original-registerguardStudy sheds light on life after fireBy
Greg BoltThe Register-Guard
Published: Wednesday, April 4, 2007
A new study by Oregon State University scientists suggests that many burned-over forests will grow back on their own without replanting, a finding that echoes a controversial study by a different OSU research team a year ago.
The new study says natural regeneration may take somewhat longer in certain areas and produce a different mix of trees, but it rebuts long-held assumptions that crowding and shade from brush block seedling growth. In fact, it said regrowth in many burned plots was much higher than needed to restore the forest, even when the burned area is relatively distant from a source of seeds.
Also, allowing burned forests to grow back on their own could produce a forest with a more natural diversity of plant species and wildlife habitat than when remaining trees are logged and brush is cleared before nursery-raised seedlings are planted.
The study by forest ecology professor David Hibbs and senior research assistant Jeff Shatford is in line with some of the conclusions of the study published last year by graduate student Daniel Donato and other OSU researchers. But the new work looked at a broader region decades after a fire while Donato's study was limited to a smaller area just two years after the 2002 Biscuit Fire.
Donato's research raised hackles among supporters of post-fire logging because it suggested that forests would regrow on their own and that logging and brush cutting hurt that process and increased fire danger.
But Shatford and Hibbs found that forests left alone after a fire showed a remarkable level of tree growth. The number of conifer seedlings generally was quite high, despite having to compete with the shrubs and small hardwood trees many foresters thought would prevent conifer forests from re-establishing themselves.
"The expectation is the conifers are going to be the underdog," Shatford said. "So when we went in 10 and 20 years after a fire, we were surprised to see that the average (conifer density) was very high."
~snip~
.
.
.
complete article
here