Fire effects on tobosagrass and weeping lovegrass

  • Published source details Roberts F.H., Wester D.B. & Clark R.G. (1988) Fire effects on tobosagrass and weeping lovegrass. Journal of Range Management, 41, 407-409.



Fire is often used in the management of North American grasslands, e.g. to counter succession to scrubland. It is hypothesised that a hot, intense, fast-moving fire results in more damage to grasses compared to a less intense, slow-moving fire. This study determined the effects of a range of fireline intensities on subsequent yield, plant height and number of seed stalks for two perennial grasses, the native tobosagrass Hilaria mutica and non-native weeping lovegrass Eragrostis curvula (introduced from South Africa for erosion control), in Texas (southwest USA).



Weeping lovegrass plots were located in a relatively homogeneous stand 5 km north of Brownfield city. Tobosagrass plots were located 11 km southeast of the town of Gail.
From 2 February to 15 April 1982 and from 14 March to 28 April 1983, 61 plots (minimum plot size 20 x 20 m) were burned: 17 plots were burned as headfires and 10 as backfires in lovegrass; and 22 as headfires and 12 as backfires in tobosagrass. Burns were undertaken in a variety of weather conditions producing a range of fireline intensities.
Fireline intensity (kW/m) was measured on the 61 plots. Relative humidity, air temperature, wind speed, soil moisture, soil temperature, and fuel moisture and fire spread rate were measured at time of burning.

Grass response was recorded in each plot after one growing season, sampling within 10, 0.25 m² quadrats in lovegrass and 15, 0.0625 m² quadrats in tobosagrass plots. The tallest leaf was measured and number of seed stalks counted. As a measure of standing crop, grasses were clipped 1 cm above the soil surface and samples dried and weighed. Percentage change in basal area was measured on lovegrass plots burned in 1982.



Over the two study years a wide range of fireline intensities was achieved (in tobosagrass plots ranging from 85-8,036 kw/h; in lovegrass plots from 67-12,603 kw/h).
Grass growth responses were not correlated with fireline intensity or any of the environmental parameters measured (both species recovering well). Higher fireline intensities did not cause a detrimental impact on either grass species in comparison with lower intensity burns.
Thus if management aims to remove scrub by burning in areas where tobosagrass or willow lovegrass are present, spring burning (under ambient conditions) is unlikely to be damaging to these grass species.

Note: If using or referring to this published study, please read and quote the original paper, this can be viewed at:


Output references
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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust