Comments
jsingal69420 t1_j2euc4z wrote
It's been widely known in ecology for a while that some level of ecosystem disturbance is good for diversity. It's called the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. Basically, in a very stable environment, a few species can out compete the others leading to limited diversity. In environments that are frequently disturbed (e.g., frequent, intense forest fires), only the heartiest of species can survive, again leading to low diversity. Some level of disturbance tends to maximize diversity.
In the case here, many bird species have very specific habitat requirements, with some only occurring in forests, others only in meadows, and some that can go between. When you have fires that destroy parts of the forest, you open up habitat to become meadows as part of the successional pathway. Thus, you end up with forest birds remaining in the intact forest, and new species of meadow birds appearing.
giuliomagnifico OP t1_j2eipma wrote
> When they compared the numbers of birds in areas of different fire severity, they found an increase over time in the number of birds, as well as greater bird diversity, in forest areas where wildfire severity was high. By the fifth year, the total abundance of birds and the species richness, or number of different species present, in areas of high-severity burns were twice as high as that in unburned areas
Paper link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120715
AutoModerator t1_j2eihiv wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
tiregroove t1_j2eqns3 wrote
Who knew? Humans still don't understand nature.
Always remember this: 'Garbage' is a human contrivance.
CochinNbrahma t1_j2esy69 wrote
Well, native Americans have been saying this for decades.
wrinkledirony t1_j2evrhm wrote
So has the forest service. This is not new information. If the conditions are right, "the plan" is to let a naturally caused (see lightning strike) wildfires burn until those conditions (humidities, temps, winds, etc.) change - try to protect life and property and keep the fire on forest service lands, but let nature work. But then the public start to shriek and they get pressured to aggressively fight the fire.
tiregroove t1_j2ew2fz wrote
Centuries, millennia?
I probably should have been more specific, a white colonial contrivance.
Sometimes_Stutters t1_j2elohg wrote
One of my friends works forestry for the DNR and does wild fire fighting during the season.
His soap box is that we don’t let smaller more frequent fires occur, which causes much more severe fires like we see today. The forests are supposed to burn. It’s part of the process.