Featured Post

Holobionts: a new Paradigm to Understand the Role of Humankind in the Ecosystem

You are a holobiont, I am a holobiont, we are all holobionts. "Holobiont" means, literally, "whole living creature." It ...

Showing posts with label controlled burning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label controlled burning. Show all posts

Friday, January 20, 2023

Reflections on Controlled Burning and Water Management

 


By our fellow holobiont, Ian Schindler

 

I had the following to say about Ugo's post on controlled burning: I would like to point out that solutions are not unique. Controlled fires might work, but there are usually other ways to achieve the stated goals. For example David Holmgren lives in Australia, is very sensitive to fire management, and does so without resorting to controlled fires.

Good water management can go a long way to reducing the window of opportunity for fires. Good water management consists of storing water when there is excess rain and slowly letting out the storage when there is no rain.  This regulates the flow of water to the sea so that when it rains the flow is decreased and when it doesn't rain the flow is increased.  As a consequence, the variation of the water content in plants is decreased
decreasing the risk of fires because the plants are rarely dry.

Note that an excellent place to store water is the soil. The soil is the plant gut. A compost pile is a powerful concentration of the plant gut. The greater the biomass of the soil, the greater its water capacity is. A compost pile can absorb 90% of its dry weight in water. The mycelium of fungi maintain soil integrity in the case of high water content.

Note also that the plant holobiont is an excellent water purifier. Most of what we consider pollution in water ways is food for plants once it has been digested by the plant holobiont. This includes animal excrement, petro-chemicals, most pesticides and herbicides, and explosives. It does take time to digest some of this stuff which is why Joseph Jenkins  recommends curing compost for a year before applying it. Outside of a compost pile the digestion will be slower, however sending water throughwetlands with plants purifies water far better than your standard water treatment plant at lower energy costs.

Applications:

1. Channels for excess water should be on level sets, spreading the water out (avoiding choke points) not down hill.
2.  In cities, it is a grave error to mix greywater with blackwater. Blackwater should be composted, greywater should be used to irrigate plants. This was established by the late Belgian chemist Joseph Országh in the 1990s.  See http://eautarcie.org/ for extensive videos on  designing such systems.

Examples of bad design in Los Angeles (note that according to https://www.greywatercorps.com/ 19% of the electric power used in Los Angeles is dedicated to pumping water, either from some source or in water treatment facilities).

1. The Los Angeles river used to have a floodplain that soaked up excess water and purified it during heavy rain.  The floodplain was drained, buildings were constructed and concrete was poured onto the river bed to "increase flood capacity".  This is of course very poor water management because both water storage and purification has been removed. Today    there are many projects to rectify this poor design non of which go far    enough in my opinion.
2. Our neighbors up the hill (in Los Angeles) have frequent problems with their sewage line. The pipes are very old and leak. Plant roots grow into the sewage line eventually blocking it so that every 6 months city workers come to cut out the roots growing in the pipes. Of course the plants are using much better water management than the people. They are slowing water flow into the ocean and doing some purification. If greywater was used for irrigation, there would be far less water flowingin the pipes and problems would be substantially reduced.
3. In 2022, new homes are required to send the rain water from the roof through a filter before it enters the storm drain to go out to the sea. It is hard to imagine a more ignorant mandate in an arid region. The mandate should be to store the rain water for use in the house.  

An example of good water management, the water wizard of Oregon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuYGS5pLRZg

I have become a big fan of living green roofs. Sun and precipitation wear down roofing material. In addition to protecting roofing material, putting soil for plants on roofs offers water storage and purification. Green roofs insulate from the heat and from the cold if the exterior temperature is below freezing. Living green roofs increase biodiversity by providing space for drought resistant plants and other creatures to thrive.  A few centimeters of soil on the roof should reduce the risk of the house burning as well.
 
Here is a link to Alan Savory's Ted Talk on holistic management of livestock preventing the need for fires in savannas in Africa:
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=fr#t-769899,

Best,

Ian --

 

Holobionts are the building blocks of life!

Saturday, August 27, 2022

The "Prescribed Burning" of Forests. Is it a Good Idea?






Fires have accompanied forests from the beginning of their existence, hundreds of millions of years ago. We are not completely sure of the role that fires play in the ecosystem, but it is not necessarily always bad. The resulting formation of "pyrolytic carbon" (PyC) removes carbon from the ecosystem and has a cooling effect on climate. 

In recent times, the concept of "prescribed burning" or "controlled burning" became fashionable. The idea is that a small fire now may prevent a larger fire later, especially since it removes the debris on the forest floor. But the question is hugely complex and, as always, the discussion becomes political and unhinged from the reality of facts and models. So, are prescribed burnings a good idea, or just an attempt of politicians to show that they are "doing something" on the problem of forest fires

Overall, the opinion of the experts who intervened on this subject in the "Proud Holobionts" forum is that prescribed fires are a bad idea. Nevertheless, the debate is ongoing. If you allow me a personal opinion, I tend to think that the validity of prescribed burning depends on where it is practiced. In forests, it may be awfully bad. In savannas and grasslands, it may be a good idea, at least in some circumstances. It may be that humans have been forced to take control of fires in grasslands and savannas after they exterminated the megafauna that thrived there. The megafauna had a beneficial effect on grass and helped maintain the fertility of the soil, whereas it probably did only damage to forests. But, once the large animals were eliminated, humans had to take upon themselves the same tasks. This is one more fascinating facet of the way Earth's ecosystem works. In any case, eventually, humans and forests must learn to live with each other as good holobionts are known to do.  

Here, I reproduce first a message that was posted on the "Proud Holobionts" discussion forum by Natalia Novoselova, coordinator of the Stop the Harmful Forms of PrescribedBurnings!” It is an ISEU (International Socio-Ecological Union) public campaign. Afterward, I am passing to you another posting to the holobiont forum by Helga Vierich, an anthropologist, who argues that the ancient practices of burning as implemented by the native people of the Kalahari and the Sahel are good for the local environment. These two viewpoints are not necessarily in contrast with each other. They just examine the problem in different environments and conditions (UB).

Should you be interested in joining the "Proud Holobionts" discussion group, write me at prudentlobster(twinklything)gmail.com


On prescribed Burnings

By Natalia Novoselova (ISEU) "Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burnings"
(slightly readapted from a post to "The Proud Holobionts" discussion group)

It is a false statement that, since the native ancient people of North America (Indians) had implemented the practice of burning, the same burning practice must be used in our time. The correct understanding is that, no, it's not. The prescribed burning industry uses the idea of the “wise experience of burning” of the native folks to promote the practice of burning. Criticism of this opinion is considered in Part III of the campaign against prescribed burnings. The following text is a summary of the one presented there. 

The paradigm of prescribed burning is based on a dangerous belief about the necessity to continue the tactics of burning the natural territories of ancient native people. Many apologists of prescribed burning believe, that in current times people should continue the burning tactics of ancient native peoples (American Indians, Australian, and African Aborigines) who, for thousands of years burned natural territories for hunting and agriculture. The confidence that the ancient burnings were great wisdom that brought benefits to nature is one of the cornerstones of a philosophical system of prescribed burning paradigms in North America and Australia. Also, it is one of the principal arguments used in the propaganda of prescribed burning practices around the world. These arguments are often found in the press, scientific papers, websites, and social network groups devoted to prescribed burnings and wildfire fighting (see the references at this link).

However, the authors of the texts about the wisdom of the ancient traditions of burning and the need for their continuation in our days, do not explain the reasons for these beliefs. They do not explain why they think that the burning of ancient people did not harm wild nature, and why they think that modern people need to continue this practice. They do not try to analyze the ancient burning and comprehensively assess their impact on wild nature. The ancient practices of burning are called “wisdom and benefit for nature”, only because the ancient native peoples implemented them for a very long time, several thousands of years. Thus, these beliefs have the character of propaganda, the only purpose of which is to justify the modern methods and scale of the prescribed burning industry and convince society to burn more and more.

The book “Fire in Nature” authored by Ed Komarek (American enthusiast and propagandist of prescribed burning practice, founder of several Facebook groups dedicated to prescribed burning propaganda in the world) is a clear example of the exaltation of the ancient Native American burning practice, and justification of the mass prescribed burnings implemented in the USA by this ancient experience. Even in terms of the science that accompanies the modern practice of prescribed burning, Ed Komarek describes his proposal as a transfer of the experience of the ancients to modern realities. The same author fiercely criticizes the academic opposition to prescribed burning (that is, those scientists who reject the usefulness of prescribed burning practice) without giving rational arguments for his criticism. Actually, it is known that the impact of ancient people was a real catastrophe for the biological diversity and natural ecosystems of the planet on all continents and on most of the islands where people settled.

According to archaeological data (Harari, "A brief history of humankind" 2011), since the separation of modern humans (Homo sapiens) from other hominins, about 70-100 thousand years ago – humankind has become the most destructive species for ecosystems on the planet. As soon as people arrive at a new continent or an island – the result is the quick (in terms of hundreds or thousands of years) loss of about 60-90% of the species diversity of large animals (mammals, reptiles, and birds). Ancient people were the direct or indirect cause of the death of hundreds of species of insects and mollusks. Most of the megafauna of mammal and bird species disappeared on all continents and islands because of ancient humans which spread there. In particular, it is known that the human colonization of Australia (45 thousand years ago) and both Americas (16 thousand years ago) caused there an environmental catastrophe, the disappearance of the majority of large animal species, and significant changes in natural ecosystems. For example, the fossils of plants confirm that 45 thousand years ago eucalyptus trees grew in a small area in Australia. But after the arrival of Homo sapiens on this continent, the eucalyptus trees suddenly spread everywhere, displacing all other trees and bushes. This change in the vegetation composition affected significantly the animals of Australia. Many species of animals of all sizes could disappear in Australia because of changes in their habitat, caused by ancient people. Similar processes can be supposed on all continents and islands inhabited by people. The main instruments of this influence of ancient people on natural ecosystems and biodiversity were the burning of forests and hunting, and later – the cutting of trees. Some huge deserts of the planet may have been, in part, the result of such activities of ancient people (the Saharan desert, the deserts of central Australia, and others).

It can be concluded that the ancient human practices of burning on all continents and islands were catastrophically destructive to natural ecosystems and the biological diversity of the planet. Ancient people caused the extinction of a huge number of animal species of all sizes and almost all the megafauna of the planet. In our time, there are no rational reasons to continue the destructive practices of ancient people – the burning of natural lands and hunting. Therefore, the confidence that, currently, people should continue the burning tradition of ancient people - is another false postulate or misconception at the base of the prescribed burning paradigm, which contradicts common sense and worldwide objectives of nature conservation.

It is important to say that ancient people burned natural areas for survival; it was their way of life and the method of food production. In early times, the burning of wild forests was implemented for hunting purposes. Later, the burns were conducted for primitive slash-and-burn agriculture. These actions caused catastrophic destruction in the nature of all territories, where people lived. Since burning was necessary for the survival of ancient people, we (modern people) can forgive them for the damage they caused to the natural ecosystems and biodiversity of the planet. But, obviously, it is impossible to idealize these activities and consider them as useful practices that should be continued in our time! But this is exactly what the apologists of prescribed burning do, who have made the ancient practice of burning the cornerstone of their philosophy.

Also, the pyrophytic ecosystems formed as a result of the burning of ancient people (natural territories with a predominance of flora and fauna adapted to frequent fires and a state of constant pyrogenic succession) cannot be considered a benefit. Maybe some of these artificial natural landscapes can be preserved by special measures, but the main territories should be free from the anthropogenic pressure of burning because modern people do not need to burn natural lands for their survival. Modern society is organized according to principles that did not exist in ancient times and modern people do not need to get their food and clothes by hunting and slash-and-burn farming. Therefore, there is no rational reason to continue the destructive practice of burning. On the contrary, now there is an opportunity to finally free wild nature from this long destructive anthropogenic pressure – artificial burning and hunting.
 


Ancient Cultural Burning Methods


Helga Ingeborg Vierich (Anthroecology.com)
(from a post to "The Proud Holobionts" discussion group)


Out-of-control Wildfire is a killer. It may well have been one of the first and most overwhelming challenges faced by our distant ancestors - learning to reduce the scale and scope of such a menace... "taming" fire was more than creating campfires and cooking fires, and using it as a tool. It was figuring out how it interacted with life and developing strategic practices that turned it into a useful tool in making our beloved natural world and fellow creatures safe from the worst risks it posed. You know what else the Bushmen told me? They said that there were only two things that crossed the barrier between the material world where we exist, and the spiritual immaterial unknown realm beyond, where the creator dwells. These two manifestations were FIRE and LOVE... and by carefully deploying both of these humans can learn the truth about themselves - why are we here??.  I have always found this a comforting thought. 

I studied the use of cultural burning, both in the Kalahari and in the Sahel. In both locations, people set small "cool" fires to remove excess dry leafy, and grassy material. This is done to reduce the risk of extreme wildfires, which can apparently get so hot they will kill the organisms under the surface of the soil, including fungal networks and living roots of vegetation.

Humans evolved as a keystone species of ecological engineers, and tend to manage each ecosystem by encouraging greater plant and animal diversity. They do this not just by creating mosaics of secondary growth by periodic burning, but also by replanting many species of plants, including trees and shrubs, that provide them with food. They also recognize important species that fix nitrogen. They are aware that these are critical in keeping soils healthy and restoring soils in areas that are recovering from drought. In the Kalahari, I was told that the giraffe was rarely hunted because it was essential in spreading the seeds of the tall acacia - a nitrogen-fixing species. 

Here are some further references:

New research in Arnhem Land reveals why institutional fire management is inferior to cultural burning

Indigenous knowledge reveals history of fire-prone California forest

Study offers earliest evidence of humans changing ecosystems with fire | YaleNews

'Fire is medicine': the tribes burning California forests to save them | US news | The Guardian

Never has there been a greater need for Aboriginal fire-stick farming - » The Australian Independent Media Network

(1) Controlled Aboriginal Fires: Australia's Experience - YouTube

Reassessment of the use of fire as a management tool in deciduous forests of eastern North America. - PubMed - NCBI

Indigenous impacts on North American Great Plains fire regimes of the past millennium | PNAS

Fire responses to postglacial climate change and human impact in northern Patagonia (41–43°S) | PNAS

Research suggests First Peoples were firestick farming in North Queensland for up to 140,000 years | Sovereign Union - First Nations Asserting Sovereignty

fire ecology Table of Contents — June 05, 2016, 371 (1696) | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Fire history in a western Fennoscandian boreal forest as influenced by human land use and climate - Rolstad - 2017 - Ecological Monographs - Wiley Online Library