Skip Navigation



Forestry Advance Access published online on April 7, 2009

Forestry, doi:10.1093/forestry/cpp010
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
82/3/299    most recent
cpp010v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brockway, D. G.
Right arrow Articles by Rummer, R. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Published by Oxford University on behalf of the Institute of Chartered Foresters, 2009

Vegetation response to midstorey mulching and prescribed burning for wildfire hazard reduction and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) ecosystem restoration

Dale G. Brockway1,*, Kenneth W. Outcalt2, Becky L. Estes3 and Robert B. Rummer1

1 Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 520 Devall Drive, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
2 Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602, USA
3 Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 2400 Washington Avenue, Redding, CA 96001, USA

* Corresponding author. E-mail: dbrockway{at}fs.fed.us


   Abstract

Dense midstorey vegetation, developed during fire exclusion, not only reduces understorey plant diversity and increases the risk of damaging wildfire but also impedes efforts to safely restore prescribed burning in longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) ecosystems. Our study examined the effects of midstorey reduction on stand structure and plant diversity in a forest treated by mulching alone and also when followed by prescribed fire during the winter, spring or summer. For trees ≥5 cm diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), mulching reduced stand density (1220–258 trees ha–1) and basal area (24–17.7 m2 ha–1) and increased mean d.b.h. (12.8–29.2 cm), with the largest reductions in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) and oaks (Quercus spp. L.). Removing hardwoods and smaller pines resulted in a decline in tree species richness (8.9–4.4). Despite a modest increase in evenness (0.72–0.79), tree species diversity (H' = 1.32–0.84) dynamics were largely driven by changes in richness. While the cover of tree seedlings initially declined from 32.4 to 16.9 per cent, rapid regrowth of hardwoods led to recovery by end of the second growing season. This, along with gains by shrubs, vines, grasses and forbs, resulted in a near doubling of understorey plant cover. Although tree seedling increases were not related to fire season, peak responses occurred for shrubs and vines after winter fire and spring fire, grasses following winter fire and forbs after summer fire. An increase in species richness (18.7–24.5) and decline in species evenness (0.86–0.70) produced only a small increase in understorey species diversity (H' = 2.31–2.45). The greater number of understorey species following treatment were less equitably distributed as a result of differential rates of plant growth. While mulching led to a short-term increase in woody and herbaceous understorey plants, prescribed fire is needed to curtail redevelopment of the woody midstorey and further increase grasses and forbs.


Received 12 September 2008.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.