New Research Reveals How Forests Reduce Their Own Bushfire Risk, if They’re Left Alone

Boogerman on 22/03/2023 - 08:56
Last edited 22/03/2023 - 09:54 by 1 other user

New research reveals how forests reduce their own bushfire risk, if they’re left alone

We know long-unburnt mountain forests in south-east Australia are far less fire-prone than more recently burnt areas. And forests in south-west Australia have the lowest fire risk when they’ve not been subjected to prescribed burning.
Our study just published set out to understand why this occurs, by modelling fire behaviour in iconic red tingle forests of south-west Australia. Our findings offer a clear set of tools for living with fire, even in a warming climate.

I disagree. I think it's time to put a concrete condom on all mountainous areas.

Home & Garden

Comments

  • CodeXD on 22/03/2023 - 09:21
    +10

    New research reveals that 69% of statistics are made up.

    • MS Paint on 22/03/2023 - 09:27
      +6

      69%

      Nice

    • Boogerman on 22/03/2023 - 09:33
      -5

      Welcome to the Elmo (oops, I mean Elon) Twitter echo chamber!!

    • JIMB0 on 22/03/2023 - 10:08
      +1

      52% of people already know this.

    • djones145 on 22/03/2023 - 13:41
      +5

      Kent Brockman : Mr. Simpson, how do you respond to the charges that petty vandalism such as graffiti is down eighty percent, while heavy sack beatings are up a shocking nine hundred percent?

      Homer Simpson : Aw, you can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that.

      Kent Brockman : I see. Well, what do you say to the accusation that your group has been causing more crimes than it's been preventing?

      Homer Simpson : Oh, Kent, I'd be lying if I said my men weren't committing crimes.

  • altomic on 22/03/2023 - 09:25
    +1

    i'm more concerned about possibly being 1 Week Away from Mainland Australia Being Entirely Labor Governed

    • ThithLord on 22/03/2023 - 09:30
      +3

      Yep. LNP wiped off Australia's face for a decade to come, I reckons. Once people see just how good we can have it with Labor, LNP - being lead by the leftovers of irrelevance - got no chance

      • EightImmortals on 22/03/2023 - 09:57
        +13

        Funny that. I've noticed that labour states like QLD and VIC are also doing their fair share of land clearing and destruction. Just yesterday I was reading where they were going to destroy a whole bunch on native vegetation up north so up a friggin solar farm. Gotta destroy the earth to save it I guess?

        Point is, labour, Liberal are all part of the same clownshow. Think of it like WWE if that helps.

        • ThithLord on 22/03/2023 - 10:10
          +1

          Yeah that's absolutely true, 8 - Farmers using loopholes to **** the vegetation, it's disgusting. Don't know how Queensland Labor haven't addressed that properly yet.

          Btw it's spelt Labor

          • EightImmortals on 22/03/2023 - 10:12
            +8

            @ThithLord: Ahh, yes you are correct, the way I spelled it implies 'work'. :)

          • freefall101 on 22/03/2023 - 11:28
            +3

            @ThithLord: It's Queensland, they're just riding the wave of whatever is popular. They flip flop around on climate change depending on the mood of the moment and support industries (under the guise of job creation) as much as possible to keep the dollars rolling in.

            Pretty sure they don't believe in anything, regardless of what they say. Although I was impressed the way they milked the federal government for money on the olympics. Make them promise to pay half then announce piles of spending that the feds weren't ready for but had basically committed to, the rest of us are paying to upgrade Queensland.

          • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 12:01
            +1

            @ThithLord: Because farmers are a protected species. One of the most lucrative lifestyle choices around, if you are in for the long haul. Family trusts, tax benefits,fuel rebates, free Barnaby newsletters,guns,scones,big American utes (use the rebate diesel on holidays etc).

            • CurlCurl on 22/03/2023 - 12:06
              +4

              @Protractor:

              Because farmers are a protected species. One of the most lucrative lifestyle choices around, if you are in for the long haul. Family trusts, tax benefits,fuel rebates, free Barnaby newsletters,guns,scones,big American utes (use the rebate diesel on holidays etc).

              Your jealousy is noted.

              • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 12:16
                +4

                @CurlCurl: Tony Abbott, the current Australian (and international) onion eating champion once had a nano second of wisdom when he said, "the taxpayer should not have to fund people’s “lifestyle choices”.

                Me+Tony = same page

        • Clear on 22/03/2023 - 13:14
          +2

          It's incredible how much forest is cleared out when you go flying. Driving down the highway you see all the trees and further behind where you can't see its been cleared out. Done this way intentionally of course.

          • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 15:37
            +1

            @Clear: It's called 'visual amenity' .In reality it's a scam. More like wool over the publics eyes.
            This is why so much roadkill.Thin strips of rem veg that wildlife inhabits.Mind you the road contractors are gradually clearing it leaving nowhere for terrestrial and arboreal fauna to go.We hold the record for extinctions for a reason. We have perfected it.

        • 2esc on 23/03/2023 - 13:46

          I dont know about Queensland but what new land clearing here in Victoria? Have a tree your worried about falling on your house your not allowed to touch it.

          Big sub divisions on valuable farming land is certainly happening and we do need to plant more trees especially in western Victoria but clear felling for farm, housing etc no longer occurs in Victoria that damage has already happened.

          Im more worried about the 6 billion dollars worth of raw timber (a lot rainforest) being brought into the country that the Greens, Labour and lib/nationals dont want to talk about.

          • EightImmortals on 23/03/2023 - 13:56

            @2esc: https://tinyurl.com/yckw8jbf

            From 2000 to 2020, Victoria experienced a net change of -72.7kha (-1.1%) in tree cover.
            From 2001 to 2021, Victoria lost 1.60Mha of tree cover, equivalent to a 25% decrease in tree cover since 2000,

    • Boogerman on 22/03/2023 - 09:36
      +4

      Your concerns are misplaced. Its only a 3 day wait.

    • JIMB0 on 22/03/2023 - 10:11
      +3

      Last time this happened the Lord Mayor of Brisbane was highest liberal officer holder in the country.

    • orangetrain on 22/03/2023 - 11:26
      +2

      Looking forward to inflation to be based on wages instead of company profits.

      Anyway, its just an one term Labor. They don't care about the LNP installed in ABC board or the oligarchs using the media to control narratives.

    • Ultimate Gattai on 24/03/2023 - 01:46

      To be fair, the LNP has been so crap, they're unelectable, and people are actually waking up to this fact and ignoring the mainstream media more.

  • brendanm on 22/03/2023 - 09:30
    +5

    Got an actual question or discussion? Or just wanted to make a dumb comment?

    • MS Paint on 22/03/2023 - 09:33
      +9

      To be fair, OP has reminded us in the past, that drill chucks only have a 3 month warranty.

      • CheapandUsed on 22/03/2023 - 09:48

        drill chucks only have a 3 month warranty

        They what!

    • Boogerman on 22/03/2023 - 09:40

      My bad. I dumbed down too much.
      "I think its time to put a concrete condom on all 'treed' mountainous areas"

      • brendanm on 22/03/2023 - 09:42

        So, the latter option then. At least you've maintained the status quo.

      • MS Paint on 22/03/2023 - 10:20

        Do you want me to teach you how to quote properly?

        • Switchblade88 on 22/03/2023 - 10:39
          +1

          They just need to use the 'Formatting Help' option under every reply box.

          Honestly I use it all the time to double-check I'm using the right brackets for links!

          • MS Paint on 22/03/2023 - 11:29

            @Switchblade88: Exactly. All these smart people bringing up intellectual topics demanding intelligent responses, yet they can't use basic ozbargain site functionality.

        • brendanm on 22/03/2023 - 11:38
          +1

          I've attempted to do it before, despite having an arts degree he can't seem to comprehend the quote system.

          • MS Paint on 22/03/2023 - 11:53
            +2

            @brendanm:

            despite having an arts degree

            Lol. I had to spit out my brownie with Vanilla bean ice cream.

          • Boogerman on 22/03/2023 - 14:02
            -1

            @brendanm: LOL. Arts Degree. If only I was up there with you getting my information from the intellectual peer reviewed echelon of Jones, Hadley, Bolt & Panahi.

            • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 14:26

              @Boogerman: Become a Rhodes Scholar and learn to eat onions?

            • brendanm on 22/03/2023 - 16:26
              -1

              @Boogerman:

              anyone who thinks I'm an idiot watches fox news

              Delusional.

              • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 16:55

                @brendanm: Too many concussions or not enough head beans to start with?

  • pharkurnell on 22/03/2023 - 09:56
    +4

    Yep, I saw a forest doing its own hazard reduction… went well.

    we need more stories like this and from The Onion etc

    • Crow K on 22/03/2023 - 10:07
      +2

      We're just wasting the forum if we don't fill it up!

  • holdenmg on 22/03/2023 - 11:16
    +1

    NRMA Insurance have already got that fixed:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4jrAGIrFWc

  • DingoBilly on 22/03/2023 - 11:29
    +4

    Did you know that ducks are also called 'waterfowl' because they are normally found in places where there is water like ponds, streams, and rivers. Ducks can live up to 20 years, depending on the species and if well cared for. The production of eggs is affected by daylight. When there is more daylight, the ducks will lay more eggs.

    Thank you for listening to my talk.

  • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 11:44
    +4

    The state govt foresters controlling every corner of forest have already brainwashed ministers to refuse to accept any alternative to incinerating the forests. The burning industry is worth gazillions per annum. Even international players are involved. Our flora has evolved around a certain fire regime. Burning it like we are is just making more fire dependent (flammable) short lived species dominate. Any flora who only flowers at longer rates that burning cycles are becoming rare and will eventually disappear.Shorter lived plants with fire dependent seeding regimes are flourishing. They now channel fires up into the canopy in almost every fire.Natural of not.
    No-one is auditing the carbon produced in these fires, and the lingering smoke around built up areas is carcinogenic.
    Interestingly the lions share of bushfire arson comes from within the orgs supposedly protecting the community.

    TLDR. The more we burn the hotter and more flammable we get. And it cost billions of $$ to be worse off.

  • loropy9 on 22/03/2023 - 13:23

    Research shows that 99% of all researchers could benefit the society by getting a real job.

  • djones145 on 22/03/2023 - 13:45
    +2

    who are we

    Everything you read here is created by academics and journalists working together, supported by a team of digital technology experts.

    journalist…….

  • GordonD on 22/03/2023 - 13:47
    +2

    The article this thread is about is from The Conversation.

    Don't know if you know it. It was an interesting idea. They created an online site that would publish articles by "experts". Academics. And any media outlet could republish them by just acknowledging they were originally published in The Conversation. Not that I'm not talking about academic papers that had to provide proof of whatever they were asserting, and would be peer reviewed to ensure they did. No, those are published in journals. These are just articles.

    And that's where the whole idea falls down. If an "expert" doesn't have to follow proper scientific methodology, and provide proof, and be willing to be peer reviewed, they can write anything they like. And it is an "expert opinion", but its only an opinion. And opinions largely reflect political and ideological leanings.

    The articles in The Conversation seem to overwhelming reflect the view of what's true and important of the political and ideological left. I don't know whether that reflects the leanings of The Conversation editors that are choosing what to publish. Or the overwhelming leanings of academia in this country. The former wouldn't be surprising. The latter would be disappointing.

    • Boogerman on 22/03/2023 - 14:10
      -2

      Yes, the articles are written by the most educated in society.
      Education level is correlated to IQ level - the higher the education, the higher the IQ.
      The foundation of scientific education is critical thinking.
      So unless you’re fulfilling the findings of Dunning-Kruger, you’ll know where you lie in the intellectual food chain

      • brendanm on 22/03/2023 - 16:26
        +1

        So unless you’re fulfilling the findings of Dunning-Kruger, you’ll know where you lie in the intellectual food chain

        How ironic.

        • Boogerman on 22/03/2023 - 18:43

          Would you like a link to British research from 2003 on IQ & its correlation to political interest?
          Mmmmmm, tasty.

          • brendanm on 22/03/2023 - 20:14
            +1

            @Boogerman: Imagine not understanding the word correlation 😂. In addition, imagine not understanding the politics of the person you are replying to, while assuming that you do.

            • Boogerman on 23/03/2023 - 08:34

              @brendanm: All good, trumpster!
              And thanks for exhibiting Dunning-Kruger, without knowing it!!

              • brendanm on 23/03/2023 - 09:29
                +1

                @Boogerman: Again, ironic. Also, we aren't in America.

                • Boogerman on 23/03/2023 - 14:12

                  @brendanm: Imagine not knowing the bulk of science PhDs vote for typically left 'leaning' parties.
                  Ooh & in advance of your response, they 'created the real world' which they are told to "go & get a job in"

                  • brendanm on 23/03/2023 - 14:14

                    @Boogerman: I couldn't give a toss who votes for what. Lots of left wing people on here are intelligent. You, however, remind me of a high school kid who's been listening to too many podcasts.

                    Ooh & in advance of your response, they 'created the real world' which they are told to "go & get a job in"

                    No idea what you are even talking about.

                    • Boogerman on 23/03/2023 - 14:15

                      @brendanm: "No idea what you are even talking about"
                      It would have been easier over time to just copy-paste this in your replies

                      • brendanm on 23/03/2023 - 14:17

                        @Boogerman: Still can't reply properly? Learning must be hard for you.

                        • Boogerman on 24/03/2023 - 08:22

                          @brendanm: Yeah, cause us Progressives supposedly only do Arts Degrees….LOL
                          Nothing like dem street smarts, eh?

                          • brendanm on 24/03/2023 - 10:22

                            @Boogerman: No, it's just you doing the arts degree. I'm sure there are plenty of very smart progressives, you simply aren't one of them. I'm sure you'll come to terms with it eventually.

                            • Boogerman on 24/03/2023 - 10:33

                              @brendanm: I wish I had've done an Arts Degree, rather than science & commerce. Might've broadened my scope.
                              But hey, like I said, nothing like sharpening dem street smarts at a backyard BBQ echo chamber!

                              • brendanm on 24/03/2023 - 12:49

                                @Boogerman:

                                Might've broadened my scope.

                                True, crying about "the conservatives" constantly is pretty boring.

                                But hey, like I said, nothing like sharpening dem street smarts at a backyard BBQ echo chamber!

                                What would you say are key beliefs of a conservative?

                              • brendanm on 26/03/2023 - 10:34

                                @Boogerman:

                                What would you say are key beliefs of a conservative?

                                No answer to this?

      • GordonD on 22/03/2023 - 16:44
        +2

        Smart people are as susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect as everyone else. It is the scientific method that ensures rigor. That demands you don't convince yourself that something is true because there is evidence it is, you identify all plausible alternative explanations and prove - with evidence - that none of them could better explain what you observed, and only then propose your explanation is the best one. And that you then expose your evidence and your process to your peers to ensure it is convincing to someone else, not just yourself. An article does none of those things. Experts are valuable in that they've studied that area of knowledge and know what has and hasn't been proven. There is no evidence that they are not subject to the same propensity as everyone to convince themselves things are true that aren't when they haven't been through the scientific process.

        I was involved with academics in road safety. And time and time again those of us who did practice rigor, those of us who saw road safety as engineering, had to point out that papers had been written, and accepted for academic credit, and were even implemented on the roads, that got the scientific method backwards. Ones where something had been accepted as fact simply because there was evidence it was, by choosing only to look at evidence that had been selected because it did. Research that was accepted as good because it came up with what the researcher had been told by their teachers was the "right" answer. So of course their teachers didn't question it either.

        There are clearly some areas of academia that seem to be inhabited by very second rate minds. So I look at the evidence. Not the opinions.

        And if The Conversation really believed in the scientific method, which has an integral part of it peer review, it would not turn off comments at the bottom of nearly all articles, preventing readers from pointing out percieved flaws in what is claimed to be proven expert opinions in them. It would force the academics writing those articles to expose themselves to other peoples views.

        • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 17:04
          +1

          You just explained it very well. This is why 'Forestry' ( as in the Australia activity of 'modifying and commodifying' natural systems on dubious grounds, for spurious outcomes) should NOT be considered a science.
          When a sector ( it's actually an ideology) has not changed it's core principles since stone axes, in the face of a wall of peer reviewed counter (real) science, it should be ignored.
          When it can't even grow a viable resource in ~250 years, it should be embarrassed.

          Morrison opened the door for the sector to grow a 'billion'? trees several years ago. They were too busy defending the illegal logging (even in drinking water catchments) to lift a finger. Thus it has always been.

        • Boogerman on 22/03/2023 - 18:56
          -2

          Gawd, this is borderline parody…no offence.
          Here’s the link to the RESEARCH paper:
          https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365…

          And, I hesitate because this is probably a waste of time but “And if The Conversation really believed in the scientific method, which has an integral part of it peer review, it would not turn off comments at the bottom of nearly all articles, preventing readers from pointing out percieved flaws in what is claimed to be proven expert opinions in them. It would force the academics writing those articles to expose themselves to other peoples views.”, shows you don’t understand peer review (let alone the hypothetico-deductive model of scientific investigation).

          You are not a peer. You are a nobody. You have no ‘right’ to opine.
          The parallel to you expressing your opinion on a scientist’s research, is a 3 year old telling an adult on the intricacies of how they should drive; if that makes it clear.

    • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 14:24
      -1

      Correct to a degree. But the reason we have the burning regime we do now is because of a one sided macho culture, whereby nature should be forced to comply with that ideology. There is easily as many false prophets on the Conversation from that end of the spectrum.

      That's the very reason we are approaching single figure % forest cover on earth, and what remains, highly disturbed,or is sick and/or struggles from climate change. We are talking about the very safety net that tempers climate extremes, produces oxygen and stores carbon.

      Given the choice, I trust science with a broader society viewpoint and projected dividend, based on evidence rather than loaded unpeer reviewed industry sponsored science for sale propaganda.(The kind mining & logging create.)
      We were colonised almost 250 years ago and pro foresters have not grown enough for their industry to run for a month, let alone sustainably.

      Of course people accuse the conversation as being 'lefty'.Anything pointing out the negative impacts of the human plague always wears that label. Sir David Attenborough. What a rampant greeny.

      Almost every state enviro minister is hostage to the right side of the spectrum ideologues on forest issues.
      That's why they actually reject the findings of this particular research project. Because it says what they don't want to hear.
      ( The Emperors New Clothes is alive and well , Sir Humphrey )
      When govt Ministers are accountable at law for their decisions, this country will solve half it's problems overnight.

      Where is the federal ICAC, anyway? On the backburner so they can excise the AUKUS decision from any scrutiny?

      • AustriaBargain on 22/03/2023 - 15:04
        +1

        Letting dead branches and stuff build up so much that it all burns down in a blaze of glory may be nature's way, but it may not be what's best for native wildlife which we have already marginalised though human actions.

    • AustriaBargain on 22/03/2023 - 15:02

      Hmmm, the academic world when it comes to forests is often funded by the logging industry. Now I'm sure they sometimes pay for unbiased science to be undertaken, you should take any science funded by a corporation who relies on logging to make billions with a grain of salt.

      Worth noting the two authors of that Conversation article are apparently academics, themselves with backgrounds in forestry and wildlife.

      • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 15:46

        The very fact loggers reject it (the second such study they have done, so the findings are being compounded) shows how accurate it is.
        Fires have more intensity than ever even over recently prescribed burnt areas. Because climate change, change in the under-storey matrix,and because the open canopies of disturbed forest allow sun to heat the surface underneath and dry it out.
        This is why trad burning is almost impossible to replicate today. Every component has changed. Temp,moisture,canopy,fire frequency/intensity,climate,moisture and size/type veg species. To get close to trad burning in the south of our continent you almost always have to do it in winter or lose control.
        Where this study has been undertaken, the authorities keep losing control and wiping out X100K hectares every year, and mostly vulnerable ecology areas. They even helicopter fire bombed one of the 2 known numbat habitats.

  • StingyBritches on 23/03/2023 - 10:56
    +1

    Any First Nation OzBargainers want to comment on this thread?
    I’d be interested to hear from someone who hopefully knows what they are talking about.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join