Kerry's forest ideas out of step with sound ecosystem management

Psalm 110 ScienceCop at
Tue Aug 10 15:12:08 EST 2004

On 10 Aug 2004 10:48:32 -0700, wxdano9 at (Dano) wrote:

>> Anyone who does not know that is NOT a competent or fully trained
>> ecologist.
>Again, the topic was N and fire. I asserted there was a short-term
>increase in ammonium from fire, and that flush influenced growth. If
>you think that is incorrect, you should perhaps cite something and
>demand of yourself the quibble-proofness you demand of me. It is easy
>enough to Google 'postfire N cycling' and show what I stated. I shall
>return from vacation next week to see what you found about postfire N

Your article was deceptive in that it promotes the idea that nutrients
are increased in quantity and/or availability by fire, whereas they
are measurably reduced in both. "Short term" availability of released
nutrients is so short term that it is not a meaningful factor worth
measuring. Opening up the canopy for sunlight is the overwhelmingly
dominent factor that swamps all other factors to insignificance.

Liquid N does not stay around in the area long enough for more than
germination. It sinks to the lower depths of the soil by drainage, or
it washes off with the surface runoff. 2,000,000,000 acres of USA
farms support this proposition, and NOTHING supports yours. No cites,
no links.

Rich forest humus layers are the source of N for plant growth, and
they are likely thick and available, sun or shade. No additional
inputs of N need be postulated for growth flushes after fires -- the
humus layer is a full and complete explanation. Occum's razor say cut
the crap.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list