‘Catastrophic wildfire loop’ after colonisation left parts of Australia more at risk from bushfires, study finds

By the Editorial Team · Friday, October 9, 2026

Researchers have found that the displacement of the Gunaikurnai people and the subsequent loss of their Indigenous fire management practices led to denser forests and increased severity and frequency of bushfires in southeast Australia. This study highlights the potential benefits of incorporating traditional cultural burning techniques into modern fire management to help mitigate escalating wildfire risks.

Researchers studying southeast Australia have linked drastic land use changes following colonisation to increased vulnerability to severe bushfires, highlighting the role of disrupted Indigenous land management practices in shaping fire risk. The study, conducted in collaboration with the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation and published in Nature, reconstructs 1,000 years of vegetation and fire history near Purhagoolah, a lake in Croajingolong National Park, Gippsland, Victoria.

Using pollen and charcoal analysis from sediment cores, the team charted the transformation of the landscape from open woodland to denser forest after colonisation, a shift associated with heightened fire intensity and frequency. This ecological transition coincided with the displacement of the Gunaikurnai people and the loss of their customary cultural burning practices, which had historically maintained a balanced fire regime.

Michael-Shawn Fletcher, professor at the University of Melbourne and lead author, explained that prior to colonisation, the area was managed through ongoing Indigenous fire stewardship. After Indigenous removal, the increased density of trees and shrubs created conditions conducive to hotter, more destructive fires. These fires, in turn, encouraged the growth of fire-adapted eucalypt species, reinforcing a cycle of escalating fire risk—a process the researchers describe as a “catastrophic wildfire loop.”

The findings underscore the critical role of cultural burning, which involves the controlled use of low-intensity fires applied selectively at appropriate times and places to reduce fuel loads and maintain ecosystem health. Unlike modern prescribed burns conducted primarily for hazard reduction, Indigenous practices are tailored to local ecological knowledge and needs.

Fletcher emphasized that the study offers empirical support for integrating Indigenous knowledge into contemporary fire management strategies. “This research hopes to spark conversations about pathways to regain control over the worsening fire crisis,” he said.

David Bowman, a fire ecologist at the University of Tasmania who was not involved in the study, praised the work for contributing to a growing recognition of how colonial disruption of Indigenous fire regimes has had lasting ecological consequences in Australia. He noted the complexity introduced by factors such as invasive species but highlighted the removal of traditional burning as a major driver of landscape change and increased fire risk.

Long-term data such as that presented in this study are vital for understanding how fire patterns have evolved in response to both human activities and climate variations, Bowman added. He expressed hope that the research will encourage broader discussions on managing fire-prone landscapes amid escalating challenges posed by climate change.

The study reflects a growing consensus among scientists and Indigenous communities on the importance of combining traditional land management methods with modern fire mitigation efforts to reduce the scale and severity of bushfires in Australia’s vulnerable regions.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.