If the understory trees are mainly invasive (beach, ironwood) do you still suggest maintaining a proportion of 25% non-maple?

There are still good reasons for maintaining 25% non-maple, even though those species are generally viewed in a negative light from a commercial forestry standpoint. A key benefit of that proportion is to maintain a diversity of functions and habitats in the forest, relative to one solely dominated by maple. In the case of both beech and ironwood, they are key food sources for important wildlife species, with beech often serving as the major source of carbohydrates for black bear and ironwood providing a key winter source of food for grouse, turkeys, and many mammal species