On the terms used to refer to 'natural' forests: a response to Veen et al.

The importance of harmonizing the group of terms used to indicate 'natural' forests is reported in several studies. In a recent paper the term virgin forest is proposed as a unifying concept for forests which are not influenced by man in their development. In response to that paper my aim is to clarify the terms virgin and old-growth. My response focuses on two points: the term virgin forest is generally used to indicate forests that have not been influenced by people even in the distant past, therefore something different from what described by the authors; the definition drawn up for the proposed term substantially overlaps with the definition of old-growth forest resulting from a long history of studies on this theme. I think that the overlap between the two analyzed terms can ultimately only increase the existing confusion on this group of forest terms.