Why Fish Care About Forest Fires
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Visit brilliant.org/s... to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
We don't think of rivers and lakes as something that are greatly affected by fires, but it turns out these disasters can have a big effect on the acquatic wildlife that calls these places home.
Hosted by: Hank Green
SciShow is on TikTok! Check us out at / scishow
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever:
Sam Lutfi, Bryan Cloer, Kevin Bealer, Christoph Schwanke, Tomás Lagos González, Jason A Saslow, Tom Mosner, Jacob, Ash, Eric Jensen, Jeffrey Mckishen, Alex Hackman, Christopher R Boucher, Piya Shedden, Jeremy Mysliwiec, Chris Peters, Dr. Melvin Sanicas, charles george, Adam Brainard, Harrison Mills, Silas Emrys, Alisa Sherbow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
SciShow Tangents Podcast: scishow-tangen...
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
#SciShow
----------
Sources:
Sources:
esajournals.on...
news.uaf.edu/r...
www.fs.fed.us/...
www.nationalge...
esajournals.on...
www.usgs.gov/c...
www.nature.com...
www.usgs.gov/c...
esajournals.on...
www.fs.fed.us/...
www.enr.gov.nt...
www.fs.fed.us/...
IMAGES
www.nasa.gov/f...
en.wikipedia.o...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
www.storyblock...
www.gettyimage...
www.gettyimage...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
www.flickr.com...
www.storyblock...
www.storyblock...
www.gettyimage...
www.usgs.gov/m...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
www.gettyimage...
www.gettyimage...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
Visit brilliant.org/scishow/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
Cuando en el futuro tengan bosques medidos y pre planeados y pensados en planetas habitables, seguramente pensaran como hacerlos a prueba de grandes incendios forestales con manipular el terreno, bosques pre planeados, en marte será la prueba si llegan a tener terraformacion. Sugerencias. Buen video.
Backburning. I’m sure that many, many natives have already understood the benefits it bring to the land
5:22: Sci Show just brushes over this, but this Fighting Fire with Fire
was expertdly covered on the Channel 'Some More News' in is videos about 'obvious Solutions for obvious Problems; so bvoious that no Politican knows about them...'
Fish don't care about Forest Fires!,,,... They're FISH! geeeze.
As a fish, i can confirm that we do indeed care
Sorry bout day one
I too can concur. We care
Fellow fish rise up
*suspiciously stares at you
As a flame I do not care about fish
Here in BC, Canada we got so good at putting out fires we didn't have any for 50 years. Now all of a sudden the whole forest is burning up, a result of us disrupting the natural fire cycle. There's so much dry tinder on the ground now that the fires continue to burn even under winter snow.
We here in California used to allow fires to burn the scrub brush. But since many people moved into forested areas, we stopped. Now, 5 decades later enough growth has occurred to keep fires burning, and burning hot. For three years fires have been out of control. Once out of control, they have encroached upon civilization. Finally, it’s been decided that allowing mother nature to control the forest and its undergrowth is a better option by far.
i think the SciShow also did a special about hibernating fires under snowfall. i might not be right exactly on the science, but it was crazy! how can anyone save the trees?!
Sit Trudy near one.
Sometimes we think we’re helping but we’re just meddling. It’s hard to understand when phenomena are bigger than us.
@csueconner9711 Not sure if you remember writing this two years ago, but thanks for doing so. I live in California, too, and our approach to controlled burns perplexed me. Back when I was 12 I was in Yosemite during a controlled burn (I already knew the history of it) so I had just assumed that they kept doing it. Back in 2018 or 2019, though, I heard people saying that we don't do controlled burns in Cali (at least not as much as in the Southeast). I couldn't, for the life of me, understand what changed. I don't 10 years was enough time for a whole bunch of buildings to be built in the woods, but it makes sense that maybe in those 10 years, politicians or whoever got increasingly weary of having controlled burns. Time for me to do some more research.
Yesssss more ecology stuff, please! You should do one about how much nitrogen in trees in coastal Alaska, BC and Washington comes from decomposing post-spawn salmonids. It’s such an alarming amount.
Or how mass spectrometry can be used to identify the life cycle or migration of salmonids by looking at strontium isotopes. Salmonids are such amazing species.
Somebody else did a video about this a few weeks ago.
@@illustriouschin Oh I’m sure. There are tons and tons of videos about all of this. I just like how Hank describes things.
That sounds like a small part of a larger story. Nitrogen run off from farms is most likely the biggest contributor.
@@ranimeRAT No, I’m talking about nitrogenous compounds trees use as nutrients. I read a paper a while ago where they used stable isotopes to trace the nitrogen cycle in a coastal Alaskan ecosystem. The vast majority of soil N species and N found in old-growth tree cores were traced back to salmonids. I did my entire grad thesis on N in aquatic ecosystems.
I am here for more ecology lessons as well!
The book “Braiding Sweetgrass” talks about native people who would burn fires on the beach seasonally to welcome the fish, and wouldn’t catch any fish until the 4th DAY of fish arriving. The native group is unfortunately no longer with us- but locals have heard of this legacy and are attempting to restart the tradition, I believe
I have that book too!
@@Xenos369 Hmm.. The groups of people that had successfully thrived in this landscape for many thousands of years had developed customs and practices that helped properly manage it!? Noo.. That's obviously just superstition and savagery! We need to "Civilize" these poor uneducated people and do away with such things! (This is sarcasm, by the way. Just in case no one noticed.)
@@Xenos369 this romanticized view of native americans is honestly baffling for me. Iirc most tribes in eastern north america basically extracted all the resources from an area they could until it was depleted, then moved to the next area.
Slash and burn agriculture for example. Burn the forest down, and grow your crops for a couple years until the soil is depleted of nutrients and the local animal population is decimated. Move the village 15 miles away, and burn the forest down and start over.
It was only ‘sustainable’ due to the much lower population.
There were certainly some groups whos method of food gathering was ‘sustainable’ as in the natural replenishment was in excess of their population (fisheries in the NW and NE), but other groups would torch forests just to herd deer as a less stamina intensive way of hunting.
@@JAT985 what’s any of that have to do with what OP said?
@@cuhweenuh its a reply to someones now deleted comment. they had some weird romanticised view of native peoples as being perfect shepherds of the land who did no wrong and all their agricultural practices were in perfect harmony with the world, modern people suck, etc...
it really annoyed me. That kind of whitewashing is nearly as bad as the prejudice against native peoples depicting them as primitive drunkards.
It totally shits on their actual accomplishments and myriad cultures and whitewashes them into some imaginary tree hugging homogenous chosen people.
Hank is saying all this like it's a new strategy, but controlled burns were outlawed throughout most of north america under colonial law, and was a traditional fire management strategy that native communities across the continent have been all but begging to start doing again for most of the history of the colonial presence. This is not a new idea, but a very old one being stolen by colonial powers.
Precisely this. I'm very disappointed this video didn't spare even a moment to reflect on this.
Fish: Don't you hate when forest fires happen?
Fish: What's a fire?
I've had arguments with people about the cause of the massive wild fires lately. They completely blame it on climate change with no other factors. Then I ask them if they've ever gone camping, most of them had. Then I ask them if they've ever built a camp fire, again, they had. I then ask them if they've used tinder and kindling to get their dried logs hot enough to sustain a usable camp fire, again, the answer was yes. My final question to them was, "If you didn't use tinder and kindling, how easy would it be to just hold a match to the dried logs to get them to the point they would sustain a fire?" They said it doesn't work.
My point is, without all the dead fallen trees, and branches, and compiling underbrush (nature's tinder and kindling) you can't have these massive wild fires regardless how hot the climate gets (refer back to the camp fire analogy). Forest management (or the lack thereof) is the biggest contributing factor to the size of today's massive wild fires.
Yes, forest fires have always happened, yes they've been huge in the past. But, if we cleaned up alot of the fallen trees and branches, and just left small underbrush, massive uncontrolled wild fires would be noticeably reduced. Additionally, it would cost significantly less money to employ more forest management personel (eh hem, job creation) then it would for state and federal tax dollars to pay out in damages from these massive fires. It's literally a win/win/win. More jobs (more tax revenue), less tax dollars paid out in damages, and fewer wildfires leading to fewer trees capable of storing carbon. It almost sounds like one of many small contributions to helping stabilize not only the environment, but also a section of the economy.
A multi-factor approach is needed to stabilize the environment. I firmly believe we can have an effect on the global environment, but we can never control it. Nature always win in the end, humans need to decide if we'll still exist with nature, or if nature will just push us out of the equation and start over.
This is the sorta thing you send to your democratic representative
@@crackedemerald4930 Oh I'm sure they've been informed by their advisors. However, the general public probably doesn't want to hear their tax dollars are going towards throwing away tree branches and logs.
Additionally, National Forests are technically federally funded/managed. Meaning, the federal government would need to give money to a respective state in order for the state to pay workers to clean up the forest.
So imagine, if you will, a very disliked president who offers a state funding to clean up a federally managed forest, but the state refused the funding simply because they didn't like the person it was coming from. Then the state gets a massive wild fire, causing billions in damages, and the state recieves disaster funding, and then the state blames it on climate change and blames the president for not doing anything to prevent/mitigate it. (This happens far more often than people even care to realize.)
Having a disagreement on how to handle climate change is inevitable. But that doesn't mean the people in charge shouldn't at least attempt small changes that are proven to make some differences. Forest management works, it's worked for millenia, plus, what politician has ever been looked negatively at for actually creating more jobs? 🤷♂️
Here in Australia we do controlled burns every spring to burn off all the small easy to burn stuff. Some plants in our bush need fire to release seeds too.
5:22: Sci Show just brushes over this, but this Fighting Fire with Fire
was expertdly covered on the Channel 'Some More News' in is videos about 'obvious Solutions for obvious Problems; so bvoious that no Politican knows about them...'
That’s what the indigenous people used to do too. Glad they’re going back to that
Isn’t that exactly what the native Americans did before they were invaded? I recall something about them even being denied doing this practice along the way.
Yes! Cultural burning is an important ecological and environmental health practice
Hank, my brother is a Florida park ranger and is a senior member of the burn team. He would like you to know there is no such thing as a controlled burn. It is a prescribed burn. You can create fire breaks and take means to contain your prescribed burn, but you cannot control it.
Time to introduce the cultural burn
Is that because of fire being too unpredictable or because out states fire service is unable or unwilling to deal with it? Not a leading question, i really am not sure.
Remember that indigenous americans were using fire to manage forest health for centuries before europeans arrived.
@@crystallastname9675 Mostly the unpredictability of fire and the weather.
The Florida Park Service learned their prescribed burn techniques from the Seminoles. They use more modern equipment, like chainsaws, excavators, and drip torches, but similar techniques.
It is incredibly important to the local ecosystem. Much like the giant sequoia of the West coast, the eastern long leaf pine NEEDS fire for it's life cycle. In the case of the long leaf pine, it needs fire in order to go from its sprout to its sapling stage of growth.
@@iwontliveinfear I live in southeast Texas in the westernmost part of the long leaf pine forests. They do prescribed burns here. Not only does it help the long leaf pines themselves but also removes underbrush allowing the sun to reach the wildflowers including rare spring ephemerals and orchids.
@@Cillana That is great. I've been trying to convince California to do prescribed burns. If they had regular, contained and closely monitored fires maybe the giant sequoia wouldn't be an endangered species.
Fires in more remote areas can also affect fish when they are literally scooped up and dumped on fires in an effort to put them out. Since it's harder to get water in remote areas, sometimes helicopters with buckets attached will drag those buckets into a nearby lake in order to collect water to then dump on the fire.
Cool! My dad did his PhD thesis on the effects of large wildfires on streams in the rockies & prairies, focusing a bit more on the aquatic insects I think. The wildfires can have devastating effects but like you said they are also a natural part of the ecosystem to some extent and a lot of species need wildfires - from fish to trees & grasses.
Random question about rivers: could the practice of straightening rivers be contributing to the overall climate crisis? There's plenty of studies that show it's very harmful to fish populations, but could the faster moving water created from straightening rivers also give it less time to evaporate and turn into rain? A straight river would obviously cover less area than a winding river, so would that also contribute to less rainfall across an area? I've tried to find studies about these questions and have had no luck.
5:22: Sci Show just brushes over this, but this Fighting Fire with Fire was expertdly covered on the Channel 'Some More News' in is videos about 'obvious Solutions for obvious Problems; so bvoious that no Politican knows about them...'
It's great to see humans recognize their mistake of always preventing wildfires even though they are often necessary to prevent worse fires.
I believe there’s evidence that Native American groups had been doing a practice similar to this in the Eastern US prior to European contact. By burning the dead grass and creating a clearing that would soon have fresh grass shoots, they could lure more deer to a given spot and improve the hunting success.
That is correct
It’s why Australia burnt down in 2019 we stopped burn offs and then it all went up and destroyed the ecosystem
I knew about these kinds of interactions all the way back in the late 1980s, when it was discussed in my high school's science and state history classes...which admittedly was in western Washington, in a time when the forestry industry was still a major industry for the region, and where some of the research in long-term forest sustainability was being undertaken. But the older I get, the more I realize just how progressive and on-top-of-science my school district was, for its time. I really wish more people had such good, solid interest in ongoing scientific discoveries embedded into their educations--if you know any teachers, ask them to consider linking up their students with SciShow and other such resources!
I learned about this in 4th grade in the 90s, when spent several months learning about some of the native cultures in our area of the Pacific Northwest. There's a lot of reasons they would carefully set the landscape on fire every year. My culture's audacity never ceases to amaze me. They go "hey, look at this scientific study that teaches us this new thing!" when it simply promotes behavior that the first nations here were doing for potentially thousands of years before they ever showed up. It makes me wonder how different the world would be if the European colonizers had worked WITH native peoples all over the world instead of suppressing them and trying to convert all ecosystem management into models of their own little Europe.
It only makes sense that things would evolve to need a good fire now and then. They happen naturally. So the things that survive best are going to be the ones that can not only survive the fire, but that are better able to make use of it's after effects as well.
Cultural Burns need greater public knowledge and science is finally catching up
@@NCRonrad I agree, they would help so much. Save so much land and money, lives too. Nothing but positives from it. Which sadly means you can count on the republicans to be against it and do everything they can to make sure it never happens.
As someone whose ancestors have been fish, I concur.
The Pine Barrens of New Jersey are another great example of a fire-dependent ecosystem.
My first thought was if there's forest fires, then there's no bugs. No bugs means no food for the fish. Let's see what SCI show has to say today.
There several places where forests are burnt specifically to stop the spread of invasive bark beetles.
big fish still eat little fish. but you're partly right. killing the bugs in forest fires reduces the food for fish
Fires create a lot of habitat and food for bugs. Dead trees and logs are both home and food.
Fungus will start breaking down the wood. Ants, termites, and beetle larva will live in the wood. During a storm some of these logs will be washed into the water ways. Also in spring and fall when ants and termites swarm some will fall in the water.
It's worth noting that not everywhere has these fires occur naturally.
It may seem obvious, but I've seen some people claim, for example, fires in Serbia and Brazil as good
bruh i swear if i heard someone say that i would have to resist the urge to slap them, "fires in brazil are good" ☠
Here in BC, Canada we got so good at putting out fires we didn't have any for 50 years. Now all of a sudden the whole forest is burning up, a result of us disrupting the natural fire cycle.
Thunderstorms?
burning the rainforest (THE AMAZON) in Brazil s NOT good. It is corporate greed. So NO - it isn't worth noting. It's worth disputing.
@@Evercreeper maybe get educated a bit or ask for core context?
Keep up the good work and start banning the spam trolls saying first
that's youtube job
fisht ;-)
Fishes must hate Bolsonaro.
The biggest wildfires happens in Russia, Australia and North America. Bolsonaro is a stupid president, but the media exaggerate, specially abroad. The biggest wildfire in Amazon in 2019 happened in Bolivia's territory, for example.
The Australian Aboriginals have been doing controlled burning for some 40000 to 65000 years to effectively create a managed estate of a continent here. There's many numerous accounts of them doing annual 'cool' burns that result in the scrub being taken away and the germination of seeds.
Can ash from fires change the pH of water in ponds and lakes?
(I ask this since pouring water through ashes makes lye water, which is very caustic and used in soap making).
*Fish trying to fit in with its hipster friends:* yaaa... I totally care about forest fire too
So long, and thanks for all the fish!!
The trouble with "controlled burns", is that they are sufficiently labor intensive, that local, state, and federal lands seldom keep up with the schedule, and, so, more combustibles accumulate through the years and decades. Eventually a controlled burn gets out of hand, and then all hell breaks out with the public, as is happening in several western states this year, specifically New Mexico. What to do then? If climate change has already exacerbated things, with it's temperatures and high winds, should we just throw up our hands, and hope for the best, or keep trying to do "controlled" burns?
Kind of disappointed this video presents the concept of controlled underbrush fires as kind of a "newly acquired knowledge" when this very concept has been practiced by Indigenous populations for hundreds and hundreds of years.
This video could have at least touched upon *where* this 'new science' originated from.
Credit where credit's due.
Also most firefighters dealing with wildfires are prisoners. Slave labor. Instead of planned burns like natives suggest, we procrastinate and then use slaves to fight the deadly mess🥰
The more man fixes things, the more he breaks them.
Had my fingers crossed for a 'Pinus Cortata' reference, despite pines not being fish...
Aww How nice to consult with the fish and find out what their feelings are about fires. You really do care.
I did not expect that quote: "fight fire with fire".
Well we can thank Smokey the Bear for decades of not burning the forest so this way we wouldn't have the problems that we have today. Native Americans certainly burnt the forest so forest fires like the ones we have today wouldn't happen until Smokey the Bear stop them from doing what they do best. Because if the Prairies can be burned to restore the land then the forest can also be restored because this continent was forged by fire. Beavers are definitely the ones who kept these forest fires from forming in the first place as well as long as the forest was flooded but I think humans can also replicate the beavers damning abilities by also building dams to prevent fires by flooding the land.
Precisely. Also, we need to stop encroaching on these areas and let nature do its thing
@@angelitabecerra well there's not enough Beaver yet , because of the beaver hat trade 100 years ago, beavers have not yet fully recovered from that age yet. So we might as well intervene whenever there are no beavers in certain areas of the country where they used to to be at. I think building man-made small dams like how beavers do it might help limit the amount of Fire. There are currently only 300,000 beavers in the wild today, but historically there used to be three million cross the continent of North America. Why we need human intervention on this part by making Beaver man-made dams.
A lot of our mismanagement of forests and plains gets ignored and the catch-all _"climate change"_ is used.
Development along riverside and oceanside wetlands prevents them as acting as buffers for storm surge causing more damage inland. But local government gets money via property taxes from development so that will continue.
We are paving over lots and lots of land near waterways with parking lots and roads, creating impermeable hard surfaces that don't allow rain to be soaked into the land but instead quickly run into drains and sewers and is fed into local streams and rivers causing flooding; but we'll just say: "cause of climate change" because that Amazon Logistics Center needs to be built and that highway needs to be widened to alleviate traffic and that highway-side strip mall needs 5 acres of parking lot.
Actually the Smokey the Bear mascot and Forest Service campaigns against fires started by errant members of the public IS a useful service, since these are often unplanned nuisance fires. The real problem lies in the government's overall fire suppression strategy, which prevents all burning included controlled burns.
He couldn't even get Smokey's quote right, so it's doubtful that they expect to be seriously fact checked.
ruclips.net/video/yR2lgxy-htU/видео.html Not everyone is always who they claim to be.
I have a cousin that is a fish and he also confirmed that he cares about forest fire
I don't understand how boulders move during a forest fire.
Landslides and erosion without trees to hold soil together.
And there are some trees whose seeds need to be burned (not completely of course) in order to germinate.
This past school year, we learned about this during our Fire Ecology unit in my Environmental Science class!
It was by far my favorite core class ever, and I’m glad that I get to take River Science next year!
Gotta admit, I guess I never really considered it
A lot of the problem with modern fires is not that the climate is getting hotter (still a problem) it’s that clearcutting forest slows for fires to jump to the canopy. If you have ever been in old growth forest you know that you can easily see for hundreds of meters without brush obstructing your view. It’s a lot harder for embers to jump 20 vs a fire. Touching other trees
have you considered doing a "scishow life", or "scishow eco"? I think you have enough content for that.
We have known that frequent low intensity fires are necessary for the health of our ecosystems for decades, but somehow we have not been able to put the policies into effect to allow them to occur.
0:16
This may be true, over the last _couple of decades,_ but what about the last couple of _centuries._
Since, you know, we have been actively preventing and suppressing forest fires during the 20th century.
I don't think the number of fire matters. There are different types and intensity of wild fire and their benefits and destructive effects are different.
Preventing wildfire caused by humans is paramount not because of environmental damage, but because people live in the frost and rely on the forest for substance. Plus, it causes indirect collateral to people who don't live near the forest.
@@AaronShenghao cultural burning my friend, very important factor in environmental health
5:22: Sci Show just brushes over this, but this Fighting Fire with Fire
was expertdly covered on the Channel 'Some More News' in is videos about 'obvious Solutions for obvious Problems; so bvoious that no Politican knows about them...'
This reminded me of the game Firewatch actually lol. But yea, what an interesting topic for sure. Sometimes it might be better to let it burn :O
Hey,Hank thank you for this insightful video.
Let's be honest about the real contributor to declining fish stocks, over fishing. this other environmental issues probably play a role, but it's minor in comparison to the over fishing problem
Yosemite nearly suffered ecological collapse due to the fire suppression policies and removal of the indigenous people’s. Not to say overfishing still isn’t the main culprit, but proper environmental health that includes good fire may be 20% to even 40% of the solution- with addressing overfishing at 40%-60% qualitatively speaking
Ayyy!! You pronounced Wenatchee perfectly!
Indigenous people in the Americas did this exact type of managed fires to prevent killer fires before colonization. And then Europeans came along and messed it all up.
They imported European methods, because the dense population and closely built structures in European settlements were at major risk when their forests did ignite.
Thought you might mention that the carbon left behind from the burnt wood helps to filter the water as it seeps through it before it makes it to the river or lake itself. I was wrong : (
What about the dirt, rocks and everything else washing into the river. That’s why the forest service has a burned area emergency response
@@Brian_yeah_that_brian_Strang I do not understand your response. Almost all rock is inert and the organic matter that is washed in to the water may lower the PH, but believe it or not a drop in PH is what signals a lot of fish species to spawn. That and the windfall insects live or dead that were driven into the water because of the fire. As far as erosion goes the smaller plants regrow very quickly after a fire. The regrowth that occurs during the years it takes for the roots of most trees to rot and release their hold on the soil new plant growth will have established and little soil is lost due to erosion. My point was the carbon that was created from the wood that did burn would in fact remove toxins and pollutants from the water.
Activated charcoal, which is burnt wood, really does remove toxins from water.
We had “ash snow” from nearby fires. The fire was about 30 miles away but the winds have really been going. The fire is ‘under control’ at this time. The ash covered the roof and yard. Lived here my whole life, and the ash snow was a first. Hope it does benefit the environment here!
ash helps provide nutrients to soil if it's provided in small quantities. sprinkling the ash from your fireplace over your lawn will help it, but having several inches of ash all over the place, not so much.
Great job, you pronounced Wenatchee correctly
2:55 That's a picture of an American aircraft dumping Agent Orange in Vietnam.
😂
sounds like we need to burn down amon bundy's house to make sure these fish can live. You had me at 'Thanks' Hank.
I can get behind that, that guy is trying his best to screw up every state he visits.
Controlled Burns are important
They changed Smokey's message from "forest fires" to "wild fires" because "wild fires" excludes controlled burns.
..Cause of the climate heat; the Truth rises above all and not surpassed
Imam Mahdi Nasser Mohammad Al-Yemeni
09 - Rabi Awwal - 1445 AH
Sep - 24 - 2023 AD
07:02 am
(According to the official time of [Mecca] mother of towns)
5:19 It's not "Smokey *the* Bear" but just "Smokey Bear"
This incredibly important comment was brought to you by the Academy of Ridiculously Pedantic RUclips Comments.
Could you do a video focusing on common/everyday products and technologies that were developed as a direct result of the Space Programs? I'm tired of hearing people complain about investing in NASA when they don't realize just how many things that they take for granted on a daily basis that were developed because of NASA! :)
You should see my island, it burns during the dry season till there are no bushes left, just burnt trees (the trees are firepoof).
I have no idea how the animals here survive it. Like frogs and snails and snakes. It's so hot during the day that snakes can just die from touching the ground.
Care? Biology has it's own form of "dark energy". That we have excepted, as is, for... thousands of years(?). Its called instinct. The calf to rise to it's feet, to run and stay beside mother, to seek her teat... No need to anthropomorphize it.
I’m here to fix the cable. /Karl “Logjammin’” Hungus
I recently saw a report from the University of Exeter in Britain that was published in Current Biology. Apparently they found that some birds make group decisions by consensus by screeching, a sort of voice vote. Maybe you have more on this.
Hi...the southeast US says hi.
Our lands before Europeans slashed us with pavement and buildings, we were a land of lighting fire and rain.
We were adapted to the fire...welcomed the fire. Our biodiversity is partially due to the flames and the water.
A land of storms.
You keep talking about how fire affects fish, but you've failed to provide any proof that fish CARE about fires.
Why cant we use thirsty cement to reduce flooding increase groundwater and use some of that water to water the forest when its really needed.
To all you complaining about climate change take action and throw away all your electronics vehicles don’t go to grocery stores and hospitals…. Live by example instead of whining about everything
Firefighting foam PFCs have contaminated the ground water and above ground water in my local and surrounding areas because of the military base near me. So disappointing.
I live in the Midwest where I see how much land is changed by fire. I have said that I wish more fires (we have lots of grass wildfires that mimics low intensity fires) would be let to burn and just fight to protect structures. The amount of green, rich vegetation that takes over after a fire is gorgeous and I’ve seen fields that barely can keep a stalk of corn alive, thrive after a burn and yield their biggest crop in years. Such an amazing thing from the destruction.
Algeal blooms are horrible. I went to a school in Wisconsin that was built within about 100 yards of a lake and one summer we had a MASSIVE one in the lake due to run off from fertilizing grass in town and it killed so many fish and made the lake stink the whole summer.
People build their homes in the forests and tend to oppose a fire burning up the undergrowth..... Maybe that's what causes raging fires every 20 years or so to burn everything including their homes but that's what they prefer apparently
My mom said to tell you his name is "Smokey Bear" I'm sorry I don't know why she is so passionate about the "the"
Actually, Smokey the Bear said, "only you can prevent forest fires." Not we
What about the affect on pH? Ashes are basic so does that provide alkalinity that may help to neutralize areas with excessive plant decay and acidification? Say particularly in lakes?
Not a clue if this comment will be seen, but I’d love a breakdown of how we sing! E.g throat or overtone singing. I love scishow and eons, definitely have learned more in a couple hours of these videos than in decades of schooling
is this really scientific talk or is this just you thinking real deeply One night cuz everything you're saying is elementary basic maybe even kindergarten basic
Smokey doesn't say "wildfires." In every ad I have seen he says FOREST fires.
Why do I get so worked up about a fictional bear's name! Smokey Bear, no "the"!
Living in Alaska I am SO VERY wary of proscribed burns. They always tend to get out of control, like the one in New Mexico right now. Just heard this morning that the Forestry Service is halting all proscribed burns while they look at the way they are being done.
Had burning been allowed to continue the way Indigenous peoples had done for thousands of years we wouldn't be in this predicament.
Once people realized that not burning some of the forest allowed for a lot of natural firewood to pile up. Which lead to massive out of control wildfires from lightning, dumb people, etc.
Now we need to reverse decades of incorrect wildfire management.
So yes, doing proscribed burns carries some risks. Especially if done incorrectly. Eventually we'll get the forests managed the way Indigenous peoples did and out of control fires will be a lot less likely.
Actually doing something about climate change would go a long way towards helping as well.
Also, for people to stop moving into places where wildfires frequently happen and have been declared off limits. A lot of the people endangered by California's recent wildfires were living in regions that were off limits because of the wildfires there
Terrible man lots of those people were already poor, now they lost everything.
It’s only like 1% of Rx burns that get out of control. Florida’s fire use is one of the most aggressive in the nation and you hardly ever hear of large fire in Florida
Take it from an Australian: not doing them leads to MUCH worse outcomes. What we need to do is look to traditional burning practices from the people who managed these lands for thousands of years, instead of attempting to prescribe a burn months in advance.
When the Forest Service screws up a proscribed burn (and this isn't the first instance) it's usually because their surveys of the fuel load are lacking, and they're it when the weather isn't optimum. The proper way to burn is when fuel loads aren't above average (which is the result of periodic, previous burns) and when winds are slow or blowing in a direction that pushes the direction of the fire towards bare rock, bodies of water, and/or previously burned areas. Because of the Forest Services zero tolerance fire suppression policies, fuel loads in many areas of the national forest system are well above average, which makes proscribed burns rather risky. Until fuel loads are reduced to a manageable degree, proscribed burning will have to be very carefully planned and executed.
Wondering about caveman now. It's like they just got there fire from wild fires instead of creating it with rocks and such. Just a thought. I know they used rocks and stuff not sitting waiting for a wild fire
uh yeah weve known this for bout 100 years now. we have controlled burns, everyday, all across the country. if not the world.
It’s 5am, I don’t think I’ve ever wanted to know about what fish think about forest fires but now I need to know everything about it!!
Water filled blimps, with army of drone spraying water right on the fire and then refilling in the blimps.
This could also help control fires and even help bring water where the plants might need it most.
We should adopt a fight or flee method, planting plant natives, keeping plants green and doing controlled burns. This zero tolerance makes no sense.
Fish don’t know Jack , they can sense Jack , Innate to the smell of their stream, your Title is totally clic bate. You got me .
Well, I imagine getting scooped up and dumped into an inferno is something that would worry any living thing.
I guess the fish have made some investments in lumber industry.
And here I was thinking the burnt landscape after a wildfire ends up as activated charcoal that's helps filter acid rain that ends up in lakes/streams or something along those lines
Bushfire are required in Australia for certain shoots of plants to grow iirc.
Because the antonyms of fish is the amonia nitrate graphetic explosion that animated everything everyone
Mother Nature might know what's best. Wow. What a concept.
I comment first 10 comments!!!!
Shut up
Fun Fact: Most fish do NOT attend church.
Hot, high intensity fires are the result of fire suppression (and thus usually to rural development, which creates political pressure to stop forest fires) , not "climate change." Low intensity fires lessen fuel loads so that future fires cannot get as intense. Both during the Medieval Warm Period (which was warmer than today--the Norse were farming grain on Greenland) and the subsequent Little Ice Age, frequent (every 3-5 years in the coastal pine forests where I grew up) low intensity fires were a fact of life. Some were started by lightning (the Southeast is a thunderstorm belt, probably due to the mixing of Continental and Gulf air currents), and many were started by Natives (Creek etc) actively managing their habitat. Fire opened the canopy, allowing young, vigorous, and generally palatable regrowth, which was the ideal food/habitat for game species like deer. Fire suppression followed European settlement and its massive population increases, not climate changes which had swung wildly in both directions beforehand.
This depends on where you are. In some regions, say the Pacific rain forests, forest (mis)management resulted in a lot of somewhat damp kindling lying around. Climate change gets added on to create a lot of DRY kindling. So yes climate change isn't the sole cause of bigger fires, but it is a factor.
I care why fish care about forest fires, so the title really reeled me in
Pretty sure only the USA fights wild fires this intensely. The benefits of small, slow, or local wild fires has been known for a while now. In fact, I'm 70% sure you guys did a video or two about it years ago? Else it must have been another of the fairly well known and popular science communication channels here on RUclips.
5:22: Sci Show just brushes over this, but this Fighting Fire with Fire
was expertdly covered on the Channel 'Some More News' in is videos about 'obvious Solutions for obvious Problems; so bvoious that no Politican knows about them...'
Floridan gender reveal planners must be thrilled by this video
Some just love to see the world burn, literally.