Adam and Ecolog:
Thank you for getting to the crux of the matter.
The reason I wouldn't give the uniformly uninformed uniformed "information"
purveyor an "silly" millimeter (as an old cigarette ad used to say) of
latitude is that his remarks are being propagated to the public as well as
"informing" public policy.
Science could inform the uninformed if it could get its act together on the
crucial distinction between "dependent" and "adapted to" straight.
In my opinion, there is no conclusive scientific work to support the
conclusion that a plant community (such as the California chaparral) is
fire-dependent, but plenty of evidence about plant species which have
developed adaptations to fire. I do not argue, however, that community
composition shifts according to perturbations like fire--yea, I have argued
for decades that in some locations that Southern California's (SC) "coastal
prairie" is a fire-induced phase of the so-called "coastal sage scrub" (css)
termed "soft chaparral" by Ted Hanes (forgot the reference) on certain
sites, so one might conclude from this that the SC coastal prairie is
"dependent" upon fire and that the css/sch "invades" and "dominates" it
between fires. I believe that this is a culturally- and/or
aesthetically-loaded conclusion, largely because of the great beauty of the
grasses and the beautiful geophytes that are part of this community. In this
case, it has been my observation that these two subsets are a unity of
sorts, and one can find many cases where the grassland associates persist
between the "dominant" shrubs of the css/sch in various stages of
"recovery." In fact, I strongly suspect that there is far more symbiosis
involved here than "competition."
I'll take it back--I would give the interviewee a LOT of latitude, but I
would not give his misinformers a silly millimeter. This is where science
should exercise its responsibility to correct others--and correct
themselves.
I stand ready to be corrected with sound science, but not with folklore
regardless of origin--and I suspect that much of folklore both has its
origin in science and its persistence. Time for some weeding out, eh?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Watts" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1
Fire dependent plants?
Martin's point is well made. Generally it is more accurate to state that a
plant community is fire-dependent, and one could state that such an
assemblage of species, or a particular plant species, if fire-adapted.
Indirectly, however, a plant species as Martin describes could be said to be
fire-dependent. Although uniformed and uninformed are sometimes co-occurring
traits in humans, I believe that giving the interviewee a bit of latitude in
this case is appropriate.
Best,
-Adam
Adam Watts, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Ecologist
Fire Lab, University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
On Oct 7, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Martin Meiss <[email protected]> wrote:
Wayne,
I don't know if this rises to the level of knowledge, but I have
often heard that the cones of certain pines won't open to release their
seeds unless toasted in a fire. It seems that it would take just the
right
amount of fire, though, because toasting for too long would surely kill
the
seeds. Here is an article that discusses smoke-stimulated germination,
and
it lists references that may be relevant:
http://depts.washington.edu/propplnt/2003guidelines/group1/Smoke%20Infusion.htm
Now moving on to speculation: suppose a certain species is found
only in a fire-maintained ecosystem. If fire is suppressed in that
ecosystem, it would undergo altered succession, possibly developing into
as
system that no longer provided suitable habitat for the species in
question, which would then die out. Here is a link to an article about
such endemic species in Florida: http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p237
Martin M. Meiss
2012/10/6 Wayne Tyson <[email protected]>
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
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5315 - Release Date: 10/07/12
