3 ms·
I think the suggestion is that the flora ~80,000 ya did not need fire so much as it does today, and that the change in fire requirement was a result of broad-sc
by Jedd 2y ago
I think the suggestion is that the flora ~80,000 ya did not need fire so much as it does today, and that the change in fire requirement was a result of broad-scale, regular, frequent, intentionally lit fires.
Adaptation and species selection has resulted in what we have now -- as distinct from finding ourselves in a land that happens to need regular burning.
Contrast us with comparable latitudes (15-35 from the equator) on other landmasses.
- noelwelsh 2y agoAgreed. That is also my understanding as well. In Brazil, transpiration from the Amazon rainforest produces more water vapour than the amount of water transported by the Amazon river. This is known as an atmospheric river (e.g. [1]) and is now seen as critical to the Brazilian climate. I think the theory is that wide spread burning in Australia destroyed the atmospheric river there, which led to a much drier continent than existed before humans arrived. [1]: https://www.noaa.gov/stories/what-are-atmospheric-rivers https://www.noaa.gov/stories/what-are-atmospheric-rivers
- helpfulContrib 2y ago[dead]