6 ms·
In response to the subtitle asking whether these species can help revive burnt areas: I doubt it. It is true that some species are specially adapted and even ne
by zahma 4y ago
In response to the subtitle asking whether these species can help revive burnt areas: I doubt it. It is true that some species are specially adapted and even need burnt vegetation to thrive (eg. There’s a bird species I believe endogenous to the Yosemite area whose name I can’t recall). However, these species occupy a particular niche much like I expect fungi or bacteria do. For them to restore an ecosystem naturally implies balance. There is nothing balanced about the intensity and frequency of fires, which are in large part anthropogenic. Maybe there are some species that are adaptable but I just don’t see this as some kind of panacea.
- uoaei 4y ago> There is nothing balanced about the intensity and frequency of fires I urge you to read about indigenous wildland fire management techniques. Also check out the 'forest fire' cellular automata model. You speak of niches as being exclusive, but ecosystems are composed of bubbling foams of overlapping, interacting niches, which merge, split, re-combine, etc. as the ecosystem progresses through modes of dynamic equilibrium. Any wildland will have fires; a mechanism for integrating those fires into the ecosystem's dynamics is inevitable, because nature operates as a ruthlessly exploitative force when a new element is introduced to an ecosystem. Thus, a niche is identified, and organisms fill it. TFA reports only on the inevitable conclusion of the natural course of things. > just don’t see this as some kind of panacea Why do you think the author is arguing that it is?
- zardo 4y ago> There is nothing balanced about the intensity and frequency of fires A correct statement, the intensity would be lower and the frequency higher without human intervention.
- bluGill 4y agoNot always. Traditional cultures often lit fires yearly, while non human causes wouldn't be as frequent.