Update: the research has cited here was subsequently withdrawn in August. Please read the withdrawal notice in conjunction with this article.
New research from the University of Tasmania has found that logging causes bushfires to be worse.
In a scientific paper published in the Journal Fire, the researchers found that logging regrowth and plantations burned at a higher severity than old-growth forests. The study examined the area in the Huon Valley, Tasmania that was impacted by the Riveaux Road fire in January 2019.
Satellite images of the area taken before and after the fire allowed the researchers to examine where the fire burned, its severity, and the types of forest that were impacted. Old growth, mature forest and plantation tended to burn less than regrowth forest: but the most notable differences were in fire severity. More severe fires occurred in logging-regrowth and plantation forests (about 60% crown death each) while fires were less severe in mature forests (30% crown death), and old-growth forests (12%).
“Old-growth wet-eucalypt forests – which are the most commonly logged forest type in Tasmania – are naturally more resilient to fire than younger forests,” said Dr Jennifer Sanger, one of the paper’s co-author. “This is because they often contain shady, wet understoreys of non-flammable rainforest plants which helps to slow down fires.”
In contrast, younger forests and plantations have a much higher density of young eucalypts and a much drier understory, causing them to be much more flammable. The flames can also easily reach into the canopy, creating very intense fires which tend to spread quickly and are difficult to control.
“Regrowth from logging and plantations often form the interface between untouched forests and our communities,” said Sanger. We really need to take this into consideration when planning on how we make our communities safer from wildfire.”
A recent submission to the Bushfire Royal Commission from Private Forests Tasmania claimed that commercial forestry is a preventative strategy because it removes fuels.
“There have been calls from the forestry industry after the recent bushfires to use logging as a way to reduce the fire risk.
This is extremely misleading as our research has shown that logging can make forests more fire prone,” Dr Sanger said.
A study with similar findings was published in the leading international journal Nature only two weeks ago by researchers from Australian National University.
Sanger said that as of April the Tasmanian government allocated 356,000 ha of high-conservation value, old-growth forests to be available for logging.
“While, under extreme and catastrophic conditions, past disturbance may not affect the spread of fire, in most fire conditions old growth forest will slow the fire’s spread compared to logged forest,” she commented. “The Tasmanian Government’s plan to log old-growth forests will ultimately cause our landscape to become more flammable, putting our communities at risk.”
A statement to Tasmanian Times from Labor said they would caution against anyone using bushfires to make political points. “Labor supports a balanced approach to forest management, which includes mitigating bushfire risk.”
TT Editor
May 18, 2020 at 17:57
Could not agree more …
Simon Warriner
May 18, 2020 at 18:42
It would be fascinating to see what discussion was recorded about the increased risks that came with plantations in the fire management meeting minutes that were recorded back in the 1990s when the plantation madness was in full flight. That is, legislatively speaking, what those meetings are supposed to be for, namely identifying and addressing risks.
Failing, perhaps?
The researchers might like to lodge a Freedom of Information request on the grounds of scientific interest.
The Arthur District would be a really good place to start, seeing as they like their fires “big enough to fight properly” up that way.
Clive Stott
May 19, 2020 at 01:56
And then there is this ABC Opinion article by David Lindenmayer …
“Post-bushfire logging makes a bad situation even worse, but the industry is ignoring the science”
https://tinyurl.com/ycyruzqe
mjf
May 19, 2020 at 09:42
That’s an amazing deduction. Does one really need UTas research to conclude taht younger and regenerating forests are more flammable than older, wetter forests? This was hardly a secret.
Logically, shorter trees will be more predisposed to crown damage in a fire situation. Only age, and time spent growing, will decrease the inherent degree of flammability of new native forests.
Plantations are a different proposition as they are managed on a much shorter rotation. Locations of these closer to population centres is a good point, and certainly an improved mechanism for separation is worth considering, with 2R well advanced.
Simon Warriner
May 19, 2020 at 20:59
Your comment highlights precisely the point I was attempting to make, Martin.
It should have been readily apparent to competent individuals that risks would be generated by the placement of plantations against human habitations adjacent to previous grazing properties, and that that risk should have been openly discussed with the public because those who were being exposed to that risk were part of ‘the public’.
IT NEVER HAPPENED
Chief Editor TT
May 20, 2020 at 11:17
Articles are about specific issues and disappear out of sight quickly. That’s why longer comments addressing general issues can go in the forums where we hope ongoing debate can flourish. See here: https://tasmaniantimes.com/forums/topic/sustainable-timber-tasmania-formerly-forestry-tasmania/
Pat Synge
May 20, 2020 at 10:45
Since we know that plantations are highly fire susceptible, firebreaks should be made mandatory.
These might simply be grazed pasture, but consideration should also be given to living firebreaks in the form of deciduous or fire-resistant trees that may help limit the spread of burning embers.
Further research is needed.
mjf
May 22, 2020 at 13:55
Link deleted.
Martin, the Comments section of Tasmanian Times is predominantly for brief reader comments (to 100 words) on our published articles, and a link on its own is not a comment. There is more leeway in the Forums for longer comments and links that point to useful resources.
— Moderator
mjf
May 24, 2020 at 09:19
At https://tinyurl.com/y7hx29aj there is a Quadrant Online article by Mark Poynter titled “Pulling the Wood over our Eyes”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin, thankyou for your preliminary note about some writers in these columns starting a sentence with the word “And”.
Initial research at https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction shows this:
“There is a widespread belief – one with no historical or grammatical foundation – that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and, but or so. In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice.”
~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin, it’s possible to shorten lengthy URLs with a free online service here https://tinyurl.com/ where by way of example your original link, namely ..
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2020/05/pulling-the-wood-over-our-eyes/?utm_source=VAFI+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b7626bce0a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_04_01_16_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_07e613b2bd-b7626bce0a-188378617
.. has been substantially shortened to https://tinyurl.com/y7hx29aj as now appears in your brief Comment above.
— Moderator
mjf
May 25, 2020 at 22:49
I found and rather like this determination from a grammarian:
When you commence a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, just make sure the sentence relates to the preceding one and is complete without the conjunction e.g. I love kale. And I love candy.
Therefore commencing a new comment with “And” is poor form, as no preceding sentence exists.
I do like the URL conversion link.
I also endorse Poynter’s points.
May 24, 2020 at 23:30
I encourage people to go out with hand over crying heart and have look at the acres of clear fell and plantation regrowth marching across our state. From any angle they look like the perfect ticking bombfire.
Duncan C Mills
May 25, 2020 at 01:04
The lack of clarity within academia/media is unbelievable.
Forestry over the centuries was an honoured profession, and because of ecology a scientific art.
Let’s be clear:
1. Tree-cropping is not Forestry in the traditional sense, whatever the corporate propagandists may pretend.
2. Logging is only the practice of felling and removing logs, something which can be done either carelessly or carefully, and not to be conflated with the system of management whether it be tree cropping or forestry.
Even aged regrowth, when middle aged, crown fire easily compared with unevenly aged canopy or wet schlerophyl fire retardant under-story as exacerbated by the failure to thin tree crops.