The statement that "most silviculture is little more than tree farming" is wildly inaccurate in most places except the US southeast, Chile, New Zealand, some parts of Europe and China, and latterly, pulp plantations in southern Brazil.
In most of north America, forests are managed as semi-natural habitats with minimal intervention after logging, or not managed at all. Even planted forests fairly rapidly develop species compositions and stand structures that resemble naturally regenerated forests of similar age. There is also a very large literature on the subject of using silviculture to create, maintain, or emulate habitat structures. As for "tree farms", I suspect (though I can't prove) that most intensively managed plantations are way more diverse than an intensively managed cornfield. But back to the central subject. I get the feeling form the way this thread has gone that people see Ecology as a "pure" science, while "environmental science" is always applied. If that is true (and I am a bit skeptical about the rigidity of the division), should we be teaching them as wholly separate subjects in wholly separate courses? Andy
