Burning away ecological ignorance

24 08 2009

This is the last post from the 10th International Congress of Ecology (INTECOL) in Brisbane. I’ve just returned after a long, but good week.

fire

© ABC Landline

Following my last two posts (here and here) from INTECOL, I end with a post about the very final talk of the Congress by a very well-known conservation ecologist, Professor David Lindenmayer of the Australian National University. David is a prolific and highly respected ecologist specialising in long-term ecological studies measuring forest biodiversity change. What made this final talk so compelling (and compelling it had to be after 5 straight days of talks) was not that it was essentially his acceptance ‘speech’ for winning the Ecological Society of Australia‘s Australian Ecology Research Award (AERA), it was the personal side of his science that kept the audience rapt.

As many CB readers will know, Australia (the state of Victoria in particular) suffered earlier this year some of the worst forest fires on record. Many died and many millions in property were damaged. Since then, everyone from Germaine Greer to MP Wilson Tuckey has become a laughably unqualified fire expert, but few have sufficient knowledge or experience to prescribe the most parsimonious fire regime for Victoria’s wet temperate forests.

Now, I think David was unfortunate to lose either friends or family in those fires, and he’s been collecting biodiversity data there and studying the ecology of south Australian fires for over two decades. Suffice it to say, he probably knows what he’s talking about.

So when the baying hounds of public misunderstanding demand that the remaining bush fragments of Victorian forests be cleared to protect people and property (so-called ‘hazard-reduction burning’), I think we should listen instead to David Lindenmayers of this world.

David’s talk was about just this – how the fires are portrayed as the Apocalypse itself by the media, when in reality ecosystems generally bounce back very quickly. Indeed, even in some of the most heavily burnt sites, most of the standing carbon in the vegetation remains (despite appearances). He also explained that our knowledge of temperate fire regimes is rudimentary at best, and that available evidence from the Northern Hemisphere suggests that clearing forests actually can lead to a HIGHER fire proneness, intensity and frequency. He explained how the homogenisation of fire patterns destroy are weakening essential ecosystem functions, and that spatial and temporal fire patchiness is essential to maintain ecosystems and the people living in them.

In summary, we have failed to learn lessons from northern Australia about buggering up the natural fire regime (see previous post). We as a society fall victim to sensationalist and uninformed media reports and develop ill-advised, knee-jerk policies as a result. Ecological considerations for our own welfare have been overlooked too long. It’s time politicians stop fuelling the fires of public ignorance and listen to the ecologists out there who know a thing or two about complex ecosystem structure and the disturbance regimes that create them.

Thanks, David, for a sobering reminder of the importance of our work.

CJA Bradshaw

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


Actions

Information

2 responses

10 09 2009
Conservation Scholars: David Lindenmayer « ConservationBytes.com

[…] in this country for over 30 years. I recently featured David here at ConservationBytes.com on the importance of incorporating ecological knowledge into Australian bushfire policy, but here’s a more comprehensive coverage of his […]

Like

25 08 2009
Geoff Russell

Farmers use a similar line when asking people to listen to their advice … “We live on the land, we look after the land … we know what we are talking about.” You spruik for research and they very effectively pit experience against research and rely on a public distrust of stuff they don’t understand (i.e., research). My favourite example of experience sucking as a teacher is tooth grinding. Some moron farmer in the 1980s decided that old sheep had trouble chewing grass and figured their teeth needed sharpening … within a couple of years a massive industry sprang up building crushes to hold heads of sheep still while farmers went at them with angle grinders. It took researchers some years to PROVE that the procedure didn’t work and it doesn’t happen these days … but it is still legal … check the code of Practice for details http://www.publish.csiro.au/books/download.cfm?ID=5389

The basic problem is an anti-intellectual society which idolises farmers, “the land” and an Australia which never existed while daemonising research. Plimer’s professed distrust of computer models is a great example of the Aussie “experience” bias in action. He knows it and plays it for all its worth.

What’s the solution to this problem? I haven’t the foggiest idea.

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s