4 ms·

1) Fire is a necessary part of many forest ecosystems. 2) Forest fires have been controlled and contained for the last ~100 years on the west coast of America.

1) Fire is a necessary part of many forest ecosystems. 2) Forest fires have been controlled and contained for the last ~100 years on the west coast of America. 3) Forests are not being burned at anywhere close to the rate that they would naturally. 4) Fire is not the process by which these places became arid.

pvaldes 6y ago
1) As I said before, fire is just a chapter in a bigger history The problem is that we can't survive just with this technique anymore, because we desperately need more forests in a "safety level of rainforest" or close to it, to have any chance to heal the climate. Unless we create a CO2 extracting machine, trees, plants and algae are still our best bet. This rhetoric of "lets manage ecosystems as they did in the roman empire", maybe could work 200 years ago but now we are in a different situation. 4) Places became arid in part because there is not topsoil anymore, so nobody can grow here enough fast, so there is not water storing creatures anymore. This happens often by past fires followed by rains that first mineralize the soil, then turn it into dust and then wash it down the streams in a mud flood. Removing mechanically the dry weeds, would have the same effects but without the counterparts.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  And we should not forget that prescribed fires kill the new sapplings, so the forest can't regenerate from this point and start decaying. We don't see it because they decay very slow, but this does not change the fact that a forest can not grow anymore in this places. Is just a logging reserve.
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    Trees will pop out a new batch of seeds the next year. trees will plant themselves more trees. The idea for controlled burns is to do them once a decade or so.
  - Thetawaves 6y ago
    This conveys a lack of understanding of the lifecycle of a forest. When old and dead trees are removed, there are more resources available for new growth. Yes, available light/water/nutrients are the limiting factor on new growth in any forest ecosystem.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      This conveys a lack of understanding of the lifecycle of a forest. When old and dead trees are removed, there are more resources available for new growth. Yes, available light/water/nutrients are the limiting factor on new growth in any forest ecosystem. (...talking about lack of understanding, here comes the tunnel vision) Hem, not. Obviously. Is several levels more complex than that. You forgot at least two really big factors here.
- Thetawaves 6y ago
  Fires are not a major cause of erosion. I'm not sure why you would think that - fires do not obliterate the organic material that binds soils together. You are conflating human land clearing with forest fires. Any loss of plant life due to a forest fire is quickly replaced as new growth is able to take advantage of new light/water/nutrient resources.
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    There's a reservoir near where I live (SW US) that was nearly filled in from erosion after severe fires. They had to go in and clean it out with equipment. You can see the large scale erosion on the hillsides. This was 100% caused by the fire. But, it was a massive uncontrolled fire. A lower temperature controlled burn may (probably?) not have caused that. Also if it had not occurred on such steep slopes maybe erosion wouldn't have been such a problem.
    - Thetawaves 6y ago
      What impact did this have? Is this a problem because humans built a reservoir there? Have those ecosystems recovered? How long ago? And what of those ecosystems down stream that would have benefited from the influx in nutrients?
      - mythrwy 6y ago
        Other then impacting the human made reservoir (and roads and other structures) I don't know that it was a real problem at all (for the natural world), you may have a point. The erosion was quite heavy though as the fires were followed by very heavy (and unusual) torrential rains. You could see the deep channels in the slopes and the roads were also covered with sediment. They had to bring in heavy machinery for that as well. The area is recovering nicely now, it's grass with small saplings and I was up there this year and didn't really see any new erosion at all.
mythrwy 6y ago
I agree with your point and disagree with parent. Fires are natural and are needed. But I remember reading (somewhere) part of the reason Australia became arid is repeated mass burning by Aboriginal people. Anyone know how true that really is (or is not)?

pvaldes 6y ago

1) As I said before, fire is just a chapter in a bigger history The problem is that we can't survive just with this technique anymore, because we desperately need more forests in a "safety level of rainforest" or close to it, to have any chance to heal the climate. Unless we create a CO2 extracting machine, trees, plants and algae are still our best bet. This rhetoric of "lets manage ecosystems as they did in the roman empire", maybe could work 200 years ago but now we are in a different situation. 4) Places became arid in part because there is not topsoil anymore, so nobody can grow here enough fast, so there is not water storing creatures anymore. This happens often by past fires followed by rains that first mineralize the soil, then turn it into dust and then wash it down the streams in a mud flood. Removing mechanically the dry weeds, would have the same effects but without the counterparts.

pvaldes 6y ago
And we should not forget that prescribed fires kill the new sapplings, so the forest can't regenerate from this point and start decaying. We don't see it because they decay very slow, but this does not change the fact that a forest can not grow anymore in this places. Is just a logging reserve.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  Trees will pop out a new batch of seeds the next year. trees will plant themselves more trees. The idea for controlled burns is to do them once a decade or so.
- Thetawaves 6y ago
  This conveys a lack of understanding of the lifecycle of a forest. When old and dead trees are removed, there are more resources available for new growth. Yes, available light/water/nutrients are the limiting factor on new growth in any forest ecosystem.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    This conveys a lack of understanding of the lifecycle of a forest. When old and dead trees are removed, there are more resources available for new growth. Yes, available light/water/nutrients are the limiting factor on new growth in any forest ecosystem. (...talking about lack of understanding, here comes the tunnel vision) Hem, not. Obviously. Is several levels more complex than that. You forgot at least two really big factors here.
Thetawaves 6y ago
Fires are not a major cause of erosion. I'm not sure why you would think that - fires do not obliterate the organic material that binds soils together. You are conflating human land clearing with forest fires. Any loss of plant life due to a forest fire is quickly replaced as new growth is able to take advantage of new light/water/nutrient resources.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  There's a reservoir near where I live (SW US) that was nearly filled in from erosion after severe fires. They had to go in and clean it out with equipment. You can see the large scale erosion on the hillsides. This was 100% caused by the fire. But, it was a massive uncontrolled fire. A lower temperature controlled burn may (probably?) not have caused that. Also if it had not occurred on such steep slopes maybe erosion wouldn't have been such a problem.
  - Thetawaves 6y ago
    What impact did this have? Is this a problem because humans built a reservoir there? Have those ecosystems recovered? How long ago? And what of those ecosystems down stream that would have benefited from the influx in nutrients?
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      Other then impacting the human made reservoir (and roads and other structures) I don't know that it was a real problem at all (for the natural world), you may have a point. The erosion was quite heavy though as the fires were followed by very heavy (and unusual) torrential rains. You could see the deep channels in the slopes and the roads were also covered with sediment. They had to bring in heavy machinery for that as well. The area is recovering nicely now, it's grass with small saplings and I was up there this year and didn't really see any new erosion at all.

mythrwy 6y ago

I agree with your point and disagree with parent. Fires are natural and are needed. But I remember reading (somewhere) part of the reason Australia became arid is repeated mass burning by Aboriginal people. Anyone know how true that really is (or is not)?