"Want to restore the planet's ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? The first 200 people to join Planet Wild with my code will get the first month for free at www.planetwild.com/sabinehoss...
If you want to get to know them better first, check out their latest video: Restoring an ancient forest by doing the opposite of tree planting www.planetwild.com/sabinehoss..."
Wildfires have made a lot of headlines recently. Climate change, they say, has made them worse. But some ecologists now say that suppressing wildfires is a bad idea and will just make things worse. You read that right, they say we should just let it burn -- so long as no people are in danger. Does that mean small wildfires are actually good? Let’s have a look.
Paper here: www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #wildfire #climatechange
"I love trees, they are so down-to-earth." This kind of scientific explanations are exactly why i love this channel, doctor.
Noice Woyk, I hoyd dat too🌠✋️
Great channel but insufferable accent
They go to the root of the problem!
@@dr.tonielffaucet5988 De spring is sprung. De grass is riz. I wonder where de boidies is? De boid is on de wing? But dat's obsoid. I always thought, De wing is on de boid...
@TooSlowTube Athiest, Religious and Socalled Skeptics,All of their minds have become Septic. Their Thunkers got Stunkered hiding in their Bunkers while they ate DataCake straight from The One Eyed Farmers Azzes🌠😎
I learnt in secondary school that there are trees that depends on wildfires. Their seeds are fire-resistant, casings are made to explode and spread fire further and only grow properly after they have been through fire.
Pine cones need fire to activate
You get a gold star and some choccy milk
@@FernieSenders What I meant to say is that this should be a common knowledge among relevant parties that are more interested in the topic.
@@backstabbaWell, that’s a nice way to put it. I would have said, Fu¢k Off Fernie. PS Fernie, here’s your Fu¢k Off in advance to your reply to my reply.
@@backstabba I'm pretty sure it is. Still, if you have way more fire than normal, including involving species which don't quite have this relation, then knowing this won't really answer the question of whether and how to interfere or not.
In Northern California where I lived for 27 years, there was a policy of controlled burns in many places so as to reduce the amount of dead wood that would intensify naturally occurring forest fires. This did seem to reduce not merely the incidence of high-intensity fires but also had other beneficial effects such as revitalising ecosystems. Conversely, where conservationists had successfully sued to stop preventive burns (usually because nice expensive houses were nearby) the end result did seem to be much more devastating fires. As people continue to encroach on what little nature there is left, the balance between planned risk reduction versus do-nothing-and-hope-for-the-best will undoubtedly shift even more.
530 represent here. Conservation groups are probably the worst thing to happen to the ecosystem. Instead of leaving it alone and letting it do it's thing that it's been evolved to do for millions of years they want to stop that and control the forest. On south from san francisco they think the fire occurred because of global warming, that's all they want to hear. When in fact our worst fires were caused by PGE. And they were later sued and held liable for it.
There is that but there is the NIMBY effect. The paradise fire was so bad because they didn't want prescribed fires near the town.
Yes!
We've seen this in Australia, too.
I’m a former Arizona forester. We have been doing fuels reduction, thinning, controlled burns, and taking a hands off approach to mild and moderate wildfire for over 50 years. But we have a long history of fire suppression, which led to fuel loading, and facilitated some of the worst fires in our history.
I live near the Mount Saint Helens National Volcanic Monument, and grew up on the mountain before the eruption in 1980. It was heartbreaking to see all those trees destroyed, and we were told at the time it would be a hundred years before anything would grow there again. Happily, those naysayers were wrong and within only a few years things were growing there again. Today, 44 years later, it's beautiful again. The great stands of trees are not back yet, but we're getting there. It's beautiful today in a different way than it was when I was a child.
Hello fellow PNW'er. We love the area. The Lewis River area is really nice.
Yep, clever people suffer from Dunning-Kruger.
@@christopherellis2663 Also, papers based on common sense don't sell publications or get follow-up research grants.
@@christopherellis2663and many not so clever one too.
Intelligent people doing nonsense. That must be a first.
I live in Oregon and so, maybe a bit closer to the problem. Of course, it is more complex. 1) Prevention is (like controlled low intensity burns) are part of the Forest Service's budget BUT when we have more wildfires than was in the budget then they cut the prevention budget and move that money to remediation. 2) No one likes wildfires (good or bad) because it makes the air smoky and closes their favorite hiking trails so, controlled burns are not popular with the public. 3) People have moved into the forests (living amongst the trees is pretty) and they are not generally OK with having their house burn to help the forest recover. Yes, we manage our yards but what about the acres of adjacent space. A burn there puts your house at risk but clearing the brush manually (without fire) is not practical.
We really need to reconsider the ban on controlled burns in some states. It would help to eliminate high intensity fires with controlled low intensity burns.
The flip side is that if a controlled burn gets out of control, the person (or organization) that started it is liable for the damages. (*) I lived in costal California. The sundowner winds come off the desert, heating by compression (adiabatic heating), the wind at 80 mph, and the humidity at 5%. A spark at the top of the mountain will start a fire that jumps freeways, all the way to the sea. In the morning, the dire hotspots will reignite, and with the onshore wind burn back up the mountain. That rush in the night only burned the canopy; now it's clearing the underbrush. (*) my favorite complaint: "the fire you started made my asthma worse!" and off to the lawsuit races...
We've always had these in Australia. They are called 'Burn-off's. I thought it was normal in other countries as well. Don't understand the ban.
native are very good at it!!!😉✌
I feel like what is happening now is rediscovering the knowledge of old foresters, which are blocked by crazed ecologists that think they know everything better.
@@geraldfrost4710 You lot will do anything but actually do forest management. In the UK and Canada, we cut down large fire breaks between the trees so that it's impossible to get forest fires like the US. The cause of your forest fires are either laziness, stupidity or money saving. Though it actually ends up costing more money to allow the damages, than to do the forest management so really it comes round to stupidity again lol.
The failure or refusal to do fuel reduction burns as part of forest management causes far more devastation in the long run. Australia and California are prime examples. Environmentalists need to distinguish between 'conservation' and 'preservation'.
I think the logging industry wants more wildfires because they get to harvest what’s left from an area that might be protected for many decades. Western civilization is built on waste.
Yeah it's the environmentalists not all the voting home owners who bought homes in places that should be left to burn.
For the most part it is not environmentalists who are the problem, it's moreso the public being misinformed and property owners.
I also learned about the amazing life cycle of sequoias and the role of fire in it while visiting King's Canyon and Yosemite national parks. It was some 25 years ago. They already made controlled fires in California at the time and they have already happened to get out of control (I've seen one which did). The problem is we have already suppressed fires for too long and there is too much underbrush for the fires to be safe for old trees. So we have a conundrum.
Yes they do, but there is a cycle to this fires and this cycle has shortened to the point, that the trees do not reach maturity anymore.
Australian Aboriginals traditionally burn out thousands of acres each year, we are not allowed to say anything against first peoples or their traditions, but Cooktown used to be home to huge rainforest area’s and now there is very little left mainly along creeks edging, every year a fire goes through an area the rainforest recedes several metres, every year it has no fires the rainforest grows out a few metres. For billions of years there has always been plenty of naturally started fires to keep tree species going without human intervention. While fires may have some benefits like sterilising disease from cropping land, it is mostly destructive.
Trees are made to harvest.
@@evil17 I don't know about Australia, but here in the US the ecosystem literally would not function if you did that.
In Australia they are realising that more low intensity burns helps prevent catastrophic fires. And many species of trees and plants in Australia rely on fire for propagation. But a catastrophic fire leaves scorched earth that destroys the seeds that would survive a less intense fire. And now Australia has a policy of more frequent human induced burns to help prevent the catastrophic fires. But of course that costs money and is controversial in some areas. When a human induced fire gets out of control and destroys property or kills people, the bad press from that tends to turn people against human induced burns. That is very unfortunate all around.
Experts have known this for a long long time. It's politics and the 'save the trees' attitude since the 80s and 90s that caused all the fines etc for trying to minimise the damage. The 2009 fires were so bad that the ground was sterilised. Usually you get new growth on the old trees but many areas had minimal or no new growth for a long time.
The main cause of huge fires in Australia is the English colonization and not learning from the indigenous Australians how to deal with the Australian nature. The English colonizers removed 2/3 of forest cover in Australia and the rest is in national parks that are crown land belonging to the English monarch and maintained by the states. For as long as these English colonizers are able to keep the fires away the forest gets thicker and thicker and becomes a bomb ready to explode. These English occupying Australia need to understand that they cannot apply English fire regimes in Australia and need to get over their superiority complex and talk to the indigenous Australians.
@@lukei6255 Sorry about the late reply. I agree that the European colonizers and their ignorance about the land were to blame for a lot of it. But do not be under the illusion that Aboriginals were custodians of the land like some seem to be. Aboriginals did use fire as a tool for all sorts of things including hunting. And it was for their benefit they did this, not for the benefit of the land. That was a side effect. When you take a species out of the picture, even humans, there are consequences.
aboriginals knew this for tens of thousands of years they invented back burning
If you talk to an old Ozzie farmer, they will tell you that low intensity winter fires were always used every winter to prevent catastrophic summer fires. Winter fires are generally low intensity, don't reach the canopy and burnt slow enough for the vast majority of animals could get out of the way. This was something learnt from Aboriginal practices. Along came the misguided greenies and stopped the practice. They're responsible for the deaths of countless small furry animals including Koalas.
“I love trees. They’re so down to earth”. Nice one.
A century and a half of fire suppression is a major factor leading to bigger wildfires.
No it's the complete lack of management, meaning cleaning the underbrush and moving out the fallen trees, The result severe fires and hundreds of decaying roads where the trees were moved out and used for construction. Thanks to the so called environmentallists. Fire suppression is to prevent villages and people to die!
which even hurts the species that require fire to propagate, low intensity fires provide enough heat to continue the life cycle, even if killing the parent tree a high intensity fire would burn even the seeds to ash
when we stopped doing controlled burns (intentional low-intensity intentional fires) the size of fires in America exploded. Forestry reduced the acrage of fires by 90% from 1900 to the 1990s. Returning to actual forestry as practiced before the "smart people" decided natural was best would return us to that era.
@@noneofyourbusiness5326 they technically have a point. Nature is best....for nature. Even if the whole of California was engulfed by a wildfire, in 5 to 10 years, it'd be okay again. Although humans will be dead. xD Controlled burns are the middle ground between best for nature and best for people.
Over management but also mismanagement. In some cases theyve done too much but in others they just do nothing like they let dry brush near peoples homes build until a bananas wildfire is likely, they need to do controlled burns or if people wont allow that near their fancy expensive houses then they need to cough up the taxes to pay for having the forest manually thinned and cleared of brush.
"humans have turned much of the Scottish Highlands into monocultures, harvested only for timber" so this is why they have a 20% bonus for wood gathering rate in Age of Empires II
Noncence, scots pine is indigenous to scotland and there is only a population of only 7 million, there is vurtually no farming in the highlands which means there is no monoculture and the highlands are sparsely populated.
The UK generally is actually a very extreme example of managed forests- almost every single forest in the country was put there by people and is not 'natural' or 'wild' because they were managed for so long. It's true that many of the sites of the forests represent areas where there were ones naturally, but where all the trees grow, and specifically what trees are there has long since been decided by humans
Basically most natural forests were cleared out where human live by 19 century. Even in Canada.
look at australia its the newest country, still area where the trees would have always been, the rest we scrub chained, england dont have a desert so tree would have been everywhere the houses and draw bridges didnt grow from thin air believe it or not
This is pretty old news, actually. There is also one major aspect the video doesn't cover: The main reason why fires are so often quenched far too soon is the fact that human habitations have encroached into forested areas so much. That's why the "only quench the fires if humans are threatened" argument is so problematic: Humans shouldn't be living there in the first place.
I remember in elementary schools learning about how southern pines (we were in the southeast US) need fires to release the seeds and that occasional wildfires were an important part of the ecology. This was in the 60s, and it was already well-understood.
And not just forest houses. In many places, they do it to "preserve" tourist locations that bring money.
You may be right, however, who will help those of us leave the woods? Where is there room for us?
@@Cantread807 Cities would be an obvious answer, but obviously it depends on where you live …
Of course humans should live there, this is our planet, we can live wherever the hell we want. But if you're going to live in a forested area that goes through droughts you better have fire breaks and insurance or don't complain when your house burns down.
The indigenous people of Australia have used 'cool burning' for millennia to prevent massive raging forest fires we see today. Allows trees to propagate their seeds in heat as they are adapted to do without the explosive destruction of the tree itself .....even gives many animals time to get away🦘🦘🦘.....including the cute but invasive bunny species!🐇 Great video!
That is not totally correct. The Aborigines did do low intensity fires in areas in order to encourage the spread of grasslands and attract kangaroos and Wallabies to the fresh vegetation. The Aborigines did not actively burn the "big" forests, certainly not the rain forests. Based on the size of the Mountain Ash trees in Victoria in the 19th Century (they were likely the tallest trees that existed in modern times), many of those forests had not seen fires for Centuries. The areas of Australia that were regularly subject to burning by the Aborigines is now broad acre farmland. The primary cause of the major fires in Australia (which are now being made worse because of climate change) is ecological disturbance. The massive reduction in the numbers of native wildlife, including koalas and forest Wallabies is not appreciated.
Controlled burns have always been benefitial.
Yeah, I dont know how the planet survived before mankind come along, it’s a miracle.
@@evil17 It burned by itself. Large old trees do not get large nor old without fires happening regularly.
Better leave it to nature. When it's about equilibrium, she's the best! It's just that nature has a way of making the best of a bad thing. Nature knows more about physics and evolution than all the scientists who ever lived put together.
@@evil17 300 000 years ago and yes many systems are adapted to it and there for need it to continue.
What???? Remember what happened to Los Alamos NM ???? Lots of other places too.
As a native Georgian with a heavy logging industry, we've known for a LONG time that wildfires can be beneficial to forests.
This has been known to science for nearly a century. US forest especially in the East Coast are completely screwed up because of fire suppression. Forests naturally burn away cover which allows small plants access to light blocked by dense tree cover. And the ashes help to regenerate the soil. Forest fire helps promote healthy forests and increase diversity.
Active forestry management is even better. Often ignored is tge fact that hunter gathers were managing the forest. When the Europeans landed in the Americas forests had not been "natural" for atleast 10,000 years. We confused what we remember(or our direct ancestors remember) as being the natural static state...which is an oxymoron. There is no static state in nature.
Native was small. They were pikers compared to the mechanized termites of today. That’s my opinion.
@@edwardlulofs444 Before we imported Asian Chestnut blight, do you think the number of chestnut trees was an accident? The large open areas that existed for wild berries were engineered through controlled burns. Were there more trees, in the Americas, in 1500 or today? By planting and then harvesting progressively older trees, we limit the undergrowth and dead wood needed to fuel large fires. What we are getting wrong today is homogeneous plantings. We need more diverse forests, but the economic return is not as quuck.
"Hunter-gatherer" is a misnomer, in my opinion. This term implies passive, accidental landscape interactions. When in fact the landscape, at least around here, in northern California, was very actively and purposefully managed and sculpted. Which makes sense, it takes a lot of nutrients to support humans, and activities to increase and improve resources had to happen. Including burning, coppicing, probably transplanting, and so on. Prior to European settlement, people lived reasonably well here, resources were in good shape. Not so now. I don't think the most resourceful, knowledgeable outdoorsperson could live for long here in the wild the way people did prior to 1830 or so, especially without modern tools. The vegetation and wildlife and rivers and lakes have changed too much, and not for the better. Change of subject: I passed by some fire killed giant sequoia in the southern Sierra last fall. These trees could probably have been saved with some judicious white fir thinning or underburning to reduce fuel continuity. Doing nothing is not an option if we want these magnificent trees to survive.
It's almost like nature is adaptive and self-managing at scales we can barely touch. [circle of life playing in background]
It might be more accurate to say that we see the natural states that have been able to persist over tens of thousands of years. The natural states that were not 'self-managing' died out before human observation.
Nature "adapts" by going through a weed stage of whatever will cover bare ground. That’s a fragile, unbalanced, short-lived ecosystem, likely feeds more fire. Though I do agree, nature operates at scale better than we do. And $ free. ;-)
'Nature' ???? "Biosphere in a given climate" - which is changing at an absurd speed. The evolutionary default for events like this is not adaptation but extinction.
@@volkerengels5298 Extinction is a part of nature. Change has always been a constant. Even radical step-function changes are part of that. Humans will always assert their will on the environment and often not be pleased with the result. They don't call it 'wild-erness' for nothing.
To anyone who lives near wooded areas this should seem intuitively obvious. The woods out my backyard are building up dead material at a rate faster than natural decomposition can manage, turning the whole area into a giant tinderbox. The only thing stopping an outbreak in my area is the high amount of ambient moisture. We really only get dry in the dead of winter. But there's so many dead trees and branches out there now the deer have a hell of a time getting around. Every now and then nature needs to wipe the slate clean, and that's one of the vital functions forest fires actually serve.
Yeah it's also really hard for anything new to grow when densely packed tree block out all the light. So fires clean up the floor and open up space for new trees to grow. The only reason people complain about fires that aren't threatening people is because they make the area ugly for a few decades, and a pretty forest is most "conservationist's" main priority.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 I strongly disagree. As a person having a lifetime focus on conservation interests I will say that a conservationist's number one priority is healthy, sustainable ecosystems. "Ugly" burn overs are precursor to rich emergent growth. At no time is a forest more ecologically productive and diverse than 2-5 years after a burn. It's almost magical the vibrancy of life in that period.
@@bradsillasen1972 not if they burn every year. Countries with extreme heat, sunlight and little protection by the government like spain and greece are a great example why we need to preserve what we have.
@@frickxnas Not quite sure what your point is, but who said anything about burning annually? More pointedly, forests don't burn again until regenerated thereby having a sufficient fuel load, i.e., trees or thick brush. That said, prior to climax, regenerating forest communities typically develop an intermediate successional stage of thick brush which certainly increases fuel load and could burn. But, fires generally occur at longer intervals in which succession approaches climax. And of course with mature trees, there is much more to burn and candling and all is magnified, hence higher energy, more aggressive events. Edit: typo and confusing sentence. No change to meaning.
@@bradsillasen1972 in these countries half part of the mountain is burnt due to their attempts to stop the fire but next year due to climate and other conditions the same mountain catches fire again, usually stronger ones and whatever started growing back gets obliterated again. These were wildfires in both situations. Also u dont have to explain to me what communities do etc. i know. The point is we have to act but mostly after the event except if there are people in immediate danger etc. however, for some regions u need to do it regardless due to very slow growing local trees and plants
Forester here : I wholeheartedly agree with Sabine, the Kreiser et al people @ Uni of Montana, and Planet Wild's actions
I went to the Oregon Caves and the workers there told me the caves are being wrecked because without regular wildfires all the organic matter building up on the surface and rotting was destroying them.
We’ve long known that’s the best plan for nature. The minute someone builds in the woods, that plan goes right out the window.
Some ecosystems are wildfire dependent, most are not. This isn't really news to botanists. Important to add that for the most part only areas with seasonal dryness are adapted to wildfires. A species of tree in a year round wet region (like germany) has typically not been exposed to high wildfire intensity throughout its evolution and will therefore not be adapted to it. This is the problem with conservation. There are no easy one size fits all solutions it's really different for every region.
Thankful for your engagement for planetwild and an informative report. Here in the mountains of western Germany many spruces have been planted in the 19th century, that died all in the last years of extreme drought. Many forests are clear-cutting now, and many experts claim the same, let nature do the job. I´m not sure, if it works in every locality, cause on steep slopes, there is a lot of erosion after short time. Interesting to hear about the perspective on another continent. Though I understand, what planetwild does, it´s so sad, to bike through naked areas that you knew as forests since decades, for me it´s tearful too.
"Let nature do its job" is indeed a bit questionable. Greeks and Romans chopped all trees they could find on a number of mediterranian islands. These forests didn't come back over the last 2000 years. Another thing is, German forest owners consider more mediterranian tree types now, because they're naturally more heat and drought resitant. Won't be done by nature on its own, either.
Did no one else learn this highschool? North America's forests are too dense, they were overplanted by loggers over the past few hundred years (kinda ironic) and why the wildfires get so ridiculous. In a normal North America forest, due to sparsity the fires would naturally reach boundries of no-tree areas and thereby stop spreading. You can actually look at pictures of North American forests 100years ago vs today to see how much more dense WE made them, resulting in the West coast being one giant unbroken tinder box.
As an ecologist, I find that the elephant in the room is often ignored with regard to forest fires. That is we just don't have that many forests left. Today, an increase in the number and frequency of wildfires (large or small) can tip the ecological balance whereby animal communites displaced/destroyed by fire have fewer refuges from which to expand into the post-wildfire habitat that emerges. While under normal, natural, conditions, fewer and smaller fires lead to a better age structure within the forest itself, thereby increasing biodiversity, the same smaller fires in a severely fragmented habitat can often wipe out a significant proportion of the isolated forest and its biodiversity. What returns is an impoverished, less age-structured habitat, which the next generation of conservationists will think is normal and not do anything about it. The cure to the disease, is to allow forests to naturally expand back into the areas of deforestation, and yes, they can expand very quickly! That won't happen though as human habitation and farmland are in the way. ...and it's not just forests, it's natural habitat in general. While to a great extent I agree with the premise given by the published papers, I think the horse has already bolted. Also, I question our ability to assess what fire will be a shallow, skimming the surface (healthy) burn and what could become a deep, extensive (damaging) burn, not that we would be able to do much about it anyway. Believe me, when these things get going, nothing can stop them, and, regarding management, I've seen too many 'controlled' burns get out of control. As regards planting new forests... well, erm... Mother Nature is better at determining that than we are, to a very humiliating extent. On this point, forests aren't just about trees, they're about an entire ecosystem. Also, control of idiots (inclusive of arsonists) would help limit the issue to a degree.
What do you mean we don't have many forests left? Do you mean in the world, the USA, or another specific country? Do you mean fully wild forests or trees in general? The USA has lots of forests. Please don't make such broad statements without something to back them up. This is the knee jerk emotional thinking that gets us into trouble, especially with the environment.
@@purdunetae2995 Natural forests in general, and their intact ecosystem. Around 48% of the original forests have disappeared. Have a cruise on Google Earth to see what I mean.
@@purdunetae2995 Don't be rude! I'm not taling about the USA. I wouldn't be so insular!. I'm talking about primary forests globally. I don't include planted monocultures as they have virtually no biodiversity, mainly due to the non-native species planted. By the way, don't believe the UN figure on forest cover either. They include areas with as little as 10% tree cover as forest, which is ridiculous. Also bear in mind that deforestation has been going on for thousands of years, so you need to look further back in history to get a true idea of what's been happening, not the last 10 years or so. Some of it recovers, much of it doesn't due to the change of land use by Man. ...and I remind you that a tree does not make a forest. It's an entire ecosystem. Take a look on Google Earth to see the change in forest cover for yourself. In fact take a look to see how much natural habitat is left in general, replaced by agriculture, urban sprawl, etc. ..and if you reply to this, make sure you are NOT rude!
This has been known about for a long time in Australia, many native species rely on periodic fires to aid germination, but too hot destroys the seeds. The original inhabitants of the country before european colonisation used to actively manage the landscape by a system of periodic cool burns in a patchwork system. This kept fire intensity down by managing fuel loads and allowed animals to escape to nearby, more recently burnt areas. There's been increasing interest among forestry authorities in using these techniques to manage forests here - especially after the intense and destructive wildfires we've had recently.....
What are you talking about? I literally watch the CFS do controlled burns every year.
Dr hossenfelder , I wanted to tell you thank you for sharing your story about your early days in your career and how you eventually ended up on KZhead. As a young scientist my self, I felt seen and validated by your opinions. “Knowing what to say to get a grant” that both hit home, and sent me down a spiral. But seeing how you have become a beacon for knowledge in a digital world, I would make the argument you are contributing to our scientific advancement more than anything else you could have worked on in a lifetime. Inspiring the next generation Thank you again dr hossenfelder.
Well, perhaps. But have you seen her paper with Lee Smolin? It looks really important to me. I will bet she will do both activities excellently. She is young and has a long career ahead no matter what she does.
@@edwardlulofs444 Einstein did pretty well for science while a patent clerk. It can often be a positive thing to be out of academia.
And why wouldn't you post this on the actual video where this topic was discussed instead of some other random video on the channel? Doesn't give me hope for your future scientific pursuits if this is your idea of correlation.
@@LWT80 stay angry for absolutely no reason 🤣😭
@@LWT80 yes I know. I haven’t gotten back to do it. And don’t worry, I see no scientific future. But I see happiness. 😊
Something similar was noticed after the great storm of 1987 over the south of England. Whole woodlands were blown down and there was a great effort to clear and replant them. Later it was noticed that the few devastated areas which had been left to nature had grown back as well as or better then the ones that had cleared and replanted. Many of the imported and planted tree saplings didn't do so well.
There’s soo many factors that would go into “letting it burn.” But I understand the overall argument.
Thank you for covering this topic Sabine. I live in the Pacific Northwest, near the giant redwoods. For many years, we have been engulfed by wildfires every summer. Effective forest management is critical to preserve what remains.
In Australia the aboriginal people used what is known as cold burning. It was controlled slow burning of our forests and grasslands that benefited the ecosystem by not allowing hot fires to destroy the ecology of the areas they managed. Worth looking into, particularly as climate change is tending to increase the severity of bushfires..or wildfires as North Americans call them.
Thinking exactly the same things while watching this video!
Your typical CFS does it quite regularly it's not some unknown arcane knowledge.
@@bojangles2492 Not on a large enough scale, that's a funding and ignorance problem. Not having a go at the fire services they do what they can.
Fuel load is increasing the intensity of wildfires, it has nothing at all to do with 'climate change'.
Prescribed burns (intentionally started controlled burns) are the solution. After the hellish fires of a couple of years ago here in California there was a major shift with the viewpoint on this. Now in my local forests there is a prescribed burn almost every week. I'm glad to see it. Most of the time a prescribed burn can take out the undergrowth and bult-up dead material but keep the trees alive. The undergrowth grows back rapidly but the dead material takes years to re-accumulate. As far as re-planting trees, DO IT! I could bring you to forests here that were gutted by wild fire 20 years ago that still don't have any trees. I don't think they are coming back. I'm sure we don't know why. Humans have done a lot to disturb nature. It's quite likely we've done something to prevent natural reforestation.
This is old news to many of us. Much of the native vegetation of Australia expects there will be fires to enable new growth, otherwise the seeds don't germinate. The old (USA) Smokey the Bear campaign was a naive and counterproductive exercise, eventually: the tagline of the Smokey Bear campaign was adjusted in the 2000s, from "Only you can prevent forest fires" to "Only you can prevent wildfires".
We've known this is australia for a very long time. When you allow the fuel to pile up you get fires so strong and intense that they sterilise the area. The 2009 bushfires in Australia are a good example of this. Lots of areas had no new growth the next year and a few after.
California used to make land owners clear property of debris and brush every ten years to prevent fires. That stopped about 15 years ago. It’s all privately owned, and lobbying got the laws changed. The power company, PG&E, has also caused a lot of the fires, and they’ve managed to pass the costs onto rate payers. Again, lobbying.
Wait. What?? Why??? They need to keep doing that. Is this why we're getting all of those housing insurance issues in CA then? Or at least a fair portion of them? I heard about someone who didn't clear up their yard recently who lived in a forested area in CA, and boy was I disappointed as that is something all Californians should know -- only thing was that person wasn't someone who originally lived in California
There is a Max Planck Institute with a Feuerökologie Departement in Freiburg. Your Video shows so well how big this problem is. But what about Schnellhubers book "Selfcombustion" ?!
My mom worked on a wild land fire crew for the Forest Service during the infamous Yellowstone Summer of Fire in 88. That fire forever changed Forest service wildland policy and doctrine. Having grown up and lived in western Montana for most of my life, one of the big issues the state's forest have been facing has been invasive pine beetles killing off large stands of trees, further exacerbating the fire problems. One of the solutions to this problem has been to thin out tree stands with harvesting and prescribed burns. Properly thinned stands promote good airflow though the area, making the spread of disease and beetles harder.
In the southeastern US they’ve been doing prescribed burns for decades. There’s an old saying. It’s going to burn. You can burn it on your schedule and conditions, or you can let the fire be in control. I travel 35 minutes to work, and every day for the last 6 weeks or so there have been fires burning. Very small fires inching their way through the forest.
What if we managed forests with controlled burns so we didnt have to have mega-infernos? 😅 This isnt an unsolvable problem.
Maybe we could rake the forests 🙃
Letting the low intensity fires burn has been said for a few decades. Before climate change was all the rage. The low intensity fires burn the dead underbrush but don't kill the trees, but if we put those fires out the dead rush accumulates until when a fire does start it is with enough intensity to destroy the trees as well.
(Anthropogenic) Climate Change is real, not a fashion or fiction. It’s just another compounding factor on forest management. Getting so real, it’s overwhelming old certainties.
I fully agree. And it makes me profoundly sad. Thank you, Sabine, for bringing this to common knowledge!
I remember we used to own some forested property and ended up facing hard times. My dad ended up sending a logging company in to fell some trees, since the trees were getting a bit too thick anyway. They took pretty much everything in a few places, but it seemed to grow back pretty quickly. It was kind of cool to see.
Getting into Humanity is better than getting into science. Keep up the good work. ❤️
Yes, Sabine's feelings don't care about scientific facts.
British Columbia (Canada) is 2.65 times as big as Germany British Columbia (Canada) is 2.23 times as big as California (US) We have big fires, we can't let them all burn. We can't manage all the "wild" forests. In 2022, approximately 5,000 tree-planters planted nearly 18 million trees on B.C.͛s Coast and nearly 247 million in its Interior. Efforts are focused on regenerating forests affected by the 2017-18 wildfires and reducing the impact of climate change. We do this every year. It's not just bunnies, it's moose, elk, deer, mountain sheep, mountain goats, bears - grizzly, brown, black, eagles, hawks, owls, cougars, and everything down to the salmon in the rivers and fish in the lakes then the coastal sea creatures in the oceans.
Thank you.
Only wetlands and beavers can prevent big fires. Farmers and poor forest management (Trump is right!) to blame; less moisture in soil. Culture forests burn more and the fires last longer than in native forests. Tip: Restoring land into native forest - The Tīmata Method
and Australia is 97% the size of the USA
@@DaveOz-mx5oh Australia is awesome! and nothing killed :)
@@stigsrnning6459 We ought to rake forests? - this according to Rump.
Complicated subject. (Yes, I am aware of the irony of saying that to a physicist.) The role of fire varies depending on the biome; what works in the interior of British Columbia isn't necessarily true on the coast but the forests in both are tuned to regular burns in one way or another. One thing to consider is that we don't have many forests left, clear cutting and fire and weed suppression have resulted in monoculture plantations that don't have the resilience that a natural forest has. I highly recommend Simone Simard's book "Finding the Mother Tree". It's an autobiography but still a good intro to this aspect of foresty science. I think the public over-estimates how successful fire suppression efforts have been. Fast attack teams can be quite effective but once a big one gets going it often has to be left alone as there is no way to fight it in our mountains especially if it's not threatening infrastructure. A good example is one of the fires on Vancouver Island last summer that cut off traffic to the West Coast for several weeks. It burned on a bluff that the highway was cut into, with a lake a few metres away on the other side of the highway. The fire was out of control for several weeks despite having paved access with a huge water supply mere meters away. Add to that kilotonnes of herbicide killing off shrubs and the soil organisms that help retain moisture, extended summer drought, and a shift to intense episodic rains that run off instead of soaking in and you have a bunch of sick and dying trees. Don't start wandering around in these forest with a moisture meter in the winter, it's not good for your mental health. tl;dr: We're boned. We're going to burn.
Ur accent changed quite a bit over the years. It's more of a British-German now. It is quite unique and suits ur vocal colours. Love it! Ofc i love ur content more. Keep it up
I guess the "let it burn" is valid for healthy, natural grown forests with a bio diverse mix of plant and animal life. Those can survive a fire, or even need it for special trees (Cork oak, Sequoia, some Pines) to germinate. But forests planted for consumption/industrial usage with e.g. fast growing spruce trees in large mono cultures like in Germany will burn down completely, leaving only wasteland. Those "woods" also suffer from storms etc. The only "good" thing a big fire can do here is letting nature restart a healthy growth.
Germany doesn't have any natural forests to speak of - only intensively managed wooded parks, and forestry regions. These are not the same thing at all.
"Let Wildfires Burn", New Nero, circa MMXXIV.
Pass me my fiddle . . .
@@douglasclerk2764Wouldn't that more likely have been a lyre ? I can already hear them strings vibrate.
@@JZsBFF 😁
@@JZsBFF one said lyre, the other said fiddle, therefore one is a liar
@@savagepro9060🤣🤣🤣 Good one but we're both acting in good faith, probably. The only liar here is history, it always is.
I was an initial attack forest fire fighter/incident commander and came to this same conclusion years ago during my training in fire behaviour and forest ecology. But since my formal education was the social sciences and business, very few people cared to listen. I have been preaching this for the last 2 decades. But, since I live in cottage country, perish the thought of having to see burnedover forest outside your camp window for a couple of years, is the reaction in met with. I've seen wild fires rush through old growth forest like it was a grass fire, and if THAT is approaching your camp, you won't have a window to look out of.
Your "dream died" video was awesome. Thanks for sharing. And you are making a bigger difference than you think.
Several plants, besides the sequoia, require the heat of fire to enable the germination of their seeds. This process is known as "fire-dependent germination" or "pyrophytic germination." Some examples of plants that have adapted to rely on fire for seed germination include: Jack Pine (Pinus banksiana): This tree species found in North America has serotinous cones that remain closed until exposed to the heat of a forest fire. The heat causes the cones to open and release the seeds, facilitating regeneration. Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta): Another pine species native to North America, lodgepole pine relies on fire to open its serotinous cones and release seeds for regeneration. Chaparral Shrubs (e.g., Manzanita, Ceanothus): Various shrubs and plants in the chaparral biome, such as manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) and ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), have seeds that are heat-stimulated and require fire to trigger germination. Certain Eucalyptus Species: Some eucalyptus species native to Australia, such as the Eucalyptus pauciflora, have seeds that are stimulated to germinate by the heat of bushfires. Certain Banksia Species: Banksia plants, native to Australia, have seeds that require the heat of fire to open and release the seeds for germination. Certain Grasses and Forbs: In fire-adapted ecosystems like savannas and grasslands, certain grasses and herbaceous plants have seeds that benefit from the nutrients released by fire or the removal of plant litter, which improves soil conditions for germination. These plants have evolved to take advantage of the ecological niche created by fire, using it as a trigger for seed dispersal and germination. This adaptation helps these species thrive in fire-prone environments and ensures their survival and regeneration after wildfires.
Oh I love ceanothus. When in bloom it has large numbers of tiny blue flowers. From a distance they look to me like a puff of blue smoke. Ahh
ChatGPT has such an awful and identifiable writing style that no human would ever use
ChatGPT missed context. High intensity fires over-ride natural fire adaptation. Frequency also, can prevent seed accumulation - hence parks service planting seedlings of trees (not understory). High intensity rainfall events on scorched slopes are compounding factor, wash away soil, nutrients. Climate Change has many weapons - if you are observant, not simplistic. Facts are changing. It’s time to change your mind. Or simplistic LLM.
@@elibeeblebrox1084 yes, so far.
Throughout California, Federal, State and local governments have grossly mismanaged the forests for generations - chiefly through the prevention of natural wildfires which are self-limiting and promote a healthy natural ecology. Prevention of natural wildfires has resulted in the uncontrolled overgrowth of highly flammable species of brush and dense undergrowth plus accumulated dead growth - all of which combined then result in truly “explosive”, exceedingly hot wildfires which cause tremendous damage not only to plant and animal life above ground, but also scarify the soil thus resulting in tremendous environmental damage.
intersting...
I love how Sabine explores claims and discusses ideas and then Google, arbiter of all information, post a wikipedia, arbiter of all facts, article to tell you what opinions you are allowed or supposed to have. We are truly reverting back towards a dark age.
I don't know how fire fits into other ecosystems but here in California it has historically been a very important part of the forests and wild lands. Fire has been used for thousands of years by local tribes for its many benefits. It prevents trees from encroaching on meadows that are graze lands for deer and elk, as well as habitat for various edible roots that used to be very plentiful. It also controlled the acorn weevil so that people were ensured plenty of acorns. What Europeans saw as wilderness was in reality a carefully managed food-scape, where so called hunter gatherers tended the land with the same care and attention a farmer would use on their crops. Sometime in the early 20th century, the government put a stop to the yearly burning that had been done up to that point by local tribes and the philosophy of all out fire suppression on wilderness lands took hold on the US. Combined with over logging and the takeover of faster growing fir that overcrowds and is seceptable to drought and pests, the forests are devastated after 100 years of terrible management. Letting wildfires burn, or bringing back controlled burns in the cooler months is a step in the right direction, but there's more that could be done to bring the forest back into a healthy balance.
The more we work against the planet the more it will work against us. Our arrogance in controlling it could lead us to making mistakes. We need to work with it and shape our environment with care.
There are two schools of thought. The first school believes in letting forest fires burn. They also suggest reintroducing animals such as goats and deers that clear the forest floor from a build up of undergrowth. This less cluttered ground layer means a fire will burn through rapidly causing less damage to established trees. It is a cheap and easy answer. The second school produces expensive firefighting equipment such as aircraft and heavy ground equipment. They have had a large number of lobbyists pushing their theories to politicians, and science to the media, for decades. As a former firefighter and forester I'd be letting goats loose.
You might be just introducing another ecological disaster. Fire-fighters aren’t the only experts with skin in this game.
@iandavies4853 I only mention the firefighter thing because most people who comment on these things haven't their boots start to melt because the fire is still smouldering under a layer of fallen leaves and twigs and the weight of a person compressing it causes it to ignite. Often quite impressively. Dodging 3d infernos is not the best way to spend a summer. The ecological disaster has already happened. Those species such as boar, deer, goats, elk etc have been hunted, or otherwise driven out, to a point where there are insufficient numbers to clear the woodland detritus. The lack of clear ground below the canopy has lead to the extinction of many insects and plants. There are plenty of others with skin in the game, loggers, miners, tourists, people wanting to escape the rat race. There are plenty of people making big money out of forestry and many more making money out of firefighting equipment. People need to decide what they want and why. When they have made the decision they then need to quietly live with the consequences.
@@richardhoare9963 thanks. You mention stakeholders as people with money invested. Unfortunately, ecology itself doesn’t have a bank account. As smart as we are, outcome often unintended. (I do have some first hand experience, both fighting severe forest fires & of ecology.)
@@iandavies4853 I did try to include the disenfranchised stake holders i.e. The flora and fauna. You are correct. The planet is much more complex than people think. There are multiple issues around now that are the result of "Well I thought..." The Aral sea being on the worst.
40yrs ago, I grew up around crop farming; "Suppressing wildfires makes future ones worse" and "its a cycle of new beginnings" was wisdom passed on by most elders that I talked to. It was the basis of controlled field burns. I thought it was only rejected by California. I thought this was common.
That's why I love your show (and you). I, too, have a love for trees, been to Muir Woods, California to see these magnificent Sequoia giants
"When your feeling ain't the same and your body don't want to But you know gotta let it go cuz the party ain't jumpin' like it used to Even though this might bruise you Let it burn, let it burn, gotta let it burn" Albert Einstein
Wildfires can have an effect on quality of life. In northern California when we have wildfires, we can be steeped in wildfire smoke constantly, every hour of every day, for weeks or months at a time. Eventually your air filters are clogged and you can't get new air filters because of the demand. If you try to drive out of the smoke, most of the roads are closed because of the wildfires. I've tried driving south for 200 miles and never got out of the smoke. I have a theory that the wildfires in norcal subside during el nino and pick up during la nina. La nina is just starting. We shall see.
When I was in grad school in the early 1970s, I came across a paper in PNAS that concluded pretty much the same thing, i.e. let 'em burn. In the early 1980s I visited Yosemite National Park. The ranger conducting the tour of a giant redwood grove pointed to a tree about two feet tall. He said it sprouted after a controlled burn about twelve (?) years before. There was in fact a controlled burn proceeding while we were there.
California is my home, so I am familiar with this issue. In desert and semi-desert areas, many plants contain a lot of oil to protect them from the dry heat. But the oil also makes them burn hotter when they do burn. Thus, people often set fires to prevent them reaching full growth. And of course, the fire does cause many native seeds to germinate. Bunnies do run away from the fire, and pocket gophers climb down into their deepest burrows.
Trees take a long time to have an effect on climate change. Yes trees capture carbon, but they also release that carbon after they die. For a given amount of acreage that is close to a power grid, solar panels and wind farms will reduce carbon much faster than trees, by many decades.
Agreed. It is far more important to invest in renewable energy sources. However, planting trees via organisations that help poor people in developing countries is important too.
Processing waste into biochar rather than letting it rot seems like a good idea. I have heard vegetation won’t naturally return to oil any more. Fossil fuels come from a period before organisms had evolved to be able to break vegetable matter down.
“I love trees, they’re so down to earth,” is the best opening sentence I’ve heard all month. ….Why yes, _I am_ the father of two permanently embarrassed children.
I've lived in Australia where bushfires are normal. They suppressed them for a few decades and that made it ten times worse when it finally did (inevitably) cause a massive wildfire that swept the nation. They learned their lesson to just do damage control but not outright prevent them from then on.
In northern Alberta there are fire watch towers. Whenever during a summerly thunderstorm some smoke arises they call in the helicopter to extinguish the fire. Where that leads to we saw in the 2016 Fort McMurray wild fires when the whole area needed to be evacuated and we lost 2400 houses in town. The firestorm becomes so strong with all the fuel lying around, it overwhelms everything that we can throw at it. Forests and fires go hand in hand.
A few years back a wild fire broke out west of me here in Oregon in the Ochoco National forest. The fire lasted for several months. Listening to the news and the so called experts and politicians this was devastating. The idiots couldn't have been more wrong. The Ochoco's is predominately Ponderosa pines. Adult Ponderosa's bark is fire resistant. All the undergrowth burned out and the forest floor the next spring was green and full of wild flowers, it was beautiful!
I’ve been trying to explain to people for years that we need to be doing prescribed burns at regular intervals that would have occurred naturally. For example the south eastern US would have a fire every 3-7 years. One of the worst things we have ever done is the suppression of all fires. Canada has also experienced the ramifications of this policy as well. They had massive forest last year. They also have gotten rid of the vast majority of their forestry service and do little to no prescribed burns. Fires are good we need to stop demonizing them. Areas with prescribed burns have essentially no issues with high intensity out of control wild fires.
Australia has been doing controlled burning leading up to bush fire season for years mainly to reduce build up of excess fuel (grass , dead branches twigs etc). Bushfire management and let it burn are not the same.
Unfortunately parts of the country are really struggling these days, they've been in drought for so long that it's getting too dangerous to do fuel reduction burns :/
Many indigenous nations in Notrh America did do preventive fires in some places to reduce the amount of combutibles on the florr. A couple of decades ago there was an uncontrolable fire at Yellowstone park that got firefighters to even consider thowing bombs to dig a ditch to stop the fire - the rain came before the plan was carried out and extinguished the fire. What happened later was surprising, though: the number and diversity of animals and plants increased!
These forests in North America are pine - evergreen, pinus - forests and the leaves that cover the ground are highly flamable and kill all other plants on the ground.
scientists here in Australia have been finding that it's not the amount of fuel that causes larger fires, it's the density of the fuel. Because of this, some are suggesting ending the practice of backburning, where we light controlled fires to burn off fuel, as evidence shows this just leads to a building up of high density underbrush, increasing the intensity of fires. Something to keep in mind when talking about allowing lower intensity fires to burn, though I doubt these findings could be directly transferred over to the flora of the US.
We see this here in Arizona, USA. In regions where native Americans have control over their forests, they clear underbrush and allow low intensity fires to burn. As a result, they have less destructive wildfires than the rest of the state's forests have (yes, including national forests).
The eucalypt forests in Australia, and many of the native trees and shrubs, also only regenerate due to the effects of wildfires ("bushfires" as they are called in Australia). Seed pods only drop and sprout subsequent to wildfires. Fire services in Australia actually do what is called "back burning", where they will start a fire outside of danger periods in areas where there has been a buildup of combustible material. The idea is that when a bushfire season arrives, there is less fuel available. Like California, Australia is very susceptible to wildfires. Over conservation can lead to extremely dangerous, difficult to control, wildfires.
I still have fond memories of visiting the Sequoia national park in 2014 and can confirm that trees are down to earth. I hear they even go below ground level, but could not see that. In any event, being near these ancient behemoths is truly awe inspiring. Sad to see them suffer. I read that annual controlled burns were practiced by native tribes in Northern California before this was largely banned. They might have had the right idea.
I think we should have more Sequoias in Redwoods here in Connecticut, USA. Although they are only native to certain areas in California/ West Coast usa, they do grow well in other areas in the US if you plant them. For instance, many have been planted here in Connecticut, and they do just fine. The great thing about redwoods and Sequoias is that they grow so quickly, at times 4 to 6 feet per year
I live in an area affected by the forest fires you speak of and it’s widely believed that prescribed burns are the most effective way of preventing future larger fires
Before I even watch, I can say with certainty that some species of trees need fire to propagate. As well, if fires can clear out the underbrush, the next fire and the next won't be as damaging. Let's see what you have to say... Glad to hear you repeating these same things. And I also like the sound of that rewilding membership thing, too, though I can't afford it, being on a tight, fixed budget in a country without free healthcare and with expensive medications. Still, it seems to be a good charity. 😊
You are quickly becoming a respected and cherished resource online, Sabine Hossenfelder.
Man, your sponsor transitions are smooth as hell
I feel so bad for all the innocent animals. Few years back I lived in New Mexico where control burns got out of control, at the time I was growing trees for reclamation, but when I worked for the forest service we were planting mono crops for the lumber industry.
Sabine, check out the 3body problem. It's a high minded sci fi show with a strong emphasis on physics. I think you might like it.
This is an important discussion, there are many nuances to this issue that most people don't understand. It is more complex than it seems on the surface. First of all there is waaaay to much fuel overload in the forests to just 'let them burn'. Much of these overloaded fuels need to be burned in a constructive manner. Many of the forest service personnel that make the decisions are very cocky arrogant people who want to 'leave their mark'. Many are only Text Book foresters. We need to have managed fires to get the fuel loads down before we can go back to natural 'broadcast fires'.
3:34 they should use that simulation to figure out how what to do when people have already been doing suppression for a while
Thank you Sabine. I joined PlanetWild :) let's make this world a better place.
Australian forests have been managed by it's first nations people for thousands of years. Regular small burns keep the fuel levels (dead vegetation) low, making the fires have a lower temperature than if it was left alone. Also several species require fire as a part of their life cycle.
I was born and raised in one of the towns in a redwood forest. The first memory of leaving the state was asking why all trees were baby’s and I was saying that about a 200 year old oak tree
I live near a USA state run forest. Every fall and winter foresters conduct controlled burns. You mention letting small fires burn which is a good idea as it removes accumulated combustibles. Not mentioned is the difference between managed forests and native forests. Our state run forests are managed by a Forest Service that is a part of the Department of Agriculture, think tree farms. Native forests are managed by park services. In many cases management methods and goals differ.
Ooh, Sabine taking about a niche in which I have professional expertise? Nice I can contribute as opposed to say, your physics which often just involves me smiling and nodding. But I live in the American west coast and work for a university in the field of fire and forests. “Let burn” is an option, but not a very viable one out here. Because of fire exclusion most of our forests are not primed for low intensity, cleaning burns. They have the capacity to burn at great intensity quickly, resulting in significantly more flora and fauna mortality, and can exacerbate the problem when you clear a stand and what comes up on the seed bank is not the next generation of fire resistant ponderosa pine, but extremely flammable manzanita. Not to mention how in a hot summer when fires typically burn, it is very easy to lose control and end up torching some town. It is not the historic option either. Native people have burned these areas for thousands of years, regularly, keeping fuels down and encouraging growth of forage and oaks. Native people burned in the fall winter and spring, not during fire season. We can and do that too these days, though it has been an uphill battle getting folks to no longer see fire as the enemy. Climate change is lengthening our fire seasons, and fuels have to be reduced mechanically beforehand to avoid a conflagration, making getting burns in difficult, but no talk of resilient to wildfire forests can be had without including prescribed fire in the equation. Speaking from experience, it is also just a lot of fun to walk around the woods with a drip torch.
Save Our Planet Now!
There are a variety of Banksia trees native to Australia that only release their seeds in a bush fire
Not just Banksias, there are dozens of Australian native plant species that are fire-dependent, pretty much every wattle for a start.
Wildfire exclusion and suppression has lead to unnatural amounts of wildfire fuels to build up leading to way bigger fires than would have been if we had let fire burn these fuels where and when it was safe to do so. Some places like alpine forests way up high haven’t really been affected (They have fire return intervals of 200-400 years whereas much as the woods on the lower elevation slopes which are closer to people have natural burn frequencies of 30-100 years). Even grasslands and arid landscapes are susceptible to big fires when fire is excluded and or suppressed.
What you described is basically what is done in most cases. The number of fires and intensity is getting way worse year after year. We never use to get forest fire smoke in Vancouver but it seems like we get some every summer and somewhere we lose a town in the province to fire. There are always people displaced and die each summer. You can really see a lot of changes taking place.
Vancouver is a perfect example of why this is a problem now. The areas around it were used heavily for timber, keeping the volume of old/large trees down until 70-80 years ago. when you were young, there weren't enough tightly spaced large trees to support a large fire. Now there are, because large scale logging ended, and the trees have been growing since then. Simultaneously the population of the area exploded in the last 20 years, putting a lot more people in the places which are newly at risk for major fires. The answer in areas near towns/cities like vancouver is a mixture of controlled burns, selective thinning, and at least some clearcutting (to create open areas that can't easily sustain a major fire). But as long as there are people who like to 'live by the trees' this will be a difficult policy to enact.
A few decades ago there was a huge fire in the San Diego area - i had an irc-chat with somebody living there - he stated that forests have a strong recovery power - and it will take 10y to restore that forest as it was (from his experience) - i do wonder if that is true..
I wonder also about the problem of soil in these areas. Lack of burning leads to minerals being pulled out but not returned to soil? Is the microbial life dying off due to soil drying out, so reseeding fails? People have tried for decades to replant California forests that have been dying out because the soil can't support any life any more. Have microplastics caused northwest Pacific woodland biome collapse? Have we lost key species like birds, bees, bears, moose, etc, necessary to fertilize soil, replenish microbial and fungal life, spread seeds, etc.? Trees are just a small part of the forest ecosystem. It's really a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
I agree! I live in Australia and not only does fire play a pertinent role in wild lifecycles, but there's no harm in releasing the carbon the trees ALREADY CAPTURED back into the environment. The problem is when humans release fossil fuels (which should have remained captured). This is why I don't mind burning hardwood in a combustion stove over winter instead of using coal powered electricity. I also germinate walnuts and silver birch seeds as plant a few each year. It's all about the carbon CYCLE, and doing our part not to ADD to it.
When in college (early 1970s), we learned that small, natural fires are necessary for forests. As we suppress fires, we build up debris and undergrowth which then supports larger and more intense fires. Why is this a surprise fifty years later?
Indigenous humans in turtle island have a great track record of forest management in the area (which includes controlled burns). They have been stewarding this knowledge since way before colonization... sad that this wasn't included in the analysis
I live in Queensland Australia. There are dozens of native plants that need fire to germinate. Plus the ash helps the soil. I agree, if live lives are not at stake, let it go. The indigenous inhabitants have been back burning for thousands of years.