Study

Burning Flint Hills range

Summary

Fire has long been used to manage Flint Hills prairie in Kansas (central USA). A study was undertaken to assess True Prairie vegetation response to winter and spring burning. Main grasses were big bluestem Andropogon gerardi, little bluestem A.scoparius, indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans, switchgrass Panicum virgatum, Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis (non-native) and sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula.

In 1928, two sets of five plots (protected from livestock grazing; no details of plot size given in the original paper) were established, one set burned annually and one biennially. Approximate burn dates were: winter (1 December), early spring (20 March) mid-spring (10 April), late-spring (1 May), and unburned (control). Treatments were suspended in 1944 but resumed in 1950, plots being burned annually giving two replications of each treatment.
 
In 1950, three 44 acre pastures were fenced for a burning-grazing trial, plus an unburned 60 acre pasture for comparison. Burns dates were the same as on the plots. Cattle (moderate stocking rate of 5 acres/animal unit) grazed from about 1 May to 1 October each year.
 
Plant species basal area was recorded in the plots and pastures using a randomized line transect method. In 1959-1960, two aluminum tubes were installed per plot and soil moisture recorded at intervals through each year.

Late spring burning (which sometimes was just after growth commenced dependant on weather conditions) was identified as the least detrimental burn time in terms of desired native flora. Thus a more detailed comparison of late-spring burning and no burning was made.
 
The advantages of late-spring burning over not burning were: an increase in big bluestem, and control of Kentucky bluegrass, Japanese brome Bromus japonicus (both non-native) and buckbrush Symphoricarpos orbiculatus.
 
Disadvantages were: reduced water infiltration rate soil moisture and forage yields, and increases of smooth sumac Rhus glabra (an undesirable shrub, sometimes considered invasive) which was not controlled by burning.
 
 
Note: If using or referring to this published study, please read and quote the original paper, this can be viewed at: http://digitalcommons.arizona.edu/holdings/journal/issue?r=http://jrm.library.arizona.edu/Volume18/Number5/

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 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