Burning northern Mixed Prairie during drought, Samuel H. Ordway Memorial Prairie, South Dakota, USA

  • Published source details Engle D.M. & Bultsma P.M. (1984) Burning of northern mixed prairie during drought. Journal of Range Management, 37, 398-401


Standing crop and response of key plant species (primarily grasses) were evaluated following burning in mid-May and mid-June during two drier than average years, on mesic northern Mixed Prairie at Samuel H.Ordway Memorial Prairie, South Dakota, north-central USA.

Two sites on loam soils were selected; a ‘silty range’and an ‘overflow range’. Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis was common on both, indicating a decline in range condition (attributed partly to cutting for hay). ‘Excellent condition’ silty ranges are dominated by western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii, needleandthread Stipa comata,and green needlegrassStipa viridula; andoverflows by big bluestem Andropogon gerardi.
In 1980, plots (25 x 50 m) were established (randomized block design). Treatments (3 replications) comprised burning in mid-May (before warm-season grass emergence) or mid-June (warm-season grasses 5-10 cm height), and an unburned control. Ten, 0.25 m² quadrats per plot were randomly located and vegetation clipped (28 July-1 August) in 1980. Three per plot were clipped (27 July-3 August) in 1981. Material was dried and weighed, by species or vegetation class: Kentucky bluegrass; big bluestem; needlegrasses; western wheatgrass; sedges Carex spp.; other grasses and forbs.
Green needlegrass, western wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass (cool-season grasses) and big bluestem (a warm-season grass) were further evaluated by measuring longest leaf length of a sample of plants. Green needlegrass basal area was measured and seed heads counted for this and big bluestem.
Average annual precipitation (1940-1970) is 502 mm. During this study, cool-season precipitation was 33% below average (both years); warm-season precipitation was slightly below average.

Standing crop averaged higher in burn plots on overflow range (e.g. 1981 growth: May burn - 489 g/m²; June burn - 454 g/m²) compared with the control (387 g/m²). On the silty range it averaged around 240 g/m², regardless of treatment.
Big bluestem standing crop was greatest in mid-May burn plots (313 g/m²; June burn - 278 g/m²; control 233 g/m²).
Kentucky bluegrass standing crop (e.g. 1981 growth on silty range: May burn - 63 g/m²; June burn - 101 g/m², vs. control - 136 g/m²) and leaf length (silty site: burn plots 23-24 cm vs. control 33 cm; overflow site: burn plots 44-49 cm vs. control 53 cm) were reduced with burning (May or June).
Leaf length, basal area and inflorescences of other cool-season grasses were also reduced.
On the silty site, forb standing crop was greatly reduced by mid-June burning (May burn 58 g/m²; June burn 8 g/m²; control 19 g/m²).
If management aims to reduce Kentucky bluegrass, mid-May burning (prior to warm-season tallgrass emergence) in dry years may be effective. Reductions in production of native cool-season species can be expected on silty ranges. Mid-June burning in dry years is not recommended.
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 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, terrestrial 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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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