Fire severity and ecosystem resilience – lessons from the Wombat Fire Effects Study (1984-2003)

Tolhurst, Kevin G.

doi:10.1071/rs12030

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some researchers (as well as some environmental groups), however, advocate the cessation of widespread prescribed burning in large areas of south-eastern Australian forests and call, rather, for a focus on 'fence-line' burning adjoining built assets to reduce community fire risk (Bradstock & Price 2010;Gibbons et al 2012;Price et al 2015). Some researchers indicate concern that prescribed burning for forest-fire reduction in south-eastern Australia actually increases the total area burnt (Price 2012), although this argument does not consider the severity of wildfire versus prescribed fire and the ability of ecosystems to recover (Tolhurst 2012). Others strongly advocate for more broadscale burning in fireevolved forested landscapes (Cheney 2008;Adams & Attiwill 2011), as do professional bodies representing practising forest and fire managers-such as the FFMG (Forest Fire Management Group 2014), the Institute of Foresters of Australia (IFA 2018) and the AFAC (AFAC 2015b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prescribed burning in south-eastern Australia: history and future directions

Morgan

Tolhurst

Poynter³

et al. 2020

Australian Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fire has been part of the natural environment of southeastern Australia for tens of millions of years. Aboriginal people used fire selectively, with skill, for many reasons. The removal of Aboriginal people from most of the region after European settlement changed fire regimes and the composition and structure of vegetation. This study explores the history of fire in southeastern Australia, describes the development of prescribed burning as a forest management tool, and discusses the factors that have influenced changes in fire regimes. It draws on published and unpublished literature and data held by the Forest Fire Management Committee of the Institute of Foresters of Australia. The study finds that the use of prescribed burning in southeastern Australia in the past 100 years has been driven primarily by political and legal factors. Since 1939, more than 50 public inquiries, reviews and royal commissions have been held into matters concerning the management of fire in landscapes, including prescribed burning. Prescribed burning has been used for wildfire mitigation, agricultural practices (such as stubble reduction and grazing land management), property protection, the maintenance of ecological processes and biodiversity conservation. Prescribed burning in the region has only ever been practised on a small percentage of forest and land each year. The study finds that a substantial body of fire and ecosystem science has been generated in the past 50 years, with rapid technological developments to support prescribed burning and fire management. Research has provided tools and methods for broadscale prescribed burning, but negative public perceptions of fire have prevented the deployment of comprehensive fire management programs in the region. Although much has been achieved, considerable changes are still required in fire management for it to be sustainable and optimal in protecting economic, social and environmental values. The risks to human lives, property, biodiversity and the environment associated with wildfire are increasing in southeastern Australia due to climate change, and the wider use of prescribed burning is essential for managing these. The increasing extent and occurrence of wildfire disasters in the region indicates that current fire management will not sustain the full range of ecosystem processes and biodiversity, nor reduce to an acceptable level the impact of wildfires on human lives and property. There is compelling evidence for the greater use of prescribed burning to reduce wildfire risks and impacts, rather than committing increasing resources to wildfire suppression. The potential negative impacts of prescribed burning can be managed effectively using existing knowledge and tools. Clear communication of the benefits of prescribed burning can influence political and public opinion in its favour. More investment in training, human capacity and supporting resources is required to safely and effectively deploy prescribed burning more widely to reduce future wildfire risks.

show abstract