so a typical comeback for this would go along the lines of “but the forests need fire to regrow” or " the forests were mismanaged and need thinned out".
that being said, do they actually regrow, or become barren landscapes forever? if so, thats not good. I’m just asking because I’ve heard a variety of things said that forests simply “come back” after these events. is any of that true?
A lot of boreal forest does need low-intensity fire. This spaces trees out and prevents fuel accumulation so that the trees largely survive.
If you let things go, you end up killing all the seeds in the soil when an intense fire comes through, and depending on whether the local microclimate has changed, and what seed sources are actually available, you can end up with a very different plant community.
so a typical comeback for this would go along the lines of “but the forests need fire to regrow” or " the forests were mismanaged and need thinned out".
that being said, do they actually regrow, or become barren landscapes forever? if so, thats not good. I’m just asking because I’ve heard a variety of things said that forests simply “come back” after these events. is any of that true?
A lot of boreal forest does need low-intensity fire. This spaces trees out and prevents fuel accumulation so that the trees largely survive.
If you let things go, you end up killing all the seeds in the soil when an intense fire comes through, and depending on whether the local microclimate has changed, and what seed sources are actually available, you can end up with a very different plant community.
If you want to keep that from happening, it takes regular application of thinning and prescribed burns.