Comment by achow | Hacker News Reader

Comment by achow | Hacker News Reader

Curious about the bushfire and recovery there after, found this from Lonely Planet (2023)..

A dangerous mix of hot weather, highly flammable eucalyptus oils in the air and strong winds meant that flames quickly scorched their way through the vegetation, burning almost half of the land in the process.

Australia’s native flora and fauna regenerates and even thrives after burns; in fact, some seeds will only germinate after a fire.

Kangaroo Island has turned out to be astonishingly resilient. Just 48 hours after the flames died down, a rock-like fungus started growing on the ash.

As the fungus digested the ash, it changed the pH levels of the soil, allowing other microorganisms and eventually plants to take root. Some of the plants, says McKelvey, hadn’t been seen for decades. Unlike on the Australian mainland, there were no rabbits to eat the new growth – meaning there was nothing to hold back the regeneration.

It helped that donations flooded in from all over the world after the fires. This money helped to eliminate some of the feral pigs and cats that had been damaging the local ecosystem and killing endangered wildlife.

Three years on, Flinders Chase National Park is as lush as ever, with thick undergrowth providing shelter for the island’s camera-shy wallabies.

The only reminder of the fires that ravaged this land? The blackened branches of eucalyptus trees poking out from the greenery below, giving the landscape an eerie, post-apocalyptic air.

Providing a nesting ground for birds and habitat for insects, even these uncomfortable reminders will disappear in a couple of years, as they get swallowed up by the island’s resilient vegetation.

https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/kangaroo-island-south-aust...

> Australia’s native flora and fauna regenerates and even thrives after burns; in fact, some seeds will only germinate after a fire.

Indeed. As is the case in most places where there are wildfires. I suppose using the word "devastation" is appropriate - fires create a radical change in the local environment - but the change is a necessary one for the local flora and fauna.

Perhaps because humans like things to stay the same, and perhaps because these sorts of natural, inevitable changes aren't that common - most of us don't regularly see fires in our local environment - we label this change in an emotive way: devastating, despite the necessity of the thing.

There is an argument, perhaps no longer PC, that the indigenous population used fire to hunt, and so burnt off regularly. Fires these days are indeed devastating because we try to stop them. Established eucalyptus trees also thrive after a scrub fire; a "devastating" fire kills them.

Cultural burning is pretty much the current accepted understanding of how Australian indigenous people managed the land prior to colonisation.

https://study.unimelb.edu.au/student-life/inside-melbourne/c...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming

Just want to reassure you that is not at all 'no longer PC'. If anything, the practice was banned by the coloniser - only for it more recently reintroduced.

Thanks for the confirmation!

> Perhaps because humans like things to stay the same, and perhaps because these sorts of natural, inevitable changes aren't that common - most of us don't regularly see fires in our local environment - we label this change in an emotive way: devastating, despite the necessity of the thing.

The problem is different IMHO. Humans have effectively terraformed our surroundings. We (i.e. everyone but the Romans where they had aqueducts) used to build away from forests (or, where necessary, tear down the forests) for as long as we didn't have motorized fire pumps, because it was simply too dangerous to build too near to forests.

Nowadays? Land has gotten scarce, the only place where one still can get land is land that wasn't zoned for residential developments. And now that a lot of this land very close to forest boundaries has been settled, we routinely see devastation from forest fires.

And, specifically to the US, their building style aka wood frames and cardboard makes the situation worse. Here in Europe, we had devastating fires wipe out entire city blocks because embers flying around set other buildings ablaze in the long-distant past - but ever since a lot of our buildings were made out of brick and later on cement, it's rare to see buildings on fire from a forest fire. Even in Croatia, where forest fires are a sad routine every summer (mostly from morons with cigarettes or glowing-hot DPFs parking illegally on dried out bush) and we got a looooot of questionably-legal settlement going on, it's rare that houses catch fire simply because the structure is so much more resilient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com