Harvesting biomass has an impact on living nature present in the location where harvesting takes place. If all net primary production were harvested, the extinction of most heterotrophic organisms would be expected. At lower levels of harvesting, food chains may still be significantly impacted (Haberl and Geissler 2000). In the case of more limited harvesting of forests, the amount of dead wood in forests is reduced, and this in turn has an impact on the many species that are dependent on dead wood (Norden et al. 2004; Rudolphi and Gustafsson 2005). Also, long­term effects of harvesting trees have been noted on soil arthropods and the quantity of ectomycorrhizal roots in the organic horizon of forests (Mahmood et al. 1999). On the other hand, limitation of harvesting may allow for species conservation. In Swedish temperate-oak-dominated hardwood stands, a 25% harvest of understory was compatible with conservation of vascular plants, fungi, saprophytic and herbiv­orous beetles and mycetophilid insects (0kland et al. 2008). Management of stands on much longer than current rotations to maintain understory species, which require long periods to recover from disturbance, has been suggested as a way to limit the negative impact of harvesting on biodiversity (Halpern and Spies 1995; Kerr 1999; Ramovs and Roberts 2003). Other suggestions for forests (including ‘production forests’ or plantations) which are (to be) harvested have been: increasing the extent of mixed stands and improvement in vertical structure of forests through variations in stand treatments (Kerr 1999; Eriksson and Berg 2007).

All in all, harvesting of forests has been found to affect vegetation cover, animal biomass and biodiversity (Milton and Moll 1988; Halpern and Spies 1995; Carey and Johnson 1995; Chen et al. 1998). This, in turn, can entail loss of non-monetary ecosystem services that are useful to mankind (Symstad et al. 2003). For instance, in Oregon, harvesting forests increased peak flow into surface water by, on aver­age, 30% due to the combined effect of changes in flow routing and water balance (Brauman et al. 2007). Damage to vegetation due to harvesting trees may also im­pact water quality. After harvesting in temperate forests, there is a transient peak in nitrate losses to surface water that may last up to 5 years (Gundersen et al. 2006). More in general, harvesting is associated with increased loss of minerals and nutri­ents to ground and surface water (Pare et al. 2002; Lawrence et al. 2007). Repeated harvesting in dry tropical forests may lead to depletion of nutrients to the extent that primary productivity may be negatively affected (Lawrence et al. 2007). Low­ered primary productivity associated with repeated harvesting has also been noted elsewhere (Nord-Larsen 2002). Soil erosion due to harvesting trees may also be substantial (Pimentel et al. 1981). In arid environments dominated by shrubs, over­harvesting may lead to loss of vegetation cover and biodiversity that may lead to desertification, including an increase in Aeolian processes such as erosion and the transportation and deposition of sand (Brown 2003; McNeely 2003).