• Mirshe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    Also a legit forestry tactic - you set a controlled fire in a part of the forest, and keep it well-controlled, to burn off leaf litter and dead wood that would otherwise easily fuel a wildfire, and to encourage the growth of some species (or discourage others - burning is the only effective way to stop some invasive plant species).

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The ecology of California in general, and in particular the Sierra Nevada, has evolved to expect a wildfire every 10 years or so. Going 100 years (in some places) without a fire was completely beyond anything that ecology had evolved for, and it’s no wonder that those areas that hadn’t burned in a century got slate-wiped. The native Americans, and later the herdsmen who took over their lands, benefitted from these small vegetation burns and would frequently start and manage them. In the early 1900s, though, the feds (with good intentions, mind) came along and said you can’t do that anymore because fire is always bad.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Planting a ton of Eucalyptus trees in the 1890s-1910s, that self ignite when they get too dry didn’t help matters either. Worst part is those trees were planted for the railroad. Once the tree is smoldering they explode with sticky burning sap.

        • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Holy crow, I had no idea that they secrete a sticky sap when they burn, nor that they were planted for the railroad. I always heard it was because John Steinbeck liked them / made them popular. Do you have a source so I can learn more?