Murdoch University 90 South Street Murdoch WA 6150 Australia

Faculty of Science University of South Bohemia Branisovska 1760 37005 Ceske Budejovice Czech Republic

Fenner School of Environment and Society The Australian National University Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

Field Station Fabrikschleichach Biocenter University of Würzburg Glashüttenstr 5 96181 Rauhenebrach Germany

Grimsö Wildlife Research Station Department of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLU SE 730 91 Riddarhyttan Sweden

Institute of Entomology Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences Branisovska 31 37005 Ceske Budejovice Czech Republic

Institute of Statistics National Tsing Hua University Hsin Chu 30043 Taiwan

Mammal Research Institute Polish Academy of Sciences Stoczek 1 17 230 Białowieża Poland

Museum and Institute of Zoology Polish Academy of Sciences Wilcza 64 00 679 Warsaw Poland

Natural Resources Canada Canadian Forest Service Laurentian Forestry Centre 1055 rue du P E P S P O Box 10380 Stn Sainte Foy Québec QC G1V 4C7 Canada

Natural Resources Institute P O Box 2 FI 00791 Helsinki Finland

Rehtränke 94481 Rosenau Germany

Royal Alberta Museum Edmonton AB T5J 0G2 Canada

School for Forest Management Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLU Box 43 SE 739 21 Skinnskatteberg Sweden

School of Environmental and Forest Sciences University of Washington Seattle WA 98195 USA

Urban Planning Research Group Daejeon Sejong Research Institute Daejeon 34863 Korea

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins CO 80526 USA

WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Forest Snow and Landscape Research Biodiversity and Conservation Biology Zürcherstrasse 111 CH 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland

WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Forest Snow and Landscape Research Forest Health and Biotic Interactions Forest Entomology Zürcherstrasse 111 CH 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland

See more in PubMed

Seidl R, Schelhaas M-J, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014;4:806–810. PubMed PMC

Kurz W, et al. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature. 2008;452:987–990. PubMed

Turner MG. Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world. Ecology. 2010;91:2833–2849. PubMed

Müller J, et al. Increasing disturbance demands new policies to conserve intact forest. Conserv. Lett. 2019;12:e12449.

Lindenmayer, D., Burton, P. J. & Franklin, J. F. Salvage Logging and its Ecological Consequences. (Island Press, 2008).

Leverkus AB, et al. Salvage logging effects on regulating ecosystem services and fuel loads. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2020;18:391–400.

Thorn S, et al. Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity-a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018;55:279–289. PubMed PMC

Cobb TP, et al. Effects of postfire salvage logging on deadwood-associated beetles. Conserv. Biol. 2011;25:94–104. PubMed

Leverkus AB, Lindenmayer DB, Thorn S, Gustafsson L. Salvage logging in the world’s forests: Interactions between natural disturbance and logging need recognition. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2018;27:1140–1154.

Morissette JL, Cobb TP, Brigham RM, James PC. The response of boreal forest songbird communities to fire and post-fire harvesting. Can. J. Res. Can. Rech. 2002;32:2169–2183.

Georgiev KB, et al. Salvage logging changes the taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional successional trajectories of forest bird communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020;1365-2664:13599.

Lindenmayer, D. B., Mcburney, L., Blair, D., Wood, J. & Banks, S. C. From unburnt to salvage logged: quantifying bird responses to different levels of disturbance severity. J. Appl. Ecol.55, 1626–1636 (2018).

Blair DP, McBurney LM, Blanchard W, Banks SC, Lindenmayer DB. Disturbance gradient shows logging affects plant functional groups more than fire. Ecol. Appl. 2016;26:2280–2301. PubMed

Noss RF, Lindenmayer DB. The ecological effects of salvage logging after natural disturbance. Conserv. Biol. 2006;20:946–948. PubMed

Hutto RL. Toward meaningful snag-management guidelines for postfire salvage logging in North American conifer forests. Conserv. Biol. 2006;20:984–993. PubMed

Hutto RL. The ecological importance of severe wildfires: some like it hot. Ecol. Appl. 2008;18:1827–1834. PubMed

Thorn S, Müller J, Leverkus AB. Preventing European forest diebacks. Science. 2019;365:1388.2–1388. PubMed

Stokstad E. Salvage logging research continues to generate sparks. Science. 2006;311:761. PubMed

Franklin JF, et al. Threads of continuity: ecosystem disturbances, biological legacies and ecosystem recovery. Conserv. Biol. Pract. 2000;1:8–16.

Lindenmayer D, Thorn S, Banks S. Please do not disturb ecosystems further. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017;1:0031. PubMed

Burivalova Z, Şekercioğlu ÇH, Koh LP. Thresholds of logging intensity to maintain tropical forest biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 2014;24:1893–1898. PubMed

França FM, Frazão FS, Korasaki V, Louzada J, Barlow J. Identifying thresholds of logging intensity on dung beetle communities to improve the sustainable management of Amazonian tropical forests. Biol. Conserv. 2017;216:115–122.

Gustafsson L, et al. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. Bioscience. 2012;62:633–645.

Schmiegelow FKA, Stepnisky DP, Stambaugh CA, Koivula M. Reconciling salvage logging of boreal forests with a natural-disturbance management model. Conserv. Biol. 2006;20:971–983. PubMed

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, F. Forest Damages Prevention Act (1087/2013). (2013).

De Grandpré L, et al. Incorporating insect and wind disturbances in a natural disturbance-based management framework for the boreal forest. Forests. 2018;9:1–20.

Chao A, Colwell RK, Gotelli NJ, Thorn S. Proportional mixture of two rarefaction/extrapolation curves to forecast biodiversity changes under landscape transformation. Ecol. Lett. 2019;22:1913–1922. PubMed

Anderson MJ, et al. Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol. Lett. 2011;14:19–28. PubMed

Dornelas M, et al. Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. Science. 2014;344:296–299. PubMed

Thorn S, et al. Rare species, functional groups, and evolutionary lineages drive successional trajectories in disturbed forests. Ecology. 2020;0:1–8. PubMed

Hyvärinen E, Kouki J, Martikainen P. Fire and green-tree retention in conservation of red-listed and rare deadwood-dependent beetles in Finnish boreal forests. Conserv. Biol. 2006;20:1711–1719. PubMed

Fedrowitz K, et al. Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014;51:1669–1679. PubMed PMC

Entling W, Schmidt MH, Bacher S, Brandl R, Nentwig W. Niche properties of Central European spiders: Shading, moisture and the evolution of the habitat niche. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007;16:440–448.

Swanson ME, et al. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011;9:117–125.

Lindenmayer DB, Ough K. Salvage logging in the montane ash eucalypt forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria and its potential impacts on biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 2006;20:1005–1015. PubMed

Banks-Leite C, et al. Assessing the utility of statistical adjustments for imperfect detection in tropical conservation science. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014;51:849–859. PubMed PMC

Kortmann M, et al. Beauty and the beast: how a bat utilizes forests shaped by outbreaks of an insect pest. Anim. Conserv. 2018;21:21–30.

Mikoláš M, et al. Mixed-severity natural disturbances promote the occurrence of an endangered umbrella species in primary forests. Ecol. Manag. 2017;405:210–218.

Leverkus AB, Gustafsson L, Rey Benayas JM, Castro J. Does post-disturbance salvage logging affect the provision of ecosystem services? A systematic review protocol. Environ. Evid. 2015;4:16.

Hutto RL, Young J. Regional landbird monitoring: perspectives from the Northern Rocky Mountains. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002;30:738–750.

Zmihorski M. The effect of windthrow and its management on breeding bird communities in a managed forest. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010;19:1871–1882.

Thorn S, et al. Changes in the dominant assembly mechanism drive species loss caused by declining resources. Ecol. Lett. 2016;19:163–170. PubMed

Leverkus AB, et al. Salvage logging effects on regulating and supporting ecosystem services–a systematic map. Can. J. Res. 2018;18:1–18.

Mehr M, Brandl R, Kneib T, Müller J. The effect of bark beetle infestation and salvage logging on bat activity in a national park. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012;21:2775–2786.

Fontaine JB, Donato DC, Robinson WD, Law BE, Kauffman JB. Bird communities following high-severity fire: response to single and repeat fires in a mixed-evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Ecol. Manag. 2009;257:1496–1504.

Cahall RE, Hayes JP. Influences of postfire salvage logging on forest birds in the Eastern Cascades, Oregon, USA. Ecol. Manag. 2009;257:1119–1128.

Castro J, Moreno-Rueda G, Hódar J. Experimental test of postfire management in pine forests: impact of salvage logging versus partial cutting and nonintervention on bird-species assemblages. Conserv. Biol. 2010;24:810–819. PubMed

Rost J, Clavero M, Brotons L, Pons P. The effect of postfire salvage logging on bird communities in Mediterranean pine forests: the benefits for declining species. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012;49:644–651.

Zmihorski M, et al. Early post-fire bird community in European boreal forest: comparing salvage-logged with non-intervention areas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019;18:e00636.

Choi CY, Lee EJ, Nam HY, Lee WS. Effects of postfire logging on bird populations and communities in burned forests. J. Korean . Soc. 2007;96:115–123.

Lee E-J, Lee W-S, Son SH, Rhim S-J. Differences in bird communities in postfire silvicultural practices stands within pine forest of South Korea. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2011;7:137–143.

Koivula M, Spence JR. Effects of post-fire salvage logging on boreal mixed-wood ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) Ecol. Manag. 2006;236:102–112.

Wermelinger B, et al. Impact of windthrow and salvage-logging on taxonomic and functional diversity of forest arthropods. Ecol. Manag. 2017;391:9–18.

Hernández-Hernández R, Castro J, Del Arco Aguilar M, Fernández-López ÁB, González-Mancebo JM. Post-fire salvage logging imposes a new disturbance that retards succession: the case of bryophyte communities in a Macaronesian laurel forest. Forests. 2017;8:1–16.

Thorn S, et al. Guild-specific responses of forest Lepidoptera highlight conservation-oriented forest management – implications from conifer-dominated forests. Ecol. Manag. 2015;337:41–47.

Durska E. Effects of disturbances on scuttle flies (Diptera: Phoridae) in Pine Forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013;22:1991–2021.

Donato DC, Fontaine JB, Kauffman JB, Robinson D, Law BE. Fuel mass and forest structure following stand-replacement fire and post-fire logging in a mixed-evergreen forest. Int. J. Wildl. Fire. 2013;22:652–666.

Kurulok SE, Macdonald SE. Impacts of postfire salvage logging on understory plant communities of the boreal mixedwood forest 2 and 34 years after disturbance. Can. J. Res. 2007;37:2637–2651.

Macdonald SE. Effects of partial post-fire salvage harvesting on vegetation communities in the boreal mixedwood forest region of northeastern Alberta, Canada. Ecol. Manag. 2007;239:21–31.

Fornwalt PJ, et al. Short-term understory plant community responses to salvage logging in beetle-affected lodgepole pine forests. Ecol. Manag. 2018;409:84–93.

Waldron K, Ruel J-C, Gauthier S, De Grandpré L, Peterson CJ. Effects of post-windthrow salvage logging on microsites, plant composition and regeneration. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2014;17:323–337.

Leverkus AB, Lorite J, Navarro FB, Sánchez-Cañete EP, Castro J. Post-fire salvage logging alters species composition and reduces cover, richness, and diversity in Mediterranean plant communities. J. Environ. Manag. 2014;133:323–331. PubMed

Chao A, et al. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 2014;84:45–67.

Colwell RK, et al. Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J. Plant Ecol. 2012;5:3–21.

Wood SN, Pya N, Säfken B. Smoothing parameter and model selection for general smooth models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2016;111:1548–1563.

Dornelas M, et al. BioTIME: a database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2018;27:760–786. PubMed PMC

Olson DM, et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience. 2001;51:933.

Small-scale spontaneous dynamics in temperate beech stands as an importance driver for beetle species richness