4 ms·
It's more popular than elsewhere. In Italy where I grew up, it gets very little support. I now live in Sydney and in the past 10 years I became used to periodic
by mastazi 5y ago
It's more popular than elsewhere. In Italy where I grew up, it gets very little support. I now live in Sydney and in the past 10 years I became used to periodically having smoke from planned burning. I can't imagine something like that would go down well back in Italy.
I was wondering if there are climatic/ecological differences that make controlled burning more effective / less disruptive for the ecosystem in some places compared to others.
- oh_sigh 5y agoIronic considering the number of farmers that do controlled burns on their farms in Italy.
- mastazi 5y agoYes that's true about Italian farmers! I grew up on a farm and we had controlled burnings every now and then. But when speaking of forests/unmanaged land/natural parks, there seems to be a much different sensitivity. At least among people that I know[0], there is a widespread belief that when a forest burns it will never recover to its original state, or it will do it only after an exceedingly long time[1]. The same belief doesn't apply to agricultural land[2]. [0] Obviously this is just based on my direct experience, maybe in different parts of Italy or in different social circles it would be different. [1] Again, I think this is more true in some environments than others - for example I seem to remember reading that, for tropical rainforests, the recovery time is very long. I don't know much about this topic though. [2] Even though it's probably the case that agricultural controlled burning affects aspects such as soil biology, beneficial species, pests, etc.