[ad_1]
But Dr. Johnston’s research in eastern Oregon showed that: even thinning alone may be beneficial, at least for a time, until substantial regeneration of trees and shrubs increases the risk of a greater fire.
This research is part of a large study showing that forest treatments across the West can work to reduce fire intensity. However, the view that such treatments are beneficial is not shared by everyone.
In particular, thinning is oversold as a treatment, and wildlife diversity in older, pristine forests has benefits — even after wildfires swept them away — says Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist at Wild Heritage, an organization that aims to keep primary forests intact. .
Dr. “It all depends on how we view the forest,” DellaSala said. In a raw forest, what some might see as fuel, others see as “an incredible habitat for wildlife because it’s a mosaic of different burn intensities with extraordinary biodiversity.”
And preliminary research by Bryant Baker, a colleague of Los Padres ForestWatch, a conservation group in Southern California, found that much of the forest land burned in the Bootleg fire was processed, mostly by thinning or cutting, but sometimes by prescription. It burns until the 1970s.
“This field has been really heavily governed for decades,” he said.
Advocates of dilution and prescribed burns agree that treatments will not necessarily slow every fire, especially as fires grow and become more severe in a warming world. But they say the evidence shows the treatments are effective.
“This isn’t rocket science,” Johnston said. “It’s the right thing to do, and it works.”
[ad_2]
Source link