Forest Ecology And Management

---
name: forest-ecology-and-management
description: Use when targeting Forest Ecology and Management or deciding whether a forest-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the ecological-evidence-with-management-relevance bar, silviculture and disturbance expectations, Elsevier house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# Forest Ecology and Management (forest-ecology-and-management)

## Journal positioning

Forest Ecology and Management is Elsevier's outlet for the science of forest ecosystems and
how that science informs their management: forest ecology and stand dynamics, silviculture
and regeneration, disturbance (fire, wind, insects, pathogens) and restoration, biodiversity
and habitat, and carbon, growth, and productivity. Its defining expectation is **sound
ecological evidence paired with explicit management relevance** — a study must both advance
understanding of how forests function and make clear what its findings mean for managing,
restoring, or conserving forested land. A competent forest-ecology paper with no applied or
management implication, or a non-forest ecological study, is a poor fit however rigorous.
This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the
journal's current author guidance. Before submitting, re-check the live Forest Ecology and
Management author instructions and data policy.

## When to trigger

- The author names Forest Ecology and Management and wants a fit/framing check for a
  forest-science paper.
- A forest-ecology, silviculture, or disturbance study must be re-framed around its
  management or restoration implications to fit, or recognized as out of scope.
- The author is choosing between this journal, `global-change-biology`,
  `agriculture-ecosystems-and-environment`, and a general-ecology venue.
- The author needs the journal's expectations for ecological rigor coupled to management
  relevance.

## Scope & topic fit

- Forest stand dynamics, regeneration, growth, and productivity across managed and natural
  forests, including long-term and chronosequence studies.
- Silviculture and management interventions: thinning, harvesting systems, planting,
  species/provenance choice, and their ecological and stand-level consequences.
- Disturbance ecology and recovery: fire regimes and fuels, wind and drought damage, insect
  and pathogen outbreaks, and post-disturbance restoration.
- Forest biodiversity, habitat structure, deadwood, and the response of flora and fauna to
  management or disturbance.
- Forest carbon, nutrient, and water dynamics when framed around management or land-use
  decisions rather than pure biogeochemistry.
- Restoration, afforestation/reforestation, and conservation in forested systems with
  measurable ecological outcomes and management lessons.

## Method & evidence bar

- The contribution must rest on **defensible ecological evidence** with a clearly stated
  **management, restoration, or conservation implication** — not pattern description alone.
- Field studies need adequate replication, appropriate experimental or sampling design, and
  honest treatment of pseudoreplication and site confounding.
- Observational and chronosequence work must address space-for-time assumptions, stand-age
  and site-quality confounds, and representativeness.
- Statistical analysis must match the design (mixed/hierarchical models for nested plots,
  appropriate handling of repeated measures, model selection and validation reported).
- Modeling and remote-sensing studies must be calibrated and validated against field
  measurements with skill metrics and uncertainty, not asserted.
- Management recommendations must follow from the evidence presented, with scope and
  limitations stated; over-generalization from a single site or region must be avoided.

## Structure & house style

- Standard Elsevier research-article structure (Introduction, Materials/Study Area, Methods,
  Results, Discussion, Conclusions); re-check current article types and length on the live
  guide.
- The introduction must motivate both the ecological question and its management context;
  the discussion must return explicitly to management implications.
- Figures and tables should be quantitative and load-bearing: stand/structure data,
  treatment contrasts, disturbance or recovery trajectories, and model–observation
  comparisons.
- A highlights list and a structured or graphical abstract are commonly expected — re-check
  current requirements on the live guide.
- Study-area description, sampling design, and data-availability statements must let a
  reader assess representativeness and reproduce the core analysis.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and
  `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the
  current Forest Ecology and Management page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Forest Ecology and Management guide for authors" and follow the
  current Elsevier version.
- Re-check article types, highlights/abstract format, and word/figure expectations.
- Confirm the data-availability/research-data policy and any field-permit or protected-area
  approvals needed for sampling.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use
  disclosure, and open-access options.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions
  win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] The paper delivers both ecological insight and an explicit management/restoration implication.
- [ ] Sampling/experimental design is adequately replicated and free of unaddressed pseudoreplication.
- [ ] Chronosequence or space-for-time assumptions and site/stand-age confounds are handled honestly.
- [ ] Statistics match the nested/repeated-measures design and are validated.
- [ ] Any model or remote-sensing result is calibrated and validated against field data with uncertainty.
- [ ] Management recommendations are bounded by the evidence, with limitations stated.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- A forest-ecology study with no management, restoration, or conservation relevance.
- A non-forest ecological study (grassland, agronomic, or aquatic) outside the journal's focus.
- Single-site, single-stand results presented as broadly generalizable without caveats.
- Pseudoreplicated or under-designed field study treating subsamples as independent replicates.
- Management recommendations not supported by the data, or asserted beyond the study's scope.
- Missing study-area/sampling detail or data-availability statement.

## Re-routing decision

- Ecosystem carbon/climate-change biology is the dominant framing → `global-change-biology`.
- Agroforestry/agroecosystem management without a forest-stand focus → `agriculture-ecosystems-and-environment`.
- Large-scale forest carbon/nutrient cycling as the core → `global-biogeochemical-cycles`.
- Land–atmosphere flux or canopy micrometeorology dominant → `agricultural-and-forest-meteorology`.
- General ecological mechanism without management framing → `functional-ecology` or `ecology-letters`.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Forest Ecology and Management
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest forest-science topics>
[Ecological evidence] <the stand/disturbance/biodiversity finding and its strength>
[Management relevance] <the explicit management/restoration/conservation implication>
[Method/evidence] <does design + statistics + validation clear the bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / highlights / data policy / permits / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```