[pct-l] Burned area recovery

Wed Aug 16 11:29:35 CDT 2006

Christine,

Hiking through the Rainbow fire area this year (on July 15), the earth was covered with flowers in a dazzling array, so thick the trail was barely visible in spots. 

L-Rod

-----Original Message-----
>From: cmkudija at earthlink.net
>Sent: Aug 16, 2006 9:14 AM
>To: Richard Woods <wpsnotebook at charter.net>, pct-l at backcountry.net
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] Burned area recovery
>
>Rick is right, too.  However, I was referring specifically to the _oaks_
>Mike mentioned, which are more or less in my neighborhood, about 30 miles
>north, and in the vicinity of the Tejon Ranch where the new/old PCT route
>will go.  California oaks, walnuts, sycamores - generally broadleaf
>evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs in the chaparral - are adapted to
>periodic fire.  From what I've heard of THIS fire, it's not the hot, intense
>kind that sterilizes the soil and forms a hydrophobic barrier that inhibits
>seed germination.  In _this_ case, the oaks are more than likely to have all
>their present foliage and smaller branches and twigs burned completely.  In
>about a month or two, new shoots will emerge from the blackened trunks, and
>eventually form new branch structures.  I've observed this in a canyon where
>I regularly hike, which burned to a moonscape in the fall of '03.
>EVERYTHING there was just soot and ashes - and the fires had been incredibly
>hot, exacerbated by hot weather.  There was discussion at that time of
>vegetation not coming back the way it should, hydrophobic soil layers, etc,
>etc, etc.   Well, what happened was what I described above - and last
>summer, trail maintenance involved clearing huge mustard stems from the
>trail margins with loppers (I did my share - it was fun!).  Most of the
>oaks, walnuts, sycamores, and other chaparral shrubs are happily growing new
>foliage, with only those on high, exposed ridges having succumbed to the
>fires.
>
>Conifers are different - e.g. the 1993 Rainbow fire area near Mammoth (not
>decades ago - 13 years).  Conifers, with some exceptions, aren't fire
>adapted in the same way oaks are (where the parent tree survives the fire
>and new shoots arise from dormant nodes in the trunk).  Instead, they may
>have cones that require high heat to "open" and shed their seeds, or seed
>coats that require fire or abrasion to permit water to enter and thus
>germinate, or simply open areas in the forest to allow sunlight in for new
>growth to occur.  All that's happening in the Rainbow Fire area; it's just a
>slower process than post-fire chaparral recovery.
>
>I hiked through there in the summer of '94.  There were chest-high lupines
>carpeting the forest floor, creating a stunning contrast to the burned tree
>trunks.  Lupines are legumes, and enjoy a relationship with nitrogen-fixing
>bacteria in nodules in their roots.  The bacteria actually take in
>atmospheric nitrogen (a necessary plant nutrient) and fix it in the soil,
>helping new plant growth.   I hiked through there last fall, and was
>surprised that there wasn't more vegetation, and I did notice substantial
>erosion processes - but the soil there is loose, fast-draining volcanic
>tuff, and it's a more difficult environment for a new forest to develop.
>Not as much water is available in the soil during the growing season,
>because the soil won't hold it - consequently it's likely going to take
>longer for that forest to recover, even with the substantial winter snows
>this area receives.   Knees willing, I'll be hiking through there again in a
>couple of weeks, and get to see what changes have occurred this year.
>
>Can you tell I'm an optimist about Nature's ability to recover?  I grieve
>when humans start horrific fires and do other things to trash our
>environment and our beloved PCT, but yet I'm basically optimistic - don't
>know why.
>
>Christine "Ceanothus" Kudija , trail optimist
>PCT partially '94
>
>www.pcta.org
>Join Now!
>
>Ceanothus (see-ah-no-thus) or California lilac:  Shrubs or small trees,
>often with divaricate, sometimes spiny, twigs...[flowers] small but showy,
>white to blue or purplish, sometimes lavender or pinkish, borne in terminal
>or lateral panicles or umbellike cymes.
>                                                               Philip A.
>Munz
>                                                               A California
>Flora, U.C. Press, 1973
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]On
>Behalf Of Richard Woods
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:22 PM
>To: pct-l at backcountry.net
>Subject: [pct-l] Burned area recovery
>
>Well, right in some cases.
>If there is not much of a fuel load around the tree, then a grass or
>brush fire just 'takes out the trash' so to speak, passing through
>quickly without heating the tree and the ground too deeply. Plants
>and critters can survive underground or by getting out of the way.
>You'll see blackened tree trunks for a few years, but most of the
>burn scars will disappear within a year or two. The up side is the
>incredible flowers the following spring, and the speed with which the
>ecology springs back to life with all the added nutrients suddenly
>returned to the soil.
>But.
>Here comes the big qualification.
>When fire does NOT take out the trash often enough (chance or fire
>suppression) the fuel load gets heavy enough to create a really hot,
>intense fire, such as crown fires in heavy timber. That type of fire
>is death to a forest for decades to come. That is the kind of fire
>that sterilizes the ground and kills the root systems of conifers
>which are generally shallowly rooted.  Everything burns. Every seed,
>every critter, every root, even the soil bacteria.
>A classic example is the burn area just south of Reds Meadow. You
>pass through an area of black tree trunks for about a mile. That fire
>burned decades ago, and the area is only now being repopulated by
>brush and grasses. There is almost no vegetable matter in the soil,
>except what has blown in from the outside. Therefore, no soil
>bacteria, nothing to hold moisture in, no way for a normal forest
>ecology to survive except in little spots where enough decaying plant
>material has gathered in one spot to support a mini-oasis in that
>moonscape.
>
>I don't feel bad about natural fires passing through, no matter how
>much it disrupts my personal plans. If I plan to be in an area when a
>fire is passing through, that's just the luck of the draw. We should
>get nervous when a fire doesn't pass through an area every decade or so.
>Rick
>
>On Aug 15, 2006, at 10:00 AM, pct-l-request at backcountry.net wrote:
>
>
>Christine is right. There was a fire in 1910 on Mount Si in WA. The
>bark is
>still shows evident's of the fire on one side. That's almost 100
>years. Of
>course we have tougher hides up here in the great North West.
>
>Lonetrail
>
>Mike,Don't worry too much about the oaks.  Most of 'em will  survive the
>fire, and
>in five years, you won't be able to tell (at least  from the oaks)
>that a
>fire had passed through.  It *will* look like a  moonscape for a
>while, but
>oaks have a remarkable capability to sprout new  shoots from many
>dormant
>nodes along their branches post-fire.     The bark is burned, but the
>cambium
>layer - the living part of the trunk  and branches - is still alive
>inside,
>where it counts.
>
>_______________________________________________
>pct-l mailing list
>pct-l at backcountry.net
>unsubscribe or change options:
>http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
>_______________________________________________
>pct-l mailing list
>pct-l at backcountry.net
>unsubscribe or change options:
>http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l