This is a special post for Jim Z. to file in the “I think we may have already known at least part of that” file. I used to joke that “if a tree falls in an east side forest (Oregon) and a researcher from Corvallis hasn’t observed it, has it really fallen?” I may have to change it to “if a tree burns in a forest and NASA hasn’t observed it, has it really burned?” Here it is (thanks to Nick Smith) and his HFHC News Roundup.
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — Wildfires can do more than burn land in their path. New research led by a University of Alabama in Huntsville scientist working with NASA shows they can also create long-lasting “heat islands” that change local weather long after flames are out.
The study, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, was led by Andrew Blackford, a UAH Earth System Science Center researcher affiliated with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. It offers one of the most detailed looks yet at how wildfire burn scars affect the way land and atmosphere interact.
Using California’s 2018 Camp Fire as a case study, researchers combined satellite data and weather modeling to find that burned areas can become hotter and drier than surrounding land, forming what they call “burn scar heat islands.”
They could have used thermometers, and I bet some scientists already have. Possibly from FS R&D.
“These effects are similar in concept to urban heat islands, but they’re driven by wildfire-induced changes to the land surface,” Blackford explains.
The study found that wildfire damage strips vegetation and darkens soil, changing how energy moves between the ground and the air. Even with less overall surface radiation, the burned areas showed increased sensible heat, leading to warmer air temperatures and lower humidity.
I’m not sure what passes for soil in this part of Colorado is darkened.
The impacts go beyond temperature. Researchers found burn scars can influence wind patterns, cloud development and rainfall, while also keeping near-surface air drier and affecting local recovery conditions long after a fire.
“This study shows that wildfire impacts extend beyond the immediate event,” says Dr. Udaysankar Nair, a UAH professor of Atmospheric and Earth Science and co-author of the study. “They fundamentally change how the land and atmosphere interact.”
Am I really that easy to read? Don’t answer that 🤣, of course I am! I would certainly move the results of this study into the “duh” category, because we knew this in the 1970’s….
Ochoco NF, Marks Creek burn, reforestation efforts over ten years after the fire at a time when reforestation still mattered in the FS. Some may remember the “backlog acres” movement funded by Congress to remove deforested areas created by fire or logging from the books. There was a time limit; three years after funding (?), I don’t remember exactly, and a period of time the land was barren.
Anyway, Marks Creek was a large fire for its time (3,000 acres) and burned from lower elevations that challenged commercial tree growth to pine/Doug fir. The south side of the fire was a clay soil, the north side was Mazama ash. Reforestation on the steeper, south side had historically consistent failures for several reasons, but when I fell of the turnip truck in Prineville, it didn’t take long to see the issue! Marks Creek burned really hot, cooking the soil and removing all the organic material. Add to that, the steep south slopes had eroded, moving any organic off-site downhill.
Tough site/south aspect, deer winter range due to overseeding the fire area with ten times the grass recommended rate, etc, so about the only way out of backlog was to reclassify the site from commercial forest land to marginal forest land. The rest of the fire area was successfully reforested, and used as a model of success for new seedling handling techniques, site preparation, herbicide use and animal damage control!
Is it that “easy peasy” every time? Of course not, but my gosh, use your noodle for something besides a hat rack….🤣
Here is a good example of Forest Service versus private industry post-fire management. I centered the the Section corner in the middle of the image. Despite the differences, the results aren’t all that different. Both sides used herbicides, but private industry was quicker to salvage and replant. There were some erosion issues on both ownerships, due to a ‘rain on snow incident’. Some of the private erosion ‘trespassed’ on to Federal lands, and taxpayers had to pay those bills.
What image?
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4997814,-120.3395646,344m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Oops.