Science is by its very nature exacting. The scientific method is rigorous. The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. What does all this mean? In many instances, it means that scientific laws have been developed to predict the exact behavior of nature – how fast an object will be traveling when it hits the ground, or how all the electronics works that allow you to view this webpage, even though there is a huge amount of complexity in every step. The science of forest management is even more complex.
Science and forest management
What does this mean for forest management? Firstly we are still not very good at understanding very complex systems. Understanding how a cell works, let alone human is still an area of much research. The more complex the system, the more assumptions need to be made and proved or disproved. Forests and forest ecosystems are incredibly complex, diverse collections of trees, in varied landscapes, with varied water, wind, and climate factors, varied habitats all individually very complex but together – mind-blowing to understand.
This complexity doesn’t mean there is not good science around forests and forest management. What it does mean is definitive scientific conclusions are still rare. Anyone making a definitive statement that proves one belief or another is probably leaving the road of scientific principle and becoming a pundit.
Good science and bad science
As an example, Chad Hanson, recently made the statement:
When scientists look at the entire fire, as I’ve done with last year’s Creek fire and Castle fire, we’re finding that logged areas are burning more intensely.
Chad Hanson interview with Governing.com, July 16th 2021
There’s a lot wrapped up in this one sentence. The use of the ‘scientists’ make this look like the agreed scientific conclusion, whereas it is clearly not. Indeed there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers that conclude the opposite or at least draw a much more complex conclusion. Secondly ‘logged’ has become a trigger word for the environmental denialists, to make people think only of clear-cutting. Over the years logging technology has evolved enormously. John Mount in his book, Our Forests Have Been Loved to Death, talks about thinning through marking specific trees. The suppliers to the logging industry talk about technology innovation for precision forestry. And thirdly over what period of time, how a forest behaves in its first 25 years may be very different from how it behaves after that.
To show how other scientists see this issue:
Peter Z. Fulé, Joseph E. Crouse, John Paul Roccaforte, Elizabeth L. Kalies:
Do thinning and/or burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire behavior? Forest Ecology and Management – conclude “the literature to date strongly indicates that thinning and/or burning treatments do have effects consistent with the restoration of low-severity fire behavior”.1
Eric E. Knapp, Carl N. Skinner, Malcolm P. North, Becky L. Estes,
Long-term overstory and understory change following logging and fire exclusion in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management – conclude “Understory vegetation should benefit from thinning or prescribed fire treatments that lead to a greater abundance of higher light environments within stands.”2
Christopher J. Dunn, John D. Bailey,
Modeling the direct effects of salvage logging on long-term temporal fuel dynamics in dry-mixed conifer forests,
Forest Ecology and Management – conclude “Reducing hazardous fuel loadings and their contribution to re-burn hazard requires manipulation of residual and future fuel sources, but treatment benefits should be evaluated against any negative effects to early seral forest structure and function if resilient forest ecosystems are the management goal.”3
Many of these papers are long and detailed but due to the complexity of the ecosystem, often conclude more research is needed. This is completely correct – just because the science is not perfect we should not ignore the direction it points or the experiments that are needed. Just because, a particular area that had been clear-cut burned more intensely, does not mean all logging is harmful, or there are areas where thinning and prescribed burns can be very beneficial.
Ongoing research and partnerships
There are many great examples of partnerships between universities and land managers to understand more the impacts of different types of active forest management as well as partnerships between conversationists and land managers, like the Blue Mountain Forest Partners.
This is a complex area. There are many research projects underway on many topics, from understanding fire behavior to understanding the impacts of fire intensity on watersheds. Much of this research points to the benefit of more active fire management, or at least towards a diverse set of management techniques.
If you are interested here are a couple of additional articles addressing the science of forest management.
Managing Forests and Fire in Changing Climates
Drought, Tree Mortality, and Wildfire in Forests Adapted to Frequent Fire
Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands
Additionally an interesting TEDx presentation from Paul Hessberg – Living Dangerously in the Era of Megafires – Youtube.
Citiations
1. Peter Z. Fulé, Joseph E. Crouse, John Paul Roccaforte, Elizabeth L. Kalies,
Do thinning and/or burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire behavior?, Forest Ecology and Management.
Volume 269, 2012, Pages 68-81, ISSN 0378-1127
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.12.025.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112711007729)
2. Eric E. Knapp, Jamie M. Lydersen, Malcolm P. North, Brandon M. Collins,
Efficacy of variable density thinning and prescribed fire for restoring forest heterogeneity to mixed-conifer forest in the central Sierra Nevada, CA, Forest Ecology and Management.
Volume 406, 2017, Pages 228-241, ISSN 0378-1127
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.08.028.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112717309684)
3. Christopher J. Dunn, John D. Bailey,
Modeling the direct effects of salvage logging on long-term temporal fuel dynamics in dry-mixed conifer forests,
Forest Ecology and Management,
Volume 341, 2015, Pages 93-109, ISSN 0378-1127
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.01.002.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112715000043)