“…Such mismatches are common because, although it is generally recognized that substantial canopy openings and sometimes even soil disturbances are required to secure regeneration of light-demanding and small-seeded species (e.g., Dickinson et al, 2000;Snook, 1996;Pariona et al, 2003;Putz and Fredericksen, 2004; but see Sist and Brown, 2004), environmentalists and even ecologists (e.g., Foley et al, 2007) often equate the maintenance of pre-logging forest structure with good management. Admittedly, canopy disturbances cause forest understories to be drier and more fire prone (e.g., Holdsworth and Uhl, 1997, but see Blate, 2005), but if yields of commercially important light-demanding species are to be sustained (e.g., Swietenia macrophylla, Cedrela spp., Entandrophragma spp., and Shorea leprosula), then minimizing changes in canopy cover is not a logical silvicultural goal. One cause of this common misunderstanding is the assumption that tropical forests and tree populations are generally at equilibrium before the first modern logging intervention whereas many are still recovering from severe but unrecorded natural or anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., Denevan, 1992).…”