3 ms·
They also destroy invasive species: plants, animals, bugs. Native species evolved long ago to deal with fire. Research has also shown its net carbon negative.
by exabrial 3y ago
They also destroy invasive species: plants, animals, bugs. Native species evolved long ago to deal with fire.
Research has also shown its net carbon negative.
- steve_adams_86 3y agoIntuitively I’d guess the carbon is net negative because so many forests require fire in order to differentiate strong, durable trees from weaker ones, which then opens the canopy, returns nutrients to the soil, and creates conditions more like we see in old growth forests which are able to store absolutely massive amounts of carbon compared to young (even very dense) forests. Not only that but they store water better, too. They’re less likely to burn as they stay wetter later in the dry season and hold onto rain and atmospheric moisture far better. Cutting down old forests was a much worse idea than anyone would have guessed.
- exabrial 3y ago> Cutting down old forests was a much worse idea than anyone would have guessed. It's species dependent.. Cutting down trees that take 250 years to mature probably isn't sustainable for example. However, logging can be a carbon negative practice if done with correct practices and the correct species. You're literally taking the mass of the air and turning it into a useful building material. I'll try to find a source
- jonnycomputer 3y agoWhy wouldn't non-native species also be adapted for fire?
- exabrial 3y agoThey’re not from there and there’s no evolutionary pressure to maintain traits that they don’t experience in their home habit.
- jonnycomputer 3y agoIf they are occupying the same environment then the same argument applies to native species no longer regularly exposed to fire. But unless its being actively selected against, then it disappearing through random drift alone would, I'd think, be a pretty slow process, even by evolutionary timescales.