3 ms·
> … I continue to see eye-popping misinformation in prominent outlets like The New York Times. A widely shared article written by Jill Cowan (“California Fires:
by bumbledraven 5y ago
> … I continue to see eye-popping misinformation in prominent outlets like The New York Times. A widely shared article written by Jill Cowan (“California Fires: Why This Year Is Different”) made no mention of fire suppression as a major contributing factor, and bizarrely and falsely claimed that “burning Redwoods and coniferous forests” was “alarming” (neither Ms. Cowan nor her editors seem to realize that Redwoods cannot reproduce without fire).
- not_kurt_godel 5y agoThey're probably unaware because it's not true. The source he cited (https://www.pbs.org/video/nature-why-giant-sequoia-needs-fire-grow/ https://www.pbs.org/video/nature-why-giant-sequoia-needs-fir...) is about Giant Sequoias, not Redwoods.
- vsef 5y agoDespite liking this article and wanting more burns, that last parenthetical is misleading/incorrect. Giant sequoia need fire to reproduce. Coast redwood, which is more common, taller, and what most mean by just "redwood" very much do not need fire and reproduce mostly by stump sprouting. Which they do an awful lot of (source: live in redwood forest, have to cut sprouts back constantly). Coast redwoods are designed for periodic fire and fire suppression does cause problems, like build up of ladder fuel allowing fires to reach the canopy, but reproduction is not an issue.