Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
will prevent wildfires, or make them easier to control, and will also protect native
fauna and flora from the devastating effects of high-intensity fires. Whelan (
2002
)
questioned the assertions that (1) high-intensity wildfires cause unnaturally high
mortality rates of native flora and fauna, (2) an effective hazard reduction burning
program would have no long-term detrimental effects on biodiversity and ecosys-
tem functioning, and (3) broad-scale hazard reduction burning would ensure
suppression of wildfires. Inevitably, the correctness of these assertions is a func-
tion of the natural fire regime. For example, they may be valid for a surface fire
regime but not for a crown fire regime. Each of these assertions needs to be
addressed at the regional level where consideration can be given to the individual
ecosystems being managed.
Even when detrimental effects of hazard reduction treatments are recognized,
fire managers historically have placed fire hazard issues ahead of resource
issues, particularly on high population density landscapes. Oftentimes if a fire
management treatment had any potential benefit in reducing fire hazard it was
considered a legitimate strategy. However, even on populated landscapes, agencies
increasingly are faced with having to resolve fire hazard reduction and natural
resource issues in ways that minimize ecosystem impacts. Balancing these issues
necessitates a cost-benefit analysis that goes much further than conventional
(financial) cost-effectiveness metrics to include impacts on natural resources such
as diversity loss and alien plant invasion (e.g. Meredith
1996
; Omi
et al.
1999
).
This is well captured by the president of the National Parks Association of New
South Wales, Australia: “While the protection of life and property are paramount,
it needs to be provided in a manner that also protects the flora and fauna and
prevents other unintended side effects, such as soil erosion, pollution of catch-
ments and air pollution” (Potter
2002
). Alien plant invasion should also be added
to that list.
Ultimately the balance between fire hazard reduction and resource protection
will depend on management goals. On some landscapes intensive fuel manage-
ment detrimental to resource sustainability may be appropriate. Although sacri-
ficing patches of resources for protection of human populations is certainly
justifiable, serious attention needs to be given to whether there are true benefits
to the treatment that justify the resource loss. The most critical need in this regard
is obtaining data adequate for evaluating the effectiveness of management options
in achieving asset protection and balancing that level of protection against
resource needs (Driscoll
et al.
2010
).
Natural Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability
The flora and fauna that comprise fire-prone communities are commonly
described as fire-adapted species; however, many of these may be extirpated by
particular fire regimes. Thus, it is more appropriate to think of these species as
adapted to a particular fire regime, and if the system deviates from that fire regime
then some species may be at risk. Deviations that are known to be risk factors
