Private timber lands in the Sierra Nevada experienced about a 9% higher likelihood of high-severity fire than nearby public National Forest lands, producing areas where virtually no trees survived. Dense groups of evenly spaced trees characteristic of plantation-style management allowed fires to gain momentum and exhibit much more extreme behavior by reducing natural breaks such as open areas, meadows, roads, or large resilient trees. California forests evolved with frequent low-intensity fires that clear floors and promote regeneration; high-intensity flames can decimate ecosystems and hinder recovery. Plantation-style stands across the Western U.S. likely increase regional risk of severe wildfire.
In the Sierra Nevada, private lands used for logging are more likely to experience high-severity fire that devastates forest ecosystems compared to public lands like National Forests. It's a fact that's been known for years - but what exactly causes this discrepancy has remained elusive. Consequently, the factoid has served as fuel for the longstanding California debate of "who is to blame for our wildfire problem?" while providing little insight for forest managers hoping to address it.
They found that when a fire ripped through, private timber lands were about 9% more likely than public lands to burn with such intensity that virtually no trees survived. When the scientists looked at what prefire forest characteristics resulted in severe fire, they found that dense groups of evenly spaced trees were largely to blame. It's the exact kind of forests timber companies often plant to intentionally harvest a few decades down the road.
Collection
[
|
...
]