Man-Made Fire Blamed for Australian Extinctions

JeiFuRi writes "Around 50,000 years ago, many large Australian animals died off with the arrival of man. From a study carried out by the Carnegie Institution, we now know that the continent's earliest settlers caused these extinctions through their use of fire. In addition, it may have altered the ecosystem of ancient Australia and brought about it's collapse. Futher commentary at BBC News, newKerala, and Red Nova." "Know" is a strong word; the study suggests this may be the case, though.

Comments

Thats evolution for you

[FidelCatsro]

50,000 years and the Aussies are still big on barbecues.
Seriously though , Such is evolution .The species that could not adapt quickly enough died off.
I always had a small problem with conservation efforts , I know its lovely to save endangered species and all that , but does it not hamper the natural order further by trying to save species that can not cope by themselves.

Re:Thats evolution for you

[FidelCatsro]

Just to play devils advocate here( i was also doing that in the grandparent post).
This is a matter of survival , If elephants are being wiped off the face of the earth as they can't cope with the hunting habits of humans is that not natural selection.
OK it could be argued that being cute is an evolutionary advantage as humans get sympathetic and try to save the species ,but is it advantageous for the development of life.
We are a part of nature , and we are very much on the top of the food chain right now .These animals need to adapt or be destroyed .
If we destroyed several species with large fires 50k years ago , then there was a good reason for it .
They may have been a danger to our survival , whilst elephants are not really a danger to us(unless we provoke them and are unarmed) they do have a commodity in the ivory .
Now these hunters are not being the brightest , as farming the elephants would be more advantageous to the ivory trade.They couldn't farm the elephants though , most likely due to conservation rulings so they will continue to trade in it illicitly .
The best way to do it would be to set up elephant farms , Trade in the ivory , sell the meat , and conserve the species . Its a win win situation ;)
(/Devils advocate)

Re:Thats evolution for you

[rylin]

You claim we're a part of nature, but I'd rather say we're apart from it.
We combat diseases that are supposed to be effective as population-control (yes, yes I know, I'm a sinister/twisted person).
We take more from nature than we need.

Maybe Agent Smith wasn't all that wrong in his statement about humans being parasites.

I guess my main problem is that the animals in danger of extinction are the wrong animals.
Mosquitos, flies, cockroaches etc.. Get rid of 'em!
Just don't touch my cuddly stoned koalas with sharp teeth and sharper nails!

Re:Thats evolution for you

[George Tirebuyer]

There is a big evolutionary advantage to tasting good. Angus cattle come to mind. They appear to be doing well.

Its bloody hot down there.

[torpor]

I've survived many a bush fire with nothing but a damp potato sack for my miseries, and much as I despise the negative impact we've had on this land, I can tell you that its a beautiful thing indeed to walk around the scorched Aussie landscape for weeks after the event, watching new life grow .. and the first rains after the fire are wonderful too, for days afterwards new wildflowers spring forth, and in the midst of the dry black and grey and red, you suddenly see green and purple and blue and pink and yellow .. and a month or two afterwards, the land is restored to its glory..

Australia is a beautiful place, so truly uniqe. Its a good thing that, at least, we are discussing its management, and our effect, and the demise so far, intelligently at least ...

Re:Homo sapiens: The Other Species

[kotku]

We have the ability to choose one outcome over another. In this case when several consequences are choosable, the argument that the "consequences are part of the natural order" is a moot point and at worst an excuse for being irresponsible. Even if *conservation* is a human concept it is a concept brought about by a desire to live in a world that is interesting, varied and reasonably stable for the majority of the human population.

Why not non-human causes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am suprised that this paper seems to be written by a bunch of geologists and archeologists that have come to some conclusions without talking to anyone in the field that they're guessing about. They need to talk to someone who has qualifications in land management, particularly with practical knowledge of wildlands management and wildlands firefighting.

Because a lot of the countryside around the world has this alarming habbit of setting itself on fire. In the middle of the dry season, all it takes is one luckily placed lightning strike and thousands of acres go up.

Yes, there are now humans around that also accidentally start fires - but there are also a humans (ie: wildlands firefighters) who have a thankless job to put them out. 4 million acres typically burn in the US each year, this would be far greater if it wasn't stopped.

For all we know, a long time ago in Australia there were couple of particularly damp and wet seasons (so lots of plants grew), followed by a few particularly dry and hot long summer (so lots of plants died and became easily flamable). Maybe a natural dam burst, draining a lake and changing the local climate patterns. Then there's one lightning strike and it's all gone.

The fact that the foliage never recovered seems to suggest that a more permanent change was to blame. Otherwise when the humans moved away the forest would grow back. I hesitate to think how many humans would have been required to burn the entire continent of Australia - and keep it that way until the change was permanent. And all of the burned forests that I am aware of recover if left to their own devices (and I've regularly visited one here in Colorado). Typically the root structures of most trees, and some seeds of plants survive fires and the forest gradually grows back, the charred tree trunks gradually being overrun by a sea of new green growth.

Anyway, I'm skeptical, is all.

Occam's Razor.

[TapeCutter]

You are absolutely correct when you say that most fires are started by lightning, the same is true here in Australia. However with regards to the fuel that the fire consumes and Occams razor, don't you think that wiping our most of the large herbivors would induce a change in ground cover?

The problem is that it is never just as simple as one correct answer. Sure the Aborigines changed things by using fire and importing dogs (not to mention snacking on giant wombats who had never seen a hungry human), but before they arrived there were so many low level lightning fires in the Australian bush that much of the vegetation has actually evolved to depend on fire to propogate.

The prevailing wisdom in temperate Australia is to deliberately burn off (or better still mulch) the undergrowth in autum and spring. We still have some of the planets worst bushfires here but that is mainly because of the sheer size of the bush and the fact that we just leave some places up to nature to sort out. We cannot manage the whole of the bush so we burn off and create firebreaks in strategic locations. No matter what we do nothing can stop a wildfire backed by 30knt winds and tempratures of 40+ degC in the shade. When you have spot fires starting several kilometers upwind from the fire front you just have to protect the properties you can and let it run out of fuel (or prey for rain).