Re: Testing - fires, a different perspective.

["Karl and Anita Shah-Jenner" <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dirk wrote:
>The ecology of the region depends on fires to clear out the dead plant
litter
>on the ground in order for seed roots to be able to extend down far enough
to
>grow in real soil.

Hmmm, that's what they say in Australia too - that the plant species have
adapted to depend on fire, but the paleobotanists are starting to state the
politically incorrect and unpopular view that after 40 000 years of heavy
burning, the reason we have the plants we do is because that's all that's
LEFT after such abuse :-(

It wasn't a case that they'd evolved, it was purely that they could survive
and many other long vanished species could not!  I'm sure it's different in
your part of the world, you still have mountains that are 'decomposing' and
are exhibiting the normal invasion of plant species (lichens first, then
bryophytes followed by conifers etc)  and clearing out the conifers lets the
angiosperms in for the next step in the process but ....

>Only people think that fire is bad.

..and small furry creatures, the trees that get killed, the fish that die
from the pollutants that result from a fierce burn..  It seems the main
reason we burn in Australia (in the areas where this is still popular) is to
protect humans from the prospect of an uncontrolled bush fire, nothing to do
with the environment :-(

Ecologies that can tolerate fires are all well and good, but I find it hard
to believe that any biosystem really depends on fires.  Another example is
the seeds of the plants here which can only germinate after a fire.  When
these were originally discovered it was presumed that fires really were
important in the cycle of things, but those involved neglected to look
deeper - those same seeds can remain dormant and viable for in excess of 100
years!  Obviously the plants weren't expecting a fire every year or that
sort of viability would be unnecessary.  100 years is PLENTY of time for a
fire or two, but we really don't _need_ them every year!

There is also the POV that a build up of combustibles without regular fire
would result in a 'tinderbox' state, ie that the place would be totally
raized if not cleared regularly, but even that's not totally true, forests
can accumulate enough leaf litter in a very short number of years which will
result in a damp mulch forming over a moist topsoil.  Not the most conducive
thing for a raging fire.  And now for a sad fact: in excess of 10% of
Australia is on fire at any given moment! (in the Northern half)   It's been
the standard practice for the native culture for aeons to burn to catch
food, and that, coupled with European settlers doing the same to promote the
growth of high protein grasses in place of the native varieties  leaves us,
well, burnt.

Whew, I'd better get off my soap box before I really get going! :-)

And just to give this a little bit of an on-topic slant, the first camera I
ever lost was to a fire, an old AE1 that got dropped while I was
(irresponsibly) photographing a bush fire from the inside!  A burning branch
fell on my shoulder and I lost my grip on the camera  (..hey - cameras don't
like fires either! ;-)

Karl


*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************