Summer is on its way, and that means lots of new wildfires, both natural and manmade. Do you guys think that these are good for nature, or just harmful to the environment? On the one hand they promote growth of new plants and clear out dead brush, but then again there is massive damage to fauna and lots of smoke. I think in the general sceme of things they arent as harmful as some people make them out to be. Even if fauna dies, animals live at a much faster rate than plants, so they will come back quicker than a dead forest would.
What do you think?

~Arete

pine forests often owe their existance to wildfires

oak saplings are killed within minutes by fire. but the terminal buds of young pines are surrounded by a shock of needles that burn at a relately low temp. and by the time the flames have consumed them, the main fire has swept by and thg bud at the top of the stem, from which new growth will come, is still unharmed. fires like these are not just the owkr of careless peoplek, they occur naturally. the spark that regularly sets fire to these forests, is lightning, in this part violent thunderstorms are common, and lightning often strikes the taller trees scoring a deep groove down the length of the trunk as it crashed down to earth. and this at my feet is the tinder which set it aflame, these are pine needles, they are so full of resin and so dry that they flame up very easily but the fire they produce is not very hot and it's short lived, so if any creature can surivvie fire for just 1 or 2 minutes, it can surivve a fire like this. the rattlesnake like mahy other ground animales, regularly takes refuge from the midday sun in holes, so now it knows exactly where to go to escape the fire. but this hole is already occupied by it's digger and owner, a gofer tortous. rattlesnake and tortous do not normally interfeere with 1 another. and that seems to be the way things are going to stay. but in the back of the burrow lies another refuge, an indigo snake, and it on occasion eats rattlesnakes. but the fire is passing, and the rattlesnake can return to the forest. some insects don't avoid fire, they actively seek it, beetles find it difficult to lay their eggs in the pines because the trees swwamp them with resin, but a tree killed by fire can't resist, and these beetles take advantage of the situation. they have pits behind their legs which are sensitive to infrarred rays and therefore can detect the slightest rise in temperature and with these to guide them, they travel from all over the forests to the wake of the fire and arrive in huhdreds. quickly they mate, the females crall all ove the scorched trunks seeking crevices in the bark where htey can lay eggs, assuring that their grubs willl have nic enutrious bark to chew. as insects assemble in the burnt forests, the insect eaters follow. the oak toad almost exaclty matches the color of the charred forest floor other more conspisiouc hunters wait on newly amurge shoots.


within a couple of months of a summer fire, the forest has more than recovered, it is rejuvenated. the fire has cleared away the old growth on the ground and by reducint the pine needles to ash ahas reduce dtheir nutrients into the soil, and now the
ground sprouts more flowers than at any other time.


so yes, they cause death and destruction but they are necessary.

now an increase in fires due to humans and human population could be aproblem though.

In Australia (or NSW at least) we have the National Park and Wildlife Service NPWS for short. It is often poked fun at by being called the 'National Sparks and Wild Fires' because they have been accused of starting fires that get out of hand.

Personally I like the idea of introduced fire as it does promote new growth and also if managaged well can prevent a large fire from occuring naturally or by arson from becoming out of hand and difficult to contain which threatens more of the environment rather then a back burn..

Wonder if anyone can get AMomentaryLapseOfReason (spelling?) to post in this topic as his answer would be really good.

There was a study about whether picking up the leftover/dead trees was harmful for the environment... It caused quite a bit of controversy. I don't paticularly mind wildfires, as long as they don't enter my living areas. A simple piece of glass can start a fire in the midst of summer.

wildfires have been shown to increase biodiversity and some seeds wont grow until after a fire... its part of the ecosystem

its all good for nature, it only us humans that complain because our houses cant move as fast as animals can, everything till we came was fine and the gain froma fire outweighed the losses but now we have people whinging all the time

I suppose natural wildfires are good; after all, they're natural. They're supposed to be happening.

Manmade ones may not be the same. They mess up the pattern of natural wildfires. And often, they're in more populated areas.

I was in South Dakota during a wildfire a few years ago. When I went to a high point I could see the smoke on the horizon and when it rained everything got sooty.

I agree with Chrome. Natural is good, but man has no right to start one.