Fire proponents claim that controlled burning recycles nutrients. But
there is evidence that even ground fires may destroy micro-organisms in
the upper layer of soil that are essential for healthy plant growth.
These may include diminished quantities of important nitrogen-fixing and
ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. (2) Even a single controlled brush fire can
result in a substantial decline in the important upper layer of humus.
(3) Moreover, in most types of ecosystems, regular fires cause a general
depletion of soil quality. (4) The results are readily observable to any
experienced ecologist throughout much of the Pine Bush and much of the
New Jersey Pine Barrens. Because of poor soil, made even less productive
as a result of fires, these areas are characterized by inferior,
low-grade plant life. Since plant-eating animals are only as healthy as
the quality of their food supply, fire adversely affects both plant and
animal life.
Since much burning is done in the Spring, there are many toads,
salamanders, and ground-dwelling insects that are killed, along with
some mice, moles, shrews, and even chipmunks if they are in shallow
burrows. Garter snakes often sun themselves in fields from early Spring
through early Autumn. If fields are burned they will have to move at top
speed and then some! The smoke-producing fire may also drive away
nesting birds. Those that return to their territories will find a
radically altered environment. (5) Some berry producing woody plants are
killed by fire, and a charred ground surface is far from an ideal
habitat for any animal. Anne Muller, the editor and publisher of
Wildlife Watch Binocular, once found a half-dead turtle that had had its
shell burned as a result of a deliberately-set fire in a field. Many
fire proponents consider wildlife casualties to be justifiable
collateral damage. (6)
As for the chestnut oaks, black oaks, white oaks, red oaks, and pin
oaks in the Shawangunks that fire proponents say they want to preserve,
there are seldom monocultures or duo-cultures in Nature. Where these do
exist, they are usually where certain species of trees have been planted
by people (as in the case of the Norway spruce monocultures in some
locations). However, these are relatively small areas. Where these
monocultures do exist, imported tree diseases can wipe them out within
several years.
Natural succession is a very slow process. Over many years some
species of trees and other plants will decline, along with some animal
species. But, as in the case of fields that become wooded, other types
of trees, plants, and animals will slowly move in.
Barring infrequent blow-downs caused by unusually severe weather
conditions, a climax ecosystem will usually remain intact for decades
(Severe hurricanes in southeastern New York State have usually occurred
once every 40-50 years. Serious windstorms occur once every two to three
decades. Severe tornadoes are very rare. Occasionally, there are minor
earth tremors but there is no record of a destructive earthquake in
recent years.)
Fire proponents at Mohonk Preserve fail to explain how controlled
burning will aid oak regeneration by opening the forest canopy without
killing some of the trees that they claim they want to save. Most
species of trees that are under extreme stress and in danger of dying
usually produce copious amounts of seeds. Professional foresters have
known this for decades. If burning were done in areas adjacent to oak
forests, and characterized by other primary species of trees - on the
theory that oak seedlings might germinate there - then these other
species of trees would be in danger of damage or demise; and it is quite
possible that this is the intent of fire managers!
Finally, there is the argument that a buildup of flammable materials
on the forest floor could result in a serious wildfire that would
endanger homes and property. In my opinion this is a canard that is
intended to gain public support for controlled burning. Naturally there
are some people who are careless with fire. There are also mentally
disturbed incendiaries. But why should professed ecologists compete with
these people? Fire suppression is the reason we have local fire
departments. Fire management at Mohonk Preserve is little more than an
experiment. Some of the preserve’s administrators privately admit that
they are uncertain about some of the potential long-term effects of
controlled burns on these lands. It is obvious to me that both the
short-term and long-term effects will be detrimental to the normal
processes of Nature.
