Response to A comment on Wilson, Bradstock & Bedward - Forest Ecology and Management 481 (2021) 118701: Addressing carbon stock risk mitigation

Our recent article on the comparative effects of logging and wildfire on carbon stocks in forests with contrasting responses to fire (Wilson et al., 2021) elicited a commentary from Jurskis (2021). While speculating widely about the nature of forests in our study and their management, Jurskis (2021) attempts to cast doubt on our finding that logging affected above ground carbon stocks. Our results showed that Eucalypt forests have substantially lower above ground carbon stocks in recently logged sites, compared to sites logged approximately 80 years ago. Further, none of the sites we sampled had above ground carbon stocks close to the estimated carrying capacity for their respective forest types (Roxburgh et al., 2006; Keith et al., 2014). The effect of logging on above ground carbon stocks was much stronger than the effect of wildfire, which had almost no effect in forests dominated by species capable of resprouting after high severity wildfires. Jurskis (2021) does not accept the findings of our results from the field because they do not conform to his expectations based on silvicultural growth models. He also claims that we should have accounted for ex situ forest carbon storage, based on the false premise that we concluded that logging should cease. We made no such claim.

Automated summary

The study found that logging has a much greater impact on above ground carbon stocks compared to wildfire, especially in Eucalypt forests. The commentator, however, challenges the findings of the study because they do not align with his expectations and questions the conclusions drawn.