Eight years of seasonal burning and herbicidal brush control influence sapling longleaf pine growth, understory vegetation, and the outcome of an ensuing wildfire

Haywood, James D.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.016

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Herbicides have been reported to be an effective technique to rapidly change vegetation structure by reducing woody stem density and improving opportunities for fire management during longleaf pine restoration (e.g. Welch et al 2004;Freeman & Jose 2009;Haywood 2009;Jose et al 2010;Addington et al 2012). Similar to previous studies, treatments that included herbicides in our study (H and H+F) significantly reduced the cover of woody plants in the ground layer without affecting the total cover of herbaceous plants, resulting in the observed increase in the relative abundance of herbaceous vegetation with herbicide use.…”

Section: Effects Of Cultural Treatments On Sub-canopy Vegetationsupporting

confidence: 83%

Silvicultural treatments for converting loblolly pine to longleaf pine dominance: effects on ground layer and midstorey vegetation

Knapp

Wang

Walker

2016

Applied Vegetation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions How do management practices used to enhance longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) seedling survival and growth under a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) canopy alter the structure of midstorey and ground layer vegetation? Do management treatments achieve general restoration targets for longleaf pine ecosystem structure? Location Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC, USA within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion. Methods Four levels of timber harvest were applied to loblolly pine stands: Control (uncut, basal area ~16.2 m2·ha−1), MedBA (residual basal area ~9.0 m2·ha−1), LowBA (residual basal area ~6.4 m2·ha−1) and Clearcut (residual basal area of 0 m2·ha−1). Within each canopy treatment, we applied three cultural treatments selected to facilitate longleaf pine seedling success: NT (untreated), H (chemical control of woody vegetation) and H + F (chemical control plus fertilization). Vegetation responses, including the abundance (cover) of ground layer vegetation and midstorey stem densities, were reported for three growing seasons (2008–2010) following canopy removal. Results The ground layer was dominated by woody vegetation, and total vegetation cover generally increased with increasing canopy removal. Canopy treatment effects varied through time. Clearcut plots had higher total herbaceous and graminoid cover than MedBA and Control plots in 2008, while woody cover was significantly lower on Control plots than on LowBA and Clearcut plots in 2009. Clearcut plots had higher densities of loblolly pines than Control plots in 2009 and 2010. The herbicide treatment reduced hardwood densities, but increased loblolly pine densities, especially in 2010. Conclusions Successful restoration prescriptions are often site‐specific because of different land‐use history, climate, site characteristics and starting conditions. To achieve the restoration objective of creating an open midstorey with an herbaceous‐dominated ground layer when converting loblolly pine stands to longleaf pine dominance on relatively productive sites with abundant hardwoods and aggressive loblolly pine natural regeneration, canopy retention can slow the rate of development of loblolly pine regeneration and herbicides reduce hardwood stem densities. Frequent, repeated burning would likely be required to further reduce woody vegetation and increase the relative abundance of herbaceous vegetation.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Cultural Treatments On Sub-canopy Vegetationsupporting

confidence: 83%

Silvicultural treatments for converting loblolly pine to longleaf pine dominance: effects on ground layer and midstorey vegetation

Knapp

Wang

Walker

2016

Applied Vegetation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Outcalt and Wade (2004) note that areas treated with herbicides within 2 years of a wildfire event were not effective at reducing postfire tree mortality. Haywood (2009) also found that pine mortality following a wildfire in treated longleaf pine units was high in herbicide-only treatments as compared to prescribed burn treatments. Similar to mastication treatments, herbicide does not reduce litter and organic soil accumulations and may predispose pine forests to high mortality from surface fires with long fire residence times (Brose and Wade, 2002).…”

Section: Herbicide Applicationmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Martin (1988) evaluated wildfire incidence in large wildfires across national forests in the southeastern United States in 1985 and reports that incidence of wildfires was significantly lower in areas that had been prescribed burned 2 years previously. Similarly, Haywood (2009) reports high pine mortality following a wildfire in untreated units and units treated with herbicide relative to dormant, growing-and spring-season prescribed burn units.…”

Section: Prescribed Burningmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Regardless of burn season, prescribed burning every 2-5 years is considered the most effective management strategy for reducing potential wildfire behavior and post-fire pine mortality (Moore et al, 1955;Davis and Cooper, 1963;Sackett, 1975;Haywood, 2009;Outcalt and Wade, 2004;Waldrop et al, 2009). Brose and Wade (2002) used BEHAVE (Andrews, 1986) to evaluate potential surface fire behavior in pine flatwood forests that were thinned, treated with herbicide, or prescribed burned in the dormant season.…”

Section: Prescribed Burningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fuel treatment effectiveness in forests of the upper Atlantic Coastal Plain – An evaluation at two spatial scales

Ottmar¹,

Prichard²

2012

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Specifically, early growing season fire promotes both native warm season grasses and forbs, whereas late growing season fire may promote additional forb coverage and decrease woody encroachment (Harper ). Further, Haywood () found that month of burning significantly affected herbaceous plant cover in young longleaf pine stands, with July‐burn plots having significantly greater grass and forb cover than March‐burn or May‐burn plots. In addition to the potential influences of season of burn, our stands were exposed to prescribed fire less frequently than is generally recommended (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of longleaf pine planting density and other factors on stand structure and associated wildlife habitat

Wheeler

Gulsby

Kush

et al. 2020

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of many longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) restoration programs is to enhance or restore habitat for wildlife dependent on herbaceous plant communities. Because herbaceous cover is inversely related to canopy cover, restoration programs often place restrictions on longleaf pine planting density. However, the influence of planting density on understory plant communities has been inadequately evaluated. Therefore, we initiated a study to examine the relative influences of planting density and other factors on overall understory composition and forage availability for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) in nine longleaf pine stands throughout the Coastal Plain of Alabama during 2017-2018. We found that coverage of herbaceous plants decreased 3.5%, coverage of woody plants decreased 2.4%, and coverage of northern bobwhite forage plants decreased 1.9% for each 1 m 2 /ha increase in longleaf pine basal area. However, planting density was not a significant predictor of current basal area, nor coverage of any functional group of plants we examined, likely because current longleaf pine density averaged only 46% (range = 30-64%) of seedling planting density. We did not detect an effect of prescribed fire on stand condition or understory plant communities, likely due to variability in fire timing and frequency. Our findings related to planting density were likely a function of low longleaf pine survival, which is not uncommon. Because of this and the inherent variability in growth rates for young longleaf pine stands, restoration programs should consider placing greater emphasis on post-planting monitoring and management than planting density. Implications for Practice• Restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems may be accomplished via plantation forestry, but variability in seedling survival makes it difficult to predict the relationship between planting density and understory plant community composition and structure. • It is important to monitor longleaf pine plantings post-establishment to determine whether stands are currently meeting wildlife habitat or other ecological objectives because inherent and management-driven differences among sites will determine stand conditions over time.• Longleaf pine restoration programs should focus more on post-establishment monitoring than pre-establishment prescriptions when longleaf pine ecosystem restoration is the goal.

show abstract

Eight years of seasonal burning and herbicidal brush control influence sapling longleaf pine growth, understory vegetation, and the outcome of an ensuing wildfire

Cited by 28 publications

References 22 publications

Silvicultural treatments for converting loblolly pine to longleaf pine dominance: effects on ground layer and midstorey vegetation

Silvicultural treatments for converting loblolly pine to longleaf pine dominance: effects on ground layer and midstorey vegetation

Fuel treatment effectiveness in forests of the upper Atlantic Coastal Plain – An evaluation at two spatial scales

Effects of longleaf pine planting density and other factors on stand structure and associated wildlife habitat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About