Chuck is also correct that lightning strikes would be one way for “natural” burns to occur. In a given ecosystem, fires can occur at fairly regular intervals, and any resulting fires are generally “cool” fires. Many tree species have adapted to this pattern, and some, such as the Jack pine, are wholly fire dependant for reproduction. Our fire repression regime, on the other hand, allows brush build up so that when a fire eventually does happen, either through arson or more natural causes, the results are catostrophic (think the California wildfires of a couple years ago).

Finally, Johnboy clearly doesn’t know his history very well. Far from being “eco-fads”, controlled burns have been used by civilizations around the world for thousands of years. It’s only been in the past hundred years or so that fire repression has become the norm, and anyone who has taken an advanced ecology course knows the benefits.

I’m not sure on the net CO2 impact, so I don’t qualify as the “knowledgeable” voice that Pete asked for, but I wouldn’t be surprised if these burns were carbon-negative due to increasing the growth of larger plants that store more carbon. Anyone know for sure?

But anybody who took any more advanced biology would know that the greatest threats to biodiversity are:

1) Habitat destruction

2) Invasive species

I think you should do a little experiment. Bring a little Garlic Mustard into your back yard, into your prized garden bed, let it ‘naturalize’, and then tell me how much more ‘diversity’ you have in 5 years. After 15 years, when your neighborhood flora has been destroyed by this “non-PC plant” and all the butterflies and birds you used to like are gone, I will come over and help you remove the mustard from your hood and begin the healing process.

Speaking as someone who studying ecology and has worked in the field, I can tell you there is a good reason that invasive species are compared to cancer. And not something like prostate cancer. More like a metastatic melanoma. They spread, they spread fast, and if you don’t catch it (them) early, it is next to impossible to get rid of them.

As if the Emerald Ash Borer has increased diversity

As if the Asian Carp has increased diversity

As if Kudzu has increased diversity

More species at any given moment does not equal more diversity.

And yes, us Bi-peds are a fine example. There indeed are too many of us. But it is our hands off approach to nature, thinking that we are outside of nature, that is causing most of the problems. We, as a culture, can’t grasp that we are completely a part of what goes on outside, whether its habitat conversion to subdivision, the spread of aggressive non-native plants, or simply driving our cars too much.

You John-Boy, are part of the ‘natural’ processes that are taking place if you want to acknowledge it or not. You can make the decision to make a difference and defend our natural areas, or continue to use your Bio101 knowledge and let the world change for the worse, without your input. I hope you choose to learn more.

[link]

[link]

[link]

If you want natural parks then STAY OUT of the parks. Mother nature can restore a park all by herself. Just leave her alone. Please explain to me how pulling up dozens of non-PC plants increases diversity. IT IS NATURAL for a specific species of plant to dominate an area that is favorable to it’s growth requirements. Undergrowth is NATURAL. Burning it off is UNNATURAL.

Many of the so called “invasive species” were actually brought over here from other continents to increase our diversity. You don’t increase diversity by eliminating species.

Anybody who took Biology 101, and paid attention, knows that attempting to eliminate and one species in an area that is surrounded by that species is simply a waste of time and tax dollars. Lets say that by some magic (or great expenditure of tax dollars) you pulled up every garlic mustard and buckthorn plant in Ann Arbor. What would happen in 3-5 years? Thanks to the birds and wind, all the garlic mustard and buckthorn would be right back where it was growing before. “Invasive species” in an eco-fad.The only true “invasive species” are human beings. Dude

OK, OK, as much as it hurts, I’ll have to admit NAP DOES some good things like monitoring and recording vegetation and wildlife also trail maintenance. But I wish they would stick to the really constructive programs and stay away from eco-fads.

Thanks for an article that points out the hard work that goes into keeping natural areas, well, natural. Ann Arbor Natural Areas Program has an admirable and well deserved reputation for stewardship on the lands they manage.