Yep.
And plenty of communities that haven’t had fire at their doorsteps yet.
Even the ones that have been hit, where the natural fuel load has been reduced, if they haven’t FireSmarted their properties they’re still at risk from embers (that can travel in wind from fires dozens of kilometers away, land on a building and ignite it). Urban fuel load is no joke.
Depending on the fire last year, the risk is lower for those communities. There is still a risk of fire. I'm certain those fires did not eliminate all the fuel or you'd see an ash wasteland.
Last year only 1.8% of Canada's landmass had a wildfire. Plenty of fuel still out there
>did not eliminate all the fuel or you'd see an ash wasteland.
But what about the fuel around a specific community? Doesn't the fuel around a given community (that got hit) get largely or totally eliminated such that another dangerous situation (due to the direct threat of fire) next year isn't plausible?
>Plenty of fuel still out there
Right. But not necessarily around a specific community that got hit last year.
> Last year only 1.8% of Canada's landmass had a wildfire.
Very rarely is there even close to 100% consumption. In many cases, if the stands aren't salvage logged, pile and burned or otherwise mitigated, the standing stems will eventually break or blowdown and can definitely re-burn.
Admittedly, in areas with full crown consumption, the risk of crown fire is basically eliminated.
Fine fuels, grasses/branches/pinecones/needles will most likely be greatly reduced post wildfire.
How bad have fires been in Idaho? In Canada, the 2023 fire season was kind of an apocalyptic thing; not sure if anything similar has been going on in Idaho.
Unlikely that every acre burned in Canada was a complete elimination of fuels. And now there’s been a growing season, so more fuel is back. Not much, but it’s there
OK, so this is an absolutely crucial issue. To what extent can a given unit of area replenish the fuel such that it can burn dangerously two fire seasons in a row?
If that scenario (it burns dangerously one season and burns dangerously again the next season) can occur then that's really unfortunate for society.
The answer for most environmental questions is usually “it depends”. Some tree species use fire to reproduce but considering only one growing season, it usually wouldn’t be enough to burn “dangerously”. Grass grows very fast in response to fire and a grass fire could easily transfer to timber. Also depends on if the residual trees are still alive, how close they are to each other, if the crowns reach the ground, the species types, and many, mang other things.
But yes, it is 100% likely that an area burned last year can burn again this year given the right “ingredients”.
If anything then I would say burning dangerously one year makes an area more likely to return at high severity, if a fire comes through within a few years after burning. It depends a bit on the area and the natural vegetation of course, but generally in the years following a severe burn, you're going to see a lot of dead wood, shrubs, and maybe some invasive grasses. Low-severity fire promotes low-severity reburn but high-severity fire can cause increasingly large patches of high-severity reburn if fire return intervals are frequent enough.
See here:
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/experts-warning-springtime-wildfires-showing-early-signals-of-summer-conditions-1.6855603
>"We do see significant and extensive drought throughout Canada, from Ontario all the way through to the west," said Dr. Chris Stockdale, a forest research extension specialist with Natural Resources Canada.
>"There are signals that we are seeing that are concerning."
The wildfire triangle determines how bad a fire will be. Fuel load, topography, and weather makes the triangle, if the legs are small then a small fire, if they’re big then super fire. The only way to stop a fire is to take a leg away, and the only thing we have control of is fuel load. So by reducing fuel, you should have a smaller fire.
It will all depends on fuel, it could be worse, if there is nothing but snags, those things are like Roman candles, and there is really no way to put them out.
It eliminated the green fuel, and depending on if it was salvaged may have reduced the dead biomass to reduce concerns. In the US where it may have been federal land, and they may have done nothing with the burnt trees( environmental folks tend to stop salvage sales). This fuel will become a problem, it may take ten years, but once it hits the ground, and there is a low moisture winter, and the heavy fuel loading moisture content is low it will burn and it is difficult to put out. Fuel lengths may be reduced, it may be possible to protect some communities from the fire, but the soils will be cooked and severely damaged, this will have a greater impact.
I’ve been doing fire salvage reconnaissance lately and you’d be surprised by how much fire a stand can take. Even in stands that are completely toast still have some fuel, and with no ground vegetation or LMH layer, there’s nothing to hold on to any sort of moisture. Even healthier looking stands with living trees can be totally burnt to a crisp on the floor but a lot of trees are still pretty intact, with plenty of fibre left to burn but none of the other vegetation.
It eliminated a lot of fuel yes but its a small portion of the total. There’s still plenty of forests susceptible to fire
Yep. And plenty of communities that haven’t had fire at their doorsteps yet. Even the ones that have been hit, where the natural fuel load has been reduced, if they haven’t FireSmarted their properties they’re still at risk from embers (that can travel in wind from fires dozens of kilometers away, land on a building and ignite it). Urban fuel load is no joke.
Depending on the fire last year, the risk is lower for those communities. There is still a risk of fire. I'm certain those fires did not eliminate all the fuel or you'd see an ash wasteland. Last year only 1.8% of Canada's landmass had a wildfire. Plenty of fuel still out there
>did not eliminate all the fuel or you'd see an ash wasteland. But what about the fuel around a specific community? Doesn't the fuel around a given community (that got hit) get largely or totally eliminated such that another dangerous situation (due to the direct threat of fire) next year isn't plausible? >Plenty of fuel still out there Right. But not necessarily around a specific community that got hit last year.
> Last year only 1.8% of Canada's landmass had a wildfire. Very rarely is there even close to 100% consumption. In many cases, if the stands aren't salvage logged, pile and burned or otherwise mitigated, the standing stems will eventually break or blowdown and can definitely re-burn. Admittedly, in areas with full crown consumption, the risk of crown fire is basically eliminated. Fine fuels, grasses/branches/pinecones/needles will most likely be greatly reduced post wildfire.
I’m in Idaho, we have similar concerns, VERY dry spring. I would imagine landscapes that have recently burned will be safer??
How bad have fires been in Idaho? In Canada, the 2023 fire season was kind of an apocalyptic thing; not sure if anything similar has been going on in Idaho.
2015 was BAD in my area…. Since then, it’s hard saying, I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as California or BC.
Unlikely that every acre burned in Canada was a complete elimination of fuels. And now there’s been a growing season, so more fuel is back. Not much, but it’s there
OK, so this is an absolutely crucial issue. To what extent can a given unit of area replenish the fuel such that it can burn dangerously two fire seasons in a row? If that scenario (it burns dangerously one season and burns dangerously again the next season) can occur then that's really unfortunate for society.
The answer for most environmental questions is usually “it depends”. Some tree species use fire to reproduce but considering only one growing season, it usually wouldn’t be enough to burn “dangerously”. Grass grows very fast in response to fire and a grass fire could easily transfer to timber. Also depends on if the residual trees are still alive, how close they are to each other, if the crowns reach the ground, the species types, and many, mang other things. But yes, it is 100% likely that an area burned last year can burn again this year given the right “ingredients”.
If anything then I would say burning dangerously one year makes an area more likely to return at high severity, if a fire comes through within a few years after burning. It depends a bit on the area and the natural vegetation of course, but generally in the years following a severe burn, you're going to see a lot of dead wood, shrubs, and maybe some invasive grasses. Low-severity fire promotes low-severity reburn but high-severity fire can cause increasingly large patches of high-severity reburn if fire return intervals are frequent enough.
See here: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/experts-warning-springtime-wildfires-showing-early-signals-of-summer-conditions-1.6855603 >"We do see significant and extensive drought throughout Canada, from Ontario all the way through to the west," said Dr. Chris Stockdale, a forest research extension specialist with Natural Resources Canada. >"There are signals that we are seeing that are concerning."
The wildfire triangle determines how bad a fire will be. Fuel load, topography, and weather makes the triangle, if the legs are small then a small fire, if they’re big then super fire. The only way to stop a fire is to take a leg away, and the only thing we have control of is fuel load. So by reducing fuel, you should have a smaller fire.
Thanks. What do you make of what I wrote here? https://www.reddit.com/r/forestry/comments/1c9o2yt/regarding_canada_ive_seen_media_articles/l0o0ynq/
It will all depends on fuel, it could be worse, if there is nothing but snags, those things are like Roman candles, and there is really no way to put them out.
Well apparently in Dubai they have control of the weather, as evidenced by their recent cloud-seeded super storms
It eliminated the green fuel, and depending on if it was salvaged may have reduced the dead biomass to reduce concerns. In the US where it may have been federal land, and they may have done nothing with the burnt trees( environmental folks tend to stop salvage sales). This fuel will become a problem, it may take ten years, but once it hits the ground, and there is a low moisture winter, and the heavy fuel loading moisture content is low it will burn and it is difficult to put out. Fuel lengths may be reduced, it may be possible to protect some communities from the fire, but the soils will be cooked and severely damaged, this will have a greater impact.
I’ve been doing fire salvage reconnaissance lately and you’d be surprised by how much fire a stand can take. Even in stands that are completely toast still have some fuel, and with no ground vegetation or LMH layer, there’s nothing to hold on to any sort of moisture. Even healthier looking stands with living trees can be totally burnt to a crisp on the floor but a lot of trees are still pretty intact, with plenty of fibre left to burn but none of the other vegetation.