Study

Changes in community composition and biomass in Juncus roemerianus scheele and Spartina bakeri merr. marshes one year after a fire

  • Published source details Schmalzer P.A., Hinkle C.R. & Mailander J.L. (1991) Changes in community composition and biomass in Juncus roemerianus scheele and Spartina bakeri merr. marshes one year after a fire. Wetlands, 11, 67-86.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance: brackish/salt marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance: brackish/salt marshes

    A replicated, before-and-after study in 1988–1989 in two brackish marshes in Florida, USA (Schmalzer et al. 1991) found that a prescribed burn reduced vegetation biomass, increased cover of tall vegetation and increased species richness of short vegetation. In both marshes, above-ground vegetation biomass was lower one year after burning (530 g/m2) than before (1,730–1,810 g/m2). The same was true for live and dead biomass separately, but the ratio of live to dead biomass increased after burning (see original paper for data). Cover of plants >50 cm tall was greater one year after burning than before (before: 107–108%; after: 120–131%). Richness of plants <50 cm tall increased in both marshes (before: 0.5–1 species/transect; after: 3–4 species/transect). There were no significant changes in cover of shorter plants, richness of taller plants, or total richness (see original paper for data). Results for the dominant species in each marsh (black rush Juncus roemerianus and sand cordgrass Spartina bakeri) mirrored overall results: lower biomass after burning (rush: 465 g/m2; cordgrass: 400 g/m2) than before (rush: 1,576 g/m2; cordgrass: 1,312 g/m2), but greater cover after burning (rush: 99%; cordgrass: 92%) than before (rush: 92%; cordgrass: 70%). Statistical significance of these dominant species results was not assessed. Methods: Two marshes, one rush-dominated and one cordgrass-dominated, were burned in November 1988. The marshes had “long been exposed to fire” but had last burned in 1985. Plant species and their cover were recorded immediately before and one year after the prescribed burn, along four or five 15-m-long transects/marsh. Vegetation was cut from twenty-five 0.25-m2 quadrats/marsh, then dried and weighed.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

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