Use prescribed fire to control problematic plants: freshwater marshes

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    45%
  • Harms
    20%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using prescribed fire to control problematic plants in freshwater marshes. Two studies were in the USA. There was one study in each of Australia and Costa Rica.

VEGETATION COMMUNITY

  • Overall extent (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that burning (and physically damaging) cattail stands reduced the area of live vegetation present 5–22 months later.
  • Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica found that plots in which cattail stands were managed (burned and physically damaged) had greater overall plant species richness than unmanaged plots, 11–22 months after intervention. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a marsh in the USA found that the effect of prescribed burning on plant species richness in the following autumn depended on the season of burning.

VEGETATION ABUNDANCE

  • Overall abundance (2 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that burning (and physically damaging) cattail stands reduced live vegetation cover 5–22 months later. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a marsh in the USA found that the effect of prescribed burning on overall vegetation cover in the following autumn depended on the season of burning.
  • Herb abundance (1 study): One study of a floodplain marsh in Australia simply reported grass/sedge cover for up to four years after burning mimosa-invaded vegetation (along with other interventions).
  • Native/non-target abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in canarygrass-invaded wet meadows in the USA found that prescribed burning had no significant effect on the biomass of plants other than the invasive species, 2–3 growing seasons later. One study of a floodplain marsh in Australia simply reported non-target vegetation cover for up to four years after burning mimosa-invaded vegetation (along with other interventions).
  • Individual species abundance (1 study): One study quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than the species being controlled. The replicated, randomized, controlled study in a marsh in the USA found that the effect of prescribed burning on the cover of dominant species in the following autumn depended on the season of burning.

VEGETATION STRUCTURE

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1992 in an ephemeral freshwater marsh in Missouri, USA (Laubhan 1995) found that summer-burned plots (but not spring-burned plots) contained fewer plant species and had lower vegetation cover than unburned plots. Vegetation was surveyed at the end of September. Unburned plots contained 4.6 plant species/m2 and had 92% total vegetation cover. The most abundant plant species included fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea (cover: 28%; frequency: 60%), marsh elder Iva ciliata (cover: 25%; frequency: 100%), ricecut grass Leersia oryzoides (cover: 17%; frequency: 50%) and beggarticks Bidens spp. (cover: 12%; frequency: 100%). Spring-burned plots had statistically similar plant species richness (5.5 species/m2) and total vegetation cover (94%) to the unburned plots, but were dominated by ricecut grass (cover: 50; frequency: 97%) and beggarticks (cover: 31%; frequency: 100%). Summer-burned plots had significantly lower plant species richness (2.8 species/m2) and lower total vegetation cover (23%) than the unburned plots. The most abundant plant species in summer-burned plots were ricecut grass (cover: 5%; frequency: 97%) and sesbania Sesbania exaltala (cover: 5%; frequency: 70%). Methods: Nine 0.1-ha plots were established in a freshwater marsh managed for waterfowl (i.e. winter flooding followed by spring or summer drawdown). Three random plots received each treatment: spring burning (April 1992), summer burning (July 1992) or no burning. In the summer-burned plots, vegetation was mown three days before burning. Cover of every plant species, and bare ground, were recorded in September 1992 in ten 1-m2 quadrats/plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A study in 1998–2003 in a degraded floodplain marsh in the Northern Territory, Australia (Paynter 2004) reported that following herbicide application, physical damage and prescribed burning to control invasive mimosa Mimosa pigra, some herbaceous plants recolonized the site along with mimosa. After one year, cover of all vegetation other than mimosa was approximately 31–80%. This included 12–45% total cover of grasses/sedges. Mimosa cover was approximately 0–17%, depending on the area within the marsh. The number of new mimosa seedlings each year declined over time, from 1 seedling/m2 in the first year after intervention was complete, to <0.5 seedlings/m2 in the second and third years, then 0 seedlings/m2 in the fourth year. Methods: Three interventions were applied to a 100-ha patch of mimosa-dominated floodplain. In April 1998, the site was sprayed with herbicide (metsulfuron methyl). In October 1999, the dead vegetation was crushed using a chain tied between two bulldozers, then the site was burned (fire lasting several days). The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions. Vegetation was surveyed in the dry season (July–October), in up to three areas of the marsh (where no vegetation had been introduced) and for up to four years after intervention was complete.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in 2000–2004 in two wet meadows invaded by reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea in Minnesota, USA (Reinhardt Adams & Galatowitsch 2006) found that prescribed burning had no significant effect on vegetation biomass, 2–3 growing seasons after the last burn. Vegetation biomass was statistically similar in burned and unburned plots. This was true for total biomass of non-canarygrass species (both sown and non-sown) and for canarygrass itself (data not reported). Burning did, however, have a short-term effect on canarygrass density. After four weeks, burned plots contained more canarygrass shoots (1,180 shoots/m2) than unburned plots (520 shoots/m2). Methods: In the early 2000s, one hundred and sixty 25-m2 plots were established, in 40 sets of four, across two canarygrass-invaded wet meadows. Eighty plots (20 random sets) were burned in mid-May, for either one or two years. The remaining 80 plots were not burned. Three-quarters of the plots under each burning treatment were also sprayed with herbicide later in the year. All plots were sown with a mixture of grass and forb seeds in the year after the final burn. Dry above-ground biomass samples were taken in August in the two years after burning.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A controlled, before-and-after study in 1998–2004 in an ephemeral freshwater marsh in Costa Rica (Trama et al. 2009) reported that burning and crushing stands of invasive southern cattail Typha domingensis reduced the total vegetated area and vegetation cover, but increased plant species richness. Unless specified, statistical significance was not assessed. In the wet season before intervention, live vegetation stands covered 98–99% of the study plots. In a managed plot, this dropped to 68% after five months (wet season) then 23% after eight months (dry season). Over the same period, the coverage of southern cattail stands dropped from 61–62% to 52%, then to 7%. In an unmanaged plot, coverage remained ≥98% for live vegetation and 63–66% for cattail. After 11–22 months, the managed plot had lower cover of live vegetation, along transects, than the unmanaged plot (managed: 17–90%; unmanaged: 88–100%). The same was true for cattail cover (managed: 5–38%; unmanaged: 75–100%). Finally, the managed plot contained more plant species, both overall (managed: 61; unmanaged: 20 species/plot) and within transects (managed: 12; unmanaged: 4 species/300 m2). Methods: Two 80-ha plots were established in a cattail-dominated marsh. From September 2002, cattail stands in one of the plots were burned when dry and/or crushed when wet (by driving over them in a tractor with large paddle wheels). The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions. Both plots had been rewetted in July. Vegetation stands were mapped from aerial photographs or satellite images taken before (December 1998) and after (November 2002, March 2003) intervention. Detailed vegetation surveys, along six 25 x 2 m transects/plot, were carried out between August 2003 and July 2004.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Taylor N.G., Grillas P., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Marsh and Swamp Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions to Conserve Marsh and Swamp Vegetation. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marsh and Swamp Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marsh and Swamp Conservation
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Marsh and Swamp Conservation - Published 2021

Marsh and Swamp Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust