Fires and forest density

Observations from an article in The Economist:

The wildfire raging in New Mexico’s historic Gila National Forest has already scorched some 230,000 acres (93,000 hectares) of woodland, making it the biggest in the state’s history... In many ways, the New Mexico blaze is a test case. It represents the first large-scale opportunity that firefighters have had to test a new approach to forest management. This relies on pruning the undergrowth and thinning out the stands, and then letting nature take its course when lightning strikes and triggers a blaze...

Actually, there is nothing new about the latest approach to forest management. Native Americans were practising similar forms of forestry long before settlers arrived from Europe. Where lightning had not done the job for them, they set fires to thin the forests—so grasslands and edible plants could flourish between the trees and attract grazing animals for hunting. Records indicate the land in pre-settlement times had no more than a dozen trees per acre. Today’s forests, whether natural or man-made, tend to be packed with well over 100 trees per acre...

There's more at the link, especially re the influence of forest density on water management.

Yesterday, I hiked three miles along a bicycle path in the Madison area; while doing so, I passed through some acreage that was being restored to "oak savannah" conditions by grubbing out the underbrush.  The contrast was striking.  For the previous half-mile the woods on either side of the bike path were so dense that one couldn't see any further than the line of first trees.  Where the restoration was underway, one could see for hundreds of yards.  This was being done in a suburban setting where wildfire would be impractical as a clearance mechanism; the community was relying on "elbow grease" and some funding from the sale of turkey hunting licenses.