Changes in soil chemistry after forest fires?

Jostnix jostnix at aol.com
Sun Nov 23 08:04:19 EST 1997


In article <19971122152401.KAA29854 at ladder02.news.aol.com>, forestfair at aol.com
(ForestFair) writes:

>
>Air quality considerations today might also limit the use of intentional
>fires,
>but what about it -- has it been known to have a positive effect of
>subsequent
>growth?   
>
>

JK, JK, JK.  You are a New York Yankee...and I guess you have no reason to know
about the positive effect of fire because very little is done where you are. 
Smokey bear has done too good a job.

The Southern pine forest "thrives" on fire.  There is a debate that state
forestry agencies have done too good a job at eliminating fire from that
forest.  In fact the NPS and Yellowstone experienced what excluding fire can do
by building up decades of fuel that can lead to problems (and did).

The longleaf pine of the southern coastal plain depends on fire in its life
cycle.  Jack pine in Michigan would suffer if no fire and so would the
Kirtland's Warbler that depends on this ecosystem.  Gotta have fire.

The nutrient debate is just that.  Some research indicates that fire, correctly
prescribed, will actually unlock nutrients.  Most researcher think that
nutrient loss is minimal when a burn is done correctly.

Smoke management is a problem.  Not as much for air quality (looks worse than
is) but is a hazard on 75 mph Interstate Hwy Systems.  Much liability - a must
to write a fire plan before doing this.

For a little more on fire go to
http://forestry.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa080397.htm
Forest Fire - The Good, Bad, and Ugly

Steve 




        
      )(
    ))}{((
  ))))}{((((
))))))}{((((((
``````) (_________John Stephen Nix
"Everybodys ignorant 'cept on different things"  Will Rogers
Alabama Forestry Link...http://members.aol.com/jostnix/index.htm 
http://forestry.miningco.com



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list