No, a forest fire does not allow new plants to grow since when a forest fire breaks out, the effects can be terrible. Wildlife is destroyed and driven out by the flames and heat. After the forest fire, the forest appears completely different. The plants and trees have now turned into charcoal, smoke and ash. We have to wait for centuries for the new plants to grow and replace the old forest.
because it will make a big fire
When a fire is out of control in a forest.
A river passing through a forest can prevent a forest fire from jumping across the firebreak.
Secondary succession, where plant and animal life recolonize an area after a disturbance has disrupted an existing ecosystem.
Well, if the forest has burnt up, I'd say it's destroyed.
The ecosystem becomes more stable and diverse
Secondary succession
secondary succession
In September 1908, the town of Chisholm, MN was completely destroyed during a forest fire that took three days to bring under control. See related links for details.
Succession
When a forest is left alone, there can acumulate a lot of dead wood and plants on the forest floor. The longer it goes without a fire, the more debris builds up and then when there is a fire, there is a lot of fuel to burn. The more fuel the hotter the fire and the more live trees will be destroyed. The Forest service will periodically set fires within an area of the forest and have a controlled burn. This will be a smaller fire that will not damage the larger trees but will clear out the underbrush.
"Like fire, you will blaze through the forest. But beware! Even the most powerful flames can be destroyed by water."
In the forest
It was destroyed by a fire.
There was never a Roman emperor that started a fire that destroyed half of the city.There was never a Roman emperor that started a fire that destroyed half of the city.There was never a Roman emperor that started a fire that destroyed half of the city.There was never a Roman emperor that started a fire that destroyed half of the city.There was never a Roman emperor that started a fire that destroyed half of the city.There was never a Roman emperor that started a fire that destroyed half of the city.There was never a Roman emperor that started a fire that destroyed half of the city.There was never a Roman emperor that started a fire that destroyed half of the city.There was never a Roman emperor that started a fire that destroyed half of the city.
Q: When was there a fire that destroyed most of San Francisco