Skip to Main Content
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Twitter
    Dislike this pubLike this pub
    Author(s): R. Kasten DumroeseBrian J. Palik; John A. Stanturf
    Date: 2015
    Source: Journal of Forestry. 113(4): 430-432.
    Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
    Station: Rocky Mountain Research Station
    PDF: Download Publication  (50.76 KB)


    It is not surprising to us that the topic of forest restoration is being discussed in the Journal of Forestry. It is a topic frequently bantered about in the literature; a quick search in Google Scholar for "forest restoration" generates more than 1 million hits. A significant portion of the debate centers on the search for succinct, holistic, universally accepted terminology, and we confess that we have recently contributed to that effort (Stanturf et al. 2014a, 2014b). Given the lack of consensus on definitions for each word, forest and restoration, it should not be surprising that once combined, the discipline struggles to find consistent terminology, and the resulting discussions can be confusing. As we see it, the problem is that forest restorationists (those discussing the theory and those engaged in the practice) often seek precise black and white terminology for every gradation of a topic that spans an infinite spectrum and combination of biological, ecological, and societal possibilities; thus, the definition of forest restoration, whether we like it or not, varies depending on context and is continuously evolving as esoteric points are discussed. In our recent articles (Stanturf et al. 2014a, 2014b), we spend considerable time dissecting, organizing, and defining terminology. Such constructs are a necessary evil to vigorously debate ideas but probably leave practicing foresters, land managers, policymakers, and the general public confused. The reality is that restoration, no matter how it is defined, is intimately and undeniably linked with management: you cannot have restoration, even passive restoration, without management (Zahawi et al. 2014). Although it may not be politically correct to say so, forest restoration is similar to forest management in that both rely on silviculture although sometimes forest restoration requires extraordinary measures (Stanturf et al. 2014b). Approaching it from a silvicultural perspective puts pragmatism back into play.

    Publication Notes

    • You may send email to to request a hard copy of this publication.
    • (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
    • We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
    • This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.


    Dumroese, R. Kasten; Palik, Brian J.; Stanturf, John A. 2015. Forest restoration is forward thinking. Journal of Forestry. 113(4): 430-432.


    Google Scholar


    forest restoration, forest management, silviculture

    Related Search

    XML: View XML
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page