Background:Conceptual clarity is important to attain precise communication of scientific knowledge and to implement appropriate technological and policy actions.Many concepts referring to forest management are widely ...Background:Conceptual clarity is important to attain precise communication of scientific knowledge and to implement appropriate technological and policy actions.Many concepts referring to forest management are widely used by decision-makers,regardless of their complexity.Although the scientific and methodological issues of forestry practices are frequently discussed in the literature,their normative dimensions are rarely treated.Thus,linguistic uncertainty increases when different environmentally ethical perspectives and ways of valuing forests are considered.The objective was to compare different conceptualizations on the silvicultural systems suggested for forest management and the implications they have for conservation.We have conceptually contrasted highintensity forestry practices with variable retention harvesting,considering different environmentally ethical perspectives and forest valuation alternatives.Results:Clear boundaries between clear-cutting,selective logging,and variable retention harvesting can be evidenced when different ethical points of view and alternatives in the human-nature relationships are considered.We have found a variety of definitions of variable retention harvesting that can be analyzed under different ethical positions.Sharply contrasting views on variable retention harvesting can be evidenced if nature is considered to be purely at human’s service or if it is conceptualized as humans co-inhabiting with nature.The latter position implies that the maintenance of ecological,evolutionary,and historical processes supported by unmanaged forest stands is a crucial step for forest management proposals based on variable retention harvesting.Conclusions:Forestry practices that are focused on forest yields and that misinterpret functional uncertainty of forest functioning would be risky.Moreover,forestry with variable retention harvesting could imply good yields with reasonable conservation management in some contexts,while it could be unacceptable in other socioecological contexts.The improvement of conceptual clarity on the different meanings of variable retention harvesting and the development of indicators for forest management based on the variations of this concept can reduce controversies.展开更多
基金CONICET(11220120100055CO),SECyT(UNC,411/18)FONCyT(PICT 2015–0538)for the financial support。
文摘Background:Conceptual clarity is important to attain precise communication of scientific knowledge and to implement appropriate technological and policy actions.Many concepts referring to forest management are widely used by decision-makers,regardless of their complexity.Although the scientific and methodological issues of forestry practices are frequently discussed in the literature,their normative dimensions are rarely treated.Thus,linguistic uncertainty increases when different environmentally ethical perspectives and ways of valuing forests are considered.The objective was to compare different conceptualizations on the silvicultural systems suggested for forest management and the implications they have for conservation.We have conceptually contrasted highintensity forestry practices with variable retention harvesting,considering different environmentally ethical perspectives and forest valuation alternatives.Results:Clear boundaries between clear-cutting,selective logging,and variable retention harvesting can be evidenced when different ethical points of view and alternatives in the human-nature relationships are considered.We have found a variety of definitions of variable retention harvesting that can be analyzed under different ethical positions.Sharply contrasting views on variable retention harvesting can be evidenced if nature is considered to be purely at human’s service or if it is conceptualized as humans co-inhabiting with nature.The latter position implies that the maintenance of ecological,evolutionary,and historical processes supported by unmanaged forest stands is a crucial step for forest management proposals based on variable retention harvesting.Conclusions:Forestry practices that are focused on forest yields and that misinterpret functional uncertainty of forest functioning would be risky.Moreover,forestry with variable retention harvesting could imply good yields with reasonable conservation management in some contexts,while it could be unacceptable in other socioecological contexts.The improvement of conceptual clarity on the different meanings of variable retention harvesting and the development of indicators for forest management based on the variations of this concept can reduce controversies.
