4 ms·
One thing that is hard for people to conceptualize is the difference between old growth forests (which are exceedingly rare) and secondary growth forests. Repl
by bparsons 3y ago
One thing that is hard for people to conceptualize is the difference between old growth forests (which are exceedingly rare) and secondary growth forests.
Replanted, secondary forests are what most people are familiar with. They tend to have one or two types of tree, maybe some scrub brush on the ground, and whatever fell over in previous seasons. These forests tend to be very vulnerable to wildfire. The ground gets dried out really quickly, the stuff on the ground is pretty minimal, and under summer conditions, it is a tinder box.
Most people have never actually been into a true old growth forest. The ground can have a few feet of wet moss, plants, and fungi that overtakes the fallen trees and breaks it down. The ground is usually soft, even in the dead of summer. Under really extreme conditions these forests can still be vulnerable, but they have far more robust defenses against fire than the secondary growth.
Water management is also a big piece of this puzzle. Rivers, creeks and lakes are supposed to spill their banks every spring and soak everything around it. When you divert, contain and withdraw trillions of liters of water, you are creating a lot of unintended consequences down the road. The soil can hold onto a lot of water over long periods of time --- especially if there is significant vegetation on top of the soil to protect it.
The discussion about controlled burning is important, but it pales in comparison to the broader conditions that are driving the trend.