Tag Archives: ecology

AUDIO for LIVE DEBATE: Can Removing Fuels for Biomass Energy Reduce Wildfire?

In August, The Biomass Monitor hosted a debate between Chad Hanson, Ph.D., Director and Principal Ecologist for John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute and David Atkins, former Forest Service ecologist and forester and current president of Treesource, over the effectiveness of cutting trees in backcountry forests to limit the spread and intensity of wildfire.

Subscribe to quarterly email issues of The Biomass Monitor to receive the recording in the fall issue. Subscribers can also contact thebiomassmonitor@gmail.com and we’ll get you the link right away.

 

[OPINION] Wildfire: Dead Trees Vital to Forests

[Read the opposing view to this opinion piece, “Wildfire: Thinning Forests for Biomass Energy Can Reduce Fire Severity,” by John Buckley, Executive Director, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center]

– by George Wuerthner, Ecologist

Dead. Most of us have negative associations with the word. So it’s not surprising that most of us tend to view dead things as undesirable, unless we are talking about mosquitoes and rattlesnakes.

We impose this cultural bias about dead things to our forests as well. Public land management agencies spend billions annually trying to contain wildfire and insect outbreaks based upon the presumption that these natural processes are destroying the forest by killing trees.

And this bias feeds the biomass industry. After all if dead trees are a “wasted” resource, why not burn them to make “clean” energy? That is the prevailing idea behind many biomass proposals.

For example, throughout much of the West, advocates of biomass burning suggest that forest thinning projects, particularly removal of bark beetle-killed trees or the aftermath of a wildfire, could be used to accomplish two goals: making the forest “healthy” and producing power.

But the idea that removal of dead trees or reducing tree density to preclude wildfire and/or beetle outbreaks is based upon flawed ecological knowledge.

A new perspective is slowly taking root among forest managers, based on growing evidence that forest ecosystems have no waste or harvestable surplus. Rather, it seems that forests reinvest their biological capital back into the ecosystem, and removal of wood—whether dead or alive—can lead to biological impoverishment.

Large stand-replacement blazes and major insect outbreaks may be the ecological analogue to the forest ecosystem as the hundred-year flood is to a river. Scientists are discovering that dead trees and downed wood play an important role in ecosystems by providing wildlife habitat, cycling nutrients, aiding plant regeneration, decreasing erosion and influencing drainage and soil moisture and carbon storage.

Dead trees are important to wildlife. Think woodpeckers. But a lot more species than just woodpeckers depend on dead trees and downed wood for food and shelter.

But it’s not just the use of snags for nesting, or even feeding as with woodpeckers, that attracts birds and other wildlife to recently killed forests. Burned forests also are used extensively by seed-eating species that are attracted by the abundance of new seeds shed by cones and colonizing plants.

Some two-thirds of all wildlife species use dead trees or downed wood during some portion of their life cycle. Among Pacific Northwest vertebrates, sixty-nine species depend upon cavities for shelter or nesting, while forty-seven other species are strongly associated with downed wood.

It’s easy to identify an ecosystem for its most photogenic species, but there are dozens of small cogs that are of equal importance.

One of those is ants, and downed logs are their preferred home. Ants are among the most common invertebrate in forest ecosystems and, not surprisingly given their abundance, are critical elements in forest ecosystems. The most obvious value of ants is as food—from birds such as flickers to much larger animals like bears.

Dead logs and snags are also home to pollinating insects.

Healthy forest soils also require decomposing material. Below the litter layer in the soil is yet another layer of life that depends on dead wood.

People commonly assume that wildfire destroys trees and leaves a smoldering pile of ashes. In truth, some live trees and a lot of dead wood physically survive blazes. Beyond the value of dead trees as feeding, hiding and resting habitat for wildlife, downed logs play an important role in forest regeneration.

Snags and downed logs modify micro-sites that can affect seedling establishment. For instance, snags provide some shade and reduction of drying winds, creating more favorable conditions for tree seedling survival.

Trees heated and killed by fire create sapwood that resists rotting and lasts longer in the ecosystem. Trees dead prior to the fire tend to become blackened and charred. Charred trees are also resistant to decay. Thus, wildfire creates long-lasting biological legacies that can survive for a century or more.

Wildfires and/or insect outbreaks create downed logs that fall into streams and across slopes. Downed logs, by slowing the velocity of the water, allow sediment to settle out and help return sediment flows to pre-burn levels.

The loss of salmonids in many parts of the west can be attributed to the absence of wood in streams.

The criteria for healthy ecosystems can’t be easily defined or exhaustively listed. But healthy ecosystems have a full array of processes operating unimpaired, including hydrologic function, soil productivity, carbon sequestering, provision of wildlife habitats, and keystone disturbances such as fires, floods, storms and insect outbreaks.

One crucial element present in unmanaged, healthy systems is a significant amount of dead trees and downed wood.

George Wuerthner is an ecologist and publisher of 38 books on environmental subjects, including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy.

Collaboratives and Forest Ecosystems

– by George Wuerthner, The Wildlife News

photo_1318

Photo: umatillacollaborative.org

During the last Pleistocene Ice Age advance ice covered much of the North American Continent, as well as the mountainous areas of the West. Depending on who you consult the ice retreated sometime between 15,000 years to 12,000 years before present. A minor expansion of ice occurred during the Little Ice Age sometime between 1300 and 1850 AD.

Since that time, the ice has melted back from many areas which were once cloaked in ice.

My question is how much Ice is normal? And should we manage the Planet to create a new Ice Age?

Of course, my question is rhetorical. Most people would acknowledge that the “right amount” of ice is whatever exists. Major ice sheets 20,000 years ago were “normal” given the climate creating them.

Yet I find that most people involved in natural resource issues, particularly, the collaboratives that have sprung up around the West think they know the “right amount” of wildfire, beetles or disease is proper to the forests. And if this “right amount” is not occurring, than we have to “fix” the situation.

Read more