How Sequoias Survive Wildfires, in Yosemite and Beyond

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I found this article about how giant redwood trees are able to survive even very massive wildfires.
Im not really an environmentalist but I do love nature and was a little concerned about the oldest living things
in the world.
I had no idea that they were able to grow their protective outer bark so thick, (2 feet in some cases) and in some ways, the forest actually benefits from wild fires.


But Sillett said placing sprinklers around the sequoias in Yosemite isn't really necessary. "The main thing they are doing with sprinklers is appeasing the public, who are worrying about how ugly the area will look when they visit later and that some trees are going to die," he said. "The big trees are going to be fine," Sillett explained. "Smaller, weaker, non-giant sequoias will die, but it's not so much that they are protecting the trees." Sillett said full-grown sequoias are adapted to survive even the hottest wildfires. They have fibrous, fire-resistant bark that can grow up to two feet thick. Although fires can damage the biggest trees, they usually don't kill them.


NATGEO


Forest managers have not been able to conduct controlled burns in places where too many people live nearby, such as Calaveras Big Trees State Park and Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest. Instead, scientists take a combined approach. They selectively prune and log dead and dying trees and then stack up the wood and burn it in controlled piles. "Giant sequoias are flourishing in response. They love it," said Sillett. (See pictures of scaling sequoias.) How Fire Benefits Sequoias Schoolchildren often learn that sequoias benefit from fire because the heat makes their cones open up, the flames eliminate competing plants, and the ash serves as fertilizer. The relationship is actually a bit more complex. "It's not like sequoias need fire to spread their seeds, but they live in a fire-prone environment, and they know what they're doing," he said.


edit on 28-8-2013 by Sharingan because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
You know, I wondered about this, since it has been on the news. I mean, how can they be the oldest living thing, in the area they are in, and not have some kind of protection. I couldn't believe this was the first time a fire was near them.

Thank you for the information!
edit on 28-8-2013 by chiefsmom because: sp



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Some organisms are actually build for wildfires, certain trees but there's also a fungus if I remember correctly.
Some are endangered because of lack of wildfires in the area of this organism.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ForbiddenDesire
 


Nature is amazing - it knows what it is doing. Man needs to stop messing with mother nature - what humans think of as "bad" , maybe there for a reason - and wildfires are natural. (not arson)

I wanted to add that some species of animals, plants, ect. die off in nature's way - then stupid man comes and tries to save things, or clone dinosaurs? - isn't there a very good reason they are extinct?
edit on 28-8-2013 by Happy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Sharingan
 


S&F for sharing this information. I read an article about controlled burns some time ago, however the article never introduced the information released here in regards to how the giant trees are able to survive forest fires.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
The forest will be green again within two years, along with new saplings sprouting out of the newly fertilized soil



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by ForbiddenDesire
 
I wanted to add that some species of animals, plants, ect. die off in nature's way - then stupid man comes and tries to save things, or clone dinosaurs? - isn't there a very good reason they are extinct?
edit on 28-8-2013 by Happy1 because: (no reason given)


I am with you on that. But it's complicated.

A interesting story: people cleaned water of a river or canal but the species had adapted to the polluted water and so the cleaning of it hurt the species. (on the other hand, certain species really can't go without clean water)

In the Netherlands a lot of money is spend on specific species. Some of them need old farming methods and aren't really natural anyway. I would be okay with them going locally extinct. A lot of species are least concern worldwide, like the European hamster (needs specific old farmland) and Black Grouse (also somewhat depended on farming).

I don't think species should be reintroduced solely for the reason they lived there once. I find it justified however if it benefits other species.

Now what's problematic is that ecosystems are weaved into connections. One extinction may lead to others.
It can also be bad for humans. The Chinese did the Four Pests Campaign, which failed horribly. I think the use of pesticides will fail on the long-term, the bee extinction is one side effect and the rise of pesticide resistant weeds and pests is another.

But nature is adaptable. If the adaption will be fun for humans I don't know. All I can say is what has been stated in a movie, see 2:25:

www.youtube.com...


edit on 29-8-2013 by ForbiddenDesire because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join