Someone logged a 500 hectare plot in Borneo. They split this into 125 sections and planted 0, 1, 4, or 16 "tree species that are frequently targeted for logging". After 20 years, satellite imagery shows that the more tree species you planted, the more recovered the land appears to be. I'm left wondering: 1. Why did they plant only tree species that are frequently targeted for logging? This makes the whole experiment…
> Why did they plant only tree species that are frequently targeted for logging? Because the main purpose of replanting trees to is be able to harvest them again in the next few decades. Private land owners generally aren't interested in creating old-growth forests, they're trying to make money. It's not exactly ideal, but ending up with more biodiversity is likely a good thing even if it will be logged again later.…
To be clear, in the western US this is by design. Large swaths of private land are zoned for forest. Aside from a few niche instances of grandfathering, you cannot build on them. They're useful for recreation and logging, and that's all that's allowed.
The gov't wants them to be logged regularly. If they really wanted old growth forests they'd make it public land (it's not especially expensive land, either, right after a patch gets logged it's not uncommon for the owner to put it on the market fairly cheap).