Which tree harvesting method is applied when enough trees are damaged that harvesting them becomes economically beneficial?

The method referred to in the question is salvage cutting, which specifically involves the removal of trees that have been damaged by events such as storms, pests, or disease. This approach aims to recover lost economic value from trees that would otherwise die or degrade, therefore making it financially worthwhile to harvest them despite the damage.

Salvage cutting is primarily a reactive strategy where the focus is on mitigating the financial impact of tree loss and maximizing the utility of timber that is still salvageable. This method helps to revitalize the forest by allowing for new growth after the damaged trees are removed.

In contrast, clear-cutting is a more aggressive harvesting strategy that entails the complete removal of all trees in a particular area, often for logging purposes. Brucellosis cutting does not pertain to tree harvesting methods but relates to disease management in animal populations. Prescribed burning involves intentionally setting controlled fires to manage vegetative growth and reduce wildfire risks, rather than focusing on timber harvesting.

Understanding these distinctions clarifies why salvage cutting is the appropriate choice when economic viability arises from damaged trees, allowing for both cost recovery and forest management sustainability.