1 / 43

Predicted effects of fire on Yellow Starthistle dominated grasslands in Hell’s Canyon

Predicted effects of fire on Yellow Starthistle dominated grasslands in Hell’s Canyon. By Craig Kingsbury REM 459 Fall 2012 Dr. Steve Bunting. Table of Contents. Introduction Site Description Current Species Composition Disturbance Description First Order Fire Effects

gittel
Download Presentation

Predicted effects of fire on Yellow Starthistle dominated grasslands in Hell’s Canyon

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Predicted effects of fire on Yellow Starthistle dominated grasslands in Hell’s Canyon By Craig Kingsbury REM 459 Fall 2012 Dr. Steve Bunting

  2. Table of Contents • Introduction • Site Description • Current Species Composition • Disturbance Description • First Order Fire Effects • Vegetation Predictions • Methods • Time Progression of Vegetation Change • Discussion • Literature Cited • Certification Statement

  3. Introduction Purpose The purpose of this project is to discuss the predicted vegetation changes that will result from fire on a Centaureasolstitialis (Yellow starthistle) dominated landscape located in Hell’s Canyon. Predicted Vegetation Change Times Forecasts for vegetation will be for1, 2, 3 and 10 years after the occurrence of fire at the study site. NOTE: (Initially I had said I would look at the changes for 1, 5, 25 and 50 years after a burn. However, based of further research I determined that these time intervals were not realistic for the project).

  4. Site Description • Study Area Description: Redbird Canyon is located south of Lewiston, Idaho in the lower section of Hell’s Canyon. By road Red Bird Canyon is about 22.5 kilometers from Lewiston. The area is owned by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is part of the larger Craig Mountain Wildlife Management Area.

  5. Site Description Continued • Redbird Canyon is comprised of 1155 hectares-the actual study site location was less than 2 hectares total. • The site was located at the upper far east end of the canyon and was on a south facing slope. • Site elevation ranged from 603 meters to 824 meters above sea level.

  6. Site Description continued • The soil was consistent over that whole elevation spectrum and according to Web Soil Survey is comprised of just one soil type; Kettenbach-Gwin Complex, which is listed as a ‘brown stony silt loam’ – as listed in the Soil Survey of Lewis and Nez Perce Counties, Idaho (USDA & NRCS, 2004).

  7. Site Description Continued • The site had sign of mule deer activity but no signs of livestock activity or impact was present . • Slope at the site is between 35 and 40%. • Erosion appeared to be very limited with few areas showing any erosion what so ever. The few areas that did have signs of erosion were less than a square meter and were located on the down slope side of small rock outcroppings. • Average annual precipitation for Asotin, WA (near by town) is 12.74 inches per year (idcide.com, 2012).

  8. Current Site Composition Figure 1

  9. Current Species Composition Figure 2

  10. Disturbance Description • Fire is the predicted disturbance for the site. • The time of year for the expected burn would be July. • The fire that is being considered would be a burn of moderate intensity.

  11. Disturbance Continued • Moderate intensity burn: A burn that doesn’t produce such high BTU output that it ‘scorches’ the soil surface to the point of making the soil surface hydrophobic. The moderate intensity fire also wouldn’t kill off the entire seed bank on the soil surface from extremely high temperatures. • One study using prescribed fire to control yellow starthistle found that a burn conducted at 21-27 degrees C with flame lengths of .6-15.mm, didn’t produce enough heat to kill yellow starthistle seeds (DiTomaso, Kyser & Hastings, 1999)

  12. Disturbance Continued • Fire would consume nearly all of the site leaving very little vegetative material behind, as the site is very dense and would carry fire continuously through site. Additionally, the site is composed entirely of light flashy fuels no fuels are in the 100 or 1000 hour fuel categories. • The moderate intensity burn would leave enough seed bank behind that post fire plant recruitment would be possible .

  13. First Order Fire Effects • Yellow Starthistle -Yellow starthistle has been controlled though the use of prescribed fire (DiTomaso et al. 1999). -This is largely because it is not a fire adapted plant and gets out competed by native plants and introduced annuals that are fire adapted or better at initially taking over a site (DiTomaso et al. 1999). -However, it is a very resilient annual plant and can’t be completely eliminated after a single burn (DiTomaso et al. 1999).

  14. First Order Fire Effects • Yellow starthistle continued • Given the density of Yellow starthistle at the site prior to the burn, the seed bank would be substantial and Yellow starthistle seedlings would almost certainly be present post fire, as anything less than a very intense burn will not kill of the seed bank (Kyser & DiTomaso, 2002). • Its winter annual status gives it an advantage in being one of the first plants to start utilizing nutrients in the early spring (Kyser & DiTomaso, 2002). • Yellow starthistle forms its rosette in the winter after autumn rains initiate germination (Roche`, Thill & Shafii, 1997).

  15. First Order Fire Effects • Arrowleaf Balsamroot • Arrowleaf Balsamroot is a species that can recover from a fire very well. It re-sprouts from its caudex post fire (USDA/FEIS, 2012).Arrowleaf Balsamroot is also capable of dispersing after a fire through seed production (USDA/FEIS, 2012). • Because it is so well adapted to fire this species would likely increase more than other species in the area initially post fire.

  16. First Order Fire Effects • Prickly Pear Cactus -If dry conditions prolong initially after a fire (which they very likely would at the site) Prickly pear is very likely to be reduced in abundance (Smith, Henn & Crane, 2009). Because of this prickly pear would likely be almost non-existent at the site post fire.

  17. First Order Fire Effects • Cheatgrass is almost certain to return very shortly after the occurrence of fire. Cheatgrass is a highly adaptable species and will germinate in autumn after the first rain (Young et al. 1987). Cheatgrass in a moderate intensity burn will not have its seed bank completely taken out by fire, and will very likely be one of the first plants to show up after fire (Young et al. 1987).

  18. Frist Order fire Effects • Ventenata: “Fire will suppress ventenata but tends to stimulate the annual weedy bromes and leave an opening for more ventenata the following year.”(Lass & Prather, 2007).

  19. Year 1 Vegetation Predictions • Assuming the burn occurred in July of year zero, then one year later the site would likely consist of cheatgrass as one of the prevailing species, since it would’ve started growing in the fall (Young et al. 1987). • Arrowleaf balsamroot would likely occur in the same areas it was found before, since it would re-sprout from its caudex (USDA/FEIS, 2012). • Venenata would be trying to encroach on the site since it is capable of outcompeting other species like cheatgrass (Lass & Prather, 2007).

  20. Year 1 Predictions Continued • Yellow starthistle would have had some of its seed bank survive the lower intensity burn and would be occurring within the site (Riba et al, 2002). However, the species would not have anywhere near the level of occurrence it had pre-burn since it doesn’t return as quickly as other annuals like cheatgrass (Veirmeire, 2009).

  21. Year 1 Predictions Continued • There would be morenative species (like Bluebunch wheat grass, Sandberg bluegrass, Western yarrow and rabbit brush. It has been found that burning will often shift the advantage to native fire adapted forbs over introduced plants (DiTomaso, Kyser & Hastings. 1999). • Cheatgrass would have been among the first species to start growing in the fall and would be allocating many of the resources (Aguirre & Johnson, 1991). But in the first year, the native plants would be noticeably more common than pre-burn.

  22. Year 1 Predictions Continued Figure 3

  23. Year 2 Vegetation Predictions • Yellow starthistle would be increasing in amount, as it takes multiple years of burning to successfully reduce the species in an area and even then it can reestablish (DiTomaso, Kyser & Hastings, 1999). However, it would not be dominating the site as it was pre-burn. • Cheatgrass would be able to maintain its existence in most areas along side Yellow starthistle, since the two can obtain water at different soil depths (Sheley & Larson, 1995).

  24. Year 2 Predictions Continued • Ventenata would probably be increasing since it can outcompete cheatgrass (Lass & Prather, 2007). • Arrowleaf balsamroot would likely be more prominate, sinceit is a hard species to outcompete. Already established plants would fair well (Young & Evans, 1979).

  25. Year 2 Predictions Continued • As in year one, native species would be more common than they were pre-burn. Figure 4

  26. Year 3 Vegetation Predictions • By year three Yellow Starthistle would’ve had time to re-establish itself to closer topre-burn numbers. In a study on the effects of prescribed burning to control the species, it was found that without additional burning, that Yellow Starthistle can easily re-dominate a site (DiTomaso, Kyser & Hastings, 1999). • In the event that weevils that attack the seed head got into yellow starthistle at the site, then it is possible that the spread might be stunted (Birdsall & Markin, 2010). However, these weevils are not terribly likely to occur in the site and are in no way linked to fire.

  27. Year 3 Predictions Continued • Cheatgrass is a very invasive plant and without external efforts is not at all likely to be removed from the community (Bradley & Mustard, 2006). Because of its invasive characteristics, it will be much more prevalent than in year 1. • However, ventenata will likely have encroached on areas that were first held by cheatgrassand will have reduced cheatgrass’spresence to some degree (Lass & Prather, 2007).

  28. Year 3 Predictions Continued • By year three species will have come somewhat close to a pre-existing state, since the site was dominated (pre-fire) by invasive species that are capable of re-establishing themselves quickly (Kyser & DiTomaso, 2002). • Rabbitbrush is likely to be at its optimal numbers by now, as cheatgrass is well enough established to be utilizing moisture that rabbitbrush would need for further growth and expansion (Melgoza & Nowak, 1991)

  29. Year 3 Predictions Continued Figure 5

  30. Year 10 Vegetation Predictions • A full decade after the burn the area would look much the same as it did pre-burn. This is because Yellow starthistleand cheatgrass both had very large seed banks and are also both very invasive plants. • These two plants can coexist since they can draw moisture from different soil depths, making them very good at dominating a site (Sheley & Larson, 1994).

  31. Year 10 Predictions Continued • Arrowleaf balsamroot, rabbitbrush and other natives would likely be present in similar amounts to what was present in pre-burn conditions. • While natives would’ve been able to make an increase in population size during the first year after the burn, by the 10th year after the burn invasives would’ve repopulated much of the site in many spots(DiTomaso, Kyser & Hastings, 1999). • Many perennials have a hard time surviving the seedling stage when competing with yellow starthistle (Prather & Callihan, 1991).

  32. Year 10 Predictions Continued Figure 6

  33. Methods • Vegetation Sampling: Sampling occurred in late September of 2012. NOTE: All selection of plots and transects were done via an online random number generator. Vegetation was sampled with the use of three baseline layouts that ran north to south along the slope. Each one of the baselines was 100 meters in length. The idea of having the three baselines was to have one ‘high’ on the slope one in the ‘middle’ and one down at the ‘bottom’, so that elevation influenced vegetation changes could be accounted for.

  34. Methods Continued • Along each baseline, transects were laid out every 10 meters and on both sides of each baseline, so a total distance of 20 meters was the width of the potential sampling area, from the center of the baseline. • 5 plots were randomly assigned and laid out on each transect. • Each transect and each baseline were divided into 1 meter increments giving 10 and 100 separate locations on each respectively. • Sampling consisted of 50 plots per baseline for 150 total plots.

  35. Methods Continued • Individual Plot Measurements: A 20cm x 50cm frame (or a Daubenmire frame) was used as the plot measurement size (Daubenmire 1959). At each plot location, the frame was placed over the ground so that the viewer could visually determine the cover. • The cover was measured using the Daubenmire cover class method (Daubenmire, 1959). • This method is an efficient/timely means of estimating the cover (as seen from above) of an area. The person collecting the data simply looks at the plot with the frame overtop of the plot and estimates the amount of area covered by each species (Daubenmire, 1959).

  36. Time Progression of Vegetation Change Time Progression Vegetation Estimates Table 1

  37. Discussion: Management Implications • Management Implications: • Redbird Canyon is part of a Wildlife Management Area and as such its primary purpose to be capable of supporting wildlife. • Assuming that the burn is of moderate intensity as mentioned before, and that the only area to burn is the studied site, then the burn would have a mostly positive effect.

  38. Discussion: Review of Literature Summarized • With regards to management goals (I.E. maintaining wildlife habitat), a study looking at prescribed burning to control yellow starthistle found that “burning increased native forb cover about five times” (DiTomaso, Kyser & Hastings. 1999). • The study also found that while forb species richness greatly increased from year to year the grass species didn’t, showing that the burning had an affect on improving the native vegetation(DiTomaso, Kyser & Hastings. 1999).

  39. Discussion: Review of Literature Summarized • Additionally, the study found, that because of reduced yellow starthistle overhead cover, that the ground heated up more from sunlight in the winter and created better growing conditions for native seeds and also didn’t block out as much light (also better for native seeds) (DiTomaso, Kyser & Hastings. 1999). • However, the researchers did find that without continued use of prescribed fire, that the area would “likely revert back to yellow starthistle” (DiTomaso, Kyser & Hastings. 1999).

  40. Literature cited • Idcide.com. 2012. Asotin, WA Weather. Accessed 19 October, 2012. http://www.idcide.com/weather/wa/asotin.htm • Vermeire L.T., M.J. Rinella. 2009. Fire Alters Emergence of Invasive Plant Species from Soil Surface-Deposited Seeds. Weed Science. 57:304-310. • USDA Fire Effects Information System. 2012. BalsamorhizaSaggitata. USDA. Accessed 18 October, 2012. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/balsag/all.html. • Riba M., A. Rodrigo, B. Colas,J. Retana. 2002. Fire and species range in Mediterranean landscapes: an experimental comparison of seed and seedling performance among Centaureataxa. Journal of Biogeography. 29:135-146 • Young, J.A., R.A. Evans, R.E. Eckert Jr., and K.L. Burgess. 1987.Cheatgrass. Rangelands. 9(6): 266-270. • Lass L., T. Prather. 2007. A Scientific Evaluation for Noxious and invasive Weeds of the Highway 95 Construction Project between the Uniontown Cutoff and Moscow.Aquila Vision Inc. Montana Technology Enterprise Center. • Aguirre L., D.A. Johnson. 1991. Influence of Temperature and Cheatgrass Competition on Seedling Development of Two Bunchgrasses. Journal of Range Management. 44:347-354.

  41. Literature Citied continued • Bradley B.A., J.F. Mustard. 2006. Characterizing the landscape Dynamics of an Invasive Plant and Risk of Invasion Using Remote Sensing. Ecological Applications. 16:1132-1147. • Melgoza G., R.S. Nowak. 1991. Competition between Cheatgrass and Two Native Species after Fire: Implications from Observations and Measurements of Root Distribution. Journal of Range Management. 44:27-33. • Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science. 33:43-64. • Birdsall, J.L., and G.P. Markin. 2010. Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle (Centaureasolstitalis) in the Salmon River Canyon of Idaho. Invasive Plant Science and Management. 3(4):462-469. • DiTomaso J.M., G.B. Kyser and M.S. Hastings. 1999. Prescribed burning for control of yellow starthistle (Centaureasolstitialis) and enhanced native plant diversity. Weed Science. 47:233-242. • Kyser G.B., and J.M. DiTomaso. 2002. Instability in grassland community after the control of yellow starthistle (Centaureasolstitialis) with prescribed burning. Weed Science. 50(5):648-657. • Sheley R.L., and L.L.Larson. 1995. Interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle at 3 soil depths. Journal of Range Management. 48(5):392-397.

  42. Literature Citied Continued • Young J.A., and R.A. Evans, 1979. Arrowleaf Balsamroot and Mules Ear Seed Germination. Journal of Range Management. 32(1):71-74. • Smith M.A., M.J. Henn, K. Crane. 2009. Prickly Pear cactus, ecology and management. WYO Range Facts. MP-111.11. • Sheley R.L., and L.L. Larson. 1994. Comparative growth and interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle seedlings. Journal of Range Management. 47: 470-474. • United States Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004. Soil Survey of Lewis and Nez Perce Counties, Idaho. <http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/ID611/0/Lewis-Nez%20Perce%20Text.pdf > Accessed 26 September 2012. • Roche` T. C., D.C. Thill, and B. Shafii. 1997. Reproductive Phenology in Yellow Starthistle (Centaureasolstitialis). Weed Science. 45:763-770. • Prather T.S., and R.H. Callinhan. 1991. Interference between Yellow Starthistle and pubescent wheatgrass during grass establishment. Journal of Range Management. 44(5):443-447.

  43. I certify that: 1) I have read the field project instructions 2) That the tables, figures & literature citied are in correct format 3) That credit has been properly given to authors for all info and photographs used 4) 2 non-referred references used (Gray Lit) 5) 0popular articles used 6) 3 websites used 7) 0 of photographs used not taken by me Name: Craig A. Kingsbury Date: October 21, 2012

More Related