Fire and Forage in the Wiregrass Type

Hilmon, J.B.; Hughes, Ralph H.

doi:10.2307/3895491

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Burning, by volatilizing a greater proportion of the C than N in plant tissues, may be more favorable to plant growth than either litter or dung decomposition (Kucera and Ehrenreich 1962). The vegetation regrowing on burns both attracts grazing mammals and leads to greater mass gains in those animals than they attain on unburned vegetation (Hilmon andHughes 1965, Southwell and.…”

Section: Fire In the Serengeti Ecosystemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology of a Grazing Ecosystem: The Serengeti

McNaughton¹

1985

Ecological Monographs

1,182

929

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecological Monographs.Abstract. Primary productivity and herbivory were studied in the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, and Masai Mara Game Reserve, Kenya, during the annual cycle of 1974-1975, and wet-dry season transitions in 1976-1979. Basic state variables measured were aboveground plant biomass inside permanent and temporary fences, and outside fences. Productivity was calculated as the sum of positive plant biomass increments. Control productivity (cPn) was calculated from biomass dynamics inside permanent fences. Temporary fences were moved in concert with grazing by the region's abundant ungulates to estimate actual aboveground primary productivity (aPn). Primary productivity was highly stochastic with productive periods poorly synchronized even among nearby sites. Shortterm productivities could be extremely high, exceeding 30 g. mi-2 d-l. Grazing animals adjusted their densities in relation to grassland productivity. The average proportion of annual aPn that was consumed by herbivores was 0.66, with a minimum of 0.15 and a maximum of 0.94. Green forage was available everywhere late in the wet season in May but was available only at high rainfall sites in the northwest late in the dry season in November. By the end of the dry season, the residual plant biomass outside fences averaged only 8% of cPn. Nomadic grazers moved seasonally in response to grassland productivity. The growing season ranged from 76 d in low rainfall areas to virtually continuous in high rainfall areas.Annual cPn was linearly related to rainfall and averaged 357 g m-2 yr-1 over the year and 1.89 g.m-2 d-I during the growing season. Actual aPn was substantially greater than cPn at most sites, averaging 664 g.m-2 yr-1. Growing season aPn averaged 3.78 g.m-2 d-l. Grazing stimulated net primary productivity at most locations, with the maximum stimulation at intermediate grazing intensities. Stimulation was dependent upon soil moisture status at the time of grazing. Rain had a diminishing effect on primary productivity as the wet season progressed and plant biomass accumulated. Part of the stimulation of grassland productivity by grazing was due to maintenance of the vegetation in an immature, rapidly growing state similar to that at the beginning of the rainy season. Since grazers overrode rainfall-determined productivity patterns, aPn was more closely related to grazing intensity than to ranfall. Grazing was heavier on grasslands that were intrinsically more productive. Rate of energy flow per unit of plant biomass was much higher in grazed vegetation. Grazers ate green leaves almost exclusively during...

show abstract

Section: Fire In the Serengeti Ecosystemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology of a Grazing Ecosystem: The Serengeti

McNaughton¹

1985

Ecological Monographs

1,182

929

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result was not unlike that reported for southern pine-grass ecosystems, where spring ®re produced 2±4 times more herbaceous biomass than burning during the fall (Lewis, 1964). Seasonality has a major in¯uence on the effects of ®re on vegetation (Wright and Bailey, 1982;Waldrop et al, 1992), often affecting¯owering (Platt et al, 1988), seed production (Biswell and Lemon, 1943;Patton et al, 1988;Outcalt, 1994) and herbaceous plant productivity (Lewis, 1964;Hilmon and Hughes, 1965;Lewis and Hart, 1972;Wade and Lewis, 1987;Bragg, 1991;Mitchell et al, 1996;Boyd, 1999). Fire season and frequency are thought to have a stronger in¯uence on the effects of ®re in semiarid grassland communities than ®re behavior (Steuter and McPherson, 1995).…”

Section: Plant Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass prairie ecosystems: initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing seasons

Brockway

Gatewood

Paris

2002

Journal of Environmental Management

136

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Besides rough reduction, vast acreages were burned to: (1) improve native range (Halls andothers 1952,1964;Hilmon and Hughes 1965a;Lewis 1964;Shepherd and others 1951), (2) control the relentless hardwood invasion into pine stands (Brender and Cooper 1968;Chaiken 1952;Ferguson 1957;Harrington and Stephenson 1955;Lotti 1955), and (3) manipulate wildlife habitat to favor herbs and forbs and replace unpalatable out-of-reach woody understory crowns with succulent, nutritious sprouts (Brennan and others 1998;Van Lear 1981, 1987;Harris 1978;Wood 1982).…”

Section: Fire Regime Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora

Brown¹,

Smith²

2000

302

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

_____________________________________This state-of-knowledge review about the effects of fire on flora and fuels can assist land managers with ecosystem and fire management planning and in their efforts to inform others about the ecological role of fire. Chapter topics include fire regime classification, autecological effects of fire, fire regime characteristics and postfire plant community developments in ecosystems throughout the United States and Canada, global climate change, ecological principles of fire regimes, and practical considerations for managing fire in an ecosytem context.

show abstract

Fire and Forage in the Wiregrass Type

Cited by 21 publications

References 3 publications

Ecology of a Grazing Ecosystem: The Serengeti

Ecology of a Grazing Ecosystem: The Serengeti

Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass prairie ecosystems: initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing seasons

Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About