| | |
 |
|
| 
| ||
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants |
|
|||
|
FIRE EFFECTS
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:Sumacs (Rhus spp.) generally tolerate fire [17]. Fires in the Great Plains rarely kill smooth sumac and some authorities state that smooth sumac actually depends on fire for survival [97]. Its propensity for sprouting minimizes fire's damaging effects. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:No entry PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:The response of smooth sumac to fire appears to vary considerably depending on the burn frequency, season, and postburn management techniques. Smooth sumac spreads readily from rhizomes following fire [43,66], but growth may be stunted by frequent fire. Spring fires increase smooth sumac cover. Consecutive late spring fires may be particularly effective in reducing the height of these shrubs, although plants often increase in number after such fires [75]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
Smooth sumac was among 50 understory species examined for changes in relation to spring burn periodicity in a Minnesota oak savanna dominated by northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis) and bur oak. The table below shows average smooth sumac stem frequency per circular plot, each plot with a radius of 18.5 feet (5.6 m). The author did not draw specific conclusions for smooth sumac, but the numbers suggest persistence of the species despite burn treatments [94]. Plot Fire # of Mean stem
treatment burns frequency/plot
1a 2 yrs burn/2 yrs no burn 7 0
1 4 yrs burn/2 yrs no burn 10 0
3 Annual burns 14 2
4 Annual burns 16 13
5 3 yrs burn/3 yrs no burn 9 6
6 2 yrs burn/1 yr no burn 10 13
8 2 yrs burn/2 yrs no burn 7 8
Control unburned 0 3
Anderson and others [5] reported an increase in smooth sumac during the
first 10 years after an early spring fire in the Flint Hills of Kansas. Kruse and Higgins [54] found an increase in smooth sumac following spring burning in northern mixed grass prairies.
Increases are also reported following spring fires in South Dakota [96,],
Kansas [27,75], Indiana [8,80], Connecticut [62] and Minnesota [11]. Adams and others [4] report an increase in canopy cover following both March and July fires on separate tallgrass prairie sites in Oklahoma. It is noteworthy that in the same study other woody plants, including 2 Rhus species, were eliminated by the fires.Repeated annual fires during the late spring may reduce the average height of smooth sumac plants. On Kansas pastures, plants were reduced in height after 20 years of annual late spring fires, with most shrubs growing to only 12 to 18 inches (30.5-45.7 cm) in height. Although smooth sumac was stunted by these fires, its density increased [75]. Abrams [2] reported a decrease in smooth sumac canopy cover after 2 consecutive April burns in the understory of a mature oak woodland. In a study on the effects of an April 1984 fire on smooth sumac in the Kansas tallgrass prairie, Knapp [52] found reductions in height and production of woody, leaf, and reproductive tissue in August 1984. The burned and unburned sites had been free of fire for at least 5 years prior to fire treatment, so the 2 populations were considered similar. Smooth sumac aboveground biomass and fruit production was greater in unburned populations in the August following burning. However, a significant (P<0.05) postfire increase in shoot density resulted in similar leaf area indices in burned and control plots in August 1984. In a 20-year study of the effects of fire frequency on Minnesota oak savanna herbs and shrubs, Tester [82,83] determined that increased fire frequency tended to increase the density of true prairie shrubs and decrease the density of non-prairie shrubs, though in the case of smooth sumac, cover estimates were not positively correlated with burn frequency. Bowles and others [14] report a decrease in smooth sumac cover attributed to an 11-year fire management program in a peatland prairie fen in Illinois. A total of 8 dormant-season burns (4 in spring and 4 in fall) were conducted supplemented by shrub cutting. A winter burn in South Carolina was reported to increase smooth sumac vigor the following spring [25]. FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Management practices to reduce smooth sumac cover through repeated prescribed
fires alone appear limited. However, evidence suggests that the height or structure of smooth sumac stands can be altered. Repeated annual fires during the late spring may
effectively reduce smooth sumac height [75].
Sy.x = standard error H = height D = diameter measured at about 1.0 cm from ground level
Related categories for SPECIES: Rhus glabra | Smooth Sumac |
 |
 | |
| |
| |
| Content on this web site is provided for informational purposes only. We accept no responsibility for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person resulting from information published on this site. We encourage you to verify any critical information with the relevant authorities. | |
| |
|
About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory |
| 1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution. |
