I apologize. I left off the list of references I compiled for this post. Here it is:
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=barkbeetles http://www.gffp.org/pine/ecology.htm http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/fireecology.pdf http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconl/all.html http://fireecology.org/docs/Journal/pdf/Volume08/Issue02/107.pdf http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pinus/contorta.htm http://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/01B-3-1-01_FSBrief30.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southeastfire/what/ecology.html http://cee.unc.edu/people/graduate-students/theses/Kaplan_MA.pdf ---- "David L. McNeely" <[email protected]> wrote: > Wayne, I have heard this "fire dependent" terminology in reference to both > community types and specific plants. However, most often it has been in > reference to community types that included dominant fire adapted species. I > also have heard more convincingly that lodgepole pine, _Pinus contorta_, was > fire dependent due to serotinous cones. I accepted this without judgement. > However, one of these references suggests that though serotinous, under warm > enough conditions 45 - 50 C soil surface temperature) the cones may open > without fire. I wonder if soils in the northern portions and higher > elevations of the range get that hot, but I don't know. > > I have also heard the term applied to Longleaf Pine, _Pinus palustris_ , and > the communities that it dominated prior to extensive exploitation of the SE > U.S. forests. My understanding has always been that in that case, more shade > tolerant species that have seeds that can reach the soil surface despite > dense grassy understory replace the longleaf pine when fire is absent from an > area for extensive time. > > Here are some references, some of them secondary, that discuss these > phenomena. > > I am definitely not a forest or fire ecologist. > > David McNeely > > ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ecolog: > > > > I just caught a video production on TV done by a major governmental fire > > authority. It contained a mixture of truth and superstition, as well as > > some questionable assumptions that y'all can help me clear up. > > > > 1. A uniformed fire official claimed that some plants are DEPENDENT upon > > fire for their survival. He did not say that some plants are ADAPTED to > > fire, he said "dependent." > > > > Please share your knowledge and references, please. > > > > Thanks, > > > > WT > > -- > David McNeely -- David McNeely
