Literature DB >> 22744159

Comparing burned and mowed treatments in mountain big sagebrush steppe.

K W Davies1, J D Bates, A M Nafus.   

Abstract

Fires in mountain big sagebrush [Artemisia tridentata spp. vaseyana (Rydb.) Beetle] plant communities historically shifted dominance from woody to herbaceous vegetation. However, fire return intervals have lengthened with European settlement, and sagebrush dominance has increased at the expense of herbaceous vegetation in some plant communities. Management actions may be needed to decrease sagebrush in dense sagebrush stands to increase herbaceous vegetation. Prescribed fire is often used to remove sagebrush; however, mechanical treatments, such as mowing, are increasingly used because they are more controllable and do not pose an inherent risk of escape compared with fire. However, information on the effects of burned and mowed treatments on herbaceous vegetation and whether fire and mowed applications elicit similar vegetation responses are limited. We evaluated the effects of prescribed burning and mowing for 3 years after treatment in mountain big sagebrush plant communities. The burned and mowed treatments generally increased herbaceous cover, density, and production compared with untreated controls (P < 0.05). However, neither treatment induced a response in native perennial forb cover, density, or biomass (P > 0.05). In contrast, annual forb (predominately natives) cover, density, and biomass increased with mowing and burning (P < 0.05). Vegetation generally responded similarly in burned and mowed treatments; however, the burned treatment had less sagebrush, greater herbaceous vegetation production, and more bare ground than the mowed treatment (P < 0.05). These differences should be considered when selecting treatments to decrease sagebrush.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22744159     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-9898-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  7 in total

1.  Are there benefits to mowing Wyoming big sagebrush plant communities? An evaluation in southeastern Oregon.

Authors:  Kirk W Davies; Jon D Bates; Aleta M Nafus
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Shrub-steppe early succession following juniper cutting and prescribed fire.

Authors:  Jonathan D Bates; Kirk W Davies; Robert N Sharp
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Native perennial forb variation between mountain big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush plant communities.

Authors:  Kirk W Davies; Jon D Bates
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2010-07-23       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  Recovery of big sagebrush communities after burning in south-western Montana.

Authors:  C L Wambolt; K S Walhof; M R Frisina
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.789

5.  Linking nitrogen partitioning and species abundance to invasion resistance in the Great Basin.

Authors:  J J James; K W Davies; R L Sheley; Z T Aanderud
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2008-03-15       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Interaction of historical and nonhistorical disturbances maintains native plant communities.

Authors:  K W Davies; T J Svejcar; J D Bates
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.657

7.  Microsite and herbaceous vegetation heterogeneity after burning Artemisia tridentata steppe.

Authors:  Kirk W Davies; Jonathan D Bates; Jeremy J James
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 3.225

  7 in total
  2 in total

1.  Forb, insect, and soil response to burning and mowing Wyoming big sagebrush in greater sage-grouse breeding habitat.

Authors:  Jennifer E Hess; Jeffrey L Beck
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  A warmer and drier climate in the northern sagebrush biome does not promote cheatgrass invasion or change its response to fire.

Authors:  Christian D Larson; Erik A Lehnhoff; Lisa J Rew
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.225

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.