We compared the dead wood (DW) conditions of Cheshmeh-sar forest and Sardab forest with different management history,including reserve forest and harvested forest. The First forest took 100% inventory from all the available DW. Also dead trees were compared interms of species, shape, location and quality of fracture in both forests.Volumes of dead wood in Cheshmeh-sar and Sardab forests were 207.47and 142.74 m3, respectively. Due to this significant difference, impact onthe management level was determined. In Cheshmeh-sar forest, 42% ofdead trees were standing and 58% were fallen type while in Sardab forest 38.6% were standing and 61.4% fallen. But the difference was not statistically significant between them (p = 0.0587). In terms of quality, dead trees of hard, soft and hollow had the highest frequency, respectively.However, 71.5% of DW was seen as hard dead in Cheshmeh-sar forestwhile hard dead trees in Sardab forests were 54.2%. Soft quality degree ofdead trees which formed in Cheshmeh-sar and Sardab forest were calculated as 26.6% and 43.4% respectively. Also 30% of the dead trees of Sardab forest were eradicated while in Cheshmeh-sar this amount was reduced to 12%. Due to this significant difference ((Р=0/018), it is concluded that the type of management and human interference are affecting the quality of dead trees and makes us to think the human interferences could effect on the ecosystem of touched forests. We compared the dead wood (DW) conditions of Cheshmeh-sar forest and Sardab forest with different management history, including reserve forest and harvested forest. The First forest took 100% inventory from all the available DW. Also dead trees were compared interms of species , shape, location and quality of fracture in both forests. Volumes of dead wood in Cheshmeh-sar and Sardab forests were 207.47 and 142.74 m3, respectively. Due to this significant difference, impact on the management level was determined. In Cheshmeh-sar forest, 42% ofdead trees were standing and 58% were fallen type while in Sardab forest 38.6% were standing and 61.4% fallen. But the difference was not significant significant between them (p = 0.0587). In terms of quality, dead trees of hard, soft and hollow had the highest frequency, respectively. However, 71.5% of DW was seen as hard dead in Cheshmeh-sar forest and hard dead trees in Sardab forests were 54.2%. Soft quality degree ofdead trees which formed in Ches Hime-sar and Sardab forests were calculated as 26.6% and 43.4% respectively. Also 30% of the dead trees of Sardab forest were eradicated while in Cheshmeh-sar this amount was reduced to 12%. Due to this significant difference ((Р = 0/018), it is concluded that the type of management and human interference are affecting the quality of dead trees and makes us to think the human interferences could effect on the ecosystem of touched forests.