Salvage logging is to cut down trees damaged by something to protect the rest of the tree (fire damage, disease, etc.).
> "the term 'salvage' is appropriate for operations in which the primary objective of postfire logging is economic..."
From the link the parent posted, it sounds like there's little evidence that it does any of that (the things you mentioned). [1] [2]
The one paper cited on Wikipedia as being pro-logging goes against it in the conclusion:
> "We know enough about both logging activity and structural change to recommend caution. Although ground-based logging activity could mitigate for erosion problems under certain conditions, it is more likely that it will either have no effect or produce more sediment than that is produced by the fire..." [3]
This was published in 2000. I stand by my original comment. Humanity reaps what it sows.
I'd be interested to see contradicting evidence if there is any. My comment came from reading the Wikipedia article.
[0] pg 1. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/195...
[1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5759/352
[2] http://www.californiachaparral.com/images/Lindenmayer_et_al_...
[3] pg 21. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/195...
If 4 billion trees were affected in only a few years, people couldn't have chopped down so many trees, couldn't they? If there were natural resistant chest nuts at least a few should have endured.