4.7 Article

THE ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF SEVERE WILDFIRES: SOME LIKE IT HOT

期刊

ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 1827-1834

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/08-0895.1

关键词

Black-backed Woodpecker; fire history; fire regime; mixed-conifer forest; Picoides arcticus; severe fire

资金

  1. U. S. Forest Service Northern Region
  2. U. S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management
  3. Plum Creek Timber Company
  4. Potlatch Corporation
  5. National Geographic Society, Glacier National Park, U. S
  6. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station
  7. Joint Fire Science Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many scientists and forest land managers concur that past. re suppression, grazing, and timber harvesting practices have created unnatural and unhealthy conditions in the dry, ponderosa pine forests of the western United States. Specifically, such forests are said to carry higher fuel loads and experience. res that are more severe than those that occurred historically. It remains unclear, however, how far these generalizations can be extrapolated in time and space, and how well they apply to the more mesic ponderosa pine systems and to other forest systems within the western United States. I use data on the pattern of distribution of one bird species (Black-backed Woodpecker, Picoides arcticus) as derived from 16 465 sample locations to show that, in western Montana, this bird species is extremely specialized on severely burned forests. Such specialization has profound implications because it suggests that the severe. res we see burning in many forests in the Intermountain West are not entirely unnatural'' or unhealthy.'' Instead, severely burned forest conditions have probably occurred naturally across a broad range of forest types for millennia. These findings highlight the fact that severe. re provides an important ecological backdrop for. re specialists like the Black-backed Woodpecker, and that the presence and importance of severe. re may be much broader than commonly appreciated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据