|
I remember reading somewhere the reason
Australia doesn't have woodpeckers is that we don't have trees
which are suitable for them to hammer their bills into. Even the
rainforest trees don't on the whole suit woodpeckers. I'm ready to
be nay-sayed on this!!
On 9/02/2020 3:02 PM, Chris Corben
wrote:
Someone
with more expertise than me should answer that.
What I have seen numerous times is that even low intensity burns
can selectively cause trees with hollows in them to fall over,
while having little apparent effect on younger trees.
Cheers, Chris.
On 2/8/2020 9:44 PM, Philip Veerman wrote:
About “if you just think of the loss of hollow trees, which
happens as a result of ANY burning.” Yes that may well be true
but can it also be the case that fires might increase the amount
of available hollows in trees by damaging trees and allowing
hollows to form in trees before the process of hollow formation
would normally happen due to aging. Just asking……..
Philip
*From:*Birding-Aus [m("birding-aus.org","birding-aus-bounces");">]
*On Behalf Of *Chris Corben
*Sent:* Sunday, 9 February, 2020 2:26 PM
*To:* m("birding-aus.org","birding-aus");">
*Subject:* Re: [Birding-Aus] Land of the smokey bears
In the USA, I have heard many people speak about the importance
of regular burning to improve and protect habitats. As an
Australian, this has always felt odd to me, though recently I
have read some material suggesting that in the USA this view is
changing. In any case, the Australian landscape is very
different, even if you just think about the extreme importance
of hollows in old trees for wildlife, which is far more
significant in Australia than elsewhere. And Australia doesn't
have Woodpeckers! I also note that in the USA, many habitats we
see have been hugely modified by Native American burning, so
that there is perceived value in returning it to that state, not
to any prehuman state. It is a complicated mess, but at least in
Australia, if you just think of the loss of hollow trees, which
happens as a result of ANY burning, (not to mention hazard tree
removal!), it is easy to conclude that fire needs to be thought
through very carefully and not controlled by knee-jerk reactions
to particular events.
Cheers, Chris.
On 2/8/2020 6:36 PM, Geoffrey Dabb wrote:
I found the below link about the now slightly contentious ,
perhaps outdated, Smokey Bear, an emblem of the agency in
the
United States that manages National Parks - real national
parks,
that is, not like our State-managed parks that are labelled
‘National’ in imitation of those Americans. Some entertain
the
idea that some quite large wildfires should be allowed to
burn
unchecked to avoid really serious fires. I don’t believe
the
‘thinking’ in Australia has gone quite that far, but we are
going
to hear quite a lot about beneficial controlled fires, a
subject
complicated by the absence of a national agency with any
responsibility in this area.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/smokey-bear-75th-birthday-legacy_n_5dc5cf48e4b0fcfb7f662fda?ri18n=true
Chris Corben.
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> m("birding-aus.org","Birding-Aus");">
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
