email alerts

To receive email alerts for new posts of this blog, enter your address below.

Monday, April 21, 2025

"Bonfire Palooza" Raises Questions

 A good Instagram comment (by "mangigoroka") responded to recent photos of the Illinois Beach "Chainsaw Bonfire Palooza." 

Chicago region restorationists seem bound and determined to burn every last scrap of course woody debris. Is there scientific research to back this practice of making everything "clean"? Why burn course woody debris that a prescribed fire left behind- shouldn't repeated prescribed burns take down the coarse woody debris to"natural levels"? Don't you need those logs for 1) carbon sequestration 2) habitat for fungi and invertebrates 3) "nurse logs" and microclimate for certain plants? I wonder if there has been an overcorrection for fire suppression. Messy landscapes have more structural diversity. No? I appreciate the restoration work. I just question the strong emphasis in "cleaning" everything up in the Chicago region.

We appreciate these questions. We can’t speak for all “the Chicago Region restorationists.” It doesn’t seem impossible that there may be “over-correction” at some sites, but we haven’t seen it. We can speak for our work to reduce log piles at Illinois Beach.  



Large areas south of Dead River are badly and increasingly degraded by piles of pine logs. For some reason, these logs and branches are very slow to degrade. They don’t burn, perhaps because they’ve killed the grasses and forbs that would have provided the fuel to ignite them. Crown vetch is one of the few species that thrives under the pines, and from there it marches destructively out into the surrounding vegetation. 

Notice that the lower leaves of the black oaks in the background have been killed by a recent fire. That fire, like many before, had little impact on the log piles. 

We suppose these logs would ultimately rot or burn or be covered by blowing sand if we waited long enough. But they cover a substantial area, and every acre here is precious. A few animal and species are dropping out, possibly because their populations are too small to adapt to changing conditions. So we try to help.

South of Dead River we don’t pile or burn any logs beside the pines. Sadly, at the rate we’re going, it would be decades before we got them all burned up. But we see benefits in doing what we can and strategizing on how to do better.

As for the work last week, which drew the thoughtful comment that starts this post, that was a special case, which is now pretty much finished. Many trees along the main Dune Trail heading south from the parking lot had been cut to prevent them from falling on the trail. There were too many, and they were causing problems similar to the pines south of Dead River, killing the pricelessly high-quality savanna flora underneath. There were also, along the Dead River Trail, brush piles where trees had been cut up and piled because they indeed had fallen across the trails. Some people give arguments in favor of brush piles for animals to hide in. But this is a Nature Preserve where we don't want artificial structures. There are still vast numbers of naturally fallen trees, which serve that function. 

The wood cut and burned at this weekend’s palooza were all along those two popular hiking trails, generating questions from park visitors and hikers who passed, and prompting good discussions among visitors and stewards. Removing that ugly and unnatural mess not only benefits the ecosystem, it also makes this beautiful savanna more visible to those who visit it, some of whom therefore may be motivated to help care for it. 
At noon, we had lunch break ... and a bit of planning and discussion. Our log seats for lunch were later added to the fires. Notice smoke from two fires behind us along the trail. Notice also that there is still plenty of natural downed wood, as a natural part of the ecosystem. 

We are tickled to report that under some logs we picked up we found - brace yourself - native cockroaches. We love them, along with the rest of the fairly unique flora and fauna that thrive here. We help all as best we can and are so happy to have these opportunities. 

Three more photos of the evil log piles and the struggling flora near them: 




Here Sharon Rosenzweig points to the killer crown vetch that proliferates under some of the piles. She will spray herbicide on it. 

            Quality flora survives near the piles, but it's thinner and weaker than farther away. 

Downy yellow painted cup is one of many endangered or rare species that would appreciate a bit more living space restored. 

For other Illinois Beach posts, click here and here

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Zoey Raines for good edits. 

5 comments:

  1. When critiques like this occur, it’s a good opportunity for practitioners to point out that solutions in restoration are always about trade-offs, like at Illinois Beach. Even the worst invasive plant can provide value to a particular bird, insect, etc, but if we leave a portion of those plants be, the entire ecosystem may be threatened. I’ve cut buckthorn & let it lay only to regret it. It hinders efficient control of new buckthorn seedlings, prevents wacking subsequent goldenrod invasions & presents a hazard for tripping or getting poked in the eye/nose. If nature preserves were 10,000 acres in size, were never cattle grazed, tiled or plowed, retained pre-settlement fire return intervals & had few invasives, we could lean more towards letting nature take it’s course. For our fragmented, invaded preserves, the most life-affirming approach is to make sure our actions contribute towards increasing long-term biodiversity of the ecosystem with emphasis on conservative species, even if some components of that system suffer in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 0) The job of restoration is to maintain local populations of native species at or above 1,000 individuals, which seems to the be the threshold below which adaptation cannot occur (Leimu & Fischer 2008) for a variety of reasons which can be proven with the mathematics of population genetics. 1) "Letting nature take its course" can be defined as keeping the process of evolution alive, which means allowing populations to adapt to our distortions of the historical conditions and processes to which nature had previously adapted them. 2) Not infrequently that involves doing things which seem like tilting conditions a little far in one direction or another. But if the net effect is to shore up populations which have historically inhabited a site, and allow them to shift the elements of their genomes in ways that allow them to deal with, e.g., carbon levels that have not been seen in a million years, well, that's the win. It's messy, but it's good, and, it works. 3) Thanks to the North Branch Restoration Project for educating a generation of Northwestern University students on this point.- Prof. Joe Walsh, retired.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I originally posted the comment on Instagram quoted here but ended up deleting it shortly after, as I regretted the critical tone and the overgeneralization—in regard to the Chicago Region. It's a good reminder to pause and reflect before sharing thoughts online—ha!

    Thanks for providing more context, especially about how fallen pines and log piles may negatively affect some of the rare and declining plant species on the site, as well as the rationale for removing snags and deadfall near paths for safety and aesthetic reasons. Illinois Beach is one of my favorite places in Northeast Illinois, and I really value the ongoing restoration work there.

    That said, I still have some lingering concerns about the potential for over-correction in some parts of the Upper Midwest—if not currently, perhaps in the future. It would be great to see more formal research focused specifically on coarse woody debris (CWD) in open woodlands and savannas. There’s extensive literature on CWD in forest systems, but very little (that I’ve found) addressing fire-adapted woodlands and savannas. I recall seeing a research poster at the UW-Milwaukee field station years ago where a grad student had studied areas under and around fallen trees/deadfall... they found that there were more trilliums and other woodland plants growing under these ares than open areas nearby because deer didn't want to pass through or climb under the deadfall to brows the wildflowers. This was in a closed canopy forest so a different context but may be worth considering in some other woodland and savanna contexts in the region.

    I’ve been thinking a lot about what the “right amount” of snags, logs, and downed branches in our fire adapted systems. In forests north of the tension zone, best practice often leans toward leaving most or all of it to replicate the structural complexity of older-growth stands—but of course, that's a different ecological context.

    Some members of the restoration crew I manage tend to want to buck up and burn every log or branch that falls—or that we fell. I often encourage them to leave some behind for fungi, invertebrates, and other organisms, rather than tidying everything away. That’s part of where my earlier overgeneralization came from.

    From what you've shared, though, it sounds like there's still plenty of structural material—logs, snags, branches—being left at Illinois Beach, which is good to hear. I’ve really appreciated reading the thoughtful comments from others here as well, especially those pointing out the trade-offs involved, the observation that area under and around logs burn hotter burns than in open prairie, and the point about prioritizing minimum viable populations (~1,000 individuals or more).

    Thanks again, and cheers to continued learning!

    -Joel aka "Mangigoroka"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your honesty is inspiring. I thought your Instagram post was thoughtful & constructive. I like your proposal that there is a “right amount” of woody debris. It would be site specific, depending on management goals. Every woodland brush clearing project I’ve done resulted in a secondary invasion of multiple species in response to increased ambient light. I had to maximize my efficiency in controlling invasions in those areas because otherwise I couldn’t keep up with invasives in other areas. That meant a trade-off where all the brush had to go. Another factor can be aesthetics as many preserve visitors don’t like the look of too much brush laying around.

      Many times I noticed trillium & other natives were taller & blooming only where there was a fallen branch, probably for the reason you gave.

      Delete
  4. The best natural are management considers balance of native species. Snags (standing dead trees). logs and branches (on the ground dead wood) are important to birds, salamanders and snakes. There needs to be some for those species to thrive., but everything in biology is about 'balance', how much is too little and how much is too much? I agree with the original post that some sites do not leave enough snags and logs (specifically Thornton-Lansing NP). At IBSP the woody impact situation is different because the woody pines being burned in brush piles are not native but were planted in an earlier era. Non-native woody snags and logs not only create the problems described in the blog, but probably result in increases in other non-native species. In my opinion the best enhancement of the IBSP preserve is to completely remove the non-native pine logs (by hauling, burning,etc).

    ReplyDelete