In the aftermath of Australia’s “Black Summer” bushfires of 2019–20, few policy questions have proved as persistent as how, exactly, to live with fire on a warming continent. Governments promise resilience. Communities demand safety. And industries facing declining markets look for new purposes. Out of this mix has emerged an unlikely battleground: the thinning of native forests. Mechanical thinning — the selective removal of trees to reduce stand density — has long been a conventional forestry practice. What is new is its political repositioning. In Victoria and Western Australia, where governments have largely halted native forest logging, industry advocates now present thinning as a public-interest service: a tool to reduce fuel loads, moderate fire behavior, and protect towns. Critics counter that the same activity, carried out at scale, risks becoming logging by another name. Dave Soldavini holds a baby kangaroo that was rescued from a wildfire in Cobrunga, Australia. Photo credit: Jeremy McMahon/USDAFS Bureau of Land Management via AP A recent perspective paper in Biological Conservation, Ecological trade-offs of mechanical thinning in temperate forests, provides a useful anchor for the debate. Its authors, including David Lindenmayer and colleagues, do not dismiss thinning outright. Instead they catalog a series of trade-offs that are often underplayed in policy discussions: impacts on biodiversity, carbon storage, hydrology, soils, and even fire dynamics themselves. Mechanical thinning, they note, can reduce competition among trees and sometimes lower canopy fuel loads. But it may also increase wind speeds near the ground, promote the growth of flammable…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via This RSS Feed.