|
|
FEIS Home Page |
Common names are used throughout this summary. For a complete list of the common and scientific names of species discussed and for links toFEIS species reviews, see the Appendix.
RESEARCH PROJECT SUMMARY CITATION:Sources:
Glasgow, Lance S.; Matlack, Glenn R. 2007. Prescribed burning and understory composition in a temperate deciduous forest, Ohio, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 238(1-3): 54-64 [3].
Glasgow, Lance S.; Matlack, Glenn R. 2007. The effects of prescribed burning and canopy openness on establishment of two non-native plant species in a deciduous forest, southeast Ohio, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 238(1/3): 319-329 [1].
Glasgow, Lance; Matlack, Glenn. 2006. Effects of prescribed burning on invasibility by nonnative plant species in the Central Hardwoods Region. In: Dickinson, Matthew B., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering science to land managers, proceedings of a conference; 2005 November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 277. Abstract [2].
STUDY LOCATION:Study sites probably historically experienced the fire regimes described in Table 1.
| Table 1. Fire regime information on vegetation communities in the study area. This information is taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [6], which were developed by local experts using available literature and expert opinion. This table summarizes fire regime characteristics for the 2 plant communities listed. The PDF file linked from each plant community name describes the model and synthesizes the knowledge available on vegetation composition, structure, and dynamics in that community. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model. | |||||
| Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||
| Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
||
| Great Lakes floodplain forest | |||||
| Mixed | 7% | 833 | |||
| Surface or low | 93% | 61 | |||
| Oak-hickory | Replacement | 13% | 66 | 1 | |
| Mixed | 11% | 77 | 5 | ||
| Surface or low | 76% | 11 | 2 | 25 | |
| *Fire Severities— Replacement: Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants. Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects. Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [4,5]. |
|||||
| Table 2. Average maximum temperature (SE) (°C) in burned plots [2] | ||||
| Position of sensor | 25 cm above ground | Soil surface | ||
Burn severity |
moderate | low | moderate | low |
| Open canopy, ridge | 317 (5) | 82 (3) | 371 (0) | 151 (25) |
| Closed canopy, ridge | 252 (4) | 56 (2) | 343 (19) | 84 (20) |
| Open canopy, valley | 308 (2) | 87 (4) | 371 (0) | 195 (33) |
| Closed canopy, valley | 300 (3) | 67 (3) | 359 (12) | 105 (19) |
For the invasive plant study, seeds of Nepalese browntop and multiflora rose were sown into experimental plots shortly after treatments were completed and again 7 months after treatment (April and November 2004) [2].
FIRE EFFECTS ON PLANT COMMUNITY:In ridge communities, moderate-severity burn plots tended to be dominated by graminoids that originated both from seed and sprouting. Three woody species showed significant differences in density between treatments: Smooth sumac and tuliptree were favored by fire, whereas red maple was less abundant on burned than unburned plots (Table 3). Most stems of these woody species had cotyledons, indicating that regeneration was mainly from seed rather than sprouting.
In valley communities, fire favored American burnweed, American pokeweed, and grape species. As in ridge communities, red maple was less abundant on burned than control plots (Table 3). None of these 4 species responded significantly to canopy openness, possibly because the cleared experimental plots were too small to change growing conditions substantially [1].
| Table 3. Native understory species that showed significant differences in density between treatments (P<0.05) [1] | ||
| Significant differences | Fire effects or implications | |
| Ridge sites: | ||
| smooth sumac | Moderate-severity burn > all other treatments | Fire of at least moderate severity important for recruitment |
| red maple | Burn treatments < control or litter removal | |
| tuliptree | Low-severity burn > control or moderate-severity burn | Fire's effect due to litter removal |
| Low-severity burn = litter removal | ||
| Valley sites: | ||
| American burnweed | Low-severity burn > moderate-severity burn or control | Fire's effect due to litter removal |
| Litter removal > control | ||
| American pokeweed | Moderate-severity burn > all other treatments | Fire of at least moderate severity important for recruitment |
| grape species | Moderate-severity burn > control or litter removal | Most stems were seedlings |
| red maple | Burn treatments < control | |
Many understory species, including common cinquefoil, fourleaf yam, Blue Ridge blueberry, perfoliate bellwort, and sensitive fern, did not respond significantly to burning. These species may have failed to respond because they do not require litter removal, an open canopy, or heat to germinate or sprout. Other possible explanations include absence of seed in the soil, insufficient soil heating to trigger sprouting, and lack of topkill in standing stems [1].
Nonnative Invasive Plant Study: Establishment of Nepalese browntop and multiflora rose was recorded in June and August 2004 and again in June 2005 (2, 4, and 14 months after treatment). Germination and seedling growth, as indicated by height and leaf number, responded positively to fire for both species, although both species showed at least some germination in almost all combinations of treatment, topographic position, and canopy openness. Burned plots in canopy gaps in valley positions provided optimum germination and growth [2,3].
Approximately 7% of the Nepalese browntop seed sown immediately after treatments (April 2004) germinated in postfire year 1, with most germination before the end of June. Less than 2% of April-sown seed survived the winter to germinate in postfire year 2. Approximately 14% of seed sown 7 months after treatment (November 2004) germinated in postfire year 2—again, mostly before the end of June. In both postfire years, germination of Nepalese browntop was greatest in litter-removal plots and burned plots (both low- and moderate-severity), an effect enhanced by valley position and canopy gaps in postfire year 1 (P<0.05). Some recruitment occurred in control plots, especially on valley sites with canopy gaps. Four months after treatment, seedlings were significantly taller in moderate-severity burn plots than in other treatments and taller in canopy gaps than under closed canopies (P<0.05) [2].
Approximately 1% of the multiflora rose seed sown immediately after treatments germinated in postfire year 1, most of it before the end of June. Less than 2% of April-sown seed survived the winter to germinate in postfire year 2. Approximately 2% of seed sown 7 months after treatment germinated in postfire year 2—again, mostly before the end of June. In the 1st postfire year, seedling recruitment was greater in burned and litter-removal plots than in control plots, with greatest recruitment in moderate-severity burn plots at valley positions with open canopies (P<0.05). Some recruitment occurred in control plots. Four months after treatment, seedlings were generally taller in moderate-severity burn plots than in other treatments. In the 2nd postfire year, germination was again greatest in burned plots and litter-removal plots [2].
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:Nonnative Invasive Plant Study: Nepalese browntop and multiflora rose established most successfully in plots that were burned, had a relatively open canopy, or had litter removed; both species also established in unburned plots. Moist sites (in valley positions) were generally more invasible than drier, ridge sites. In field treatments, patches experiencing any fire, low- or moderate-severity, may provide local opportunities for establishment of Nepalese browntop; more severe fire in pockets of heavy fuel or on dry, south-facing slopes may create microsites highly suitable for establishment of multiflora rose. Recruitment of both species in the 2nd postfire year indicates that a site can remain vulnerable to invasion for at least 1 year after fire [2]. While this study demonstrated the potential for fire to increase establishment of 2 invasive species, it did not provide information on postfire sprouting of established plants or long-term persistence and spread of these species.
Because fire increased the vulnerability of mixed-deciduous forests to invasion by Nepalese browntop and multiflora rose, the authors recommend avoiding use of prescribed fire near large populations of these species and reducing large populations in neighboring areas before burning. Because both invasives showed higher germination in canopy gaps than under a closed canopy, canopy disturbance should be minimized. If invasive species are already common on a site proposed for treatment, managers should weigh the benefits of burning or thinning against the risk of increasing invasion [2]. If management techniques will include thinning or prescribed fire, managers could prioritize moist sites and openings for monitoring and follow-up treatments to minimize invasion by Nepalese browntop and multiflora rose.| Common name | Scientific name |
| forbs | |
| fourleaf yam | Dioscorea quaternata |
| American burnweed | Erechtites hieracifolia |
| American pokeweed | Phytolacca americana |
| common cinquefoil | Potentilla simplex |
| perfoliate bellwort | Uvularia perfoliata |
| graminoid | |
| Nepalese browntop | Microstegium vimineum |
| fern | |
| sensitive fern | Onoclea sensibilis |
| liana | |
| grape species | Vitis spp. |
| shrubs | |
| smooth sumac | Rhus glabra |
| multiflora rose | Rosa multiflora |
| Blue Ridge blueberry | Vaccinium pallidum |
| trees | |
| red maple | Acer rubrum |
| sugar maple | Acer saccharum |
| hickory species | Carya spp. |
| tuliptree | Liriodendron tulipifera |
| blackgum | Nyssa sylvatica |
| oak species | Quercus spp. |
1. Glasgow, Lance S.; Matlack, Glenn R. 2007. Prescribed burning and understory composition in a temperate deciduous forest, Ohio, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 238(1-3): 54-64. [65496]
2. Glasgow, Lance S.; Matlack, Glenn R. 2007. The effects of prescribed burning and canopy openness on establishment of two non-native plant species in a deciduous forest, southeast Ohio, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 238(1-3): 319-329. [66854]
3. Glasgow, Lance; Matlack, Glenn. 2006. Effects of prescribed burning on invasibility by nonnative plant species in the Central Hardwoods region. In: Dickinson, Matthew B., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering science to land managers: Proceedings of a conference; 2005 November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 277. Abstract. [66419]
4. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2008. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.3, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). 119 p. Available: http://frames.nbii.gov/frcc/documents/FRCC_Guidebook_2008.07.10.pdf [2010, 3 May]. [70966]
5. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]
6. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models, [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [2008, April 18] [66533]