Según la Orden publicada hoy por la que se declara época de peligro medio de incendios forestales, en todas las zonas de Coordinación de Extremadura:
Queda prohibida la quema de rastrojos y pastos de cosecha en todo tipo de terreno, excepto por motivos fitosanitarios, previo informe favorable del órgano competente para ello.
Respecto a las quemas de restos vegetales en terrenos agrícolas quedan prohibidas, cuando se realicen a menos de 400 metros de distancia de vegetación de carácter forestal y con una separación mínima de 25 metros de cualquier otra vegetación susceptible de arder.
Quedan expresamente prohibidas la quema de restos de naturaleza forestal en zonas forestales, la quema de matorral en pie y las quemas de la vegetación propia de linderos entre fincas o parcelas. Así mismo quedarán sin efecto las autorizaciones de quemas de restos de naturaleza forestal.
Según explica la propia Orden, el Decreto 52/2010, de 5 de marzo, por el que se aprueba el Plan de Lucha contra Incendios Forestales de Extremadura (Plan INFOEX), incluye la posibilidad de declarar Época de Peligro Medio si la reiteración de incendios y las condiciones meteorológicas aconsejaran el refuerzo temporal de los medios del INFOEX.
En las últimas semanas se está registrando un elevado número de incendios en toda Extremadura, lo que se suma a unas condiciones meteorológicas negativas, marcadas por la ausencia prolongada de precipitaciones y la presencia de un anticiclón que apunta una continuidad de la actual sequía. En concreto, entre el 1 de enero y el 23 de febrero se han registrado en la comunidad autónoma un total de 307 incendios forestales, por los 33 que se produjeron en el mismo periodo del año pasado.
Todo ello hace que sea necesario disponer del máximo despliegue de medios del Plan INFOEX en todas las Zonas de Coordinación, de forma que se puedan atender con garantías todas las incidencias que se produzcan.
Esta elevación del nivel de alerta afecta a las cinco zonas de coordinación de Extremadura: Sierra de Gata-Hurdes; Ibores-Villuercas-La Siberia; Monfragüe-Ambroz-Jerte y Tiétar; Cáceres Centro-Sierra de San Pedro; y Badajoz Centro-La Serena-Tentudía.
Tal y como prevé el propio el decreto del Plan INFOEX, desde el momento de la publicación de esta Orden queda prohibida la quema de rastrojos y pastos, excepto cuanto sea por motivos fitosanitarios y siempre que cuente con el preceptivo informe favorable del órgano competente. En cuanto a las quemas de restos vegetales en terrenos agrícolas, se prohíbe llevarlas a cabo a menos de 400 metros de vegetación forestal, y deberán realizarse a al menos 25 metros de cualquier otra vegetación susceptible de arder.
También quedan prohibidas de forma expresa las quemas en zonas forestales, las quemas de matorral en pie y las quemas de la vegetación propia de linderos entre fincas o parcelas. Asimismo quedan sin efecto las autorizaciones de quemas forestales.
fuente: Agralia. Consejería de Agricultura, Desarrollo Rural y Medio Ambiente de Extremadura
02 marzo 2012
01 marzo 2012
Control de poblaciones cinegéticas a través de la gestión forestal
Etiquetado en:
gestión forestal
,
recursos cinegéticos
Deer culls are not effective for forest protection
Hunting is not an effective tool for reducing damage caused by deer to managed forests in Europe, according to a recent assessment. Forests will be better protected through 'close-to-nature' management techniques, says the study, which evaluated the effects of different control mechanisms on deer populations and behaviour, including the influence of wild predators, such as wolves, and forest structures.
Wild deer have greatly increased in number over the years, owing to increasingly mild winters, and changes in forestry and hunting practices and the agricultural landscape. Their foraging reduces regeneration in managed forests, causing economic as well as ecological damage. Hunting, the main method used to control numbers, can be effective on a local level, or even on a wider scale if well coordinated, but there is limited evidence from existing studies that it works on a large scale. Deer populations are strongly increasing throughout Europe despite widespread culling.
The study, supported by the EU BIORESC1 and INTACT2 projects, conducts a detailed assessment of available evidence on Roe and Red deer in temperate forests. Large natural predators, such as wolves and lynx, are one potential influence on deer behaviour, but these have been eradicated from most of Europe. There is much debate surrounding the idea of reintroducing these creatures to parts of Europe to help rebuild historic ecosystems.
Large carnivores have been proven to help control the effects of deer on tree regeneration, not only through predation, but also by creating a 'landscape of fear', which influences deer behaviour, habitat choice and distribution. While humans can hunt, they only partly substitute carnivores’ effects and create a very different landscape of fear. For example, wolves have a wide range, (200km2 on average in Poland, for example), and hunt all year round. Humans, on the other hand, hunt in isolated patches, for only part of the year and typically at weekends. The deer’s sense of fear is therefore weaker and they oftth and food abundance. While forest managers should not ignore predator effects, they should instead look to the vegetation and structure of forests, especially in the absence of predators.
The study argues that the nature of modern forestry itself encourages the damaging effects of deer. Natural temperate forests have a range of deciduous trees and other plant species, of various ages, and gaps in the canopy are small, where trees have naturally fallen. Modern commercial forests tend to be coniferous monocultures, even-aged, with large gaps where sections of woodland have been harvested. Deer prefer to forage in forest gaps where the light allows more vegetation to grow. Large gaps found in managed forests thus encourage more concentrated deer numbers and intense foraging. This concentrated damage can be reduced by introducing a large number of small gaps, instead of a few large gaps. Where available, deer also prefer eating deciduous trees, which studies suggest may be more tolerant to foraging and regenerate more successfully than coniferous trees. Planting only economically attractive coniferous species will make a forest more prone to damage by deer.
While it is still unclear whether more natural mien learn to avoid certain places or times. However, evidence from Poland, where wolves are present, suggests that the effects of natural predators on deer population size are relatively small in comparison to other environmental factors, such as climate, which influences plant growth and food abundance. While forest managers should not ignore predator effects, they should instead look to the vegetation and structure of forests, especially in the absence of predators.
The study argues that the nature of modern forestry itself encourages the damaging effects of deer. Natural temperate forests have a range of deciduous trees and other plant species, of various ages, and gaps in the canopy are small, where trees have naturally fallen. Modern commercial forests tend to be coniferous monocultures, even-aged, with large gaps where sections of woodland have been harvested. Deer prefer to forage in forest gaps where the light allows more vegetation to grow. Large gaps found in managed forests thus encourage more concentrated deer numbers and intense foraging. This concentrated damage can be reduced by introducing a large number of small gaps, instead of a few large gaps. Where available, deer also prefer eating deciduous trees, which studies suggest may be more tolerant to foraging and regenerate more successfully than coniferous trees. Planting only economically attractive coniferous species will make a forest more prone to damage by deer.
While it is still unclear whether more natural mixed forests could be more economically attractive than monocultures, ecosystem-oriented forest management effectively minimises damage caused by deer, says the study, mainly through natural control mechanisms that reduce deer’s effects. Previous research in Denmark has demonstrated that forests with close-to-nature management suffer less from the impacts of deer, even if deer numbers are high. These recommendations are also relevant to the control of other ‘ungulate’ (hoofed) species, such as wild boar.
fuente: Science for Environment Policy
Hunting is not an effective tool for reducing damage caused by deer to managed forests in Europe, according to a recent assessment. Forests will be better protected through 'close-to-nature' management techniques, says the study, which evaluated the effects of different control mechanisms on deer populations and behaviour, including the influence of wild predators, such as wolves, and forest structures.
Wild deer have greatly increased in number over the years, owing to increasingly mild winters, and changes in forestry and hunting practices and the agricultural landscape. Their foraging reduces regeneration in managed forests, causing economic as well as ecological damage. Hunting, the main method used to control numbers, can be effective on a local level, or even on a wider scale if well coordinated, but there is limited evidence from existing studies that it works on a large scale. Deer populations are strongly increasing throughout Europe despite widespread culling.
The study, supported by the EU BIORESC1 and INTACT2 projects, conducts a detailed assessment of available evidence on Roe and Red deer in temperate forests. Large natural predators, such as wolves and lynx, are one potential influence on deer behaviour, but these have been eradicated from most of Europe. There is much debate surrounding the idea of reintroducing these creatures to parts of Europe to help rebuild historic ecosystems.
Large carnivores have been proven to help control the effects of deer on tree regeneration, not only through predation, but also by creating a 'landscape of fear', which influences deer behaviour, habitat choice and distribution. While humans can hunt, they only partly substitute carnivores’ effects and create a very different landscape of fear. For example, wolves have a wide range, (200km2 on average in Poland, for example), and hunt all year round. Humans, on the other hand, hunt in isolated patches, for only part of the year and typically at weekends. The deer’s sense of fear is therefore weaker and they oftth and food abundance. While forest managers should not ignore predator effects, they should instead look to the vegetation and structure of forests, especially in the absence of predators.
The study argues that the nature of modern forestry itself encourages the damaging effects of deer. Natural temperate forests have a range of deciduous trees and other plant species, of various ages, and gaps in the canopy are small, where trees have naturally fallen. Modern commercial forests tend to be coniferous monocultures, even-aged, with large gaps where sections of woodland have been harvested. Deer prefer to forage in forest gaps where the light allows more vegetation to grow. Large gaps found in managed forests thus encourage more concentrated deer numbers and intense foraging. This concentrated damage can be reduced by introducing a large number of small gaps, instead of a few large gaps. Where available, deer also prefer eating deciduous trees, which studies suggest may be more tolerant to foraging and regenerate more successfully than coniferous trees. Planting only economically attractive coniferous species will make a forest more prone to damage by deer.
While it is still unclear whether more natural mien learn to avoid certain places or times. However, evidence from Poland, where wolves are present, suggests that the effects of natural predators on deer population size are relatively small in comparison to other environmental factors, such as climate, which influences plant growth and food abundance. While forest managers should not ignore predator effects, they should instead look to the vegetation and structure of forests, especially in the absence of predators.
The study argues that the nature of modern forestry itself encourages the damaging effects of deer. Natural temperate forests have a range of deciduous trees and other plant species, of various ages, and gaps in the canopy are small, where trees have naturally fallen. Modern commercial forests tend to be coniferous monocultures, even-aged, with large gaps where sections of woodland have been harvested. Deer prefer to forage in forest gaps where the light allows more vegetation to grow. Large gaps found in managed forests thus encourage more concentrated deer numbers and intense foraging. This concentrated damage can be reduced by introducing a large number of small gaps, instead of a few large gaps. Where available, deer also prefer eating deciduous trees, which studies suggest may be more tolerant to foraging and regenerate more successfully than coniferous trees. Planting only economically attractive coniferous species will make a forest more prone to damage by deer.
While it is still unclear whether more natural mixed forests could be more economically attractive than monocultures, ecosystem-oriented forest management effectively minimises damage caused by deer, says the study, mainly through natural control mechanisms that reduce deer’s effects. Previous research in Denmark has demonstrated that forests with close-to-nature management suffer less from the impacts of deer, even if deer numbers are high. These recommendations are also relevant to the control of other ‘ungulate’ (hoofed) species, such as wild boar.
- BIORESC (Transfer of Knowledge in Biodiversity Research and Conservation) was supported by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme. See: http://cordis.europa.eu/
search/index.cfm?fuseaction= proj.document&PJ_RCN=9775279 - INTACT (INTeracting effects of Abiotics and Carnivores shape herbivore Top-down effects) is supported by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme. See: http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?
CALLER=FP7_PROJ_EN&ACTION=D& DOC=1&CAT=PROJ&RCN=95890
fuente: Science for Environment Policy
El Ministerio activa de forma extraordinaria medios para la lucha contra incendios forestales
Etiquetado en:
BRIF
,
gestión forestal
,
incendios forestales
 |
| BRIF |
El Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente ha activado de forma extraordinaria un dispositivo para reforzar la labor de los medios que actúan durante el periodo invernal en la extinción de incendios forestales, como medida preventiva ante la situación de sequía que se está produciendo en la mayor parte del territorio español.
Para ello, el Ministerio ha decidido pre-alertar a parte del operativo de las brigadas preventivas que, actualmente, realizaban tareas de desbroce, podas y otros trabajos forestales y, a Equipos de Prevención Integral de Incendios Forestales (EPRIF) que desarrollaban labores de sensibilización de diversa índole en colaboración con las Comunidades Autónomas. El objetivo es reforzar los trabajos de extinción de incendios forestales con los medios del Ministerio ya disponibles en la actualidad.
Las brigadas de labores preventivas pre-alertadas se han incorporado a las bases de Laza (Orense), Tabuyo del Monte (León), Pinofranqueado (Cáceres) y Puerto del Pico (Ávila). El dispositivo se mantendrá mientras la situación meteorológica no varíe, apoyando así la labor del dispositivo habitual del período invernal en las zonas donde se consideren necesarias. Cuando las circunstancias se normalicen, el dispositivo de brigadas preventivas y los equipos EPRIF volverán a desarrollar sus trabajos habituales.
Los recortes ponen en riesgo a los bosques públicos de Reino Unido
Etiquetado en:
conservación
,
gestión forestal
,
política forestal
Public forests are 'under threat again'
CAMPAIGNERS in the Lake District have issued a new warning that public forests are once again under threat.
Save Lakeland’s Forests and Friends of the Lake District say swingeing cuts are undermining the Forestry Commission and threatening the future of the woodlands that hundreds of thousands of people fought to preserve.
They say that one of the areas hardest hit is the commission’s wildlife work, with a cut of one in five wildlife rangers across the country. In the Northern region, which includes the Lake District, the number of wildlife rangers has been cut from 16 to 13. Lord Clark of Windermere, a former chair of the Forestry Commission, said: “The Forestry Commission’s wildlife rangers do invaluable work to improve the biodiversity of our public forests.
“In the Lake District and Kielder that includes projects that have seen the return of ospreys and red kites, as well as the ongoing battle to save our native red squirrels.
“We showed last year that the Forestry Commission was costing just 30p for every taxpayer. That is a small price for preserving and enhancing these magnificent green spaces for people to enjoy today and for the benefit of future generations.”
Another concern raised by local activists is the impact of the cuts on the Forestry Commission’s ability to stop tree diseases spreading across the country and doing untold damage to forests and woodlands.
Campaigners are also worried the Forestry Commission is closing down its education services across most of the country.
The Forestry Panel, set up by the Government to look at the future of the country’s forests, is due to visit the Lake District on March 7. One of the issues they will be considering is whether the commission should be given more freedom to raise money commercially and by charitable donations.
Jack Ellerby, from Friends of the Lake District, said stable core Government funding would offer a new way forward. He pointed out that British Waterways, shortly to become the Canals and Rivers Trust, was to get £800 million over the next 15 years.
Exactly a year ago the Government abandoned the consultation on selling off public forests after a massive public outcry.
A spokesperson for DEFRA said: “The Natural Environment White Paper clearly expressed our support for more woodland creation, better management of existing woods, and restoration of plantations on ancient woodland.
“We have asked the Independent Panel on Forestry to look at forestry policy and the role of the Forestry Commission and we look forward to their final recommendations on how more woodland can be created and existing woodland better managed.”
fuente: thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk
CAMPAIGNERS in the Lake District have issued a new warning that public forests are once again under threat.
Save Lakeland’s Forests and Friends of the Lake District say swingeing cuts are undermining the Forestry Commission and threatening the future of the woodlands that hundreds of thousands of people fought to preserve.
They say that one of the areas hardest hit is the commission’s wildlife work, with a cut of one in five wildlife rangers across the country. In the Northern region, which includes the Lake District, the number of wildlife rangers has been cut from 16 to 13. Lord Clark of Windermere, a former chair of the Forestry Commission, said: “The Forestry Commission’s wildlife rangers do invaluable work to improve the biodiversity of our public forests.
“In the Lake District and Kielder that includes projects that have seen the return of ospreys and red kites, as well as the ongoing battle to save our native red squirrels.
“We showed last year that the Forestry Commission was costing just 30p for every taxpayer. That is a small price for preserving and enhancing these magnificent green spaces for people to enjoy today and for the benefit of future generations.”
Another concern raised by local activists is the impact of the cuts on the Forestry Commission’s ability to stop tree diseases spreading across the country and doing untold damage to forests and woodlands.
Campaigners are also worried the Forestry Commission is closing down its education services across most of the country.
The Forestry Panel, set up by the Government to look at the future of the country’s forests, is due to visit the Lake District on March 7. One of the issues they will be considering is whether the commission should be given more freedom to raise money commercially and by charitable donations.
Jack Ellerby, from Friends of the Lake District, said stable core Government funding would offer a new way forward. He pointed out that British Waterways, shortly to become the Canals and Rivers Trust, was to get £800 million over the next 15 years.
Exactly a year ago the Government abandoned the consultation on selling off public forests after a massive public outcry.
A spokesperson for DEFRA said: “The Natural Environment White Paper clearly expressed our support for more woodland creation, better management of existing woods, and restoration of plantations on ancient woodland.
“We have asked the Independent Panel on Forestry to look at forestry policy and the role of the Forestry Commission and we look forward to their final recommendations on how more woodland can be created and existing woodland better managed.”
fuente: thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk
La superficie forestal mundial
Etiquetado en:
investigación
Según la ONU, la cubierta forestal mundial es menor a la estimada.
La cubierta forestal mundial, al igual que la pérdida de selvas, es menor a la estimada por la Organización para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO, por sus siglas en inglés), de acuerdo a un nuevo estudio satelital que remplaza al sistema de reportes que utilizaba la ONU.
Un estudio reveló que la cubierta forestal mundial abarca 3,69 mil millones de hectáreas, lo que representa apenas el 30% de la superficie terrestre mundial. El proceso de Evaluación Global de los Recursos Forestales de la FAO (FRA 2011), basado en el sistema antiguo, reveló una superficie de cubierta forestal de 4,06 mil millones de hectáreas.
La FAO afirma que cerca de la mitad de la cubierta forestal mundial (44%) se extiende en los trópicos, mientras que la tercera parte se extiende en las regiones boreales. Los bosques templados constituyen el 13% de la extensión mundial, mientras que los bosques subtropicales sólo el 9%.
El estudio de detección remota también evaluó un cambio en la cubierta forestal. Reveló una reducción neta de 72,9 hectáreas en la superficie forestal mundial entre 1990 y 2005, aproximadamente un tercio menos del estudio anterior que dio 107,4 millones de hectáreas. Esta diferencia surge de estudios de las selvas africanas, donde el sistema de reportes estaba desactualizado.
El estudio satelital mostró un salto en la deforestación entre el 2000 y el 2005 que se asemeja al de los años 90. La tasa neta de pérdida de bosques aumentó un 56% con 4,1 millones de hectáreas por año en los 90 a 6,4 millones de hectáreas por año del 2000 al 2005. Por el contrario, un estudio anterior reveló una disminución en la deforestación entre esos dos períodos. La mayor pérdida forestal la sufrieron los trópicos con un promedio de 6,9 hectáreas por año durante esos periodos (6,3 millones ha en los años 90 y 8 millones del 2000 al 2005). En otras regiones (boreales, templadas y subtropicales) la cubierta forestal aumentó gracias a la reforestación, la recuperación natural de bosques y las plantaciones.
Si no tenemos en cuenta estos tres factores, el promedio de tasa global de deforestación llega a las 14,5 hectáreas por año, sobre todo durante el período de estudio, lo que se asemeja a estimaciones anteriores. La deforestación tropical aumentó de 8,2 millones de hectáreas por año en los 90 a 10 millones en el período 2000-2005
La FAO afirma que este estudio no refleja de forma precisa los cambios en la cobertura arbórea en áreas donde el dosel arbóreo es menor del 30%. En general, los bosques con escaso dosel arbóreo se degradan y se encuentran en áreas secas.
La FAO no publicó datos de países específicos. Dicho estudio estará disponible más adelante.
fuente: http://es.mongabay.com/news/2012/es1130-un_forests.html
Suscribirse a:
Entradas
(
Atom
)