Yep that why our forests are full of flammable eucalypts. Thousands of year of natural and man made fire..There's the small issue of reduction burns making the forest more flammable when it regrows as well...
Yep, used to be alright when we had regular rainfall and surrounding forests to support revegetation and biodiversity, and of course that rainfall would also mean the forest was a lot less likely to burn in the first place, and even if it did - not so out of control/intensely/as far...Yep that why our forests are full of flammable eucalypts. Thousands of year of natural and man made fire..
With more mature trees with less scrappy undergrowth.Yep, used to be alright when we had regular rainfall and surrounding forests to support revegetation and biodiversity, and of course that rainfall would also mean the forest was a lot less likely to burn in the first place, and even if it did - not so out of control/intensely/as far...
It's way more complex than most people realise, in our forests there has been a battle going on for thousands of years between rainforest and wet sclerophyll. As a forest goes longer and longer between fire or man made interruptions the eucalypts get bigger and bigger and further apart. Rainforest species then start to grow under the canopy, this is what a lot of the old growth looks like. Forest like this is quite resistant to burning because of an almost continually damp understory and when it does burn in a drought it gets replaced by eucalypts which mostly regenerate after a fire. If the fire wasn't very intense we get mixed age eucalypts because the old ones are still standing. If the fire was intense we get a eucalypt forest of the same age (look at the remaining regrowth from the 39 fires at the black spur)Yep that why our forests are full of flammable eucalypts. Thousands of year of natural and man made fire..
Ummm not sure you can blame all this on conservatives and logging.No, the main reason for the amount of fuel reduction burning that is done is propaganda. The conservatives have everybody hoodwinked into believing the answer to bushfires, rather than listening to the scientists is fuel reduction burns and that it's got nothing to do with climate change or years of mismanagement by the logging industry.
Of course there is a time and place for fuel reduction but current methods are not based on current science.
Yep agree, only add to the last para.. Man made load reduction burning has been happening for 1000’s of years.. The forest’s didn’t lose diversity in the last 200 years. It has been a vicious cycle of naturalIt's way more complex than most people realise, in our forests there has been a battle going on for thousands of years between rainforest and wet sclerophyll. As a forest goes longer and longer between fire or man made interruptions the eucalypts get bigger and bigger and further apart. Rainforest species then start to grow under the canopy, this is what a lot of the old growth looks like. Forest like this is quite resistant to burning because of an almost continually damp understory and when it does burn in a drought it gets replaced by eucalypts which mostly regenerate after a fire. If the fire wasn't very intense we get mixed age eucalypts because the old ones are still standing. If the fire was intense we get a eucalypt forest of the same age (look at the remaining regrowth from the 39 fires at the black spur)
If the eucalypts are able to finish there life cycle and fall down after 500 years or so the rainforest which doesn't burn takes over.
Of course we came along and fucked the natural cycle, for over a hundred years now we've been maintaining most of our forest for the benefit of loggers which means more flammable eucalypts and bugger all left of the forest types that don't burn easily.
It has been a long time since logging in most national parks but that's a long time by human terms, not in relation to trees that live for 500 years plus or a cycle that occurs over hundreds of years, if not thousands. Some of our newer NP and NP extensions have been logged very recently. Vicforests in particular have a nasty habit of logging the heart out of anything they think might get preserved while they have a chance.Ummm not sure you can blame all this on conservatives and logging.
It's been a long time since logging has been done in our national parks.
When and where would you consider it benificial to conduct fuel reduction burning (serious question)?
Ok I'm really not familiar with this 500 year thing, do we have any 500yo untouched forests on the mainland in SE Australia to base this on?It has been a long time since logging in most national parks but that's a long time by human terms, not in relation to trees that live for 500 years plus or a cycle that occurs over hundreds of years, if not thousands. Some of our newer NP and NP extensions have been logged very recently. Vicforests in particular have a nasty habit of logging the heart out of anything they think might get preserved while they have a chance.
Fuel reduction burns can be beneficial around towns and infrastructure as a way of reducing the heat generated and embers from shaggy bark which without doubt makes the asset more defendable but it also needs to be acknowledged that continual burning will change the forest type making it more flammable.
Yes, there are some left in Victoria. But climate change and no biodiversity buffer around them will kill them off if the loggers don’t get there first.Ok I'm really not familiar with this 500 year thing, do we have any 500yo forests on the mainland in SE Australia to base this on?
I think there are some areas in Gippsland that tick the box here.Ok I'm really not familiar with this 500 year thing, do we have any 500yo forests on the mainland in SE Australia to base this on?
Where exactly?Yes, there are some left in Victoria. But climate change and no biodiversity buffer around them will kill them off if the loggers don’t get there first.
Not sure exactly off the top of my head, but Gippland up in the mountains is the short version. Google old growth forest Victoria.Where exactly?
It works very well in modified and partly (or even non) functional vegetated landscapes. Mostly human managed landscapes. Which in Australia is most of them... unfortunately. Of course, the outcomes are often not entirely positive for remnant ecological systems. But then they're largely fucked anyway for other reasons...When and where would you consider it benificial to conduct fuel reduction burning (serious question)?
Yes, in Gippsland but there isn't much left. I've seen them take trees so big out of it that they can only put a few metres of one log on the back of a truck because the diameter is so big that it would weigh too much if it was the whole length of the truck.Ok I'm really not familiar with this 500 year thing, do we have any 500yo untouched forests on the mainland in SE Australia to base this on?
Okydokey where exactly. You haven't really answered my question, so this partly logged area has never burnt?Yes, in Gippsland but there isn't much left. I've seen them take trees so big out of it that they can only put a few metres of one log on the back of a truck because the diameter is so big that it would weigh too much if it was the whole length of the truck.
Ummm not relevant, a tree that once was.