Prairie burns: how complete should they be?
I have never agreed with this.
Perhaps it was because we were trying to restore sites that had become heavily
wooded (due to years without fire). If good prairie was to be brought back to these
sites, as soon as the woody vegetation was removed it was essential to get
prairie established again. In order to do a proper prairie burn, the fuel had to
be continuous. If it wasn’t, then the patches that did not burn had probably been
wooded and without fire would quickly become wooded again.
In fact, it is so difficult to get
conditions “right” to do a burn, that when you have the weather and the crew,
you should work hard to do a complete burn. Don’t say “heterogeneity is OK” and
go home. The secret, of course, is “interior lighting” (stripping). In the early
years of a restoration, it may be necessary to “force” the burn. (See photo)
I’ve seen a burn crew leave a site which
had unburned patches because they ran out of drip torch fuel. Always have lots
more drip torch fuel than you think you will need.
Perhaps it’s the microbiologist in
me, but if I see small patches of sumac, or brambles, or scattered honeysuckles,
I get really nervous. The burn did not pass through these areas for a reason
(no fuel). Next year they would likely be worse.
Heterogeneity of a burn is not a
good thing if it is due to woody vegetation. It is also not good if it is due
to smooth brome or quack grass or Kentucky bluegrass.
Note that heterogeneity and
diversity are two different things!
The above refers to real prairie habitats.
If the site has areas of wet meadow or shaded ravine, obviously those were not “meant”
to be prairie. Heterogeneity then means something different.
The same area as in the above photo, some years (and many burns) later |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home