Get a FREE Issue of Earth Island Journal
Sign up for our no-risk offer today.

Go Back: Home > Earth Island Journal > Latest News > Post and Comments

Latest News

No, California’s Forests Aren’t Failing to Regrow After Big Wildfires

New study about low conifer regeneration based on Forest Service's timber stocking based silvicultural standards, lacks context

Recently researchers at UC Davis and the US Forest Service presented a new scientific study that suggested a dire future for forests in California. The study on conifer establishment after wildfires in California found that 43 percent of their study plots did not have conifer regeneration that met Forest Service Stocking Standards, implying that without additional management we may face a future without forests.

black oak saplings in a forest burn area Photo by George WuerthnerA 2015 image of black oak saplings sprouting in a 2013 Rim Fire burn area in Stanislaus National Forest, California.

The findings were viewed with alarm by some, with some news reports suggesting that California’s forests were not regenerating after high severity wildfires.

To be fair, the study was not intended to review all the benefits of high-severity blazes, but what it lacked was context. First, even the authors admitted that the paradigm used to determine conifer regeneration is biased towards timber production. Besides, there are many nuances in interpretation that were only mentioned in the body of the study that few bothered to review. As a result, the report has generated undue concern and panic among the public that the state’s forests may be disappearing.

With regards to context, the authors, for one, choose to focus on the increase of wildfires in the past three decades, arguing that blazes during this period were more severe and extensive than wildfires in the past. They attributed this to fire suppression, past logging, and other forest management practices which they alleged have led to this significant increase in large wildfires. While these factors likely contributed to the observed greater tree density and fuel loads in forests to some degree, the report ignores the influence of past, wetter climatic conditions on limiting wildfire, and the ongoing drought that is likely contributing to greater fire occurrence.

Furthermore, the study made statements like “the frequency, size, and severity of wildfires across much of the western United States are increasing” without providing a time factor. Inreasing, compared to what? That’s important because there is ample paleo and even historic evidence of large high-severity blazes that have occurred in the past. For instance, during the Medieval Warm Spell between 800 to 1200 AD there is evidence for extremely large and continuous wildfires across the western US, including in California.

Even more recently there was significant climate variation that influenced wildfire behavior and spread. Between the 1940s and 1980s, for instance, the overall climate around the West was cooler and moister than in the decades past. These moist and cool conditions naturally reduced fire ignitions and fire spread. They also facilitated greater seedling survival and hence led to an increase in tree density.

So was fire suppression as important as commonly assumed or did climatic conditions contribute to the increase in tree densities and a reduction in fires?  Likely both are responsible, but almost universally fire suppression is given more credit than is reasonable.

This context is important because most current management, including so-called forest restoration, is justified on the belief that human inference with natural processes has created current forest conditions, and thus requires human intervention, usually in the form of logging.

And while California has experienced some large wildfires with extensive high-severity patches, one shouldn’t ignore the fact that the state has experienced one of the longest and most extreme droughts in the past 1,000 years. Given such historic drought conditions, one would expect there to be significant wildfires.

And when considering the climate change context, it would help to look at wildfires (as well as other natural processes like bark beetles) as helping to thin forests to help them adjust to new climatic parameters. The lack of conifer regeneration may be viewed as a good thing that is balancing the vegetation’s hydrological needs with available soil moisture.

The Forest Service, however, requires a certain amount of conifer regeneration within five years after logging. If there is insufficient natural regeneration, the Forest Service requires timber companies to plant conifers on the site, often creating even-aged, single species plantations that are biological deserts. 

But is this silvicultural standard an appropriate way to measure the ecological effects of wildfire? I would argue it is not.

Having ample, rapid, and dense conifer regeneration is only important if your goal is logging for wood products. The focus on conifers skews the report because it gives the impression there was little vegetation on many of the plots. However, on most sites there was vegetation growing including regeneration of many native hardwoods like bigleaf maple, Pacific madrone, and black oak — all of which sprout from root crowns after a fire.

In addition, on many plots, shrubs like those from the ceanothus genus (California lilac, soap bush etc.) colonized burn sites, particularly high severity burn ones. These shrub species control erosion, and are important nitrogen fixers that help restore soil health. Other shrubs common on burn sites, like chokeberry and bitter cherry, are important food sources for wildlife.

In fact, in many instances, it is standard Forest Service practice in the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere to use herbicides on these nitrogen-fixing shrubs to hasten the establishment of conifers, therefore short-circuiting the natural ecological succession, and reducing the replacement of important nutrients in the soils.

In addition to shrubs, the report shows that there was a documented increase in “forbs” or flowering plants. These plants play an important role in forest ecosystems. Oaks, for instance, are an important source of mast (acorns) that many wildlife species from acorn woodpeckers to black bears feast upon. Many bird species utilize the shrub habitat for nesting and feed upon shrub, berries, and fruits. Shrubs are also consumed by deer and other browsing wildlife. And flowers are both consumed by wildlife and provide sources of pollen and honey for insects like bees and wasps.

But none of these ecological values were mentioned in the study.

Using the silvicultural standards for conifer regeneration that requires a certain number of confer seedlings established within five years also ignores the role that climate plays in conifer establishment. (Again, California has been experiencing one of the most severe droughts in history.)

Many conifers only have good seed production every five to ten years. Even in a good cone crop year, seeds require very a precise combination of moisture, temperature, and soil for successful germination and then another set of factors for seedling survival. The likelihood that all these factors would be met in five years is not high. So, expecting plots to have conifer regeneration after such a short period ignores the reality of climatic and tree biology factors required for regeneration.

Furthermore, the researchers own data showed there was less conifer regeneration on drier sites — exactly what one would expect during a severe drought that only exacerbates seedling failures.

Another important value of high-severity blazes that was not mentioned in the report is that they introduce snags and dead wood into forest ecosystems. The post-fire snag forest is some of the rarest and shortest lived habitat in our forest ecosystems. Studies have demonstrated that such snag forests — which include patches of native fire-following shrubs, downed logs, colorful wildflowers, and dense pockets of natural conifer and oak regeneration — are among one of the most biodiverse forest ecosystems. These short-lived forests exist only for a few years until the regeneration process is complete and new trees start taking over the space.

There were other methodological issues with the study. For instance, each study plot was only 1/70 of an acre. Given the natural heterogeneity of wildfires that result in mosaic patch of high, medium, low severity and unburned, small plots are unlikely to capture the diversity of regeneration that might characterize a larger plot. The study authors even acknowledged that much of the variation in conifer regeneration was due to non-fire attributes like slope, aspect (north slopes are moister) elevation, and other abiotic conditions that influenced conifer regeneration.

In addition, they acknowledge later in their paper that perhaps the Forest Service standard for conifer regeneration is too high, especially since most areas that meet such standard require thinning at a later date to reduce forest density. A lower stocking rate requirement would mean more of their plots would meet the Forest Service standards.

What all of this demonstrates is that much of the “problem” is an artifact of the unrealistic Forest Service silvicultural standards both for the number of conifer seedlings expected on a patch of land within five years and the bias towards timber production that ignores the many ecological benefits of high-severity fires. Many studies show it takes 30 to 60 years after a high-severity blaze for forest regeneration to occur under natural conditions. So what’s the rush?

Rather than alarming, lack of conifer regeneration allows other vegetation its “moment in the sun” so to speak, and provides for a much more diverse forest ecosystem. It also may be an important factor that is creating less dense forests that will be better adapted to future and predicted climate warming.

George Wuerthner
George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has been studying predators for four decades. He serves on the Science Advisory Board of Project Coyote and is the author of 38 books including Welfare Ranching, Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy, Energy: The Delusion of Endless Growth and Overdevelopment, Thrillcraft, and Keeping the Wild.

Email this post to a friend.

Write to the editor about this post.

Subscribe Today
cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJFour issues of the award-winning
Earth Island Journal for only $10

 

Comments

In response to Gil’s comments below…
“Where he goes wrong is in giving the impression that his recommendations are one size fits all solutions and by indirectly espousing the idea that each acre of the forest can be evaluated on a standalone basis without considering the interaction of one component of the forest landscape on another.”

I believe this is entirely the point of George’s criticism of the journal paper. If you read the paper, there is an unexamined presupposition that all landscapes at low to mid elevations in the Mediterranean climate zone of North America are supposed to be covered with open Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer woodland and forest maintained by frequent low severity fires regardless of what actually occurred at these study sites prior to the fire. While this was and sometimes still is true for a portion of these landscapes, in reality, much of these areas where and are now a mosaic of shrubland, hardwood woodland and conifer forest from mature and dense to scattered and open, often co-occurring with hardwoods and shrubs. The journal paper authors do explain this fact in the methods when they explain plot selection. However, they imply that a lack of conifer regeneration anywhere or the lack of immediate return to a Ponderosa pine woodland, or, to use the precise measure used in the paper, to the U.S. Forest Service’s desired stocking levels to support the next crop of trees (two competing goals), is a serious problem.
The authors then take an average of the conditions that occur across their entire study area (fires that occurred from the southern Sierras all the way up to the Klamath Mountains) and expect the reader to interpret the results as a negative trend, even though they state in the results and discussion that conifer regeneration was extremely heterogeneous across all fires examined. To their credit they do point out the problems with using the mean to interpret these results. However, they then go on to focus the reader’s attention to the 40% of plots with very low conifer regeneration without examining were these sites where in California and how they fit into their surrounding local landscape (i.e. whether low conifer regeneration is a problem at these locations). They even misconstrue the conclusions of a Dan Donato et al. 2009 paper in their conclusions to support the notion that conifers are failing to re-establish after wildfires (Donato et al. state the opposite conclusion).

By relying so heavily on the low severity fire model of forest development, I believe these authors are confusing the map for the terrain. Moreover, they are conflating German-style forestry with ecology and biodiversity conservation.

By Dominic on Sun, February 05, 2017 at 2:56 pm

....we must begin to grow HEMP again ,instead of canola crops ,hemp makes paper /motor oil etc….....we NEED FOREST FIRES everywher,across CANADA.. THEGOSPELOFHEMP.com .. will save the world…...we need smallfarms again,we lost 24million bsz of DUPONTfamily agenda….

By phillfire on Mon, January 23, 2017 at 3:23 pm

A lot of what George Wuerthner says is very true and is included in the tool bag of sustainable forest management options. Where he goes wrong is in giving the impression that his recommendations are one size fits all solutions and by indirectly espousing the idea that each acre of the forest can be evaluated on a standalone basis without considering the interaction of one component of the forest landscape on another.

Other items worth commenting on include:

  1) “there is ample paleo and even historic evidence of large high-severity blazes that have occurred in the past. For instance, during the Medieval Warm Spell between 800 to 1200 AD there is evidence for extremely large and continuous wildfires across the western US, including in California.”
  –> So why do some enviros believe that the “hands off forestry” and “let it burn” experiences of Medieval and earlier times are appropriate in these days when population and infrastructure are significantly more at risk from catastrophic loss as compared to the risk in Medieval and earlier times?

  2) “California has experienced some large wildfires with extensive high-severity patches, one shouldn’t ignore the fact that the state has experienced one of the longest and most extreme droughts in the past 1,000 years. Given such historic drought conditions, one would expect there to be significant wildfires.”
  –> Wrong & not even close: “a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.” -> http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/

  3) “Between the 1940s and 1980s, for instance, the overall climate around the West was cooler and moister than in the decades past”
  –> Not true for California – I can’t speak to the rest of the “West” See list and duration of droughts since 1929 -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_California

  4) “Many conifers only have good seed production every five to ten years. Even in a good cone crop year, seeds require very a precise combination of moisture, temperature, and soil for successful germination and then another set of factors for seedling survival. The likelihood that all these factors would be met in five years is not high. So, expecting plots to have conifer regeneration after such a short period ignores the reality of climatic and tree biology factors required for regeneration.”
  –> Wuerthner neglects to point out that these large catastrophic contiguous fires remove the seed source to an extreme distance thereby making it impossible to expect shade intolerant species to have any decent chance of success for many decades beyond the 30 yrs of this study or the 60 years that he mentions elsewhere or ever. That is fine if your agreed upon integrated landscape level plan doesn’t call for these forests to be returned to shade intolerant conifers in order to meet a specific habitat need or other agreed upon landscape level goal.
  —> However, irregular clearcuts of <120 acres or so for shade intolerant forest species in the appropriate situations or control burns that got outside of the target area would provide more opportunities (than catastrophic wildfire, insect and disease outbreaks) for successful artificial/natural regeneration in a more timely manner with less devastating impacts on soils, hydrology, and the forest dependent species. In addition, having smaller acreages adjacent to each other with significantly differing tree heights provides breaks that can make controlling any outbreak a whole lot easier and less costly than “hands off forestry” as well as provide more proximate areas for dispersal of dependent species when the disturbance occurs. Many shade intolerant species require a disturbance in order to regenerate otherwise they will eventually be replaced by shade tolerant species. Again, that is ok if the new type of forest meets the forest goals and any lost niche habitat is replaced within the dispersal range of the affected dependent species.
  —> If large areas of catastrophic loss are acceptable then why aren’t small clearcut acreages acceptable where appropriate (i.e. for shade intolerant species on appropriate soils & slopes & etc.) in order to provide a more environmentally friendly solution to overly dense stands at high risk of catastrophic loss, its dependent species, human lives, water supplies and other infrastructure and do so at a lower cost to the taxpayer? Why can’t we have more healthy forest acreage as a result of the revenues generated from merchandising the fruit of the effort to restore our federal forests back to health?

  5) “Rather than alarming, lack of conifer regeneration allows other vegetation its “moment in the sun” so to speak, and provides for a much more diverse forest ecosystem. It also may be an important factor that is creating less dense forests that will be better adapted to future and predicted climate warming.”
  –> To repeat what I said at the top of this comment, “Where he goes wrong is in giving the impression that his recommendations are one size fits all solutions and by indirectly espousing the idea that each acre of the forest can be evaluated on a standalone basis without considering the interaction of one component of the forest landscape on another.”
  –> As far as lowering stand density, the remaining forest stands will be just as dense as they were before the catastrophic loss and even more likely to ignite or be attacked by bugs or disease for every day that everyone says: ‘George says we don’t need to sweat it anymore – the fire that destroyed habitat, soil, caused erosion and other problems was good.’ The only positive would be that the area of catastrophic loss would serve as an extremely excessive natural break for controlling a future outbreak.
  a) A much more sustainable choice integrated with the agreed upon landscape level plan would be that expressed in item #4 above and similar forest interventions as appropriate for the target forest type, location, species & etc.
  b) I love the use of the word “may” in this sentence: “It also may be an important factor that is creating less dense forests that will be better adapted to future and predicted climate warming.” But then “may” is not science, it is supposition & not even an unproven scientific theory, much less highly validated science. Why would we ignore established science for what might be? Couldn’t we just as easily suppose that they would be more poorly adapted? Established plant physiology science has found that excessive stand densities lead to less healthy forests at greater risk of catastrophic loss and even more so in times of drought and other abnormally elevated stressors/competition such as insufficient access to sunlight as a result of trees blocking each other (i.e. competition for limited resources). Worse yet, George’s proposed solution does not lower the stand density in the remaining stands where fire, insects & disease will strike. Yes, it lowers the average stand density over the entire forest but it does nothing to lessen the unhealthy competition due to excessive stand density for the remaining trees.
  c) George needs to remember that you can drown in water over your head in a stream that only averages one inch deep.

By Gil DeHuff on Wed, January 18, 2017 at 12:05 am

Leave a comment

Comments Policy

Remember my personal information?

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

View Posts by Date View Posts by Author

Subscribe
Today

Four issues for just
$10 a year.

cover thumbnail EIJ

Join Now!

 

0.1438