Thomas et y'all:
I quite agree that any term should be used in a manner relevant to the
context. Please expand a bit on your statement, and/or explain just what
was
said in this thread that prompted you to make it: "That says NOTHING
WHATSOEVER about the survival of individuals."
How does "average" function in this context?
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas J. Givnish"
<[email protected]>
To: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1
Fire dependent plants?
Please be sure to use "adaptation" in a modern sense – that is, a
variation
in a trait which on average increases the fitness of its bearer in a
specified context. That says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the survival of
individuals.
Pinus banksiana is adapted to fire, but individuals fail to survive fire –
it has advantages (often via serotinous cones) in dispersing and
establishing on recently burnt sites.
Pinus resinosa is adapted to fire, in that individuals can often survive
fire, and have advantages in competing, surviving, and reproducing
subsequently.
Thomas J. Givnish
Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany
University of Wisconsin
[email protected]
http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
On 10/08/12, Wayne Tyson wrote:
>David and others:
>
>YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Thanks for catching this brain fart on my part.
>(Speaking of mushy definitions!)
>
>What I INTENDED to say is that "adapted" means that organisms may have
>evolved mechanisms to survive fire in some form, and indeed to
>proliferate
>following fire, those adaptations do not mean that reproduction will not
>or cannot occur in the absence of fire. Certain closed-cone pine cones,
>for example, have been found encased in the hearwood of knobcone pines.
>However, while this pine throws a lot of seed following a fire, there are
>other ways that the seeds can be released.
>
>I am only suggesting that "it ain't always necessarily so" that organisms
>MUST have fire to reproduce at all, but certainly fire does stimulate
>reproduction following fire on a large scale.
>
>I'm still a bit tired and distracted, so I hope you will give this
>intense
>scrutiny and perhaps come up with more corrections and interpretations.
>The generalization voiced by the fire official is a long-standing one
>that
>persists widely, possibly still amongst some botanists, foresters, and
>even ecologists, and I am sincere in wanting to see more clarity and
>evidence. In this case, the "authority" was referring broadly to
>California chaparral. I continue to welcome well-founded examples of fire
>DEPENDENCY from around the world, as distinguished to folklore, including
>"scientific" folklore.
>
>I am eager to be corrected--based on evidence and good, solid, science.
>
>WT
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>; "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]>
>Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1
>Fire dependent plants?
>
>
>Wayne, help me to understand, because to me it looks like your two
>definitions are the same. Yet you clearly are trying to distinguish
>between the two terms in your earlier posts. Am I just two dense to read
>plain English? David McNeely
>
>---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ecolog:
>>
>> My standard for distinguishing between "dependent" and "adapted" is
>> that
>> if a species or a group of species (say, "association" or "plant
>> community"?) is dependent upon fire, it would cease to exist
>> permanently
>> in the absence of fire. If a species or association of species is
>> adapted to fire, that means that it MUST have fire to continue to
>> exist.
>>
>> Is this correct or incorrect, more true than untrue, or more untrue
>> than
>> true?
>>
>> WT
>>
>> Mushy definitions are escape valves for sloppy scholarship, but need
>> not
>> be "black" or "white," they only need to have their "ifs," "ands," and
>> "buts" also clearly defined.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David L. McNeely"
>> <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth
>> 1 Fire dependent plants?
>>
>>
>> Your commentary is interesting. In North America, we do consider the
>> prairies and their plants to be adapted to grazing, and that is true of
>> grasses in general around the world. They have meristems distributed in
>> the plant body so that they grow from the base, and regenerate if cut
>> back almost to the soil level. Many other prairie plants have below
>> ground reproductive structures in the form of tubers, bulbs, and roots.
>>
>> Some excellent examples, though generally small in extant, of "native"
>> prairie, have survived because they were grazed rather than converted
>> to
>> row crops. Some other examples have survived because they were hay
>> meadows, mowed periodically. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and some
>> state
>> and national entities are now using grazing as one tool in conservation
>> of protected areas. For one example, see TNC Tall Grass Prairie
>> Preserve
>> just north of Tulsa, Oklahoma. This preserve was a ranch that preserved
>> native prairie species not on purpose necessarily, but because its
>> cattle grazing program sort of mimicked grazing by bison. Today TNC
>> maintains a herd of bison on the preserve, and also sometimes moves
>> bison from there onto smaller preserves temporarily to promote the
>> prairies there. TNC practices "flash grazing," whereby a herd is moved
>> onto a property and literally allowed to trample and chew so that the
>> landscape begins to look pretty beaten up. But the prairie plants seem
>> to thrive if then allowed to recover well before another flash grazing
>> episode. I do not know what the interval used is, and that might vary
>> from locale to locale depending on conditions.
>>
>> In the southern plains, under the grazing regime practiced by many
>> ranches, and on smaller landholdings where fire is excluded, Eastern
>> Red
>> Cedar, a noxious native weed tree under those circumstances, soon
>> crowds
>> out the native prairie.
>>
>> David McNeely
>>
>> ---- David Burg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I find this discussion very interesting. I am not a scientist, but
>> > have
>> > been looking for management studies that directly compare grazing,
>> > fire,
>> > and combinations of the two. My friend, paleoecologist Guy Robinson,
>> > was
>> > coauthor of a paper published in Science on changing conditions at
>> > the
>> > end
>> > of the pleistocene in North American. A consistent find all around
>> > the
>> > world seems to be that fire frequencies shoot up dramatically with
>> > the
>> > die-off of megafauna and the arrival of humans. Which leads me to
>> > wonder
>> > how many of the species we now consider fire dependent were also
>> > adapted to
>> > impacts of large animals? I see so many management prescriptions for
>> > fire
>> > in prairies and savannas, but fewer studies of impacts of various
>> > grazing
>> > regimes. Based on historic and ongoing conservation conflicts with
>> > agriculture one suspects a bias towards fire and against grazing.
>> >
>> > David Burg
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Thomas J. Givnish
>> > <[email protected]
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > The list goes on and on and on. Bulbostylis in Venezuelan savannas
>> > > flowers
>> > > within a few days after fires; several orchids in Australian
>> > > woodlands
>> > > obligately depend on fires to trigger flowering; many other plants
>> > > in other
>> > > systems flower profusely a year or two after fires (e.g.,
>> > > Xanthorrhoea,
>> > > Xerophyllum, Lilium). Several species in Mediterranean scrub in sw
>> > > Australia, sw South Africa, and s California germinate in response
>> > > to
>> > > compounds released in smoke. Hundreds of species in many genera
>> > > (e.g.,
>> > > Pinus, Cupressus, Eucalyptus, Hakea, Banksia, Protea) release their
>> > > seeds
>> > > promptly from serotinous cones, follicles, etc. only in response to
>> > > fire.
>> > > Many carnivorous or nitrogen-fixing plants are facilitated by fire.
>> > > A suite
>> > > of ca. 17 federally endangered species endemic to the Lake Wales
>> > > Ridge in
>> > > south-central Florida are almost surely facilitated by the
>> > > extraordinarily
>> > > high frequency of lightning strikes there. Long-term studies at
>> > > Konza
>> > > Prairie and Cedar Creek show that different plant species are
>> > > favored by
>> > > different long-term fire frequencies. The Karner Blue Butterfly has
>> > > no life
>> > > stages resistant to fire, but depends on fire to renew its habitat
>> > > and
>> > > maintain an abundance of Lupinus perennis, the sole larval food
>> > > plant.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Thomas J. Givnish
>> > > Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany
>> > > University of Wisconsin
>> > >
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 10/07/12, "David L. McNeely" wrote:
>> > > > 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
>> > >
>>
>> --
>> David McNeely
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5317 - Release Date: 10/08/12
>>
>
>--
>David McNeely
>
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5317 - Release Date: 10/08/12
--
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5317 - Release Date: 10/08/12
