Feb 29, 2020 06:00:00

Does 'burning fire', which burns flammable dead trees in advance, prevent forest fires?

After months of wildfires in Australia , discussions on “fire measures” have become active after the fires have subsided . Under these circumstances, regarding the burning of wild wood that burns dead trees in the mountains in advance, if there are two conflicting research results that are `` effective for preventing wildfires '' and `` ineffective, '' fire ecology at the University of Melbourne Discussed by Professor Kevin Tolhurst.

The burn legacy: why the science on hazard reduction is contested
https://theconversation.com/the-burn-legacy-why-the-science-on-hazard-reduction-is-contested-132083

The Climate Council, a non-profit organization that provides climate change information to Australians, said in January 2020, `` Protecting human lives, assets and wildlife from large-scale fires, even with maximum prevention measures the impossible 'that the announcement was, what climate change is the cause of forest fires have complained that it is a problem.

Regarding the basis of Climate Counsil's claim, Professor Tolhurst pointed out that there are two conflicting theories that open burning, which is one of the measures against forest fires, is 'effective' and 'ineffective' in the first place. Climate Counsil criticized it for only the theory of 'ineffectiveness.'

Climate Counsil is based

on a study published in 2015 by a joint research team at Wollongong University and the University of Melbourne, Australia. The study, based on approximately 34 years of fire and weather data in southeastern Australia, compared areas burned with wildfire to areas burnt with open fire, and said, `` How much wildfire actually reduced wildfire. Did you make it? 'And concluded that' only in the forest area where the drought lasted for one year, the fire suppression effect of open burning can be exhibited '.

Regarding this study, Professor Tolhurst commented, 'This paper is based on some assumptions and is not appropriate as a rationale for land management.' Professor Tolhurst pointed out that the paper in question only referred to 'the area where the fire broke out' and ignored 'firefight', which is an important factor in firefighting.

In addition, Professor Tolhurst's own

study (PDF file) , based on a survey of the Royal Society of Victoria from 1984 to 2003, found that in low-fire wildfires, plants and animals, and underground Claims that nutrients recover. He dismissed that the studies at Wollongong and the University of Melbourne were meaningful, but at least not appropriate as arguments for the Climate Counsil claim.

Professor Tolhurst also mentions a study that 'open burning is effective against wildfires.' The study, published in 2009 by the Australian Center for Forest and Fire Research , analyzes fire records from forests in southwestern Australia for approximately 52 years. The study concluded that although burning less than 4% of the forest would be less effective, burning would reduce fire rates.

Regarding the discrepancy between the results of the 2015 study and the results of 2009, Professor Tolhurst said that the 2015 study did not take into account the fire force and that the 2015 study covered 2% of the forest He pointed out that he was burning only. The Climate Council said that we should look at scientific research with a broader perspective.

Professor Tolhurst, with the Climate Council as a teacher, based on research that discussed only the area of forest fires, improved the recovery of ecosystems, reduced the number and extent of forest fires, affected the human body, economic loss Argue that the conclusions must be made after considering all the broad factors, such as social impacts.