One of the differences that I have seen occur is the introduction of harvest retention schemes. Non silvicultural researchers have often attempted to introduce new "silvicultural systems" when in reality they should be stating that they are integrating a new harvest retention scheme with a silvicultural system. Retention schemes have been devised to conserve compositional, structural and functional diversity. Retention trees may have negative consequences on forest regeneration that is oriented toward fibre production.
I've also been involved in the introduction and use of definitions for objective based silvicultural intensities (see Bell et al. 2008)
I'm witnessing greater use of mixed species plantations (see Bell et al. 2017)
Earlier being the discipline of forestry management, classical silviculture aimed at influencing the growth of forest stands and individual trees in such a way that the forest is better able to fulfill the demands made of it. Usually an increase in value and stability as opposed to natural hazards are in the foreground. It was based on classical forest regulations, coup felling and concept of normalcy and normal forest. Now, classical silviculture is changed from classical to adoptive silviculture. No coup felling since now normalcy does not exist in the forest and we remove the wood based on societal requirementschanging demand and objectives.
You may also kindly look at MANAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY, AND FISHERIES ENTERPRISES – Vol. II - Silviculture Around the World: Past, Present, and Future Trends - Patrick J. Baker, Jeremy S. Wilson, Robert I. Gara
One of the differences that I have seen occur is important of ecology aspects in forest management. The Classical silviculture aimed at yield class in forestry but
modern silviculture use virgin forest properties in forest management.