More Forest Thinning Science

1. You need Water for Ecohydrology

I previously wrote about the effects of thinning Southwestern ponderosa pine forests on forest hydrology.  AE Brown et al (Journal of Hydrology, 2005) summarized the last 50 years of hydrology research around the world on exactly this question.  Their conclusion was that yes, thinning increases water availability by decreasing evapotranspiration (ET).  However, at drier sites there is less of a difference.

In the figure above, the difference between the grass and forest curves represents the change in mean annual water yield for 100% conversion of one vegetation type to the other.  Partial conversion (i.e. thinning) was shown to have a proportional partial response.  The lack of difference between grass and forest in drier climates (below 500mm or 20 inches precipitation/year) indicates that most ET is actually just evaporation in these areas.  Therefore, because transpiration does not play a large role, reducing transpiration via thinning would not be expected to generate a large increase in water availability.

2. Don't Miss the Forest for the Trees

This classic forestry study found that thinning ponderosa forests increased growth of the remaining trees, but decreased total wood production.  In other words, the increase in vigor didn't compensate for the decrease in trees.  This even includes the decrease in disease (bark beetles) in thinned forests. So the question becomes, do you want a healthier forest or more wood?  

Data is from the The Level-of-Growing-Stock (LOGS) study on thinning ponderosa pine forests in the US West: A long-term collaborative experiment in density management.  A 2020 follow up provides a summary review of this study that started in 1962.  The The AZ portion of the study was conducted at Fort Valley experimental Forest just north of Flagstaff.   PDF with much more info is available from https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs/rmrs_p055.pdf.

Is Forest Thinning Beneficial for Everyone?

 This Undark article says Pinyon jays are proposed for ESA listing because of forest restoration thinning:

“some bird biologists... are sounding the alarm that even today’s thinning methods degrade pinyon jay habitat. These woodlands are already under extreme drought stress, especially in New Mexico, with predictions for widespread loss due to climate change. And some studies suggest thinned piñon-juniper forests are less resilient to beetle infestation and drought.

 I participated in a 10-year monitoring study of thinned and unthinned Pinyon-Juniper woodlands in the Manzano mountains.  Our findings were different from those discussed in the study; we found increased soil moisture at thinned plots, which led to richer pinyon nut crops and an increase in pinyon jays.  

However, I'm not arguing that the cited studies are wrong; there may be important site-specific differences between different restoration treatments in different areas.    Some restoration can actually help pinyon jays, we just need to figure out which treatments, and how!

Hopefully, we can all agree that if a treatment isn't making things better for native plants and animals we need to rethink it; just because something is called "restoration" doesn't mean its automatically good.  That's why we need science like this.

Citation.

2021 California Wildfires and Fuel Treatments

This post and discussion on The Smokey Wire is one of the best, with in-depth reviews of the effectiveness of forest thinning to control wildfires.  

https://forestpolicypub.com/2021/09/17/the-caldor-fire-and-fuel-treatments-sf-chronicle-la-times-and-sac-bee-stories/

"Improper" Tree Hazard Assessments?

The Summer 2020 issue of FSEEE Forest News argues that the Forest Service improperly uses tree hazard assessments to justify closing public lands.

Based on the article, it appears that FS spokespeople have not always done a good job communicating the reason for post-fire closure areas.  There are many reasons to close areas post-fire, but tree risk assessments by themselves would probably not justify backcountry trail closures. 

The FS Field Guide for Hazard Tree Identification and Mitigation cited in the article applies a numerical probability assessment to hazards by scoring Failure Indicators and adding these with Damage Potential to obtain a numerical Hazard Rating.   This methodology would be familiar to any arborist and follows standard arboriculture practices.  If there are dead or damaged trees around developed FS facilities or campgrounds than clearly there would be a high Hazard Rating and it would make sense to close those areas until the hazard can be mitigated.  But applying this same methodology to backcountry trails would result in scores that are relatively low because of the sparse or nonexistent targets for the hazard trees. So on this point the Forest News article is correct: hazard trees alone do not justify backcountry forest closures.

However, there are other hazards in recently burned areas besides dead trees, including active restoration/revegetation projects, burned-out root systems, unstable soils, potential debris flows, and obscured or impassable trails.  It may make sense to close these areas to the public until trails can be repaired or ongoing restoration work is completed.  

Ponderosa Mortality After Fire

The best data comes from Hull Sieg, Carolyn, et al. "Best predictors for postfire mortality of ponderosa pine trees in the Intermountain West." Forest Science 52.6 (2006): 718-728.

This graph shows probability of death based on both “crown consumption” (actual burning of the crown) and “crown scorch” (browning of needles due to heat injury). It shows that probability of tree death increases above 50% when Crown Scorch increases past 75%, whereas tree death is above 50% when crown consumption is only 25%. A combination of the two is determined to be the best predictor of tree mortality.

Here are some diagrams of crown scorch and crown consumption. In general, if there are brown needles on the tree that is scorch, if they are black or missing it is consumption.



(from Tree and forest restoration following wildfire by Peter Kolb)

Tropical Reforestation

Tree Meditation
Trees are somehow a focus for my life.  Ayurveda teaches that I should be like a tree: no-harm, no killing, no lying, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, no intoxicants.  Simple clean food offered freely, with fresh air and rain.  And a place to stand and grow - upward and downward.

Earth molds water.  Water nourishes trees.  Trees touch the earth and feel the air.  Trees stand apart from all philosophy, and yet are subject to our philosophy, our economy.  Strange that in my job I plan the cutting of hundreds of trees from computer documents and databases. Somehow I am both, I have my roots in the reality of trees and mud, but my arms in the ethereal computer worlds of planning and economy, laws.

Can I do something to balance the world, something electronic for the trees?

Forest Reforestation
There are problems with many reforestation efforts. Monocultures that don't help local people, protests around the world against REDD+.  In Japan, people are waking up to the problem.  (Link)  The problem of monoculture or few species planted in US cities has led to invasive insect pests wiping out large areas, for example in Worcester, MA.  The International Society of Arboriculture says the goal should be to follow the 20% rule (max 20% of any genus/species).

Example solutions: Health in Harmony listen to people. They give people healthcare, pay them to plant and monitor forest.  Other groups like Eden also pay people to plant.  Trees for the Future tries to create sustainable agroforestry.  Search engine ecosia donates money to these and other organizations.

But I have concerns about cost effectiveness and the ability to scale.  TFTF has only helped a few thousand farmers in the 30 years they've been around.  But CharityNavigator rates these groups highly; they have good governance, but they may not be as effective.

Policy action to improve REDD+ payments could make a huge difference, but the scale is too big for me to think about, and maybe for anyone. There will always be problems with a system that big.  The Effective Altruism community's assessment of Coalition of Rainforest Nations (CoRN) tries in vain to wrap their analysis around policy.  Policy is just too amorphous to apply straightforward risk and return.

WRI's Global Forest Tracker (10 year report on deforestation) will be important to measure and monitor leakage.  Mondabay also has good rainforest statistics page.

WRI supports restoration with venture capital as a way to scale, it is unclear how this makes money. they speak in corporate-ease, another example of how the real work is in board rooms or on the ground? Its hard to tell.

Ecosia has nice on-the-ground videos showing the work they support.

Conclusion
I need to research more, learn more.  Restoration is a passion project for me, but to be professional it may need to be something like WRI or EDF. But i'm not a corporate person, being in the field is what inspires me.  Maybe, like a tree, I can grow from the earth and reach into board rooms?

REDD+

[A note on REDD+]

During the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol the inclusion of tropical forest management was debated but eventually dropped due to anticipated methodological difficulties in establishing – in particular – additionality and leakage (detrimental effects outside of the project area attributable to project activities). Eventually, the national forest monitoring system was introduced, with elements of measurement, reporting and verification (MRV).

Reference levels are a key component for any national REDD+ program and critical in at least two aspects. First, they serve as a baseline for measuring the success of REDD+ programs in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from forests. Second, they are available for examination by the international community to assess the reported emission reductions or enhanced removals. In that sense it establishes the confidence of the international community in the national REDD+ program. The results measured against these baselines may be eligible for results-based payments.]

Logging to Save a Forest from Climate Change

A good article about logging in the forest where I did my graduate research in northern Michigan.  Researchers are using funding from a timber contract with Louisiana-Pacific to cut the aspen trees on part of the experimental forest.  They will study the soil and water impacts of cutting the trees, as well as looking at species composition changes.

In the article, a researcher is quoted as saying that it would be irresponsible not to cut the trees because of climate change.  "Aspen in the Great Lakes region are considered “climate change losers,” according to Nave, and are not expected to fare well as the region’s climate continues to warm in the coming decades."

"The high-emissions scenario projects an 11.2-degree Fahrenheit summer temperature increase in the assessment area by the end of the 21st century. At the same time, summer precipitation is projected to decline by 3.8 inches under that scenario. "

"It will take a decade or more to know which of the aspen-management treatments was most effective, Nave said. It is expected that future generations of Biological Station researchers and students will carry on with the work, he said."

Bark Beetles

The Threat

Records dating back as far as 1750 indicate a consistent record of intermittent outbreaks of aggressive bark beetles in various forest types across the West. Over the past 10-15 years, however, the frequency, severity, and extent of bark beetle outbreaks have increased.

The current bark beetle outbreaks differ from previously recorded infestations because of:
Their intensity — bark beetles are killing trees in larger numbers, at a faster pace, and over longer time periods
Their extent — bark beetle outbreaks are occurring in numerous ecosystems from Alaska to northern Mexico
Their synchroneity — bark beetle outbreaks are occurring concurrently across western North America


The Characters: all beetles in the subfamily Scolytinae

Figure from Bentz, 2005.

Dendroctonus sp (Bark beetles) Outbreaks are usually associated with drought (Page, 1981). The beetle also responds to fire-damaged trees, but not those killed by fire.

Ips sp. (Pine engraver beetles): Species within the genus Ips, such as the piñon ips and
Arizona fivespined ips, also can kill their hosts, although typically they are not considered major disturbance agents. In recent years, however, elevated population levels of a number of Ips species have coincided with drought, resulting in large areas of mortality, particularly in piñon and ponderosa pine forests of the southwestern U.S.

The above beetles are distinguished from Ambrosia beetles as they only attack and consume live trees, whereas Ambrosia beetles can bore into heartwood even after a tree is dead and dry.

Ambrosia beetles (several species): Classed as wood borer beetles that attack weakened, dying, and
recently cut or killed trees. They can attack freshly cut lumber and lumber in decks before it is dried, and they can cause pinhole defects and dark staining in the outer wood. Galleries are formed in the sapwood or heartwood and damage the wood. Because ambrosia beetles tunnel into the wood, they are considered wood borers rather than bark beetles.


Management Considerations

When live trees are blown down, their phloem can remain suitable for bark beetle development up to a year later.  Stressed pine trees emit volatile compounds (terpenes). Bark beetles have evolved to detect these compounds and use them to identify suitable host trees. 

Bark beetles are also attracted to freshly cut wood.  Freshly processed chips emit the same volatile compounds (terpenes) as susceptible host trees. These chips will attract bark beetles during their active periods. The bark beetles cannot utilize the chips as a food source, but the attracted bark beetles may then colonize suitable host trees adjacent to the chips piles.

Fresh dead and down material (slash) can be a refuge for bark beetles, allowing them to breed, and possibly colonize nearby healthy trees. Lop and scatter can let slash dry out, killing any beetles in the bark and preventing new beetles from feeding on it.

Wood that has been debarked is not suitable for colonization by bark beetles. Only freshly cut, logs or slabs that have not been debarked are at risk of colonization.

Dead trees that do not have bark beetles in them and that do not pose a safety hazard can be left in the forest to be used by wildlife.  Dead trees do not necessarily pose more of a fire hazard than live trees.

Figure from Bentz, 2005.

Additional Resources

Diana L. Six, Ryan Bracewell, Bark Beetles, 2015

Bentz, Barbara.  Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences.  2005.

Four Forests Restoration Project

The draft EIS for the first 500,000 acres has been released.

Thinning work is already ongoing, but is behind schedule:

"The company said it is now thinning about 30 acres a day, which works out to about 625 acres a month. That’s a significant increase in the pace of operations since January, but still far behind the schedule established for the project nearly four years ago.  Ultimately, the company’s 10-year contract with the Forest Service requires it to clear 40,000 acres annually. In the nearly two years the company has had the contract, it has cleared about 3,700 acres. That puts the company about 70,000 acres behind the original schedule."

In my experience, in the Jemez, the major time lags are for completing NEPA and EIS and waiting for good prescribed fire weather.  Cutting the trees is fast and easy, and if they skip the fire (unnecessary and possibly environmentally detrimental) nothing should slow them down.  One of my other main criticisms from the Jemez is that they're not thinning enough trees to reduce the basal area to the most beneficial levels.  I know the ideal density and pattern of trees has been argued about ad infinitum... it seems they are trying to avoid conflict by cutting less trees, which totally defeats the purpose of preventing catastrophic crown fire.

To Burn or Decay? What is the best management practice to deal with excess biomass?

 Conventional forest restoration in Western pine ecosystems involves reduction of biomass through thinning, which is sometimes followed by prescribed burning to further reduce fuels.  Burning slash piles sterilizes soil patches and doesn't decrease overall site litter, so broad-scale prescribed burns have traditionally been the best management practice to reduce fuel loads.

Passing over the discussion of what was historically "natural," is fire the best tool for increasing site productivity?

Apparently not.  Duff burning kills fungi, small roots, and (obviously) removes duff. “EMF mortality and complete duff reduction after fire have been implicated with poor tree survival and slow stand recovery in forest ecosystems world-wide.”  (Smith, McKay, Brenner, mcIver, Spatafora.  2005: Early impacts of forest restoration treatments on the ectomycorrhizal fungal community and fine root biomass in a mixed conifer forest.  (PDF)

As Stametz and others have pointed out, burning is not the best use of available resources: fire volatilizes stored nutrients such as nitrogen and organic carbon (N and SOC).  Fire can also form hydrophobic soil crusts, kill flora and fauna, decrease soil microbiota (important for decomposition), destroy tree roots, mycelial networks, and sometimes mature trees.  In contrast, decomposing organic material could increase site productivity.


Permaculture forest restoration?
Restoration projects proceed with multiple goals, either explicit or implicit.  One such goal has been the return of historical fire to degraded forests.  According to a large body of research, at least some pine forests historically experienced short return-interval, low-intensity fire.  However, using this to justify current prescribed fire approaches assumes that we can --and should-- attempt to replicate historical ecosystems.  I believe it is a fallacy to assume that ecosystems, like species, must be maintained in the face of changing environmental conditions; paleoecology clearly shows that species migrated independently throughout prehistory, indicating that the ecosystems we see today are only contingent associations of species; there may be better arrangements of species and better ways of managing ecosystems than relying on historical norms.

That being said, there are even better reasons to question prescribed fire in forest restoration.  If we abandon the idea of mimicking natural disturbances we are free to innovate more productive restoration methods.  For example, Permaculture-inspired ideas of maximizing species diversity and ecosystem services could inspire a new type of forest restoration.  I envisage a restoration program designed to optimize current site conditions rather than recreate history...

What Controls Decomposition Rate in Conifer Forests?

Source: Litter decomposition, climate, and litter quality. Link.

Nutrients:  Mn and N

Manganese and Nitrogen control forest decomposition, but in an unexpected way. Mn is an essential component of ligninolytic enzymes important for degrading litter in the later stages of decomposition.  But high available N can limit decomposition. The most efficient degraders of lignin and humic acids are wood-rotting or litter-decomposing white-rot fungi (Hintikka 1970; Hatakka 2001).  For several of the lignin-degrading white-rot fungi, high concentrations of low-molecular weight N compounds suppress the synthesis of the lignin-degrading enzymes (Keyser et al. 1978; Eriksson et al. 1990; Carreiro et al. 2000). 

Further, N has repeatedly been reported to react with remains of degrading lignin to form recalcitrant condensation products. Such products form chemically (Vahtras 1982; Stevenson 1982) rather than biologically.  Spaccini (1999) suggested that such bonds create a hydrophobic surface thereby resisting decomposition. The higher the concentrations of lignin and N in a litter material the more likely it seems that such covalent bonds will be formed. Using 106 sets of foliar litter comprising 21 tree species (both coniferous and deciduous) representing a wide range in chemical composition, Berg (2000) found a highly significant negative relationship between limit values and initial N concentrations in litter.

Many examples exist in which addition of N to a N-deficient system slows down decomposition, especially where organic matter with high lignin content is present (Verhoef and Brussaard, 1990; Carreiro et al., 2000). Nitrogen and other fertilizers may negatively influence specific groups of organisms, particularly microbes.  Any shift in microbial composition can have a negative effect on other soil fauna.  As a result, decomposition and mineralization may decrease. Additionally, plants can compete successfully with decomposers for nutrients.  (Neher 2003.)

What about pH?

In a review of 58 studies, Wardle (1998) found that temporal variability in soil carbon (C) was related most closely to soil N content in forests and soil pH in arable and grassland ecosystems. (Neher 2003.)

But a study by Parn et al adding ash to a pine forest to increase soil pH did not observe increased decomposition.  A large meta-review noted that 22-85% of treatment trials have failed to affect decomposition: “This analysis shows that Ca additions are not universally beneficial and provides insight into when Ca additions to forest soils are likely to be most effective." (Evaluating the effects of liming and wood-ash treatment on forest ecosystems through systematic meta-analysis. Carolyn Reid, Shaun A. Watmough)

Decomposition Rate and Ecosystem Integrity

Neher 2003 "Effects of disturbance and ecosystem on decomposition." is a great review of this topic.  (PDF)  They conclude that "decomposition of organic matter is a useful indicator of soil condition because it is measured easily and serves as integrator of the collective activities of organisms within the soil food web."  For example, slowing rates of decomposition serve as an early warning sign of pathology in forest ecosystems (Bormann and Likens 1979),  A difference in decomposition rate between similar sites implies either a change in the decomposer community or quality of the biotic and abiotic resources at a site. 

This WSU website has a great review of pine forest decomposition.

What stand density is optimal in Ponderosa pine forest restoration?

 In my humble opinion, there is really only one chart needed to answer the question of what density is best for Ponderosa pine trees:

Source: The role of stand density on growth efficiency, leaf area index, and resin flow in southwestern ponderosa pine forests.  McDowell, Adams, Bailey, and Kolb.  (link)

 The lower the basal area, the more trees grow.  Growth is especially important in drought-stressed trees because lower growth can weaken tree defenses.  The lowest treatment in this study reduced trees to 7 m2 ha-1, and trees in this treatment had the highest leaf area per tree, indicating that they were healthiest at the time of the study.

Leaf area of understory plants was also highest at the lowest stand densities:

Source: ibid.

However, in the interest of full disclosure, this chart also shows (in panel B) that total forest resource utilization, measured by total leaf area, is highest at medium tree densities.

Salvage Logging is Not Supported by Published Research

I completed a literature review on the effects of salvage logging (SL). I read all of the major papers, including the two extant literature reviews, the old Forest Service-funded one by McIver and Starr, and the newer one by conservation ecologists Lindemeyer and Noss. The conclusions are consistent: in general, SL increases fire risk, increases erosion, reduces wildlife habitat, and impairs natural recovery. SL has the potential to be much more detrimental than traditional (green) logging (Lindenmeyer and Noss 2006).

This Ponderosa Pine forest burned in a the Las Conchas fire, a stand-replacing crown fire in the summer of 2011.  Two years later, grasses and flowers had recolonized the area.  Cover values were greater than in nearby unburned forests;  forests can recover naturally from even very severe fires.  

 *Increased fire risk:  salvage logging provides the kind of fuels necessary to introduce ground fires into the canopy (Donato 2005). SL increases fuel loads for 20 years compared to controls (McIver and Ottmar 2007).

These burned trees will gradually decay and fall to the forest floor.  Some burned trees may take as much as 50 years to fall, providing valuable wildlife habitat all the while (Lindenmeyer 1997). If they were logged, most of the limbs and crowns would be left as "slash" that, if re-burned, would yield extremely high flame lengths and soil temperatures.

*Increased erosion: salvage logging has the potential to exacerbate erosional problems typically observed in burned watersheds (McIver and Starr 2000).

Natural post-fire erosion can deplete soil, further impairing vegetative recovery.  Human disturbance can compact soils and channelize flow paths, thereby exacerbating natural erosion.  

 *Reduced wildlife habitat:  Most wildlife species rely on dead trees in one way or another.  Of the 102 terrestrial vertebrate species in Washington State, over half (56) require dead tree boles (snags) to nest or den (Hutto 2006). Across the West, 150 species of vertebrates rely on dead trees for nesting or denning (Rose et al 2001).

Less than three months post-fire, bark beetles in the Jemez Mountains, NM were so active they created large piles of sawdust.  Needless to say, woodpeckers were extremely active in this area.

 *Impaired natural vegetation recovery: SL results in increased mortality of pine seedlings (Castro et al 2011).

A pine seedling emerges from the burned forest floor one year after a fire (with a little natural fertilizer thrown in to help).  This seedling would likely be crushed (and the elk dispersed) by salvage logging, necessitating an expensive tree-planting operation to compensate for destroyed natural recruitment and depleted natural fertilizers.

Yes, forest fires are a major natural disturbance to forest ecosystems.  But despite all the talk of unnatural "megafires", even the largest and hottest fires leave some legacy of the previous forest (e.g. burned trees). Logging is also a major disturbance to natural forest ecosystems, a disturbance that burned forests are less resilient to.  Multiple disturbances have cumulative effects on ecosystems, so compounding the damage to a burned forest by removing the remaining trees is much more damaging than logging without fire.

Going forward, there needs to be broader recognition of the ability of ecosystems to recover from natural disturbances and the essential role of biological legacies (in this case, dead burned trees) in the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem processes (Lindenmeyer, Burton, and Franklin, 2008).  Those burned trees are hard at work shepherding the forest back to life, not wasted timber that must be "salvaged".

Forest Service Completes WRAP Watershed Condition Map

Two Views of Recent (2000-2012) Forest Fires in the American Southwest

Imaging and recording forest fire extent serves a number of important roles in forest ecology and is also very useful for planning vacations!  (Don't plan to camp in a recently burned forest)  There are now two ways of mapping recent fire locations.

The USFS ForWarn Forest Change Assessment Viewer (FCAV) can visualize fires that burned from 2000-2012 using the Fire Perimeter Layer.

 The Global Forest Change map (GFC) (Hansen et al) is a new tool that shows global forest extent (green),  deforestation (red), and aforestation (blue) and reforestation (purple).  In the high-resolution image above, one can match USFS fire perimeters to the actual burn scars, as well as visualize total forest extent.  Beetle die-off is apparently not apparent in this view.

But why isn't the 2011 Horseshoe Two fire visible? This large stand-replacement fire burned more than 70% of the Chiricahua mountains (look for a green tear-drop shape near the Southern edge of the map above).  It is clearly visible as a red blob in the USFS image, but not in the Global Forest Change map.   It is clearly visible on Landsat images:

Image source.

Zoomed in images show the disparity:

 The USFS viewer shows the entire range as burned area.

But hardly any forest loss is recorded on the GFC map.  Why??

Perhaps the discrepancy is due to burn severity?  Fires do not burn evenly across a landscape, and many regions within a burn perimeter may be only lightly or moderately burned.  

Here is the Horseshoe Two fire burn severity map, clearly showing large areas of high and moderate intensity fire within the burn perimeter:

...

An important note about the colors shades on the GFC map:  they indicate the percent forest (defined as vegetation over 5m) per grid cell.

This view of the Rodeo-Chediski (2002) fire shows different shades of red, and green.  No regrowth is apparent.

Zooming in all the way to individual pixels shows the different shades.  Assuming the forest loss shades are proportional to the initial forest cover shades, the lightest red colors indicate areas that were 75-100% forest (and now are not forest or are 0-25% forest), the light grey-red indicates areas that were 50-75% forest (and now are not forest or are 0-25% forest), the darker grey-red indicates areas that were 25-50% forest (and now are not forest or are 0-25% forest), and black  indicates areas that are (and continue to be) 0-25% forest.  

What about the 2002 Biscuit fire in the Klamath-Siskyou region....

Purple in the GFC map above may indicate some regrowth (and/or replanting) in the 10 years following the fire.

Best Public Lands GIS

There are no perfect web viewers for ecological and public land GIS.

ProtectedPlanet is an open-source platform that has the most comprehensive map of special protected areas for the whole world.  In the US, highlights include BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), USFS Research Natural Areas, Special Botanical Areas, etc.

Peakbagger.com has the best index of free online topo maps, and their database is searchable for mountain ranges and peaks (Google often can't find geographic features).

SEINet is fast becoming the most comprehensive botanical specimen map database in the world, with new collections constantly expanding their coverage.

Wundermap has many useful features, including a better display of, for example, USGS's Stream Gauge Network, as well as weather and sea surface temperature.

I'm still trying to decide if the Forest Service's ForWarn system, or their Disturbance Mapper, is a better way to view forest fire, insect infestation, and phenology data.  Both are slow and clunky as of this writing.

Living with Fire in Northern New Mexico: Fire, Forests, and Communities

Dr. Bob Parmenter presented data from some of our post-Las Conchas fire recovery monitoring.  Craig Allen gave two talks about culture and climate change over the last ~1,000 years.

Slides and videos from the presentations have not been posted yet.

What does a natural forest fire look like in the Southwest?

What is "natural"?  Ecologists use the range of natural variability to define proper functioning condition (PFC) or minimally disturbed condition (MDC), etc (in the jargon of ecologists -- basically, what was it like before we mucked it up?)  The question is surprisingly hard to answer.

Tom Swetnam has been quoted drawing a distinction between burn severity (high-intensity burns are natural) and extent (but high-severity burns across large landscapes are not natural).  These statements are part of an ongoing debate that, like many debates in ecology, may be dependent on local factors.  

In Arizona, Dr. Wally Covington became famous for championing open park-like Ponderosa forests.  Indeed, many landscapes are dominated by frequent low-intensity grass fires that clear out underbrush and young trees.  But at longer time scales it seems equally clear that these same forests can catastrophically burn.  This has been pointed out by Dr. Baker's work in Arizona, and by Dr. Grant Meyer in Sacramento Mountains of New Mexico.  More evidence is not hard to find.  For example, a study of the geomorphology of the Rio Cebolla river in the Jemez Mountains noted extensive sediments with large burned logs indicative of high severity fire in what must have been extensive headwater areas. 

Dendrochronologists  often focus on the last 1,000 years, whereas geomorphologists have a much larger picture, often spanning not just this interglacial, but also the last several ice ages.  (CF Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems by Miller and Chambers et al)

Fires are transformative, but both more and less impactful than commonly thought.  They accelerate and are accelerated by climate change.  Most large fires are not as bad as news reports indicate -- they are bananzas for wildlife and fire-dependent trees and shrubs like aspen and oak.

Most "megafires" aren't really managed with a full suppression strategy, but a containment strategy -- still not 'let-burn' but pretty close.  Unfortunately, suppression and containment efforts can be as damaging as fire.  

Whether or not fires are natural, the inevitable question is raised as to whether humans can restore the environment better or faster than natural succession would?  This is a loaded question, because of the salvage logging controversy.  One logger expressed confusion about why thinning before a fire is justified, but salvage logging after isn't.  But either may be ineffective in preventing the next conflagration.  If ERC is high enough and there is enough ventilation, anything will burn, even the Olympic Peninsula rainforest! (Cf Dr. Gavin's ESA talk)

Burn Severity during extreme drought: case examples from New Mexico

 Two fires in the Sangre de Christo Mountains, one in the Jemez:

Jaroso Fire Burn Intensity

Tres Lagunas Fire Burn Intensity

Thompson Ridge Fire: Probability of crown fire:

 and Burn Intensity: