
What’s the best way to manage a forest? Australians have argued about this for decades. The debate is often framed as binary: do we protect forests entirely, or harvest trees to support local economies and communities?
The reality is more interesting, as our new research on a long-forgotten experiment in Victoria’s mountain ash forests reveals.
Since the 1970s, scientists and the public have questioned the use of clearfell logging – where all trees in a block of forest are cut down. Conservationists argued it destroys habitat for rare species and reduces the forests’ ecological value. Foresters said mountain ash is adapted to catastrophic bushfires, and clearfelling is the forestry equivalent.
The argument was heated and the polarisation unhelpful. But the underlying questions about the impacts of clearfelling, and how they compared to less intensive forestry options, remained unresolved.

A landmark experiment
In the mid-1980s, the Victorian government launched a major restructure of the timber industry, and invested today’s equivalent of A$26 million to explore alternatives to clearfelling. This would use silviculture, the branch of forestry that deals with establishing, growing and tending forests.
The Silvicultural Systems Project was established at two sites between 1987 and 1989: Tanjil Bren in Victoria’s Central Highlands, and Cabbage Tree Creek in East Gippsland.
It was a landmark experiment, comparing forest regeneration across the full range of silvicultural approaches. These included traditional clearfells (250–350 metres wide), small patch clearfells (50–140m wide), and heavy thinnings, where 50–70% of trees were cut. Extensive areas of unharvested forest were kept as benchmarks for comparison.
The forest at Tanjil Bren was dense mountain ash regrowth from the 1939 fires. Hundreds of survey plots were established and thousands of seedlings were monitored. By the early 2000s, the results were clear: mountain ash regenerated best on clearfell sites. Where tall canopy trees were retained or the cleared patches were small, common understory species such as acacia dominated.
The findings were published. The access road grew over. The project sign collapsed. The experiment was forgotten. The debates continued.
But the trees kept growing.
More Posts

Can exoskeletons ease silviculture work?

Global sustainability progress report

Study shows forest soils help offset methane emissions

Faster wood formation matters more than longer growing seasons in a warming climate

Beyond Woodchips: Australia’s hardwood plantation industry must innovate

Free program to help SMEs advance AI and digital tech ideas in Queensland

Science safeguards NZ’s rarest ecosystems

AI identifies trees from the air as accurately as the human eye

Learning Through the Storm: Report released

Carbon Forestry 2026 – Event Summary

Forestry confirms new training partnership with Competenz

FPInnovations launch new forest seeding by drone trial

Extracting knowledge from a forest 3d digital twin using TreeTools SilvaCloud

Opportunities for improved firefighter safety in Australia

Annual reputation survey provides insight into public perceptions of forestry

Revisiting a forest experiment that lay forgotten for 30 years

Hexagon acquires ITRES to expand the scope of airborne mapping

How ‘digital twins’ could help predict the fate of a forest

Call for Presenters – ForestTECH 2027

NZ safety gains drive drop in forestry’s injury claims

