Can Forest Fires Be Predicted Using Satellite Photos of Beetle Damage?

GA for a good thought. Humans are notorious for making everything worse. We seem to be so intent on saving things that don't need saving. Nature had its own ways before humans came along. They will have their own ways after we are gone.

All we hear is how the beetles are killing the trees. It's not the beetles the trees can handle the beetles. It's some of the beetle have adapted a relationship to blue stain fungus. The fungus is whats killing the trees. The beetles just using it to retard sap excretion. That the tree would naturally use to force the beetle out.

As I understand it the healthy trees can handle the beetles. So if we the amount of damage the beetles are doing as gauge for the trees in the forest health we see that they are doing poorly to begin with. Fires always been natures way to rid the forest of the weak and unhealthy trees.

"It's not the beetles the trees can handle the beetles..."

Huh? Here are several hundred images of forest tracts and individual stands of timber, and some images of the damage the larvae of one female beetle can do to a tree. The larvae eat the life supporting xylem sapwood from under the bark, girdling the tree and strangling it. Dead tree.

I think there was supposed to be a comma: "It's not the beetles, the trees can handle the beetles..."

Longer version: It's not the beetles killing the trees, the trees can handle the beetles.

Here is some of the pictures from your link you can see the blue stain fungus in the wood all around the beetles tubes.

Here is a trees cross section that you can see the depth of the attack by the fungus. I'm not saying that the beetles are not a problem. It's just that the trees may very well been able to handle the infestation of the beetles if they did not have this fungus with them which attacks the tree also. It is what is doing the real damage. With out it the beetles would not be multiplying as fast. Sap from the tree would have force them out or encased them or their young. The fungus retards the trees ability to produce sap.

None of you answered the question! I don't know the answer, I doubt if anyone can speak with any honesty.

"Can these areas be used to predict where fire danger might be greater?"

You mean this question? Yes I can there is a greater danger all though out them with all the standing dead wood to get a fire started and floor bed covered with pine needles. The larger the area of the dead wood the greater the danger and chance. What we can't predict is the cause or when. Lighting strike, lit cigarette, piece of broken glass

"Can Forest Fires Be Predicted Using Satellite Photos of Beetle Damage?"

NO

Quote, '

• Green needles are actually fairly combustible – they contain flammable volatile oils that break down after the needles fall off the tree and die.
• Beetles kill the trees, causing the needles to drop off. It is hard for a fire to start with just dead logs and no kindling.

Whoever wrote this has not been in forests very much.

Quote, 'Four ecologists say' Why just last week they were janitors but got promoted as the writer needed some source for a silly statement.

When writers refer to 'scientists', 'environmentalists', 'concerned citizens' and such I get leery. With no names involved you could renew the old claim that the sun revolves around the earth because 4 'scientists' said so. Attach a name and background and it is different.

This is why I always include a resources section in my blogs (unless I'm writing completely from experience). Readers can find out more information if they are curious or would like to check my facts.

"University of Wisconsin forest ecologists Monica Turner and Phil Townsend, in collaboration with Renkin, are studying the connection in the forests near Yellowstone National Park." comes from this link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100908171130.htm The article goes into some detail about the flammability of needles.

"For Yellowstone National Park Vegetation Management Specialist Roy Renkin, those worries are nothing new. "I've heard [the tinderbox analogy] ever since I started my professional career in the forestry and fire management business 32 years ago," he said. "But having the opportunity to observe such interaction over the years in regards to the Yellowstone natural fire program, I must admit that observations never quite met with the expectation."" comes from this link: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/beetles-fire.html

The quote about the four ecologist comes from this source: http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/report_climate_not_beetles_mai. They actually don't use names, either, until later in the article, and I don't believe they are quoting the ecologists in all cases.

"A new report by four forest ecologists says climate rather than beetles is the main cause of forest fire risk, and that risk is best addressed by creating defensible spaces around homes instead of logging in the backcountry."

"Dominik Kulakowski, a professor of geography and biology at Clark University in Massachusetts, has studied the relationship between beetle outbreaks and forest fires in Colorado for more than a decade.

He said new research is showing that dry needles of beetle-killed trees don't increase fire risk, because they fall from trees quickly enough to reduce the total volume of fire-carrying fuels in the forest canopy."

Starting a fire with dead wood or old needles is far easier.

Once a fire is burning hot enough to dry out whatever is in it' path the green trees will easily be caught up.

Once the forest fire is started I doubt that dead or alive makes much difference.

I remember burning slash in the forest in Oregon years back - after the first fall rain you could not start the forest on fire. You had to work hard to get the piled slash started.

what about thermal imagery ? or infra red showing heat build up early ?