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

[rylin]

Depends.
Leopards and lions aren't obsessed with hunting elephants just to get at their tusks.

When it's a matter of survival, rather than fetching a good price on the black market - let me know.

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:Know is the right word!

[identity0]

"Oh my primordial nature God! Timmy's set fire to the outback!"

"Now kids - remember, when cooking animals, make sure they're dead *before* you set them on fire, or otherwise they might run away and set the entire continent on fire"

"Gee, thanks GI Aboriginal Tribesman!"

"Now you know - and knowing is half the battle! Now lets set that Dingo on fire."

Only you...

[identity0]

Smokey the Marsupial says: "Only you can prevent outback fi-" *wham* *wham* *sizzle*

Pyro the Aboriginie says: "Mmm, marsupial tasty over fire. More burnt marsupials good. Burn! Burn!"

*sets outback on fire*

Re:Homo sapiens: The Other Species

[meringuoid]

our actions are natural and the consequences are part of the natural order

So are mass extinctions, but if given the choice you'd generally prefer not to be involved in one of those.

We're supposed to be the intelligent ones here, but we don't appear to be smart enough yet not to shit in our own beds...

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.

Re:Why not non-human causes?

[dbIII]

without talking to anyone in the field that they're guessing about

I think if you check the citations for the paper you would find otherwise - I know that sometime in the 1980s this theory was popular in Australia and was described on information signs at Kakadu National Park in the north of Australia. It is known as firestick farming.

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).