PROCEEDINGS

Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: 

Discussions Among Managers and Scientists

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Research & Development, Southern Research Station

General Technical Report SRS-199, September 2014
Cover: Fire researchers monitor fire behavior and weather during a stand replacement fire for 

Table Mountain pine, Chattahoochee National Forest, Chattooga Ranger District.

Disclaimers:

Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, 

or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United 

States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of 

the United States Government, and shall not be used for any endorsement purposes.

Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors in electronic media. Editing was done to ensure 

consistent format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy of their individual papers.

Sepember 2014

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

www.srs.fs.usda.gov
PROCEEDINGS

Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: 

Discussions Among Managers and Scientists

Edited by

Thomas A. Waldrop

Roanoke, Virginia

October 8-10, 2013

Hosted by

Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists

Association for Fire Ecology

Sponsored by

Association for Fire Ecology

Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists

Joint Fire Science Program

The Nature Conservancy

Natural Lands Trust

USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

USDA Forest Service, R-8 National Forest System

USDA Forest Service, Northeast Area State and Private Forestry

Published by

USDA Forest Service

Southern Research Station

Asheville, NC

September 2014
ii Proceedings Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

PREFACE

The Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists and the Association for Fire Ecology co-sponsored the 

conference on October 8-10, 2013 at the Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center in downtown Roanoke, Virginia. 

Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions Among Managers and Scientists was designed for anyone with an interest 

in wildland fire in the Appalachian region and provided an unusual approach to sharing information. The objective of the 

conference was for fire managers and researchers to learn from each other so they could better understand and work together 

on problems specific to the highly diverse Appalachian Mountains. The conference design was unique: it was neither 

a research symposium nor a managers’ meeting, but rather a synergy of both. Over 40 speakers were invited to discuss 

research updates, management experiences, and successful technology transfer. Research topics included plant and wildlife 

ecology, fire history, invasive plants, season of burning, and other topics. Managers shared experiences on how to apply 

fire to the landscape, how to work with media and the general public, and updates to fire management tools such as smoke 

prediction models, LANDFIRE, and IFT-DSS. A highlight was success stories from programs such as the Fire Learning 

Network, State Prescribed Fire Councils, and interagency cooperation. A field trip on the third day shared managers’ 

experiences in applying research results on the ground.

The conference was also unique in that it occurred during a closure of the United States Government. Federal employees 

of all agencies had been furloughed and could not attend the conference. As a result, many invited speakers were not 

present. However, all invited speakers were requested to contribute a paper or extended abstract to these proceedings. These 

proceedings represent only a portion of the presentations planned for the conference.

Sponsors

CAFMS—The Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists (CAFMS) is a Joint Fire Science Program, 

Knowledge Exchange Consortium with a goal of promoting communication among fire managers and scientists in the 

Appalachian region. CAFMS is largely successful because of a strong relationship between the U.S. Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station and the Fire Learning Network of The Nature Conservancy. The organization promotes communication 

through workshops, Web-based seminars, summaries of important research publications, a Web site, face to face meetings 

with CAFMS members, and research syntheses. CAFMS members include fire managers along with government and 

university scientists throughout the Appalachian region, from Pennsylvania to Alabama.

AFE—The Association for Fire Ecology (AFE) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the knowledge and use 

of fire in land management. Members include scientists, educators, students, managers, practitioners, policymakers, and 

interested citizens. Anyone who supports the AFE mission can become a member and through active involvement can help 

shape the emerging profession and growing field of fire ecology. The AFE vision is a membership of respected professionals 

from around the world who together play a key role in wildland fire and fire ecology research, education, management, and 

policy, to enhance our knowledge and management of fire as a fundamental ecological process.

Planning Committee

Many hours of work were required to plan a program with speakers that could engage both managers and scientists. Each 

person on the planning committee worked diligently to identify topics and potential speakers, and to invite speakers to 

attend. Many thanks are given to each member.

Tom Waldrop, Chair, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station

Geoff Babb, Association for Fire Ecology

Mike Brod, U.S. Forest Service, R-8 National Forest System

Maureen Brooks, U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry

Patrick Brose, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station

Beth Buchanan, U.S. Forest Service, R-8 National Forest System

Steve Croy, U.S. Forest Service, R-8 National Forest System

Tim Ingalsbee, Association for Fire Ecology

Catia Juliana, Association for Fire Ecology

Sam Lindblom, The Nature Conservancy

Jim Thorne, Natural Lands Trust

Dan Yaussy, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station (retired)
iii

Table of Contents

Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities

Oak Regeneration Ecology and Dynamics..............3

	 Daniel C. Dey

Making Sense Out of Confusion: A Review of 

Fire-Oak Papers Published in the Past 50 Years....12

	 Patrick H. Brose and Thomas A. Waldrop

Repeated Fires, Canopy Gaps, and Tree 

Regeneration in Appalachian Mixed Oak 

Forests....................................................................25

	 Todd F. Hutchinson, Robert P. Long, Joanne Rebbeck,

	 Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, and Daniel A. Yaussy

The National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study: 

Vegetation Changes over 11 Years of Fuel 

Reduction Treatments in the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains.........................................34

	 Thomas A. Waldrop, Helen H. Mohr, Ross J. Phillips,

	 and Dean M. Simon

Sprouting Capability and Growth of One-Year-Old 

Shortleaf Pine Seedlings after Different Times of 

Burning and Clipping.............................................42

	 David C. Clabo and Wayne K. Clatterbuck

Ailanthus and Prescribed Fire: Is it a Volatile 

Combination?.........................................................48

	 Joanne Rebbeck, Todd Hutchinson, Louis Iverson,

	 Matthew Peters, Daniel Yaussy, Michael Bowden,

	 Greg Guess, and Aaron Kloss

Fire in Mountain Bogs...........................................53

	 Adam Warwick

The American Chestnut and Fire: 

6-year Research Results.........................................60

Stacy L. Clark, Callie J. Schweitzer, Mike R. Saunders,

	 Ethan P. Belair, Scott J. Torreano, and

	 Scott E. Schlarbaum

Ecology—Wildlife

Indiana Bats, Northern Long-Eared Bats, 

and Prescribed Fire in the Appalachians: 

Challenges and Considerations..............................73

	 Susan C. Loeb and Joy M. O’Keefe

Bird Response to Fire Severity and Repeated 

Burning in an Upland Hardwood Forest................82

Cathryn H. Greenberg, Thomas A. Waldrop,

	 Joseph Tomcho, Ross J. Phillips, and Dean Simon

Synthesis of the Effects of Fire on 

Southern Appalachian Fauna .................................86

	 Amber L. Pitt, Robert F. Baldwin, Joseph J. Tavano,

	 Thomas A. Waldrop, and Ross J. Phillips

Fire History and Fire Effects

Three Centuries of Appalachian Fire 

History from Tree Rings........................................99

	 Charles W. Lafon, Henri D. Grissino-Mayer,

	 Serena R. Aldrich, Georgina G. DeWeese,

	 William T. Flatley, Lisa B. LaForest, and

	 Jennifer A. Hoss

Methods for the Study of Soil Charcoal as 

an Indicator of Fire and Forest History in 

the Appalachian Region, U.S.A...........................104

	 Sally P. Horn and Christopher A. Underwood

Red Oak Timber Product Value Loss 

Due to Fire Damage ............................................. 111

	 Joseph M. Marschall, Richard P. Guyette,

	 Michael C. Stambaugh, and Aaron P. Stevenson

Water Chemistry of North Branch Simpson Creek 

and the Rich Hole Wilderness Fire ...................... 113

Daniel M. Downey, Jens Peter Haraldstadt,

	 and Sydney N. Fisher
iv Proceedings Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Tools for Fire Management

LANDFIRE in the Appalachians.........................129

	 James L. Smith, Randy Swaty, Kori Blankenship, 		

	 Sarah Hagen, and Jeannie Patton

Mapping Fire Regimes from Data You May Already 

Have: Assessing LANDFIRE Fire Regime Maps 

Using Local Products...........................................132

	 Melissa A. Thomas-Van Gundy

A Brief Introduction to the Interagency 

Fuels Treatment Decision Support 

System (IFTDSS).................................................141

H. Michael Rauscher and Stacy A. Drury

Using the Adaptive Management Process to 

Develop a Monitoring Program on the George 

Washington and Jefferson National Forests and 

The Nature Conservancy’s Warm Springs 

Mountain Preserve ...............................................143

	 Lindsey A. Curtin and Beth Buchanan

Development of an ArcGIS Fire Frequency, Fuel 

Accumulation, Seasonality and Prioritization Tool 

to Facilitate Prescribed Fire Decisionmaking on the 

Talladega National Forest, Alabama ....................149

	 Jonathan M. Stober and Geoff Holden

Use of Multi-Sensor Active Fire Detections to Map 

Fires in the United States: The Future of Monitoring 

Trends in Burn Severity .......................................155

Joshua Picotte, Michael Coan, and Stephen Howard

Multi-Party Monitoring—A Good Tool for 

Managers..............................................................162

	 Beth Buchanan

A Cumulative Fire Severity Index for the

2000-2008 Linville Gorge Wildfires....................166

	 Matthew Reilly, Donald Hagan, and

	 Thomas A. Waldrop

Pyroganda: Creating New Terms and Identities 

for Promoting Fire Use in Ecological Fire 

Management.........................................................170

Timothy Ingalsbee

Torchbearers for a New Fire Management Paradigm: 

Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology 

(FUSEE)...............................................................178

	 Timothy Ingalsbee

Manager/Scientist Success Stories

Management–Research Partnerships from a 

Manager’s Perspective .........................................181

	 Dean M. Simon

SILVAH: Managers and Scientists Work Together 

to Improve Research and Management................184

	 Susan L. Stout and Patrick H. Brose

The Southern Blue Ridge Fire Learning Network: 

A Collaborative Partnership to Restore Fireadapted Ecosystems and Build Resilient Forests and 

Communities in the Southern Blue Ridge ...........193

	 Margit Bucher, Beth Buchanan, Wendy Fulks, 	 	

	 Josh Kelly, Peter Bates, Gary Kauffman, Steve Simon,

	 and Helen Mohr

Technology Transfer: Taking Science from the 

Books to the Ground at Bent Creek Experimental 

Forest....................................................................201

	 Julia E. Kirschman

Facilitating Knowledge Exchange about 

Wildland Fire Science..........................................205

	 Alan Long

Index of Authors...........................................208
Ecology—

Plants and Plant Communities

Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 3

INTRODUCTION

After 50 years of focused study on oak forests in eastern 

North America, managers still struggle to regenerate 

oak with certainty and scientists continue to research 

the oak regeneration problem (Fei and others 2011, 

Nowacki and Abrams 2008). We have made great 

advances in understanding oak biology and ecology, 

identifying drivers of oak regeneration problems, 

assessing silvicultural practices to promote oak, and 

modeling regeneration success. We know most about 

the commercially valuable oak species; more work 

is needed to discover basic information on the great 

diversity of oak species present throughout eastern North 

America. Valuable compilations and syntheses of what 

we know about oak ecology and silviculture have been 

published, e.g., Hicks (1998), Johnson and others (2009), 

and McShea and Healy (2002). This paper highlights 

our understanding of oak regeneration ecology and 

management with emphasis on the role that fire may 

play in sustaining oak forests through regeneration and 

recruitment into the overstory.

IMPORTANCE OF CURRENT FOREST

COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE

In eastern North American hardwood forests, initial 

floristics regulates future forest composition (Egler 

1954, Johnson and others 2009, Loftis 2004); it is the 

current composition and size distribution of all trees from 

seedlings to mature trees that establishes the sources 

of regeneration and determines the competitiveness 

of individuals in a stand. In the East, oaks regenerate 

as newly germinated seedlings from acorns, advance 

reproduction, and stump sprouts. The abundance of 

mature dominant and codominant oak trees in the 

overstory defines seed production potential. The same 

holds true for many of oak’s competitors, some of whom 

also may accumulate seed over the years in the forest 

floor, e.g., black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) and 

yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.). In general, 

total seed production for dominant/codominant oak 

trees increases with increasing diameter at breast height 

(dbh) to a threshold size beyond which it decreases, 

but this varies among the species (fig. 1) (Downs and 

McQuilken 1944). Consequently, the density of large 

(>10 inches dbh) oak trees in the upper crown classes 

is positively correlated with the abundance of oak 

advance reproduction in the understory (Fei and Steiner 

2008, Johnson 1992), and density of large oak advance 

reproduction increases with decreasing overstory density 

(Johnson 1992, Larsen and others 1997). For advance 

reproduction, individual competitiveness following release 

by a regeneration harvest is directly related to the size of 

the seedling or sapling before harvest (fig. 2) (Dey 1991, 

Johnson and others 2009, Loftis 1990). The size and age 

of trees >2 inches dbh also determines the probability of 

stump sprout development after harvesting, which varies 

among oak species and their competitors (fig. 3) (Johnson 

and others 2009). Because initial floristics determines 

future forest composition, inventories of current forest 

overstory and understory tree populations can be used 

to predict the composition of future forests and aid in 

developing silvicultural prescriptions for oak regeneration 

(e.g., Brose and others 2008, Dey and others 1996, 

Vickers and others 2011).

SOURCES OF OAK REGENERATION

Johnson and others (2009) recognize three types of oak 

regeneration: seedlings, seedling sprouts, and stump 

sprouts. Any reproduction regardless of type that exists 

1

Daniel C. Dey, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Columbia, MO 65211

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 

OAK REGENERATION ECOLOGY AND DYNAMICS

Daniel C. Dey1

Abstract—The regeneration potential of oak following a disturbance or harvest that initiates stand regeneration is 

determined largely by the size structure of oak before the event. Collectively, regeneration from (1) seed, (2) advance 

reproduction, and (3) stump sprouts contribute to oak regeneration but vary in their competitive capacity. Oak regeneration 

potential is modified by site, competitor regeneration potential and management input. Prescribed fire is increasingly being 

used to promote oak regeneration with mixed results. Oak has many silvical traits that make it well adapted to fire. Fire can 

promote oak regeneration, but it also can reduce it, promote competing vegetation including invasive species, and retard 

oak recruitment into the overstory. Fire is a tool that can be used to sustain oak forests if it is applied judiciously with 

knowledge of oak forest ecology and stand dynamics, and with basic forest inventory information. Combining prescribed 

fire with thinning or harvesting can be effective in increasing oak regeneration potential and dominance in future stands.
4 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

before a regeneration harvest or disturbance is known 

as advance reproduction. In oak seedlings, shoot and 

taproot are the same age, as the shoot has not experienced 

dieback yet. A seedling sprout arises from the root system 

after death of throot;e original stem; hence, the shoot is 

younger than the taproot. Stump sprouts are vegetative 

reproduction that arise from the stump or base of stems 

(≥2 inches dbh) cut during harvest, removed by an 

herbivore, or killed by fire or drought.

Seedlings

Oak seedlings are ephemeral because they either die or 

experience shoot dieback and sprouting thus becoming 

seedling sprouts. Seedling populations are most abundant 

following good to heavy acorn crops. Initial seedling 

growth is fueled by acorn reserves in the cotyledons and 

survival may be high even on productive sites in the dark 

of a mature forest understory. But, after the first season, 

seedling survival and growth depend on photosynthesis. 

Seedling cohorts are nearly eliminated within a decade 

(Beck 1970, Loftis 1983, Crow 1992) due to inadequate 

light (<5 percent full sunlight), a common condition in 

the understory on high quality mesic and hydric sites 

(Gardiner and Yeiser 2006, Lorimer and others 1994, 

Lhotka and Loewenstein 2009, Motsinger and others 

2010, Parker and Dey 2008). Today, it is only on xeric 

sites that understory light levels are high enough (e.g., 10 

to 25 percent of full sunlight) to permit the accumulation 

and development of large oak advance reproduction in the 

absence of management, including periodic fire (Blizzard 

and others 2013, Johnson and others 2009, Sander 1979). 

Oak seedlings exhibit slow juvenile shoot growth because 

carbon is preferentially allocated to the developing root 

system (Johnson and others 2009). Thus, they are not 

competitive and are easily suppressed by other vegetation 

under most situations in regenerating stands.

Seedling Sprouts

Oak advance reproduction as seedling sprouts are able to 

persist and develop large roots and high root:shoot ratios 

provided there is sufficient light to support a positive 

growth balance. It is by the cycle of shoot dieback and 

sprouting over decades that oak advance reproduction 

increases its competitive capacity (Spetich and others 

2002) by enlarging its root system, as evidenced by 

increasing root collar diameter and root:shoot ratios 

(Canadell and Rhoda 1991, Dey and Parker 1997). The 

probability that a stem of oak advance reproduction 

survives and assumes dominance in a regenerating stand 

increases exponentially with increasing initial basal stem 

diameter (fig. 2) (Dey 1991, Johnson and others 2009, 

Loftis 1990). However, a dense overstory and complex 

vertical stand structure including multiple canopy layers 

of shade-tolerant species reduce available light to levels 

insufficient for most oak species (Parker and Dey 2008, 

Rebbeck and others 2011). Historically, the accumulation 

of large oak advance reproduction was promoted by 

factors that limited stand density and development of 

mid- and understory woody canopies such as cyclical 

drought, periodic fires, and site factors that limit tree 

growth. Available light levels over 20 percent of full 

sunlight promote growth of oak advance reproduction 

(Gardiner and Hodges 1998; Gottschalk 1985, 1987, 1994; 

Rebbeck and others 2011). Today, this may occur naturally 

in mature oak forests on low quality xeric sites located 

on south facing steep slopes and upper slope positions 

(Blizzard and others 2013), but elsewhere stand structure 

and density must be managed to increase available light 

in the understory. For example, in the Missouri Ozarks, 

Larsen and others (1997) found that the probability of 

having large oak advance reproduction increased with 

decreasing overstory density by timber harvesting, and 

they suggested that basal area be kept <65 ft2

/ac to 

promote development of large oak advance reproduction 

in these oak ecosystems. 

Stump Sprouts

Stump sprouts arise from cut stems that are >2 inches 

dbh by definition (Johnson and others 2009). They are the 

fastest growing source of oak reproduction and hence are 

the most competitive in regenerating stands. In fact, Beck 

and Hooper (1986), Gould and others (2003), Morrissey 

and others (2008), and Swaim (2013) reported that 45 to 

75 percent of dominant oak reproduction in developing 

clearcuts were stump sprouts by the time stands reached 

stem exclusion (20 to 35 years old) in southern Indiana, 

Pennsylvania, and the southern Appalachians of North 

Carolina. In most of these studies, oak stocking had 

declined substantially from preharvest levels in the former 

oak-dominated forests, and it would have been relegated 

to minor associate status were it not for the stump sprouts. 

The probability of an oak stump producing a sprout 

varies by species, diameter, age, and site quality (fig. 3). 

In general, sprouting capacity increases with increasing 

stem diameter to a threshold (e.g., 4 to 5 inches) beyond 

which it declines (Dey and others 1996, Weigel and Peng 

2002, Weigel and others 2011). Chestnut oak (Quercus

prinus L.) and the red oaks [black oak (Q. velutina

Lam.), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea Muenchh.), northern 

red oak (Q. rubra L.)] have higher sprouting capacity 

and are more competitive than white oak (Q. alba L.). 

Sprouting capacity in oaks declines with increasing tree 

ages older than 50 years, and trees that are 100 years 

old have low potential to produce sprouts, regardless of 

species. Initially, oak stump sprouting potential increases 

with increasing site quality, but over time site quality 

has a negative correlation with oak sprout dominance 

probabilities because the intensity of competition is higher 

on productive sites. It is unlikely that oak stump sprout 

reproduction alone can maintain initial stocking levels in 

mature oak forests when they are regenerated because not 

all oak stumps produce sprouts, and some produce sprouts 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 5

of low vigor. Therefore, the mantra of oak silviculture has 

become that success in sustaining oak stocking is reliant 

upon having adequate numbers of large oak advance 

reproduction (Clark and Watt 1971, Johnson and others 

2009). Oak stump sprouts are important contributors 

to future oak stocking, but advance reproduction must 

be competitive to sustain stocking. This in essence is 

the crux of the oak regeneration problem; oak advance 

reproduction either is absent or is small with low 

competitive capacity in most of our eastern forests on 

higher quality sites. The problem is magnified as we try 

to regenerate our aging oak forests that are experiencing a 

decline in their stump sprouting capacity with concurrent 

development of shade tolerant midstory and understory 

canopies.

FIRE IN THE LIFE CYCLE OF OAK

Fire has long been associated with the widespread 

dominance of oak over the millennia in the East (e.g., 

Delcourt and Delcourt 1998, Delcourt and others 1998), 

and oak has numerous traits (e.g., thick bark and high 

vegetative sprouting ability) and reproductive strategies 

(e.g., seed caching in soil by animals, root-centric growth, 

accumulation of large advance reproduction) that favor 

it when the disturbance regime includes frequent fire. 

But prescribed burning alone has not always promoted 

oak regeneration (Brose and others 2013). Arthur and 

others (2012) identified stages of stand development and 

conditions in which fire may promote oak regeneration 

and recruitment into the overstory in their life cycle 

analysis of an oak forest. Brose and others (2008, 

2013) have developed silvicultural prescriptions for oak 

regeneration using prescribed burning. There are times 

in the life of an oak forest when prescribed fire may 

benefit oak regeneration, and certain stand conditions that 

normally inhibit oak establishment and development that 

can be corrected by burning.

Preparing for and Establishing 

Oak Advance Reproduction

Regenerating a mature oak forest is a common objective 

for managers in the East, and often there is little to no 

oak advance reproduction. Burning is recommended 

to prepare the site for the next good acorn crop. In the 

absence of fire, litter layers may have accumulated to 

depths that create a barrier to the oak germinant rooting 

itself in soil. Low-intensity dormant-season fires are 

effective for reducing litter and facilitating oak seedling 

establishment. Reductions in leaf litter may persist for 

several years, but litter accumulates rapidly to preburn levels (Stambaugh and others 2006), which may 

necessitate a second burn in the absence of a good acorn 

crop. Fire can also destroy seed of competing species 

that is stored in the forest floor, but it may also stimulate 

the germination of seed that has thermal- or chemicalinduced dormancy. However, new germinants and young 

seedlings of competing species arising after the initial fire 

are vulnerable to mortality in subsequent fires, and their 

growth will be suppressed under a fully stocked mature 

overstory. A final benefit of a low-intensity fire at this time 

is to increase understory light in advance of oak seedling 

establishment. Such a fire has little effect on overstory 

density but can reduce or eliminate the midstory canopy 

(if trees are predominantly <4 inches dbh) and increase 

understory light to about 10 to 15 percent of full sunlight 

(Dey and Hartman 2005, Green and others 2010, Lorimer 

and others 1994, Motsinger and others 2010, Waldrop 

and others 1992). The positive effect of midstory removal 

may last for several years (Parrott and others 2012), and 

maintaining an intact overstory canopy inhibits regrowth 

of competing tree and shrub sprouts (Dey and Hartman 

2005). However, oak advance reproduction benefits from 

additional increases in light, and to achieve light levels 

>20 percent of full sunlight requires greater reductions in 

stand density. To affect this through prescribed burning 

requires more intense fires capable of killing larger 

trees, but this increases the risk of causing mortality of 

oak advance reproduction. Alternatively, chemical and 

mechanical thinning and harvesting can be used to more 

selectively remove trees, reduce mortality of oak advance 

reproduction, and in the case of chemical applications, 

limit sprouting of competitors. The need and timing of 

additional prescribed fires preceding a good acorn crop 

will be dictated by litter accumulation rates and regrowth 

of competing vegetation after the initial burn. But once 

acorns are on the ground, fire should be delayed or else 

most of the crop will be destroyed (Auchmoody and 

Smith 1993).

Promoting Oak Advance Reproduction

Another common condition in mature oak forests is for 

there to be thousands of small oak advance reproduction 

per acre. Burning these forests may be detrimental to oak 

regeneration because low intensity fires are capable of 

killing a high proportion of one-year-old oak seedlings 

(>50 percent) (Johnson 1974). In deciding to burn, 

consideration should be given to the number and size of 

oak advance reproduction. Size is an indication of the 

probability that a stem will survive a fire by sprouting, 

which increases exponentially with increasing basal 

diameter of oak seedlings. In general, oaks are better 

able to survive multiple fires than their competitors 

by sprouting and increasing root mass during fire-free 

periods under higher light regimes provided by midstory 

removal and random canopy gap formation (Brose and 

others 2013, Dey and Hartman 2005). But greater growth 

gains in oak advance reproduction are achieved when 

reproduction are growing in moderate to open light 

environments (i.e., >30 percent of full sunlight) (Gardiner 

and Hodges 1998; Gottschalk 1985, 1987, 1994). Benefits 

to oak advance reproduction when burning in mature 
6 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

oak forests are variable, and sometimes questionable 

according to studies conducted across eastern North 

America (Brose and others 2013). This is most likely 

due to the differences in initial size structure of advance 

reproduction for oak and its competitors, fire behavior, 

stand density, and presence of confounding factors such 

as deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmerman) browsing 

and competition from interference species such as hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula (Michx.) Moore). 

Fire effects can be more negative when oak seedlings are 

small (e.g., <0.25 inches basal diameter), fire intensity 

is moderate to high, and fires occur in a season when 

seedling physiological activity is on the rise. Low survival 

probabilities for small oak advance reproduction after 

burning may be offset by high densities, but it is less risky 

to use other means such as midstory removal by chemical 

or mechanical methods, or shelterwood harvesting to 

develop larger oak advance reproduction by increasing 

available light in the understory before burning. 

Combining fire with thinning or harvesting is promising 

for developing larger oak advance reproduction. 

Hutchinson and others (2012) reported that multiple fires 

(three to five) beginning seven years before harvesting by 

the group selection method and ending in some cases a 

year or two after harvesting promoted the development 

of large white oak reproduction in southern Ohio. Brose 

and others (2013) recommended using the shelterwood 

method to increase light to oak advance reproduction and 

promote growth of small seedling sprouts before burning. 

Simply reducing stand density benefits oak advance 

reproduction for several years before the competition in 

the regeneration layer begins suppressing oak growth. 

During this time, oak advance reproduction seedlings are 

able to grow larger and increase their root mass (Brose 

2008), thus increasing their probability of vigorously 

sprouting after a prescribed fire. If needed, prescribed 

fire may be used between the initial and final shelterwood 

harvest to release oak advance reproduction from 

encroaching competing vegetation that has also benefitted 

from improved light conditions. Alternatively, oak can 

be provided a second release by removal of the residual 

overstory. Several years after oak reproduction has been 

released by final overstory removal, fire can be used to 

favor oak development and dominance by periodically 

(e.g., every three to five years) setting back competing 

vegetation. This sequence may be repeated until the oak 

reproduction is capable of maintaining its dominance on 

its own.

Oak Recruitment into the Overstory

To sustain oak forests, the second most important 

process after regeneration is recruitment of oak saplings 

into the overstory (Dey 2014). Oaks eventually need a 

sufficiently long fire-free period to allow them to grow 

into the overstory by developing thick bark to resist 

topkill from any future fires. This may take 10 to 30 

years to develop depending on source of oak regeneration, 

i.e., stump sprouts versus seedlings sprouts (Arthur and 

others 2012). Oaks that are in the dominant canopy 

position at the beginning of the stem exclusion stage have 

a high probability (>75 percent) of maintaining their 

dominance into maturity (Ward and Stephens 1994), 

but less dominant oaks have a high rate of attrition due 

to competition. Without release as saplings in the stem 

exclusion stage, oaks can be suppressed by yellow-poplar, 

red maple (Acer rubrum L.), black cherry and black birch 

(Betual lenta L.) (Brashears and others 2004, Groninger 

and Long 2008, Heiligmann and others 1985, Smith and 

Ashton 1993, Zenner and others 2012). Dominant oaks 

primarily remain at the end of stem exclusion; these are 

largely stump sprouts, especially on average and higher 

quality sites (Hilt 1985, Morrissey and others 2008, 

Zenner and others 2012). On xeric, lower quality sites, 

oaks are naturally more competitive and can rise to 

dominate stand basal area and volume at maturity. Crop 

tree release of codominant and lesser oak saplings early 

in the stem exclusion stage can significantly increase 

their persistence as dominants at maturity (Ward 2009, 

2013). Fire is an ineffective tool for releasing oak saplings 

because it is indiscriminate in what trees are topkilled 

in the smaller diameter classes (<4 inches dbh); it may 

take out a smaller diameter oak as easily as a competitor. 

Fire’s ability to topkill competing stems decreases as tree 

diameter increases, even for what are considered firesensitive trees. Hotter fires are needed to topkill larger 

trees of competing species and this increases the chances 

of removing oak saplings in the process. Prescribed 

burning affords little control over the spatial distribution 

of what trees are removed and hence the degree of release 

experienced by any individual oak. Fire may also scar 

residual trees, which has the potential to cause advanced 

decay in the butt log over decades if the wound does not 

heal rapidly (Marschall and others 2014). Alternative 

chemical and mechanical methods of crop tree release 

provide more control and certainty in releasing oak 

saplings and small poles.

Conclusion

Oak regeneration potential is a function of the collective 

contributions to future stand stocking from the main 

sources of oak regeneration, i.e., seed/seedlings, seedling 

sprouts (advance reproduction), and stump sprouts. 

The extent that oak regeneration potential contributes 

to stand regeneration potential determines if oak 

will dominate in the future after regeneration. Stump 

sprouts are no doubt the most competitive sources of 

oak regeneration and often comprise the majority of 

dominant oak in young stands following regeneration by 

even-aged methods. However, this in and of itself is an 

indictment of the failure of oak advance reproduction 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 7

to contribute significantly to sustaining oak stocking 

in the future. Without contributions from oak advance 

reproduction, oak stocking will continue to decline 

through the generations. The focus of oak silviculture 

research has been the establishment and development 

of adequate densities of large, competitive oak advance 

reproduction. The shelterwood regeneration method 

has figured prominently in approaches to improve oak 

regeneration potential by increasing the role advance 

reproduction play in determining oak’s future dominance. 

But midstory removal and the group selection method 

have also proven to enhance development of oak advance 

reproduction in conjunction with prescribed burning. 

Controlling competing vegetation before, during and after 

regeneration harvesting is an important, and sometimes 

overlooked, aspect of oak regeneration prescriptions. 

Prescribed fire is an effective tool to prepare the site for 

establishment of oak reproduction and to begin reducing 

competition and the regeneration potential of competing 

species. Care must be taken in determining the timing 

of prescribed burning to avoid destroying acorn crops 

or populations of small oak advance reproduction. After 

final overstory release, prescribed fire is effective in 

promoting oak dominance during stand initiation until 

the beginning of the stem exclusion stage. From this time 

until the next need for regeneration, the use of fire is 

problematic because it is a clumsy method for controlling 

stand density, composition, and spatial arrangement of 

trees, and because it can injure trees, which later leads 

to substantial loss of volume and value. Prescribed fire 

is another arrow in the quiver of the silviculturist who 

manages oak ecosystems.

LITERATURE CITED

Arthur, M.A.; Alexander, H.D.; Dey, D.C. [and others]. 2012. 

Refining the oak-fire hypothesis for management of oakdominated forests of the eastern United States. Journal of 

Forestry. 110(5): 257-266.

Auchmoody, L.R.; Smith, H.C. 1993. Survival of acorns after fall 

burning. Res. Pap. NE-678. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 5 p.

Beck, D.E. 1970. Effect of competition on survival and height 

growth of red oak seedlings. Res. Pap. SE-56. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. 

Beck, D.E.; Hooper, R.M. 1986. Development of a southern 

Appalachian hardwood stand after clearcutting. Southern 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 10: 168-172.

Blizzard, E.M.; Kabrick, J.M.; Dey, D.C. [and others]. 2013. Light, 

canopy closure and overstory retention in upland Ozark forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-175. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 73-79.

Brashears, M.B.; Fajvan, M.A.; Schuler, T.M. 2004. An assessment 

of canopy stratification and tree species diversity following 

clearcutting in central Appalachian hardwoods. Forest Science. 

50: 54-64.

Brose, P.H. 2008. Root development of acorn-origin oak seedlings 

in shelterwood stands on the Appalachian Plateau of northern 

Pennsylvania: 4-year results. Forest Ecology and Management. 

255: 3374-3381.

Brose, P.H.; Dey, D.C.; Phillips, R.J.; Waldrop, T.A. 2013. A metaanalysis of the fire-oak hypothesis: does prescribed burning 

promote oak reproduction in eastern North America? Forest 

Science. 59(3): 322-334.

Brose, P.H.; Gottschalk, K.W.; Horsley, S.B. [and others]. 2008. 

Prescribing regeneration treatments for mixed-oak forests in the 

Mid-Atlantic region. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-33. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 100 p.

Canadell, J.; Rhoda, F. 1991. Root biomass of Quercus ilex in a 

montane Mediterranean forest. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 21: 1771-1778.

Clark, F.B.; Watt, R.F. 1971. Silvicultural methods for regenerating 

oaks. In: Oak Symp. Proc. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station: 37-43.

Crow, T.R. 1992. Population dynamics and growth patterns for 

a cohort of northern red oak (Quercus rubra) seedlings. 

Oecologia. 91: 192-200.

Delcourt, P.A.; Delcourt, H.R. 1998. The influence of prehistoric 

human-set fires in oak-chestnut forests in the southern 

Appalachians. Castanea. 63(3): 337-345.

Delcourt, P.A.; Delcourt, H.R.; Ison, H.A. [and others]. 1998. 

Prehistoric human use of fire, the eastern agricultural complex, 

and Appalachian oak-chestnut forests: paleoecology of Cliff 

Palace Pond, Kentucky. American Antiquity. 63(2): 263-278.

Dey, D.C. 1991. A comprehensive Ozark regenerator. Columbia, 

MO: University of Missouri. 283 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Dey, D.C. 2014. Sustaining oak forests in Eastern North America: 

regeneration and recruitment, the pillars of sustainability. Forest 

Science. 60(2). 17 p. doi: 10.5849/forsci.13-114.

Dey, D.C.; Hartman, G. 2005. Returning fire to Ozark Highland 

forest ecosystems: effects on advance regeneration. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 217: 37–53.

Dey, D.C.; Fan, Z. 2009. A review of fire and oak regeneration and 

overstory recruitment. In: Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-46. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station: 2-20.

Dey, D.C.; Parker, W.C. 1997. Morphological indicators of stock 

quality and field performance of red oak (Quercus rubra L.) 

seedlings underplanted in a central Ontario shelterwood. New 

Forests. 14: 145-156.

Dey, D.C.; Johnson, P.S.; Garrett, H.E. 1996. Modeling the 

regeneration of oak stands in the Missouri Ozark Highlands. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 26: 573-583.

Dey, D.C.; Ter-Mikaelian, M.; Johnson, P.S.; Shifley, S.R. 1996. 

Users guide to ACORn: a comprehensive Ozark regeneration 

simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-180. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station. 35 p.

Downs, A.A.; McQuilken, W.E. 1944. Seed production of southern 

Appalachian oaks. Journal of Forestry. 42: 913-920.
8 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Egler, F.E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts I. Initial floristic 

composition: a factor in old-field vegetation management. 

Vegetatio. 4: 412-417.

Fei, S.; Steiner, K.C. 2008. Relationships between advance oak 

regeneration and biotic and abiotic factors. Tree Physiology. 28: 

1111-1119.

Fei, S.; Kong, N.; Steiner, K.C.; Moser, W.K.; Steiner, E.B. 2011. 

Change in oak abundance in the eastern United States from 

1980-2008. Forest Ecology and Management. 262: 1370-1377.

Gardiner, E.S.; Hodges, J.D. 1998. Growth and biomass 

distribution of cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda Raf.) 

seedlings as influenced by light availability. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 108: 127-131.

Gardiner, E.S.; Yeiser, J.L. 2006. Underplanting cherrybark oak 

(Quercus pagoda Raf.) seedlings on a bottomland site in the 

southern United States. New Forests. 32: 105-119.

Gottschalk, K.W. 1985. Effects of shading on growth and 

development of northern red oak, black oak, black cherry, and 

red maple seedlings. I. height, diameter, and root/shoot ratio. 

In: Urbana, IL: Proceedings of 5th central hardwood forest 

conference: 189-195.

Gottschalk, K.W. 1987. Effects of shading on growth and 

development of northern red oak, black oak, black cherry, and 

red maple seedlings. II. Biomass partitioning and prediction. 

In: Knoxville, TN: Proceedings of 6th central hardwood forest 

conference: 99-110. 

Gottschalk, K.W. 1994. Shade, leaf growth and crown development 

of Quercus rubra, Quercus velutina, Prunus serotina and Acer

rubrum seedlings. Tree Physiology. 14: 735-749.

Gould, P.J.; Steiner, K.C.; Finley, J.C.; McDill, M.E. 2003. 

Regenerating mixed oak stands in Pennsylvania: a quartercentury perspective. In: Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-234. St. Paul, MN: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station: 254-258. 

Green, S.R.; Arthur, M.A.; Blankenship, B.A. 2010. Oak and 

red maple seedling survival and growth following periodic 

prescribed fire on xeric ridgetops on the Cumberland Plateau. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 259: 2256-2266.

Groninger, J.W.; Long, M. 2008. Oak ecosystem management 

considerations for Central Hardwood stands arising from 

silvicultural clearcutting. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

25: 173-179.

Heiligmann, R.B.; Norland, E.R.; Hilt, D.E. 1985. 28-year-old 

reproduction on five cutting practices in upland oak. Northern 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 2: 17-22.

Hicks, Jr.; R.R. 1998. Ecology and management of Central 

Hardwood forests. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc. 412 p.

Hilt, D.E. 1985. Species composition of young central hardwood 

stands that develop after clearcutting. In: Proceedings of 5th 

central hardwood forest conference. Champaign-Urbana, IL: 

University of Illinois: 11-14.

Hutchinson, T.F.; Long, R.P.; Rebbeck, J. [and others]. 2012. 

Repeated prescribed fires alter gap-phase regeneration in 

mixed-oak forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

42: 303-314.

Johnson, P.S. 1974. Survival and growth of northern red oak 

seedlings following a prescribed burn. Res. Note NC-177. St. 

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 3 p.

Johnson, P.S. 1992. Oak overstory/reproduction relations in two 

xeric ecosystems in Michigan. Forest Ecology and Management. 

48: 233-248.

Johnson, P.S.; Shifley, S.R.; Rogers, R. 2009. The ecology 

and silviculture of oaks, second ed. New York, NY: CABI 

Publishing. 580 p.

Kabrick, J.M.; Villwock, J.L.; Dey, D.C. [and others]. 2014. 

Modeling and mapping oak advance reproduction density using 

soil and site variables. Forest Science. 60(2). 11 p. doi: 10.5849/

forsci.13-006.

Kabrick, J.M.; Zenner, E.K.; Dey, D.C. [and others]. 2008. 

Using ecological land types to examine landscape-scale oak 

regeneration dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management. 

255: 3051-3062.

Larsen, D.R.; Metzger, M.A.; Johnson, P.S. 1997. Oak regeneration 

and overstory density in the Missouri Ozarks. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research. 27: 869–875.

Lhotka, J.M.; Loewenstein, E.F. 2009. Effect of midstory removal 

on understory light availability and the 2-year response of 

underplanted cherrybark oak seedlings. Southern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 33(4): 171-177.

Loftis, D.L. 1983. Regenerating red oak on productive sites in the 

southern Appalachians: a research approach. In: Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SE-24. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 144-150.

Loftis, D.L. 1990. Predicting post-harvest performance of advanced 

red oak reproduction in the southern Appalachians. Forest 

Science. 36(4): 908-916.

Loftis, D.L. 2004. Upland oak regeneration and management. In: 

Spetich, M.A., ed. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 163-167. 

Lorimer, C.G.; Chapman, J.W.; Lambert, W.D. 1994. Tall 

understory vegetation as a factor in the poor development 

of oak seedlings beneath mature stands. Journal of Ecology. 

82(2): 227-237.

Marschall, J.M.; Guyette, R.P.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Stevenson, A.P. 

2014. Fire damage effects on red oak timber product value. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 320: 182-189

McShea, W.J.; Healy, W.M. 2002. Oak forest ecosystems ecology 

and management for wildlife. The Johns Hopkins University 

Press. Baltimore, MD. 432 p.

Morrissey, R.C.; Jacobs, D.F.; Seifert, J.R. [and others]. 2008. 

Competitive success of natural oak regeneration in clearcuts 

during the stem exclusion stage. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 38: 1419-1430.

Motsinger, J.R.; Kabrick, J.M.; Dey, D.C. [and others]. 2010. Effect 

of midstory and understory removal on the establishment 

and development of natural and artificial pin oak advance 

reproduction in bottomland forests. New Forests. 39: 195–213

Nowacki, G.J.; Abrams, M.D. 2008. The demise of fire and 

“mesophication” of forests in the Eastern United States. 

BioScience. 58(2): 123-138.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 9

Parker, W.C.; Dey, D.C. 2008. Influence of overstory density on 

ecophysiology of red oak (Quercus rubra) and sugar maple 

(Acer saccharum) seedlings in central Ontario shelterwoods. 

Tree Physiology. 28: 797-804.

Parrott, D.L.; Lhotka, J.M.; Stringer, J.W.; Dillaway, D.N. 2012. 

Seven-year effects of midstory removal on natural and 

underplanted oak reproduction. Northern Journal Applied 

Forestry. 29(4): 182-190.

Rebbeck, J.; Gottschalk, K.; Scherzer, A. 2011. Do chestnut, 

northern red, and white oak germinant seedlings respond 

similarly to light treatments? Growth and biomass. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 41: 2219-2230.

Sander, I.L. 1979. Regenerating oaks with the shelterwood system. 

In: Proceedings 1979 JS Wright Forestry Conference. West 

Lafayette, IN: Purdue University: 54-60.

Smith, D.M.; Ashton, P.M.S. 1993. Early dominance of pioneer 

hardwood after clearcutting and removal of advanced 

regeneration. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

10(1): 14-19.

Spetich, M.A.; Dey, D.C.; Johnson, P.S.; Graney, D.L. 2002. 

Competitive capacity of Quercus rubra L. planted in Arkansas’ 

Boston Mountains. Forest Science. 48(3): 504-517.

Stambaugh, M.C.; Guyette, R.C.; Grabner, K.W.; Kolaks, J. 2006. 

Understanding Ozark forest litter variability through a synthesis 

of accumulation rates and fire events. In: Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 321-332.

Swaim, J.T. 2013. Stand development and the competitive ability of 

oak (Quercus spp.) following silvicultural clearcutting on the 

Hoosier National Forest. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. 

M.S. thesis.

Vickers, L.A.; Fox, T.R.; Loftis, D.L.; Boucugnani, D.A.. 2011. 

Predicting forest regeneration in the Central Appalachians using 

the REGEN expert system. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 

30: 790-822.

Waldrop, T.A.; White, D.L.; Jones, S.M. 1992. Fire regimes for 

pine-grassland communities in the southeastern United States. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 47: 195-210.

Wang, Z.; Nyland, R.D. 1996. Changes in the condition and species 

composition of developing even-aged northern hardwood stands 

in central New York. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

13(4): 189-194.

Ward, J.S. 2009. Intensity of precommercial crop tree release 

increases diameter growth and survival of upland oaks. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 39: 118-130.

Ward, J.S. 2013. Precommercial crop tree release increase upper 

canopy persistence and diameter growth of oak saplings. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 30(4): 156-163.

Ward, J.S.; Stephens, G.R. 1994. Crown class transition rates of 

maturing northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.). Forest Science. 

40(2): 221-237.

Weigel, D.R.; Peng, C-Y.J. 2002. Predicting stump sprouting and 

competitive success of five oak species in southern Indiana. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 32: 703-712.

Weigel, D.R.; Dey, D.C.; Peng, C-Y.J. 2011. Stump sprout 

dominance probabilities of five oak species in southern 

Indiana 20 years after clearcut harvesting. In: Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-P-78. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 10-22. 

Zenner, E.K.; Heggenstaller, D.J.; Brose, P.H. [and others]. 2012. 

Reconstructing the competitive dynamics of mixed-oak 

neighborhoods. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

42: 1714-1723.
10 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 1—Average annual acorn production based on seven 

years of observations for five common oak species in eastern 

North America (adapted from Downs and McQuilken 1944).

Figure 2—Probability of northern red oak advance reproduction becoming 

dominant/codominant stems eight years after clearcutting on various 

quality oak sites in the southern Appalachian Mountains (adapted from 

Loftis 1990).
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 11

Figure 3—Probability that an oak will have at least one live sprout one year after harvest cutting in 

clearcuts of southern Indiana based on species, initial diameter breast height, tree age, and site quality 

(solid line = 59’ oak site index, dashed line = 72’ oak site index) (adapted from Weigel and Peng 2002).
12 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the Eastern United States, mixed-oak 

(Quercus spp.) forests on upland sites are highly 

valued for many ecological and economic reasons. 

Generally, these upland forests consist of one or more 

oak species [black (Q. velutina Lam.), chestnut (Q. 

montana Willd.), northern red (Q. rubra L.), scarlet 

(Q. coccinea Muenchh.), and white (Q .alba L.)] 

dominating the canopy with a mix of other hardwood 

species in the midstory and understory strata. Despite 

widespread abundance and dominance of mixed-oak 

forests, regenerating them is a chronic challenge for 

land managers throughout eastern North America, 

and they are slowly being replaced by mesophytic 

hardwoods such as black birch (Betula lenta L.), black 

cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.), red maple (Acer rubrum

L.), sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) and yellowpoplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) (Abrams and Downs 

1990, Aldrich and others 2005, Healy and others 1997, 

Schuler and Gillespie 2000, Woodall and others 2008). 

Many factors contribute to this oak regeneration problem 

including loss of seed sources; destruction of acorns and 

seedlings by insects, disease, weather, and wildlife; dense 

understory shade; competing vegetation; and lack of 

periodic fire (Crow 1988, Johnson and others 2009, Loftis 

and McGee 1993). The implication of the lack of periodic 

fire as a cause of the oak regeneration problem arises 

from the fact that many of these oak forests exist in part 

due to past fires. This relationship has led to the creation 

of the fire-oak hypothesis (Abrams 1992, Brose and 

others 2001, Lorimer 1993, Nowacki and Abrams 2008).

The fire-oak hypothesis consists of four parts: (1) periodic 

fire has been an integral disturbance in the mixed-oak 

forests of eastern North America for millennia; (2) oaks 

have several physical and physiological characteristics 

that allow them to survive at higher rates than their 

competitors in a periodic fire regime; (3) the lack of 

fire in the latter 20th century is a major reason for the 

chronic, widespread oak regeneration problem; and (4) 

reintroducing fire via prescribed burning will promote 

oak reproduction. The scientific literature supports the 

first three parts to varying degrees. For example, paleoecological studies and historical documents indicate that 

American Indian tribes used fire for numerous reasons 

(Day 1953, Patterson 2006, Ruffner 2006, Wilkins and 

others 1991). Many studies report the growth strategy and 

physiological differences between oaks and mesophytic 

hardwood species (Gottschalk 1985, 1987, 1994; Kolb 

and others 1990) and the concomitant decline of fire 

and increase in mesophytic hardwoods during the early 

1900s is evident from fire history research (Aldrich and 

others 2010, Guyette and others 2006, Hutchinson and 

others 2008, Shumway and others 2001). It remains hard 

to verify the fourth part of the fire-oak hypothesis— that prescribed burning promotes oaks—as the results 

reported in the literature vary widely. Results range from 

positive (Brown 1960, Kruger and Reich 1997, Swan 

1970, Ward and Stephens 1989), to neutral (Hutchinson 

and others 2005a, Merritt and Pope 1991, Teuke and 

Van Lear 1982), to negative (Collins and Carson 2003, 

Johnson 1974, Loftis 1990, Wendel and Smith 1986). This 

confusion among findings inhibits resource managers 

from making more and better use of prescribed fire to 

regenerate and restore eastern oak forests. A systematic 

MAKING SENSE OUT OF CONFUSION: 

A REVIEW OF FIRE-oak papers published in the past 50 years

Patrick H. Brose and Thomas A. Waldrop1

Abstract—The existing fire-oak literature is contradictory on whether fire helps or hinders the oak regeneration process. 

This confusion occurs because the fire-oak studies have been conducted under a wide variety of conditions. In this paper, 

we review the fire-oak literature by stand age class, season of burn, and number of burns to identify commonalities and 

trends. Overall, prescribed fire reduces the density of small diameter stems in the midstory, preferentially selects for oak 

reproduction and against mesophytic hardwood reproduction, equalizes the height growth rates between these two species 

groups, and promotes the establishment of new oak seedlings. Generally, prescribed burning provides the most benefit to 

oak reproduction when the fires occur during the growing season and several years after a substantial reduction in overstory 

density. Single fires conducted in closed-canopy stands have little impact in the short term, but multiple burns eventually do 

benefit oaks in the long term, especially when followed by a canopy disturbance.

1

Patrick Brose, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Irvine, PA 16329

Thomas Waldrop, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC 29634

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 13

review of the fire-oak literature would cut through this 

confusion and shed light on the conditions under which 

prescribed fire helps or hinders the oak regeneration 

process.

METHODS

For this review, we obtained 59 fire-oak papers that 

have been published within the past 50 years in various 

conference proceedings and scientific journals (table 1). 

We sorted the papers by stand type (mature, young, or 

immature), season of burn (dormant or growing), and 

number of fires [single (1), dual (2), or multiple (>2)] 

based on the site descriptions and methods provided in 

the text. Mature stands were those in the understory reinitiation stage of development (Oliver and Larson 1990) 

and were characterized by an intact, closed-canopy, 

fully stocked overstory. These were stands that had been 

undisturbed for years or had only been recently disturbed 

by light, thin-from-below treatments. These stands 

were at the beginning of the oak regeneration process. 

They either lacked oak seedlings or the seedlings were 

quite small. Young stands were ones undergoing a 

shelterwood harvest sequence or had recently received 

a final harvest. In these stands, the oak and mesophytic 

hardwood reproduction was abundant and vigorous. They 

were near or at the end of the oak regeneration process. 

Immature stands are intermediate between young and 

mature stands. Their canopies had recently closed, but 

they were several decades from being mature. They 

were in the stem exclusion stage of stand development 

(Oliver and Larson 1990). Dormant-season fires occur 

between leaf abscission in autumn and leaf expansion 

the following spring. During this time, the hardwood 

reproduction is not photosynthesizing, although sap 

flow may be occurring, as early spring is included in the 

dormant season. Growing-season fires occur from leaf 

expansion in the spring to leaf abscission in autumn. The 

exact starting time of the growing season for prescribed 

burning purposes is highly variable, as it is governed by 

location, weather, and the physiological characteristics of 

the hardwood species.

After sorting the papers by stand type, season of 

burn, and number of prescribed fires, we examined 

the quantitative data provided in the results section 

of each paper to determine whether the fire treatment 

effects were positive, negative, or ambiguous for the oak 

reproduction. Positive results for the oak reproduction 

were absolute increases in oak seedling density via 

establishment of new germinants, relative increases to 

the oak portion of the regeneration pool via differential 

survival rates between oak and mesophytic hardwoods, 

and acceleration of oak seedling height growth postfire 

relative to that of other species. Negative fire effects to 

the oak reproduction were the opposite of the positive 

results, such as decreases in the absolute or relative 

abundance of oak reproduction or loss of the relative oak 

seedling height growth. Ambiguous results were when 

there was no or little meaningful change in competitive 

relationships between oak and mesophyitic hardwood 

reproduction from pre-burn to post-burn.

RESULTS

Mature Stands

As previously stated, these stands are in the understory 

re-initiation stage of development (Oliver and Larson 

1990). The overstory is intact with stocking levels 

exceeding 80 percent. The midstory is ubiquitous and 

well developed. Dense shade covers the forest floor 

and strongly influences understory composition and 

growth. Generally, these stands have not experienced any 

substantial disturbance for decades. Of the 59 fire-oak 

papers, 39 (66 percent) took place in mature stands and 

37 (95 percent) of those involved dormant-season fires 

(table 1). These were relatively evenly spread among the 

number of fires (11 single burns, 11 dual burns, and 17 

multiple burns) and among effects on oak (11 ambiguous, 

11 negative, 17 positive). However, when we combined 

these two groupings (number of fires and effects on oak), 

a pattern of improving benefit to oak as the number of 

fires increased was evident (table 2). The remainder 

of this section will review some of the noteworthy 

publications that are representative of the studies 

conducted in mature stands.

One fire—The effect of a single prescribed fire on 

existing oak seedlings was either negative or ambiguous 

(table 2). Of the 11 studies, 7 found that the number of 

oak seedlings decreased following the fire while the 

other 4 found no substantial change. Noteworthy negative 

studies include Johnson (1974), Huntley and McGee 

(1983), Loftis (1990), and Wendel and Smith (1986). 

Studies reporting ambiguous results include Albrecht and 

McCarthy (2006), Dolan and Parker (2004), Elliott and 

others (2004), and Teuke and Van Lear (1982). Of these, 

the Johnson (1974) study is fairly typical in terms of 

study design, implementation and outcome.

Johnson’s (1974) study took place in southwestern 

Wisconsin and involved the Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USFS) North Central Forest 

Experiment Station and the Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources. The study site was an 8-acre 

stand dominated by northern red oak. The stand was 

moderately thinned from below (basal area reduced 

from 120 to 80 cubic feet per acre) in fall 1969. At this 

same time, an acorn crop resulted in the establishment 

of 7,000 new red oak seedlings per acre in spring 1970. 

A year later, the stand was split in two and one section 
14 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

was burned with a low-intensity prescribed fire while the 

other served as an unburned control. Data collected that 

fall indicated that the burned seedlings had a 40 percent 

survival rate while the control seedlings had a 90 percent 

survival rate. The fire had killed approximately half of 

the northern red oak seedlings.

One of the criticisms of the Johnson (1974) study is that 

it reports results collected from one inventory conducted 

just a few months after the fire. A comparable study 

with a longer interval between treatment and inventory 

is Wendel and Smith (1986). That study occurred in 

east-central West Virginia and was a cooperative effort 

by the USFS Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 

the Washington National Forest, and the West Virginia 

Department of Natural Resources. Like the Johnson 

study, this site was thinned to 90 cubic feet per acre 

basal area and burned a year later. Prior to the fire, 

desirable hardwood reproduction was 3,814 stems per 

acre and 5 years later the density was 3,500 stems per 

acre. However, within these numbers the amount of 

oak dropped by nearly 80 percent while the amount of 

red maple and black locust (Robinia psuedoacacia L.) 

increased by 17 and 120 percent, respectively. Clearly, 

the fire had a negative impact on the oak regeneration 

process.

Why did these prescribed fires produce such negative 

results for the oak reproduction? The main factor in both 

of these studies was that the oak seedlings were small 

and had been growing in dense understory shade for all 

of their lives. Consequently, they had small root systems 

with little root carbohydrate reserves and simply could 

not sprout postfire. Second, the prescribed fires were 

conducted in mid- to late-April so the small seedlings 

may have already begun expanding their leaves, further 

lowering their root carbohydrate reserves. Finally, 

neither study excluded white-tailed deer from the sites 

so excessive deer browsing may have subsequently 

eliminated many oaks that sprouted postfire. Regardless 

of why these studies had a negative impact on oak 

reproduction, it is evident that prescribed burning 

could impede the oak regeneration process under some 

circumstances.

Another potential negative impact of prescribed fires on 

the oak regeneration process is their effect on recently 

fallen acorns. This facet of fire and the oak regeneration 

process was the earliest one reported in the scientific 

literature (Korstian 1927). He found that fires exceeding 

400 °F readily killed acorns, but there was a mortality 

gradient among species with acorns of the red oak group 

surviving fire at a higher rate than those of the white 

oak group. Korstian surmised that this gradient was 

caused by the differences in germination timing (fall for 

white oaks, spring for red oaks) between the two groups. 

Subsequent research has confirmed that acorns are easily 

killed by fires (Auchmoody and Smith 1993, Dey and Fan 

2009, Greenberg and others 2012). 

Two fires—The studies utilizing two prescribed fires 

showed varying responses (tables 1 and 2). Four papers 

reported ambiguous effects (Franklin and others 2003, 

McGee and others 1995, Merritt and Pope 1991) on 

oak reproduction with five showing positive outcomes 

(Barnes and Van Lear 1998, Schuler and others 2013) and 

two showing negative outcomes (Arthur and others 1998, 

Luken and Shea 2000). Illustrative of this confusion are 

the two oak sites that were part of the National Fire and 

Fire Surrogate Project as they report differing outcomes 

between sites as well as among topographic positions 

(Iverson and others 2008, Waldrop and others 2008).

The oak sites of the National Fire and Fire Surrogates 

Project located in western North Carolina and southern 

Ohio examined the responses of hardwood reproduction 

and many other variables to prescribed fire and 

mechanical fuel reduction treatments. Dormant-season 

strip-heading fires were conducted twice at both sites 

with and without a mechanical treatment. In North 

Carolina, the mechanical treatment was chainsaw felling 

of shrubs, while midstory and overstory thinning was 

the mechanical treatment used in Ohio. Oak regeneration 

varied by treatment at both the sites. In North Carolina, 

the oaks showed little response to any treatment during 

the first year after treatment but increased significantly 

in number between years 1 and 3 in the burn-only and 

mechanical + burn plots. A decrease was observed in 

year 5 after the second burn but the difference was not 

significant. The mechanical-only treatment had little 

initial impact on oak regeneration in North Carolina but 

a significant increase was observed between years 3 and 

5. Oak reproduction decreased at Ohio in all treatment 

units during the first year after treatment, although the 

difference was not significant in the mechanical-only 

treatment unit. No changes occurred between years 

1 and 4.

Competitors of oak tended to follow the same patterns 

at North Carolina and Ohio. Red maple showed little 

response to treatment during the first year in North 

Carolina, but in Ohio there were significant decreases 

in number of red maple seedlings in all treatments, 

including the control. Burning, with and without 

mechanical treatment, significantly increased red maple 

numbers at years 3 (North Carolina) or 4 (Ohio) but 

the second burn in North Carolina reduced numbers to 

pretreatment levels. Yellow-poplar increased over time 

in the mechanical-only plots in Ohio. However, this 

response was small in comparison to the large increase 

in numbers of yellow-poplar seedlings observed the first 

year after burning at both sites. These numbers decreased 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 15

by the third measurement at both sites and even more 

after the second burn in North Carolina. This result 

agrees with the results of Brose and Van Lear (1998) who 

emphasized the need for prescribed burning after yellowpoplar seedlings become established. Oaks were four to 

six times more numerous after the second burn in North 

Carolina than were seedlings of yellow-poplar. The burnonly treatment changed stand structure by reducing the 

sapling/shrub layer but it did little to thin the overstory.

Iverson and others (2008) used the same study area in 

Ohio reported by Waldrop and others (2008) to compare 

treatment impacts as they varied across different 

positions of the landscape. Study plots in Ohio were 

larger than those in North Carolina (50 acres vs. 20 

acres) thus allowing a comparison of treatment impacts 

across dry and mesic sites. The drier landscape positions 

generally had more intense fires, more canopy openness, 

and more oak and hickory advance regeneration; several 

other tree species also exhibited marked landscape 

variation in regeneration after treatments. Though 

advance regeneration of several competing species 

became abundant after the initial treatments, the 

second fires reduced the high densities of the two major 

competitors, red maple and yellow-poplar. The authors 

suggested that on dry or intermediate sites with at least 

2,000 oak and hickory seedlings per acre, opening the 

canopy to 8.5–19 percent followed by at least two fires 

should promote oak and hickory to be “competitive” over 

about 50 percent of the area. However, no appreciable oak 

and hickory regeneration developed on mesic sites. 

The study by Iverson and others (2008) on relatively 

large (>50 acres) treatment units showed some promise 

and also showed some of the problems that managers 

face. Though thinning and burning increased the density 

of oak advance regeneration, there also was ample 

competition from species that had different strategies 

in dealing with the new conditions brought about by the 

thinning and burning. There was a large spatial variation 

in oak regeneration across the large sites because 

topography, fire intensity, and canopy openness were also 

highly variable. 

More than two fires—Even though prescribed burning 

in hardwoods has been discussed for several decades, it 

was not used on an operational scale until the 1980s (Van 

Lear and Waldrop 1991). Consequently, long-term studies 

involving multiple fires in hardwood forests are rare, but 

a number of new publications are available describing 

results after three or four periodic fires. Generally, these 

studies describe positive effects of multiple prescribed 

fires on oak reproduction, but a few report negative 

effects (tables 1 and 2). 

One of the longest running fire studies in eastern 

hardwood forests is located in south-central Tennessee 

(Stratton 2007). Since 1962, an oak barren has been 

burned in late winter annually or every 5 years. During 

that time, oak has come to dominate the understory 

as mesophyitc hardwood reproduction gradually died 

out. An interesting finding is that none of the oak 

reproduction has ever successfully grown into the canopy 

in any of the fire treatments. Apparently, a 5-year fire 

return interval is too short for oak reproduction to grow 

large enough to withstand a surface fire without being 

topkilled and forced to sprout again.

Blankenship and Arthur (2006) used a study site on the 

Cumberland Plateau in eastern Kentucky to examine 

stand structure after prescribed burning two or three 

times. The same study site was used by Green and 

others (2010) after another set of burns (three and four 

burns) to examine oak and red maple seedling survival. 

Burning was conducted by backing fire down the ridge 

and by point source or strip heading fires if a higher 

intensity was desired. The first two fires were in the 

dormant season; later burns were in the growing season. 

Burning altered stand structure by reducing overstory 

stem density by 30 percent and midstory stem density 

by 91 percent (Blankenship and Arthur 2006). Midstory 

oak and red maple stem densities were reduced by 94 

and 85 percent, respectively. Damaged or dead overstory 

and midstory stems sprouted to greatly increase the 

number of trees in the ground layer, with oak, red maple, 

and dogwood being most common after three burns. 

Green and others (2010) tagged chestnut oak, scarlet 

oak, and red maple seedlings to follow survival and 

growth through three and four prescribed fires. Burning 

reduced the numbers of seedlings of all three species, 

but scarlet oak had significantly higher survival than 

chestnut oak and red maple. Scarlet oaks burned four 

times were significantly taller than chestnut oak and red 

maple burned either three or four times. Overall, scarlet 

oaks had better survival and growth than red maples, 

but red maples were not eliminated as some continued 

to resprout. Both papers (Blankenship and Arthur 2006, 

Green and others 2010) emphasized that after several 

burns, oak regeneration was in a better competitive 

position than was red maple, but goals of producing 

predominately oak regeneration had not been reached. 

Additional trials with other burning regimes and/or 

silvicultural tools would be necessary to reach that goal.

Alexander and others (2008), also working in Kentucky, 

had similar results to Blankenship and Arthur (2006) 

and Green and others (2010). Numbers of mid-story 

trees were reduced by burning one or three times, but 

sprouting caused large increases in the numbers of trees 

in the smaller size classes. Both single and repeated 

prescribed burns increased understory light and reduced 
16 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

red maple survival. However, neither burning regime 

placed oaks in an improved competitive position. The 

authors suggest that successful oak regeneration is 

difficult to predict because it is controlled by three highly 

variable and interdependent factors: life history traits of 

oaks compared to competitors, pre-burn stature of oak 

seedlings, and variability of fire temperature and how it 

affects light. Although not suggested by these authors, 

other factors that also control oak regeneration are site 

quality and position on the landscape (aspect and position 

on the slope).

Hutchinson and others (2005a, b) studied regeneration 

after two and four dormant-season prescribed burns 

on xeric, intermediate, and mesic sites in southern 

Ohio. Burning, conducted by strip heading fires, had 

little impact on overstory trees over 10-inch diameter 

at breast height (dbh). Smaller trees (4 to 10 inch dbh) 

were reduced in density by 31 percent by burning twice 

and by 19 percent by burning four times. The two-burn 

treatment had higher fire intensity, resulting in greater 

mortality of small trees. Burning also reduced sapling 

density by 86 percent. Regeneration after burning was 

abundant and largely of the same species as were killed 

by burning. In this trial, results were similar among 

xeric, intermediate, and mesic sites. The largest change 

was brought about by the higher fire intensities associated 

with the two-burn scenario because they better opened 

the canopy to a greater degree. In addition, burning at 

longer intervals may allow greater buildup of fuels, as 

stems and branches of trees killed by one fire fall over 

and become fuel for the next fire. Waldrop and others 

(2010) found that after burning, fine woody fuels increase 

in abundance over time until the next prescribed fire. A 

factor often overlooked is delayed mortality, which can 

occur for several years after a single fire. Yaussy and 

Waldrop (2010) showed that the likelihood of mortality 

was related to prior tree health, size class, species, and 

first-order fire effects. Hutchinson and others (2012) 

concluded that periodic fire, coupled with natural gap 

dynamics, may be a feasible management strategy for 

perpetuating oak forests where harvesting is not an 

option.

Growing-season fire—In our survey of the fire and oak 

literature, we found only three studies reporting results 

of a single growing-season fire (foliage of mesophytic 

hardwood reproduction was more than 50 percent 

expanded) in a mature stand. The Barnes and Van Lear 

(1998) study occurred on the Clemson University Forest 

in South Carolina, while the Brose and others (2007) 

and Gottschalk and others (2013) studies took place in 

Pennsylvania on the Clear Creek and Moshannon State 

Forests, respectively. 

Barnes and Van Lear (1998) compared a single growingseason fire in 1992 to three dormant-season fires 

conducted in 1900, 1992, and 1993. All burns began with 

backing fires and were completed with strip heading 

fires. Oak density was not significantly different between 

the two burning treatments. However, the single growing 

season burn was as effective at promoting open growing 

conditions, as were the three dormant-season burns. 

Burning in the growing season was also more effective 

at reducing competition from yellow-poplar. This study 

suggests that even though burning in the growing season 

is more difficult than in the dormant season because of 

increased humidity and shading, it can be more effective 

and, ultimately, less expensive.

In the two Pennsylvania studies, postfire sprouting of oak 

seedlings was 65 percent less than that of mesophytic 

hardwood reproduction. This large difference between 

the two species groups was likely due to the oak 

seedlings having much smaller root systems relative to 

the larger non-oak reproduction.

Two or more growing-season fires—None of the 

prescribed fire studies conducted in mature hardwood 

stands fell into this group. However, a long-term fire 

study conducted in pine-dominated stands on the Santee 

Experimental Forest of South Carolina does provide some 

insight into this type of fire regime (Langdon 1981, Lewis 

and Harshbarger 1976, Lotti and others 1960, McKee 

1982). The study was established in 1946 with annual 

and periodic (3 to 5 years) burning conducted in summer 

and winter until Hurricane Hugo severely damaged the 

study in September 1989. Waldrop and others (1992) 

reported on changes to vegetation through 43 years of 

treatment. When plots were burned every 3 to 5 years, 

in either summer or winter, trees over 5 inches dbh were 

largely unaffected as they were too tall and their bark 

was too thick to be impacted by low-intensity burning. 

Hardwoods between 1 and 5 inches dbh were topkilled 

gradually over time. These stems then sprouted, resulting 

in a large increase in stems less than 1 inch dbh. Annual 

winter burning produced similar results but had the 

largest number of sprouts. With each of these treatments, 

vegetation had at least one growing season to recover 

from burning. It was only in the annual summer burn 

treatment that hardwoods were nearly eliminated from 

the forest floor, and that required many burns. The most 

resilient species were the oaks, which persisted through 

18 to 20 annual summer fires (Langdon 1981). This result 

has been cited by many authors as an indication of the 

competitive advantage of oaks over other hardwoods in 

a regime of frequent burning. However, density of oak 

competitors increased in all fire regimes except annual 

summer burning, which is impractical for almost all land 

managers.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 17

Young Stands

These stands received a complete or heavy partial 

harvest (≥50 percent basal area reduction) or comparable 

disturbance within the past 10 years. They are at the 

end of the understory re-initiation stage (overstory still 

somewhat intact, but it no longer controls understory 

development) or in the stand initiation stage (Oliver 

and Larson 1990). Examples of young stands include 

those that have recently received a final harvest, stands 

undergoing a two-cut shelterwood sequence, and stands 

heavily damaged by insects, weather, or wildfire. The key 

characteristics of these stands are that the event released 

the hardwood reproduction from dense understory 

shading and there has been sufficient time (≥3 growing 

seasons) for that reproduction to respond to the release. 

We found 16 fire-oak papers involving young stands 

(tables 1 and 3). Unlike the papers reporting results of 

burning in mature stands, only six of these involved 

dormant-season fires, while eight used growing-season 

burns (note that three papers provided data on both 

seasons of burn). Similarly, the fire studies in young 

stands were not evenly distributed by number of burns 

and effects on oak reproduction like those conducted 

in mature stands. Rather, they were concentrated in the 

single fire and positive effects categories. 

Dormant-season fires—Just six papers reported results

of single fires conducted during the dormant season and 

all of these originated from three studies. Huntley and 

McGee (1981) burned 3-year-old hardwood clearcuts in 

northern Alabama. They found that the dormant-season 

fire reduced the density of yellow-poplar reproduction, 

but had virtually no impact on that of red maple. Density 

of oak reproduction was also unaffected. In central 

Virginia, Brose and Van Lear (1998) investigated the 

impact of a single dormant-season burn on hardwood 

reproduction in oak shelterwood stands. Like the 

Alabama study, they found decreases in the density of 

yellow-poplar reproduction, but little reduction of red 

maple density, except where the fires were intense. A 

follow-up study (Brose 2010) showed that these initial 

findings persisted, especially on the more intensely 

burned plots, and were leading towards eventual oak 

domination.

Growing-season fires—Research into the effects of 

growing-season fires (foliage of mesophytic hardwood 

reproduction was more than 50 percent expanded) is 

limited. We found eight papers that had growing-season 

prescribed fires as one of the treatments. In central 

Virginia, Keyser and others (1996) found that summer 

fires in oak shelterwood stands reduced the density of red 

maple and yellow-poplar seedlings by 82 percent and 97 

percent, respectively, relative to the unburned controls. 

Oak reproduction decreased by only 11 percent following 

summer burning. Post-fire height growth among the 

species groups was equal. This small study spawned a 

more comprehensive research project, also conducted in 

central Virginia, that examined late spring and summer 

prescribed fires as treatments in oak shelterwood stands 

(Brose and Van Lear 1998, Brose and others 1999). The 

previous summer-burn results were verified. Densities 

of red maple and yellow-poplar reproduction declined 

by 46 percent and 72 percent, respectively, while oak 

seedling density dropped by only 5 percent. Additionally, 

late spring burning (foliage of mesophytic hardwood 

reproduction was more than 50 percent expanded) 

resulted in a 45 percent decline in stem density for the 

two non-oak species. The importance of fire intensity 

was evident in that the largest reductions in stem 

densities of maples and yellow-poplars occurred where 

the fires burned the hottest. These outcomes were still 

present 11 years later, especially the relationship between 

fire intensity and oak dominance (Brose 2010).

Besides burning in oak shelterwoods, growing-season 

fires after the final harvest have been studied to a limited 

extent. In Connecticut, Ward and Brose (2004) found that 

mortality of black birch ranged from 66 to 86 percent 

following late spring burning (foliage of mesophytic 

hardwood reproduction was more than 50 percent 

expanded) in a recently-regenerated, mixed hardwood 

stand. Mortality of red maple averaged 15 percent, but 

exhibited wide variability, 0 to 100 percent, depending 

on fire intensity and size of the red maple reproduction 

prior to the fires. Oak mortality averaged just 9 percent 

with low variability. In Pennsylvania, Brose (2013) 

investigated the effects of early-May prescribed fires 

on hardwood reproduction in former oak stands that 

had recently received the final harvest of a three-cut 

shelterwood sequence. Like in Connecticut, black birch 

exhibited large decreases in stem densities (~90 percent) 

while stem density of red maple declined approximately 

50 percent. Density of oak reproduction was unchanged 

by the burning; virtually all oak stems sprouted after the 

fires. Likewise, densities of black cherry, cucumbertree 

(Magnolia acuminata L.), and serviceberry (Amelanchier 

arborea Michx.f.) Fern.) seedlings were the same after 

the fires as before. Besides reducing the stem densities 

of black birch and red maple, the growing-season fire 

equalized the height growth among the various species.

Immature Stands

Only four publications address fire effects during the 

stem exclusion stage (table 1). All are reviewed here.

In southern West Virginia, Carvell and Maxey (1969) 

studied a sapling stand partly burned by an autumn 

wildfire 5 years earlier. In the unburned portion, yellow-
18 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

poplar was the dominant species in terms of density and 

size. However in the burned section, oak and hickory 

(Carya spp. Nutt.) dominated. They noted that 40 to 70 

percent of the saplings that survived the fire had large 

basal scars and concluded that fire was a poor means to 

manipulate species composition in sapling stands given 

the loss of future timber value.

In southern Pennsylvania, Abrams and Johnson (2013) 

reported that an intense fall wildfire in a 15-year-old 

mixed oak stand resulted in a 43 percent reduction in 

stem density, including fewer oaks and black cherry 

and an increase in low-value trees like black locust. 

Additionally, the surviving oaks suffered major damage 

to their boles that will persist for decades and decrease 

the ultimate future value of the stand.

Maslen (1989) reported on a single high-intensity 

dormant-season strip-heading fire in a mixed hardwood 

pole stand in the Piedmont of North Carolina. This study 

looked at understory characteristics 7 years after burning, 

giving a slightly longer-term view of fire impacts. By 

then, there were no significant differences in the numbers 

of oaks and competitors less than 2 feet tall, as seedlings 

and sprouts had grown into the next larger size class. In 

the 2- to 12-foot height class, oaks, yellow-poplar, and all 

other species were significantly higher in number than 

prior to burning. Oaks over 12 feet tall at the time of the 

fire were essentially unaffected by burning; they survived 

the fire. The results of this study indicated that a single 

prescribed fire did little to the stand other than to remove 

small regeneration and allow sprouts to grow back over 

time.

In Connecticut, Ward and Stephens (1989) report the 

long-term (55-year) effects of a summer wildfire that 

burned through part of a 30-year-old mixed hardwood 

stand in 1932. Prior to the wildfire, the stand contained 

approximately 1,050 stems >1.0 inch dbh per acre and 

74.0 square feet per acre of basal area. Oak and hickory 

comprised 21.3 and 6.4 percent of the stems, respectively, 

with the balance consisting of birch, maple, and other 

hardwoods. In the years just after the 1932 fire, stem 

densities and basal area in the burned area dropped by 

84 and 38 percent, respectively, with few differences 

among species. In the subsequent decades in the burned 

area, stem densities quickly recovered due to sprouting 

of the fire-killed stems before declining due to natural 

stand thinning. At the same time, basal area gradually 

increased. By 1987, stem densities and basal areas were 

similar in the burned and unburned areas, but the burned 

area contained considerably more oak than the unburned 

area; 160 stems per acre versus 65 stems per acre. The 

negative effects of the 1932 fire were the widespread bole 

damage of the trees that survived the fire and the poor 

stem form of many of the sprouts that developed postfire.

DISCUSSION 

From tables 1, 2, and 3, and the observations, insights, 

and interpretations provided in the reviewed fire-oak 

papers, several findings and trends emerge that are useful 

to managers of oak-dominated ecosystems. They are:

Many factors influence the outcome of a prescribed 

fire. Among these, the important biological ones are the 

developmental stage of the oak stand and the degree of 

root development by the oak reproduction. Important 

fire factors are season of burn, fire intensity, and 

their interaction. Finally, critical site factors include 

topography and the disturbance history of the stand, both 

of which influence fire behavior, fire size, and the species 

composition of the reproduction.

In mature stands (understory re-initiation stage), as 

the number of fires increases, so does the benefit to 

oak. Single fires and the initial burn of a multi-fire 

sequence will provide little, if any, benefit to the oak 

reproduction and may actually be detrimental in the 

short term. Conversely, multiple burns spread over a 

decade or more will generally benefit the oak component 

of the regeneration pool via an improved seedbed for 

oak seedling establishment and enhanced understory 

light conditions for the subsequent growth of the new 

seedlings and any existing oak reproduction.

In young stands (initiation stage), single fires can rapidly 

benefit the oak reproduction. This is likely due to 

differences in root development between the oaks and the 

competing mesophytic hardwoods that give the oaks a 

higher postfire sprouting probability.

In immature stands (stem exclusion stage), prescribed fire 

can increase the relative proportion of oak, but there will 

be large economic losses due to bole damage to the trees 

that survive the fire and stem defect (crook and sweep) of 

the new sprouts.

Among the various eastern species, post-fire sprouting 

ability of the reproduction varies widely. Some are 

non-sprouters (eastern hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis (L.) 

Carr.) and eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.), some are 

poor sprouters (sweet birch and yellow-poplar), some are 

moderate sprouters (blackgum and red maple), and some 

are excellent sprouters (oak and hickory). A species’ 

sprouting ability is a function of its capability to form 

dormant basal buds coupled with its germination strategy 

(epigeal or hypogeal), its juvenile growth strategy (rootcentric or stem-centric), and its shade tolerance, i.e., 

the optimal light regime for juvenile growth. Sprouting 

ability is also influenced by season of burn, fire intensity, 

and their interaction. 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 19

Growing-season fires will have more impact, i.e., kill 

more stems, than dormant-season fires because the 

vegetation is physiologically active. Similarly, multiple 

fires kill more stems than single fires due to accumulated 

damage on midstory and overstory trees. Across the 

range of prescribed fire regimes, a single dormant-season 

fire will have the least impact on forest structure while 

multiple growing-season fires will have the most impact. 

Multiple dormant-season fires and single growing-season 

fires will have an intermediate impact. Within any of 

these, fire intensity will also play a role, as hotter fires 

have more impact than cooler fires. 

Immediate mortality from a single fire is mostly confined 

to the regeneration layer and small saplings (<3 inch dbh). 

Midstory trees, large saplings (3 to 6 inch dbh) and polesize trees (6 to 10 inch dbh), are periodically killed and 

some may succumb to delayed mortality. Overstory trees 

(>11 inch dbh) are generally unscathed unless there is an 

accumulation of fuel at or near their bases. 

Long-term fire studies in young stands are needed. We 

found only 10 fire studies done in oak shelterwoods or 

recently regenerated oaks stands, and just one of them 

reported results more than 10 years postfire. While the 

vast majority of these studies reported positive results 

for the oak reproduction, more research is needed to 

understand the other ramifications of this approach.

In some situations, prescribed burning can make the 

oak regeneration process more difficult. If conducted 

shortly after a good masting event, fire will kill many 

of the acorns on the ground. Small oak seedlings with 

undeveloped root systems are virtually defenseless 

against a fire, especially a growing season burn. 

Prescribed fires can also cause a large influx of new 

non-oak seedlings from seed stored in the forest floor, 

exacerbate invasive species problems, and incite 

excessive browsing by white-tailed deer.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is the product of many conversations with 

many scientists over the years. We are especially 

indebted to David Van Lear — the “father” of prescribed 

burning for sustaining oaks and our advisor when we 

were graduate students at Clemson University many 

years ago. Other contributors via conversations include 

Mary Arthur, Ed Buckner, Daniel Dey, David Loftis, 

Gary Miller, Charles Ruffner, Thomas Schuler, Jeffrey 

Ward, and Daniel Yaussy. Todd Hutchinson and Aaron 

Stottlemyer graciously reviewed an earlier version of this 

manuscript and provided many suggestions that helped 

with brevity and clarity.

literature cited

Abrams, M.D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. 

BioScience. 42: 346-353.

Abrams, M.D.; Downs, J.A. 1990. Successional replacement 

of old-growth white oak by mixed mesophytic hardwoods 

in southwestern Pennsylvania. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 20: 1864-1870.

Abrams, M.D.; Johnson, S.E. 2013. Wildfire damage assessment 

of a young oak forest in Pennsylvania. Journal of Applied Fire 

Science. 23: 91-104.

Albrecht, M.A.; McCarthy, B.C. 2006. Effects of prescribed fire 

and thinning on tree recruitment patterns in central hardwood 

forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 226: 88-103.

Aldrich, S.R.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D.; DeWeese, G.G.; 

Hoss, J.A. 2010. Three centuries of fire in montane pine-oak 

stands on a temperate forest landscape. Applied Vegetation 

Science. 13: 36-46.

Aldrich, P.R.; Parker, G.R.; Severson, J.R.; Michler, C.H. 2005. 

Confirmation of oak recruitment failure in Indiana old-growth 

forest: 75 years of data. Forest Science. 51(5): 406-416.

Alexander, H.D.; Arthur, M.A.; Loftis, D.L.; Green, S.R. 2008. 

Survival and growth of upland oak and co-occurring competitor 

seedlings following single and repeated prescribed fires. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 256: 1021-1030. 

Arthur, M.A.; Paratley, R.D.; Blankenship, B.A. 1998. Single and 

repeated fires affect survival and regeneration of woody and 

herbaceous species in an oak-pine forest. Journal of the Torrey 

Botanical Society. 125: 225-236.

Auchmoody, L.R.; Smith, H.C. 1993. Survival of acorns after fall 

burning. Res. Pap. NE-678. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 5 p.

Barnes, T.A.; Van Lear, D.H. 1998. Prescribed fire effects on 

advanced regeneration in mixed hardwood stands. Southern 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 22: 138-142.

Blankenship, B.A.; Arthur, M.A. 2006. Stand structure over 9 years 

in burned and fire-excluded oak stands on the Cumberland 

Plateau, Kentucky. Forest Ecology and Management. 

225: 134-145.

Brose, P.H. 2010. Long-term effects of single prescribed fires 

on hardwood regeneration in oak shelterwood stands. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 260: 1516-1524.

Brose, P.H. 2013. Post-harvest prescribed burning of oak stands: An 

alternative to the shelterwood-burn technique? In: Miller, G.W.; 

Schuler, T.M.; Gottschalk, K.W. [and others], eds. Proceedings 

of the 18th central hardwoods forest conference. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-P-117. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 352-364.

Brose, P.H.; Miller, G.W.; Gottschalk, K.W. 2007. Reintroducing 

fire to the oak forests of Pennsylvania: response of striped 

maple. In: Powers, R.F., ed. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: 

Proceedings of the 2005 national silviculture workshop. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-203. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 67-77.

Brose, P.H.; Schuler, T.M; Van Lear, D.H.; Berst, J. 2001. Bringing 

fire back: the changing regimes of the Appalachian mixed-oak 

forests. Journal of Forestry. 99(11): 30-35.
20 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Brose, P.H.; Van Lear, D.H. 1998. Responses of hardwood advance 

regeneration to seasonal prescribed fires in oak dominated 

shelterwood stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

28: 331-339.

Brose, P.H.; Van Lear, D.H.; Cooper, R. 1999. Using shelterwood 

harvests and prescribed fire to regenerate oak stands on 

productive upland sites. Forest Ecology and Management. 

113(2): 125-141.

Brown, J.H. 1960. The role of fire in altering the species 

composition of forests in Rhode Island. Ecology. 41(2): 310-316.

Carvell, K.L.; Maxey, W.R. 1969. Wildfire destroys! Bulletin 2. 

Morgantown, WV: West Virginia Agriculture Experiment 

Station: 4-5, 12.

Collins, R.J.; Carson, W.P. 2003. The fire and oak hypothesis: 

Incorporating the influence of deer browsing and canopy 

gaps. In: Van Sambeek, J.W.; Dawson, J.O.; Ponder, F. [and 

others], eds. Proceedings of the 13th central hardwoods forest 

conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-234. St Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station: 44-60. 

Crow, T.R. 1988. Reproductive mode and mechanisms for selfreplacement of northern red oak (Quercus rubra) – a review. 

Forest Science. 34(1):19-40.

Day, G.M. 1953. The Indian as an ecological factor in the 

northeastern forest. Ecology. 34: 329-346.

DeSelm, H.R.; Clebsch, E.E.C.; Rennie, J.C. 1991. Effects of 27 

years of prescribed fire on an oak forest and its soils in middle 

Tennessee. In: Coleman, S.S.; Neary, D.G., eds. Proceedings 

of the 6th biennial southern silviculture research conference. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station: 409-417.

Dey, D.C.; Fan, Z. 2009. A review of fire and oak regeneration and 

overstory recruitment. In: Proceedings of the 3rd fire in eastern 

oak forests conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-46. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station: 2-20.

Dey, D.C., Hartman, G. 2005. Returning fire to Ozark Highland 

forest ecosystems: Effects on advance regeneration. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 217: 37-53.

Dolan, B.J., and G.R. Parker. 2004. Understory response to 

disturbance: an investigation of prescribed burning and 

understory removal treatments. In: Spetich, M.A., ed. Upland 

oak ecology symposium: history, current conditions, and 

sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 285-291. 

Elliott, K.J.; Vose, J.M.; Clinton, B.D.; Knoepp, J.D. 2004. Effects 

of understory burning in a mesic mixed-oak forest of the 

Southern Appalachians. In: Engstrom, R.T.; Galley, K.E.M.; 

de Groot, W.J., eds. Proceedings of the 22nd Tall Timbers fire 

ecology conference. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, 

FL: 272-283.

Fan, Z.; Ma, Z.; Dey, D.C.; Roberts, S.D. 2012. Response of 

advance reproduction of oaks and associated species to repeated 

prescribed fires in upland oak-hickory forests, Missouri. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 266: 160-169.

Franklin, S.B.; Robertson, P.A.; Fralish, J.S. 2003. Prescribed 

burning effects on upland Quercus forest structure and function. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 184: 315-335.

Geisinger, D.R.; Waldrop, T.A.; Haymond, J.L.; Van Lear, D.H. 

1989. Sprout growth following winter and spring felling with 

and without summer broadcast burning. In: Waldrop, T.A., ed. 

Proceedings of pine-hardwood mixtures symposium. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SE-58. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 91-94.

Gilbert, N.L.; Johnson, S.L.; Gleeson, S.K. [and others]. 2003. 

Effects of prescribed fire on physiology and growth of Acer

rubrum and Quercus spp. seedlings in an oak-pine forest on the 

Cumberland Plateau, KY. Journal of Torrey Botanical Society. 

130: 253-264.

Gottschalk, K.W. 1985. Effects of shading on growth and 

development of northern red oak, black oak, black cherry, and 

red maple seedlings I: height, diameter, and root/shoot ratio. In: 

Dawson, J.O.; Majerus, K.A., eds. Proceedings of the 5th central 

hardwoods forest conference. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Univ. 

Illinois Press: 189-195.

Gottschalk, K.W. 1987. Effects of shading on growth and development 

of northern red oak, black oak, black cherry, and red maple 

seedlings. II. Biomass partitioning and prediction. In: Hay, R.L.; 

Woods, F.W.; DeSelm, H., eds. Proceedings of the 6th central 

hardwood forest conference. Knoxville, TN: University of 

Tennessee, Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries: 99-110.

Gottschalk, K.W. 1994. Shade, leaf growth and crown development 

of Quercus rubra, Quercus velutina, Prunus serotina and Acer

rubrum seedlings. Tree Physiology. 14: 735-749.

Gottschalk, K.W.; Miller, G.W.; Brose, P.H. 2013. Advanced oak 

seedling development as influenced by shelterwood treatments, 

fern control, deer fencing, and prescribed fire. In: Miller, G.W.; 

Schuler, T.M.; Gottschalk, K.W. [and others], eds. Proceedings 

of the 18th central hardwoods forest conference. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-P-117. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 466.

Green, S.R.; Arthur, M.A; Blankenship, B.A. 2010. Oak and 

red maple seedling survival and growth following periodic 

prescribed fire on xeric ridgetops on the Cumberland Plateau. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 259: 2256-2266.

Greenberg, C.H.; Keyser, T.L.; Zarnoch, S.J. [and others]. 2012. 

Acorn viability following prescribed fire in upland hardwood 

forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 275: 79-86.

Guyette, R.P.; Dey, D.C.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Muzika, R.M. 2006. 

Fire scars reveal variability and dynamics of eastern fire 

regimes. In: Dickinson, M.B., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: 

delivering science to land managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station: 20-39.

Healy, W.M.; Gottschalk, K.W.; Long, R.P.; Wargo, P.M. 1997. Changes 

in eastern forests: chestnuts are gone, are the oaks far behind? 

In: McClure, C.M.; Wadsworth, K.L., eds. Transactions of the 

62nd North American wildlife and natural resources conference. 

Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute: 249-263.

Huddle, J.A.; Pallardy, S.G. 1996. Effects of long-term annual and 

periodic burning on tree survival and growth in a Missouri Ozark 

oak-hickory forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 82: 1-9.

Huntley, J.C.; McGee, C.E. 1981. Timber and wildlife implications 

of fire in young upland hardwoods. In: Barnett, J.P., ed. 

Proceedings of the 1st biennial southern silviculture research 

conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-34. New Orleans, LA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Forest 

Experiment Station: 56-66.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 21

Huntley, J.C.; McGee, C.E. 1983. Impact of fire on regeneration 

and wildlife habitat in upland hardwoods. In: Proceedings of 

the 1982 Society of American Foresters National Convention: 

158-162.

Hutchinson, T.F.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Sutherland, S.; Sutherland, E.K.; 

Ortt, M.; Iverson, L.R. 2005b. Prescribed fire effects on the 

herbaceous layer of mixed-oak forests. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research 35: 877-890.

Hutchinson, T.F.; Long, R.P.; Ford, R.D.; Sutherland, E.K. 2008. 

Fire history and the establishment of oaks and maples in 

second-growth forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

38: 1184-1198.

Hutchinson, T.F.; Long, R.P.; Rebbeck, J. [and others]. 2012. 

Repeated prescribed fires alter gap-phase regeneration in 

mixed-oak forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

42: 303-314.

Hutchinson, T.F.; Sutherland, E.K.; Yaussy, D.A. 2005a. Effects 

of repeated prescribed fires on the structure, composition, and 

regeneration of mixed-oak forests in Ohio. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 260: 1516-1524.

Iverson, L.R.; Hutchinson, T.F.; Prasad, A.M.; Peters, M.P. 2008. 

Thinning, fire, and oak regeneration across a heterogeneous 

landscape in the Eastern U.S.: 7-year results. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 255: 3135-3050.

Johnson, P.S. 1974. Survival and growth of red oak seedlings 

following a prescribed burn. Res. Note NC-177. St Paul, MN: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station. 6 p. 

Johnson, P.S.; Shifley, S.R.; Rogers, R. 2009. The ecology and 

silviculture of oaks (2nd ed.). New York: CABI Publishing. 

580 p.

Keyser, P.K.; Brose, P.H.; Van Lear, D.H.; Burtner, K.M. 1996. 

Enhancing oak regeneration with fire in shelterwood stands: 

Preliminary trials. In: McClure, C.M.; Wadsworth, K.L., eds. 

Transactions of the 61st North American wildlife and natural 

resources conference. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management 

Institute: 215-219.

Kolb, T.E.; Steiner, K.C.; McCormick, L.H.; Bowersox, T.W. 1990. 

Growth and biomass partitioning of northern red oak and 

yellow-poplar seedlings to light, soil moisture and nutrients in 

relation to ecological strategy. Forest Ecology and Management. 

38: 65-78.

Korstian, C.F. 1927. Factors controlling germination and early 

survival of oaks. Forestry Bulletin 19. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University. 115 p.

Kruger, E.L.; Reich, P.B. 1997. Responses of hardwood regeneration 

to fire in mesic forest openings I: Post-fire community 

dynamics. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27: 1822-1831.

Langdon, O.G. 1981. Some effects of prescribed fire on understory 

vegetation in loblolly pine stands. In: Wood, G.W., ed. 

Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests conference. 

Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W. Baruch Institute: 

143-153.

Lewis, C.E.; Harshbarger, T.J. 1976. Shrub and herbaceous 

vegetation after 20 years of prescribed burning in the South 

Carolina Coastal Plain. Journal of Range Management. 

29: 13-18.

Loftis, D.L. 1990. A shelterwood method for regenerating red oak 

in the Southern Appalachians. Forest Science. 36(4): 917-929.

Loftis, D.L.; McGee, C.E., eds. 1993. Oak regeneration: serious 

problems, practical recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-84. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 319 p.

Lorimer, C.G. 1993. Causes of the oak regeneration problem. In: 

Loftis, D.L.; McGee, C.E., eds. Oak regeneration: serious 

problems, practical recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-84. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 14-39.

Lotti, T.; Klawitter, R.A.; LeGrande, W.P. 1960. Prescribed 

burning for understory control in loblolly pine stands of the 

Coastal Plain. Stat. Pap. 116. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 19 p.

Luken, J.O.; Shea, M. 2000. Repeated prescribed burning at 

Dinsmore Woods State Nature Preserve (Kentucky, USA): 

responses of the understory community. Natural Areas Journal. 

20: 150-158.

Maslen, P. 1989. Response of immature oaks to prescribed fire in 

the North Carolina Piedmont. In: Miller, J.H., ed. Proceedings 

of the 5th biennial southern silviculture research conference. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-34. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station: 259-266.

McGee, C.E. 1979. Fire and other factors related to oak 

regeneration. In: Fischer, B.C.; Holt, H.A., eds. Proceedings 

of the John S. Wright forestry conference. West Lafeyette, 

IN: Purdue University, Department of Forestry and Natural 

Resources: 75-80.

McGee, C.E. 1980. The effect of fire on species dominance in 

young upland hardwood stands. In: Shropshire, F.; Sims, D., eds. 

Proceedings of the mid-south upland hardwood symposium. 

Technical Paper SA-TP-12. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southeastern Area State and Private 

Forestry: 97-104. 

McGee, G.G.; Leopold, D.J.; Nyland, R.D. 1995. Understory 

response to springtime prescribed fire in two New York 

transition oak forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 76: 

149-168.

McKee, W.H. 1982. Changes in soil fertility following prescribed 

burning on Coastal Plains pine sites. Res. Pap. SE-234. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 

Merritt, C.; Pope, P.E. 1991. The effect of environmental factors, 

including wildfire and prescribed burning, on the regeneration 

of oaks in Indiana. Bulletin 612. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue 

University Agricultural Experiment Station. 45 p.

Nowacki, G.J.; Abrams, M.D. 2008. The demise of fire and 

the mesophication of forests in the Eastern United States. 

BioScience. 58(2): 123-138.

Oliver, C.D.; Larson, B.C. 1990. Forest stand dynamics. New York 

City, NY: McGraw Hill. 520 p.

Patterson, W.P. 2006. The paleoecology of fire and oaks in eastern 

forests. In: Dickinson, M.B., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: 

delivering science to land managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station: 2-19.

Paulsell, L.K. 1957. Effects of burning on Ozark hardwood 

timberlands. Bulletin 640. Columbia, MO: University of 

Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station. 24 p.
22 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Reich, P.B.; Abrams, M.D.; Ellsworth, D.S. [and others]. 1990. 

Fire affects ecophysiology and community dynamics of central 

Wisconsin oak forest regeneration. Ecology. 71: 2179-2190.

Ruffner, C.M. 2006. Understanding the evidence for historical fire 

across eastern forests. In: Dickinson, M.B., ed. Fire in eastern 

oak forests: delivering science to land managers. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 40-48.

Sasseen, A.N.; Muzika, R.M. 2004. Timber harvesting, prescribed 

fire, and vegetation dynamics in the Missouri Ozarks. In: 

Yaussy, D.A.; Hix, D.M.; Long, R.P.; Goebel, P.C., eds. 

Proceedings of the 14th central hardwood forest conference. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-316. Newtown Square, PA: Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station: 179-192. 

Schuler, T.M.; Gillespie, A.R. 2000. Temporal patterns of woody 

species diversity in a central Appalachian forest from 1856 to 

1997. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 127(2): 149-161.

Schuler, T.M.; Thomas-Van Gundy, M.; Adams, M.B.; Ford, 

W.M. 2013. Analysis of two pre-shelterwood prescribed fires 

in a mesic mixed-oak forest in West Virginia. In: Miller, G.W.; 

Schuler, T.M.; Gottschalk, K.W. [and others], eds. Proceedings 

of the 18th central hardwoods forest conference. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-P-117. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 430-446. 

Shumway, D.L.; Abrams, M.D.; Ruffner, C.M. 2001. A 400-year 

history of fire and oak recruitment in an old-growth oak forest 

in western Maryland. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

31: 1437-1443.

Signell, S.A.; Abrams, M.D.; Hovis, J.C.; Henry, S.W. 2005. Impact 

of multiple fires on stand structure and tree regeneration 

in central Appalachian oak forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 218: 146-158.

Stottlemyer, A.D. 2011. Ecosystem responses to fuel reduction 

treatments in stands killed by southern pine beetle. Clemson, 

SC: Clemson University. 184 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Stratton, R.L. 2007. Effects of long-term late winter prescribed 

fire on forest stand dynamics, small mammal populations, and 

habitat demographics in a Tennessee oak barrens. Knoxville, 

TN: University of Tennessee. 89 p. M.S. thesis.

Swan, F.R. 1970. Post-fire response of four plant communities in 

south-central New York State. Journal of Ecology. 

51(6): 1074-1082.

Teuke, M.J.; Van Lear, D.H. 1982. Prescribed burning and oak 

advance regeneration in the southern Appalachians. Res. Pap. 

30. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Forestry Commission. 24 p.

Thor, E.; Nichols, G.M. 1973. Some effects of fires on litter, soil, 

and hardwood regeneration. In: Proceedings of the 13th Tall 

Timbers fire ecology conference. Tallahasee, FL: Tall Timbers 

Research, Inc.: 317-329.

Van Lear, D.H.; Waldrop, T.A. 1991. Prescribed burning for 

regeneration. In: Duryea, M.L.; Dougherty, P.M., eds. Forest 

regeneration manual. Kluwer Academic Publishers: 235-250.

Waldrop, T.A.; Phillips, R.J.; Simon, D.A. 2010. Fuels and fire 

behavior in the southern Appalachian Mountains after fire and 

fire surrogate treatments. Forest Science. 56: 32-45. 

Waldrop, T.A.; White, D.L.; Jones, S.M. 1992. Fire regimes for 

pine-grassland communities in the southeastern United States. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 47: 195-210. 

Waldrop, T.A.; Yaussy, D.A.; Phillips, R.J. [and others]. 2008. Fuel 

reduction treatments affect stand structure of hardwood forests 

in western North Carolina and southern Ohio, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255: 3117-3129.

Wang, G.G.; Van Lear, D.H.; Bauerle, W.L. 2005. Effects of 

prescribed fires on first-year establishment of white oak 

(Quercus alba L.) seedlings in the upper Piedmont of South 

Carolina, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 213: 328-337.

Ward, J.S.; Brose, P.H. 2004. Mortality, survival, and growth of 

individual stems after prescribed burning in recent hardwood 

clearcuts. In: Yaussy, D.A.; Hix, D.M.; Long, R.P.; Goebel, 

P.C., eds. Proceedings of the 14th central hardwoods forest 

conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-316. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station: 193-199.

Ward, J.S.; Stephens, G.R. 1989. Long-term effects of a 1932 

surface fire on stand structure in a Connecticut mixed hardwood 

forest. In: Rink, G.; Budelsky, C.A., eds. Proceedings of the 7th 

central hardwoods forest conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-132. 

St Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

North Central Forest Experiment Station: 267-273.

Wendel, G.W.; Smith, H.C. 1986. Effects of a prescribed fire in 

a central Appalachian oak-hickory stand. Res. Pap. NE-594. 

Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p. 

Wilkins, G.R.; Delcourt, P.A.; Delcourt, H.R. [and others]. 1991. 

Paleoecology of Kentucky since the last glacial maximum. 

Quaternary Research. 36: 224-239.

Will-Wolf, S. 1991. Role of fire in maintaining oaks in mesic oak 

maple forests. In: Proceedings of the oak resource of the upper 

midwest conference. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 

Extension Service: 27-33.

Woodall, C.W.; Morin, R.S.; Steinman, J.R.; Perry, C.H. 2008. 

Status of oak seedlings and saplings in the northern United 

States: implications for sustainability of oak forests. In: Jacobs, 

D.F.; Michler, C.H., eds. Proceedings of the 16th central 

hardwoods forest conference. Gen. Tech. Rep NRS-P-24. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station: 535-542.

Yaussy, D.A.; Waldrop, T.A. 2010. Delayed mortality of eastern 

hardwoods after prescribed fire. In: Stanturf, J.A., ed. 

Proceedings of the 14th biennial southern silviculture research 

conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-121. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 609-612.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 23

Table 1—Prescribed fi re papers reviewed for assessing fi re effects on hardwood reproduction

Publication State Type of stand Season-of-burn

Number of 

burns Effect on oak

lbrecht & McCarthy 2006 OH M D 1 A

Collins & Carson 2003 WV M D 1 N

Dolan & Parker 2004 KY M D 1 A

Elliott & others 2004 NC M D 1 A

Huntley & McGee 1983 AL M D 1 N

Johnson 1974 WI M D 1 N

Loftis 1990 GA M D 1 N

Teuke & Van Lear 1982 SC M D 1 A

Wendel & Smith 1986 WV M D 1 N

Arthur & others 1998 KY M D 2 N

Barnes & Van Lear 1998 SC M D, G 2 P

Franklin & others 2003 KY M D 2 A

Iverson & others 2008 OH M D 2 P

McGee & others 1995 NY M D 2 A

Merritt & Pope 1991 IN M D 2 A

Schuler & others 2013 WV M D 2 P

Waldrop & others 2008 NC M D 2 P

Waldrop & others 2008 OH M D 2 N

Wang & others 2005 SC M D 2 P

Will-Wolf 1991 WI M D 2 A

Alexander & others 2008 KY M D 3 N

Blankenship & Arthur 2006 KY M D 3 A

DeSelm & others 1991 TN M D 10+ P 

Dey & Hartman 2005 MO M D 4 P 

Fan & others 2012 MO M D 4 P

Gilbert & others 2003 KY M D 3 A

Green & others 2010 KY M D 3 A

Huddle & Pallardy 1996 MO M D 10+ P

Hutchinson and others 2005a, b OH M D 4 P

Hutchinson & others 2012 OH M D 4 P 

Luken & Shea 2000 KY M D 3 N

Paulsell 1957 MO M D 10+ P

Sassen & Muzika 2004 MO M D 4 P

Signell & others 2005 PA M D 4 P

Stratton 2007 TN M D 10+ P

Thor & Nichols 1973 TN M D 10+ P

Brose & others 2007 PA M G 1 N 

Gottschalk & othersa PA M G 1 N

Huntley & McGee 1981, 1983 AL Y D 1 N

McGee 1979, 1980 AL Y D 1 N

Reich & others 1990 WI Y D 1 A

Brose 2010 VA Y D, G 1 P

Brose 2013 PA Y G 1 P

Brose & others 1999 VA Y D, G 1 P

Brose & Van Lear 1998, 2004 VA Y D, G 1 P 

Geisinger & others 1989 SC Y G 1 A

Keyser & others 1996 VA Y G 1 P

Stottlemyer 2011 SC Y G 1 P

Ward & Brose 2004 CT Y G 1 P

Brose a PA Y G 2 P

Kruger & Reich 1997 WI Y G 2 P

Abrams & Johnson 2013 PA I D 1 N

Carvell & Maxey 1969 WV I D 1 P

Maslen 1989 NC I D 1 A

Ward & Stevens 1989 CT I G 1 P

a Unpublished data on fi le at the Forestry Sciences Lab in Irvine, PA or Morgantown, WV.

Studies are organized by stand type (M=Mature, Y=Young, I=Immature), season-of-burn (D=Dormant, G=Growing), and number of fi res (1, 2, or >2). 

Effect on oak abbreviations are A=Ambiguous, N=Negative, P=Positive. 
24 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION

Table 2—Distribution of fi re-oak publications by the number of burns and the effect on oak regeneration process 

for studies conducted in mature stands

 |----------------- Number of Fires ---------------------|

Effect on Oak 1 2 >2 Total

Positive 0 5 12 17

Ambiguous 4 4 3 11

Negative 7 2 2 11

Total 11 11 17 39

Note the trend line illustrating the increasingly positive effects on oak as the number of fi res increase from one to more than two.

Table 3—Distribution of fi re-oak publications by the number of burns and the effect on oak regeneration process 

for studies conducted in young stand 

 |----------------- Number of Fires ---------------------|

Effect on Oak 1 2 >2 Total

Positive 8 2 0 10

Ambiguous 2 0 0 2

Negative 4 0 0 4

Total 14 2 0 16

Note the clustering of studies reporting positive effects on oak after just one or two burns.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 25

Recent analyses of data from the U.S. Forest Service’s 

Forest Inventory and Analysis Program (FIA) indicate 

shifts in forest composition within the central hardwoods 

region, with oaks (Quercus) declining in some areas and 

other species such as red maple (Acer rubrum) increasing 

(Fei and Steiner 2007, Hanberry 2013). FIA data show 

that in Ohio oaks continue to dominate the overstory 

in many stands, but shade-tolerant species typically 

dominate the midstory and understory (Widmann and 

others 2009). In these stands, overstory oaks that die or 

are removed through harvesting will often be replaced by 

other species unless effective management strategies to 

favor oak regeneration are implemented.

In the past 20 years, there has been a growing interest 

in using prescribed fire to sustain oak forests (Arthur 

and others 2012, Brose and others 2008). Under 

certain circumstances, prescribed fire can improve the 

competitive status of oak regeneration relative to their 

competitors when a greater proportion of oaks survive 

and sprout after fire (Brose 2010, Brose and Van Lear 

1998). The ability of oak seedlings to sprout from the root 

collar after topkill is a function of resources devoted to 

root development rather than height growth (Johnson and 

others 2009). Additionally for oak seedlings, the relatively 

deep location of root collar in the soil provides greater 

protection from fire damage (Brose and Van Lear 2004). 

However, studies of prescribed fire effects on oak 

regeneration have had mixed results. Recently, Brose and 

others (2013) conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies that 

reported the effects of prescribed fire in oak forests. They 

found that prescribed fire had the greatest positive impact 

on oak regeneration when burning was conducted during 

the growing season several years after a partial timber 

harvest, and they found that prescribed fires in closed 

canopy forests generally did not have a positive impact on 

oak regeneration in the short term, particularly when only 

a single fire was applied. 

In 1995, we began a long-term study in southern Ohio 

mixed-oak forests to determine the effects of repeated 

prescribed fires on forest structure, tree regeneration, and 

other ecosystem properties (Sutherland and Hutchinson 

2003). By 2002, repeated low-intensity dormant-season 

fires (2X or 4X) had greatly reduced the density of shadetolerant saplings, thinned the midstory to a lesser degree, 

and had very little effect on the density of overstory trees 

(Hutchinson and others 2005). Oak seedlings generally 

remained small (<1 foot tall) as canopy cover continued 

to be >90 percent. We concluded that fire alone had not 

improved the competitive position of oak regeneration. 

In 2003, a white oak (Quercus alba) decline event became 

apparent at the Vinton Furnace State Experimental Forest 

(VFSEF), where two of the study sites were located. The 

death of overstory white oaks created small canopy gaps. 

1

Todd F. Hutchinson, Research Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Delaware, OH 43015

Robert P. Long, Research Plant Pathologist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Irvine, PA 16329

Joanne Rebbeck, Research Plant Physiologist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Delaware, OH 43015

Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, Supervisory Research Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT 59801

Daniel A. Yaussy, Research Forester Emeritus, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Delaware, OH 43015

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 

REPEATED FIRES, CANOPY GAPS, AND TREE REGENERATION IN 

APPALACHIAN MIXED OAK FORESTS

Todd F. Hutchinson, Robert P. Long, Joanne Rebbeck, 

Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, and Daniel A. Yaussy1

Abstract—We studied the response of tree regeneration to a sequence of several low-intensity prescribed fires followed by 

canopy gap formation in southern Ohio. Advance reproduction was recorded in 52 gaps (average size = four dead canopy 

trees) that formed following a white oak decline event, 13 years after fires began and 5 years after the gaps had formed. 

Of the 52 gaps, 28 were in three burned stands and 24 were in three unburned stands. Unburned gaps were being filled 

by shade-tolerant saplings and poles. In contrast, shade-tolerant saplings had been greatly reduced in the burned stands 

and larger oak advance reproduction (>2 feet tall) was much more abundant in burned gaps, as was sassafras. Advance 

reproduction of shade-tolerant species was equally abundant in burned and unburned gaps. Results indicate that the 

regeneration potential of oaks can be improved with multiple prescribed fires followed by the creation of canopy gaps. 
26 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Several years after the gaps had formed, we observed the 

presence of larger oak advance reproduction, stems 2 to 

4 feet tall, in several of the gaps that were located within 

stands that had been burned in the prescribed fire study. 

These canopy gaps provided an opportunity to study the 

response of advance reproduction to a series of repeated 

fires followed by the creation of small canopy openings. 

The sequence and type of disturbance events—repeated 

fires followed by small-scale gap formation—to the best 

of our knowledge had not been studied previously in oak 

forests. 

The main objective was to determine whether the 

competitive position of oak regeneration, based on its size 

and abundance relative to competitors, was different in 

burned gaps than in unburned gaps. We also compared 

other characteristics of the burned and unburned gaps, 

such as soil moisture, gap size, sapling and pole density, 

and understory light levels. This paper summarizes the 

major findings of a recently published journal article 

(Hutchinson and others 2012a). 

METHODS

Study Area

The study was located in the Vinton Furnace State 

Experimental Forest (VFSEF), Vinton County, OH. The 

VFSEF is owned by the Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Forestry. The unglaciated 

landscape consists of narrow ridges and steep slopes. 

Bedrocks are primarily sandstones and siltstones. Soils 

are mostly sandy loams and silt loams that are moderately 

deep (20 to 40 inches to bedrock), acidic, and have low 

water-holding capacity (Lemaster and Gilmore 2004). Site 

quality is highly variable across the landscape. Black oak 

(Quercus velutina) site indices range from 55 feet on the 

driest ridges and upper south facing slopes to 80 feet on 

lower north facing slopes and stream terraces (Carmean 

1965, Iverson and others 1997).

The entire landscape of the VFSEF was clearcut in the 

middle to late 1800s to provide charcoal to fuel iron 

production at the Vinton and Eagle Furnaces. Fires 

occurred frequently from 1880 to 1930 when forest stands 

were redeveloping after clearcutting (Hutchinson and 

others 2008, Sutherland 1997). However, fire suppression 

eliminated nearly all wildfires after 1935. Today’s 

mature forests are dominated by oaks, primarily white 

oak, chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), and black oak, and 

hickories (Carya spp.). Yellow-poplar (Liriodendron

tulipifera) and northern red oak (Quercus rubra) are 

common on higher quality sites. In the midstory (trees 4 

to 10 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]), red maple 

is often prominent, and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) 

is also common on mesic sites. In the understory (trees 

<4 inches dbh), one or more shade-tolerant species are 

typically abundant, including red maple, sugar maple, 

blackgum, (Nyssa sylvatica), American beech (Fagus

grandifolia), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and 

musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana).

The white oak decline event was characterized by the 

death of overstory white oaks, usually in patches of 

several trees and located on middle and lower slope 

positions. A combination of several factors, including 

insect defoliations, drought, excessive rainfall, and the 

exotic root rotting fungi Phytophthora cinnamomi, were 

implicated in the decline (Balci and others 2009, Nagle 

and others 2010). The white oak decline created small 

canopy gaps located throughout the forest.

Study Design

In 1995, a long-term study of prescribed fire was installed 

at two sites on the VFSEF and two additional sites 

located in Lawrence County, OH (Hutchinson and others 

2005). From that larger study, we selected three burned 

stands and two unburned stands at VFSEF, where the 

oak decline even had occurred, for the present study of 

tree regeneration in canopy gaps. To increase sample 

size within the unburned treatment, we added a third 

unburned stand within VFSEF that was being used as 

an untreated control in another study (see Waldrop and 

others 2008). Pretreatment plot data show that oaks 

and hickories dominated the overstory, shade-tolerant 

species dominated the sapling layer, and oak plus hickory 

seedling densities averaged more than 2,000 per acre 

(table 1). 

Among the three burned stands, two were burned five 

times and one was burned three times, all from 1996 

through 2005 (table 2). In each burned stand, one of the 

fires occurred after gaps were formed. All but one fire 

was conducted in the spring dormant season, late March 

to mid-April, prior to substantial understory greening; the 

single fall fire occurred in early November. Fires were 

generally low-intensity, with flame lengths of 1 to 2 feet, 

and caused little mortality of overstory trees (Hutchinson 

and others, 2012b). 

For this study, we selected 28 gaps in the three burned 

stands and 24 gaps in the three unburned stands. When 

choosing gaps to include in the study, we generally 

avoided single tree gaps. Gaps were on a variety of 

aspects, but nearly all were on midslope and lower slope 

positions. By chance, none of the gaps occurred within the 

9 or 10 permanent vegetation plots located in each stand. 

To characterize soil moisture for each gap, based on its 

GPS-located landscape position, we used the Integrated 

Moisture Index (IMI) of Iverson and others (1997). 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 27

Field Data Collection

All data were collected in summer 2008. First, we 

established an approximate center point in each gap and 

flagged the perimeter of the gap. We then measured the 

length and width of the gap to estimate its area. All data 

were collected in metric units, but are reported here 

in English units. Within the perimeter of each gap, we 

recorded the species and diameter of standing dead trees 

>3.9 inches dbh, and also counted, by species, the number 

of saplings plus poles (stems 1.2 to 7.9 inches dbh). From 

the gap center point, we established four subplots, each 

16.4 by 6.6 feet, to record advance reproduction. Each 

subplot was located halfway between the gap center 

and perimeter, along the length and width axes. In the 

subplots, we counted the number of stems of advance 

reproduction by species, in three size classes: 1.0 to 

2.0 feet tall, 2.0 to 4.6 feet tall, and 4.6 feet tall to 1.1 

inches dbh. Within each gap, we also measured light as a 

percentage of full sunlight, with a Decagon AccuPAR LP 

80 ceptometer. For further details on field data collection, 

see Hutchinson and others (2012a). 

Data Analysis

To test for significant differences between gaps in burned 

and unburned stands, we used generalized linear mixed 

models. Stand was the experimental unit and gaps within 

stands were the sampling units. Stand was treated as 

a random effect nested within the fixed effect of fire. 

We tested whether unburned and burned gaps were 

significantly different (p <0.05) in several characteristics: 

soil moisture (IMI), size (area in acres), the number and 

size (dbh) of dead trees, sapling and pole density, and 

percentage of full sunlight. We also tested for significant 

differences in the density of several major species and 

species groups (oaks, hickories, sassafras, shade-tolerant 

species, other species), between burned and unburned 

gaps. A more comprehensive description of data analyses 

can be found in Hutchinson and others (2012a). 

RESULTS

Characteristics of Gaps 

Gaps in burned stands were similar (p > 0.05) to those 

in unburned stands, with respect to soil moisture (IMI), 

gap size, number of dead trees per gap, and dbh of dead 

trees (fig. 1). Overall, the mean IMI was 46.2, indicating 

intermediate soil moisture levels (Iverson and Prasad 

2003). Gaps were small, averaging 0.06 acres (range = 

0.03 to 0.12 acres). The mean number of dead white oak 

trees per gap was 4.0 (range = 1 to 10) and these trees 

averaged 16.6 inches dbh (range = 6.8 to 31.0).

Though similar in size and soil moisture, burned gaps 

had significantly fewer saplings and poles (p = 0.002), 

compared to unburned gaps (fig. 1). In unburned gaps, 

sapling and pole density averaged 404 stems per acre 

(range = 205 to 644); the most abundant species were 

American beech, red maple, sugar maple and blackgum. 

In burned gaps, sapling and pole density averaged 63 

stems per acre and all but one burned gap had less than 

200 stems per acre. Understory light levels were also 

significantly greater (p = 0.033) in burned gaps than in 

unburned gaps (fig. 1). Approximately 5 years after the 

gaps had formed, burned gaps averaged 18.7 percent of 

full sunlight compared to 7.3 percent in unburned gaps.

Advance Reproduction 

In burned gaps, the density of advance reproduction 

(stems 12 inches tall to 1.1 inches dbh) for all species 

combined was more than twice that found in unburned 

gaps. Stem densities averaged 8,738 and 3,653 per acre 

in burned and unburned gaps, respectively. Among 

the major species and species groups, the density of 

oaks (p = 0.036) and sassafras (Sassafras albidum, p = 

0.002) were significantly greater in burned gaps than 

in unburned gaps, while the density of shade-tolerant 

species was not different (p = 0.810) between burned and 

unburned gaps (fig. 2). Across the burned and unburned 

gaps, eight species comprised 96 percent of stems in the 

shade-tolerant group. These species were, in descending 

order of average density: red maple, white ash (Fraxinus

americana), musclewood, blackgum, flowering dogwood 

(Cornus florida), American beech, sourwood, and downy 

serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea). For hickories, the 

average density in burned gaps was 2.2 times greater than 

in unburned gaps; however, that difference approached 

but did not meet statistical significance (p = 0.086). 

The average density of oaks was 3.6 times greater in 

burned gaps (3,670 stems per acre) than in unburned gaps 

(1,021 stems per acre). Among the oaks in the burned 

gaps, white oak was the most abundant species, making 

up, on average, 67 percent of all oak stems, followed by 

black oak (17 percent), chestnut oak (7 percent), scarlet 

oak (Quercus coccinea, 6 percent), and northern red oak 

(3 percent). White oak was also the most abundant oak in 

the unburned gaps, making up 57 percent of oak stems.

In burned gaps, the greater densities of oak and hickory 

(combined) advance reproduction resulted from greater 

numbers of larger stems. While smaller oak and hickory 

stems (1 to 2 feet height) were equally abundant in burned 

and unburned gaps (p = 0.537), larger oak and hickory 

(2 feet height to 1.1 inches dbh) were significantly more 

abundant in burned gaps (p = 0.018, fig. 3). Burned gaps 

had an average density of 2,643 larger oak and hickory 

stems per acre, while unburned gaps averaged 318 larger 

stems per acre.
28 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Among individual gaps in the burned stands, densities of 

larger oak and hickory were consistently high: 20 of 28 

burned gaps had more than 2,000 larger stems per acre 

(fig. 4). Similarly, in unburned stands, densities of larger 

oak plus hickory were consistently low; nearly all (22 of 

24) unburned gaps had fewer than 2,000 stems per acre. 

Larger sassafras occurred at very high densities in several 

burned gaps, but its abundance was more variable than 

oak and hickory; larger sassafras were absent from more 

than one third of burned gaps (fig. 4). In addition, the 

density of larger oak plus hickory stems was more than 

twice that of shade-tolerant species in over half of the 

burned gaps. 

For the largest size class of advance reproduction, stems 

4.6 feet tall to 1.1 inches dbh, oaks and hickories averaged 

806 stems per acre in burned gaps compared to 55 per 

acre in unburned gaps. Oaks and hickories in this size 

class were present in 82 percent of the burned gaps but 

occurred in only 20 percent of unburned gaps. In burned 

gaps, the density of oaks and hickories >4.6 feet tall was 

2.5 times greater than that of shade-tolerant species. By 

contrast, in unburned gaps, shade-tolerant stems were 5.3 

times more abundant than oaks and hickories. 

DISCUSSION

In this study we found that a series of low-intensity 

fires, conducted over about a decade, coupled with small 

canopy openings formed 7 to 8 years after fires began, 

resulted in high densities of larger (>2 feet tall) oak 

advance reproduction. Gaps in the burned stands had 84 

percent fewer shade-tolerant saplings and poles and more 

sunlight was reaching the understory even 5 years after 

gap formation. The larger oak advance reproduction that 

developed consistently in the burned gaps will have a 

higher probability of being competitive after a stand-level 

disturbance compared to the smaller oak reproduction 

in the unburned stands (Loftis 1990, Sander 1971). The 

single fire that occurred after gap formation in each 

of the burned stands may also have been important in 

the development of larger oak reproduction (Brose and 

Van Lear 1998). However, because we did not follow 

individual seedlings through the sequence of repeated 

fires, gap formation, and the single fire after gap 

formation, the relative importance of the pre-gap fires vs. 

the post-gap fire is unclear. 

In our study sites, oak and hickory seedlings were 

present at moderate densities (>2,000 per acre) before 

the prescribed fire treatments began, which was likely 

important for the ultimate development of larger oaks 

after the sequence of fires and gap formation (Johnson 

and others 2009). However, in a more mesic oak forest 

in West Virginia, with fewer and smaller oak seedlings, 

Schuler and others (2013) also found that repeated 

preharvest prescribed fires favored the development of 

larger oak reproduction. In their study, two dormantseason fires greatly reduced the dense layer of shadetolerant saplings that had been present. Soon after the 

fires, a bumper crop of northern red oak acorns resulted 

in large numbers of new seedlings. Those new red 

oak seedlings grew larger in the burned areas where 

the sapling layer had been topkilled than in adjacent 

unburned areas. After the mast event, further fires were 

withheld to allow the new oak seedlings to develop. Their 

study highlights the importance of timing prescribed fires 

with acorn crops, particularly in mesic forests where oak 

seedlings fail to accumulate over time.

In addition to the oaks, sassafras advance reproduction 

was more abundant in burned gaps than in unburned 

gaps. Advance reproduction of sassafras often exhibits 

clonal growth (Burns and Honkala 1990). When fire 

topkills sassafras stems, densities typically increase as 

multiple new root sprouts are initiated (Alexander and 

others 2008). In our study, we hypothesize that the higher 

densities of sassafras in burned gaps resulted from clonal 

expansion and root sprouting after fires. Through the 

course of the prescribed burn study, newly germinated 

sassafras seedlings were seldom observed after fires (T. 

Hutchinson, personal observation). Although sassafras 

is abundant in a number of the burned gaps, it is unclear 

whether it would be a long-term competitor of the oaks 

if a stand-level disturbance were to occur. In the study 

region, advance reproduction of sassafras is common, 

particularly on drier sites, but sassafras is uncommon in 

the overstory of mature stands. 

Management Considerations

In management areas where timber harvesting is not 

desired or permitted, our findings show that periodic 

prescribed fires can help create conditions favorable for 

the development of larger oak reproduction in relatively 

small canopy openings. However, the eventual recruitment 

of oak into the overstory may require larger gaps than 

those formed in our study (Loftis 2004). In stands where 

timber harvesting is planned, repeated fires conducted 

prior to the harvest could favor dominance by oaks 

after the harvest by reducing competition from shadetolerant saplings. This will be most effective when oak 

seedlings are present at moderate densities initially and 

are also large enough to resprout after fires. In addition to 

prescribed fire, herbicide application may be necessary to 

kill larger saplings and poles (>6 inches dbh), those that 

are resistant to topkill by fire. However, after repeated 

fires have greatly reduced sapling densities, much less 

effort and cost are required to find and apply herbicide to 

the remaining stems not topkilled by fire. 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 29

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Tom Waldrop and the conference committee 

for inviting us to present our research at the Wildland 

Fire in the Appalachians Conference. We thank William 

Borovicka, Levi Miller, Richard Craig, Timothy Fox, 

Matthew Peters, Zachary Moor, and Jonathan Schaeffer 

for assistance in the field. We thank Joan Jolliff for data 

entry. We thank John Stanovick for statistical consultation 

and Stacy Clark and Melissa Thomas Van Gundy for 

technical reviews. We thank our land management 

partner, the Ohio Division of Forestry. 

LITERATURE CITED

Alexander, H.D.; Arthur, M.A.; Loftis, D.L.; Green, S.R. 2008. 

Survival and growth of upland oak and co-occurring competitor 

seedlings following single and repeated prescribed fires. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 256: 1021-1030.

Arthur, M.A.; Alexander, H.D.; Dey, D.C. [and others]. 2012. 

Refining the oak-fire hypothesis for management of oakdominated forests in the Eastern United States. Journal of 

Forestry. 10: 257-266.

Balci, Y.; Long, R.P.; Balser, D.; MacDonald, W.L. 2009. 

Involvement of Phytophthora species in white oak (Q. alba) 

decline in southern Ohio. Forest Pathology. 40: 430-442.

Brose, P.H. 2010. Long-term effects of single prescribed fires 

on hardwood regeneration in oak shelterwood stands. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 260:1516-1524.

Brose, P.H.; Dey, D.C.; Phillips, R.J.; Waldrop, T.A. 2013. A metaanalysis of the fire-oak hypothesis: does prescribed burning 

promote oak reproduction in eastern North America? Forest 

Science. 59: 322-334.

Brose, P.H.; Gottschalk, K.W.; Horsley, S.B. [and others]. 2008. 

Prescribing regeneration treatments for mixed oak forests in the 

mid-Atlantic region. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-33. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 90 p.

Brose, P.H.; Van Lear, D.H. 1998. Responses of hardwood advance 

regeneration to seasonal prescribed fires in oak dominated 

shelterwood stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

28: 331-339.

Brose, P.H.; Van Lear, D.H. 2004. Survival of hardwood 

regeneration during prescribed fires: the importance of root 

development and root collar location. In: Spetich, M.A., ed. 

Upland oak ecology symposium: history, current conditions, 

and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Sothern Research 

Station: 123-127.

Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North 

America volume 2, Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 877 p.

Carmean, W.H. 1965. Black oak site quality in relation to soil 

and topography in southeastern Ohio. Soil Science Society of 

America Proceedings. 29: 308-312.

Fei, S.; Steiner, K. 2007. Evidence for increasing red maple 

abundance in the Eastern United States. Forest Science. 

53: 473-477.

Hanberry, B.B. 2013. Changing eastern broadleaf, southern mixed, 

and northern mixed forest ecosystems of the eastern United 

States. Forest Ecology and Management. 306: 171-178.

Hutchinson, T.F.; Long, R.P.; Ford, R.D.; Sutherland, E.K. 2008. 

Fire history and the establishment of oaks and maples in second 

growth forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38: 391-403.

Hutchinson, T.F.; Long, R.P.; Rebbeck, J. [and others]. 2012a. 

Repeated prescribed fires alter gap phase regeneration in mixed 

oak forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42: 303-314.

Hutchinson, T.F.; Sutherland, E.K.; Yaussy, D.A. 2005. Effects of 

repeated fires on the structure, composition, and regeneration 

of mixed oak forests in Ohio. Forest Ecology and Management.

218: 210-228.

Hutchinson, T.F.; Yaussy, D.A.; Long, R.P. [and others]. 2012b. 

Long-term (13-year) effects of repeated prescribed fires on stand 

structure and tree regeneration in mixed-oak forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 286: 87-100.

Iverson, L.R.; Dale, M.E.; Scott, C.T.; Prasad, A. 1997. A GISderived integrated moisture index to predict forest composition 

and productivity of Ohio forests (U.S.A.). Landscape Ecology. 

12: 331-348.

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad A. 2003. A GIS-derived integrated 

moisture index. In: Sutherland, E.K.; Hutchinson, T.F., eds. 

Characteristics of mixed oak forest ecosystems in southern 

Ohio prior to the reintroduction of fire. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-299. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northeastern Research Station: 29-41.

Johnson, P.S.; Shifley, S.R.; Rogers, R. 2009. The ecology and 

silviculture of oaks, 2nd edition. New York, NY: CABI 

International. 580 p. 

Lemaster, D.D.; Gilmore, G.M. 2004. Soil survey of Vinton County, 

Ohio. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service and Forest Service. 358 p.

Loftis, D.L. 1990. Predicting post-harvest performance of advance 

red oak reproduction in the southern Appalachians. Forest 

Science. 36: 908-916.

Loftis, D.L. 2004. Upland oak regeneration and management. In: 

Spetich, M.A., ed. Upland oak ecology symposium: history, 

current conditions, and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 163-167.

Nagle, A.M.; Long, R.P.; Maden, L.V.; Bonello, P. 2010. Association 

of Phytophthora cinnamomi with white oak decline in southern 

Ohio. Plant Disease. 94: 1026-1034.

Sander, I.L. 1971. Height growth of new oak sprouts depends on 

size of advance regeneration. Journal of Forestry. 69: 809-811.

Schuler, T.M.; Thomas-Van Gundy, M.; Adams, M.B.; Ford, W.M. 

2013. Analysis of two pre-shelterwood prescribed fires in a mesic 

mixed-oak forest in West Virginia. In: Miller, G.W.; Schuler, 

T.M.; Gottschalk, K.W. [and others], eds. Proceedings of the 18th

central hardwoods forest conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-117. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station: 430-446.

Sutherland, E.K. 1997. The history of fire in a southern Ohio second 

growth mixed oak forest. In: Pallardy, S.G.; Cecich, R.A.; Garrett, 

H.E.; Johnson, P.S., eds. Proceedings, 11th Central Hardwoods 

Forest Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-188. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station: 172-183.
30 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Sutherland, E.K.; Hutchinson, T.F. 2003. Characteristics of 

mixed oak forest ecosystems in southern Ohio prior to the 

reintroduction of fire. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-299. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station. 159 p.

Waldrop, T.A.; Yaussy, D.A.; Phillips, R.J. [and others]. 2008. Fuel 

reduction treatments affect stand structure of hardwood forests 

in western North Carolina and southern Ohio, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255: 3117-3129.

Widmann, R.H.; Balser, D.; Barnett, C. [and others]. 2009. Ohio 

Forests 2006. Resour. Bull. NRS-36. Newtown Square, PA: 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 119 p.

Table 1—Characteristics of the six stands before prescribed fi re treatments were applied

Overstorya Saplingsb Seedlingsc

Stand Area (acres)

Basal area 

(ft2/ac)

Basal area 

(% oak 

hickory)

Density

(stems/ac)

Density

(% tolerant)

Oak hickory 

(stems/ac)

Arch Rock unburned 59 113 83 812 87 5578

Watch Rock unburned 49 113 82 675 96 2159

REMA unburned 57 120 82 837 97 4049

Arch Rock 3X 59 119 91 766 96 4228

Arch Rock 5X 79 124 77 866 94 2834

Watch Rock 5X 77 102 82 724 78 3959

Note: Vegetation data were collected in 1995 from nine 0.3 acre plots in all stands other than REMA unburned, where data were collected 

in 2000 from ten 0.25 acre plots.

aTrees >3.9 inches d.b.h.

bTrees 4.6 feet height to 3.9 inches d.b.h.

cAll stems <4.6 feet height.

Table 2—Dates of the 13 prescribed fi res in relation to canopy gap formation

Before gap formation After gap formation

Stand 1996 1997 1998 1999 2004 2005

Arch Rock 3X April 18 – – March 26 – April 15

Arch Rock 5X April 19 April 2 April 6 March 26 April 17 –

Watch Rock 5X April 21 April 3 April 6 March 27 November 9 –

– Dashes represent no fi re occured in that location during that year.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 31

Figure 1—Mean values (±1 standard error) in unburned and burned gaps for A) Integrated Moisture Index (0 to 100 scale), 

B) area, C) number of dead trees per gap, D) dbh of dead trees, E) density of saplings and poles (stems 1.2 to 7.9 inches dbh), 

F) percentage of full sunlight. In each graph, different lower case letters above the two bars indicate a significant difference 

(p < 0.05) between unburned and burned gaps. 
32 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 2—Mean values (±1 standard error) in unburned and burned gaps for the density of advance reproduction (stems 1 foot 

tall to 1.1 inches dbh) for four major species or species groups: A) oaks, B) hickories, C) shade-tolerant species, and 

D) sassafras. In each graph, different lower case letters above the two bars indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) between 

unburned and burned gaps. 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 33

Figure 3—Mean values (±1 standard error) in unburned and burned gaps for the density of oak hickory advance reproduction 

for A) smaller stems (1 to 2 feet tall) and B) larger stems (2 feet tall to 1.1 inches dbh). In each graph, different lower case 

letters above the two bars indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) between unburned and burned gaps.

Figure 4—The density of larger advance reproduction (stems 2 feet tall to 1.1 inches dbh) in each gap for four major species 

groups in A) unburned gaps and B) burned gaps.
34 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION

Management of forests in the southern Appalachian 

Mountains is as difficult as the region is complex. The 

region is one of the most biologically significant in 

the United States. Covering over 80 million acres, the 

Appalachian Plateau, Ridge and Valley Province, and the 

Blue Ridge Mountains include portions of NC, SC, TN, 

GA, AL, VA, and KY. The region has high ecosystem 

diversity because of its wide variety of land types, soils, 

precipitation levels, and disturbance histories. Some areas 

have the fastest growing wildland-urban interfaces in 

the United States; ecosystems are changing and losing 

key ecological functions because of fire exclusion, and 

managers have only recently begun to establish guidelines 

for ecosystem restoration using fire. 

The Appalachian region has the largest cluster of public 

lands east of the Rocky Mountains—and the greatest 

need for fire management. Prescribed fire is used to 

restore the historical woodland character of pine-oak and 

oak-hickory forests. Appalachian hardwood ecosystems 

were developed by a broad array of natural disturbances, 

but the role played by natural and anthropogenic fire 

has not been appreciated until recent years (Brose and 

others 2001, Waldrop and others 2007). In some areas, 

prescribed burning is not possible, such as along the 

wildland/urban interface. Mechanical treatments may 

prove to be an acceptable surrogate for fire, but little 

information is available.

In 2000, a team of Federal, State, university, and private 

scientists and land managers designed the Fire and Fire 

Surrogate (FFS) study, an integrated national network 

to address the need for many types of information. The 

national network included 12 sites on Federal and State 

lands extending from Washington to Florida. At each 

site, impacts of fuel reduction treatments were studied on 

a broad array of variables, including flora, fauna, fuels, 

soils, forest health, and economics (see Youngblood 

and others 2005 for a description of the national study). 

Treatments were designed to restore ecosystems by reestablishing an ecosystem process (fire), stand structure 

(mechanical fuel reduction), or both. Changes in stand 

structure can alter ecosystem components such as 

vegetative diversity (Hutchinson 2006), fire behavior 

and return interval (Phillips and others 2006), and soil 

processes (Boerner and others 2008). 

Most FFS sites were abandoned after reporting impacts 

that occurred within 1 year after treatment. However, 

managers at the FFS site in the southern Appalachian 

Mountains have been able to continue the prescribed 

burning treatment on a 3- to 5-year rotation. The primary 

management objective is to reduce wildfire severity by 

reducing live and dead fuels. Secondary objectives are 

to increase oak regeneration and to improve wildlife 

habitat by increasing cover of grasses and forbs. It may 

be possible to obtain each of these goals by restoring this 

community to the open woodland habitats once common 

THE NATIONAL FIRE AND FIRE SURROGATE STUDY: 

VEGETATION CHANGES OVER 11 YEARS OF FUEL REDUCTION TREATMENTS

 IN THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS

Thomas A. Waldrop, Helen H. Mohr, Ross J. Phillips, and Dean M. Simon1

Abstract—At the Appalachian site of the National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study, prescribed burning was repeated three 

times and chainsaw felling of shrubs was done twice between 2002 and 2012. Goals were to reduce fuel loading and to 

promote restoration of an open woodland community. Chainsaw felling created a vertical fuel break, but the effect was 

temporary, and no restoration goals for other vegetation were achieved. Prescribed burning opened the canopy only slightly 

and supported graminoids and oak regeneration for a short time after each burn. The combination of mechanical and 

burning treatments provided open canopies and removed the shrub layer. Graminoid cover increased and oak regeneration 

was abundant the year after treatment, but both decreased as sprouts of competing shrubs and trees overtopped them. 

The burn-only and mechanical-plus-burn treatments show promise for eventually creating an open woodland community. 

However, treatments may need to be repeated numerous times to reach that goal.

1

Thomas A. Waldrop, Supervisory Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC 29634

Helen H. Mohr, Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC 29634

Ross J. Phillips, Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC 29634

Dean M. Simon, Wildlife Forester, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Morganton, NC 28655

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 35

in these regions (described in syntheses by Stanturf and 

others 2002 and Van Lear and Waldrop 1989). Fire and 

mechanical treatments at the southern Appalachian FFS 

site were designed to restore stand structure to an open 

woodland condition. 

At the southern Appalachian FFS site, two fires and 

one mechanical treatment over a 6-year period achieved 

few management objectives, and the need for repeated 

treatment was evident. Mechanical treatment altered 

stand structure by eliminating vertical fuels within the 

shrub layer, but without prescribed burning, this treatment 

added litter and fine woody fuels that increased several 

measures of simulated fire behavior (Waldrop and 

others 2010). Prescribed burning promoted abundant 

regeneration of hardwood and shrub sprouts (Waldrop 

and others 2008), but there was no increase in understory 

species richness or grass cover (Phillips and others 2007). 

The combined mechanical and burning treatments had 

hot prescribed fires during the first burn that killed some 

overstory trees, resulting in increased amounts of woody 

fuels on the forest floor. However, the impact of those 

fuels was short-lived because this treatment was the most 

effective at reducing all measures of fire behavior and 

advancing restoration objectives (Waldrop and others 

2010). Understory diversity and grass cover increased for 

1 year after each burn but did not persist, as mountain 

laurel sprouts became competitive (Phillips and others 

2007). 

The numerous variables measured in the first years of 

the study strongly indicated that repeated entries of fire 

and/or mechanical treatments were necessary to reach 

fire protection, restoration, and wildlife management 

objectives. This paper examines the impacts of a third 

fire and a second mechanical treatment to vegetation and 

forest structure. 

METHODS

The Southern Appalachian Mountains site of the FFS 

study is located in Polk County, NC, on the Green River 

Game Land, which is managed for wildlife habitat, 

timber, and other resources by the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission. Elevations range from 

1100 to 2500 feet. Forests of the study area were 80 to 120 

years old, and showed no indication of past agriculture or 

recent fire. Forest composition is mixed-oak with pitch 

pine (Pinus rigida) and Table Mountain pine (P. pungens) 

on xeric ridges and eastern white pine (P. strobus) in 

moist coves. A dense layer of ericaceous shrubs—mostly 

mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) and rhododendron 

(Rhododendron maximum)—is found throughout. Soils 

are primarily Evard series (file loamy, oxidic, mesic Typic 

Hapludults). These are moderately deep, well-drained, 

mountain upland soils (Keenan 1998).

The experiment was designed as a randomized 

complete block with three replicate blocks composed 

of four factorial treatment units. Individual treatment 

units were 25 to 30 acres in size. All treatment units 

were surrounded by buffer zones of approximately 

10 to 25 acres, and both the treatment unit and its 

corresponding buffer received the experimental treatment. 

These treatment units were designed to include all 

prevailing combinations of elevation, aspect, and slope. 

However, these conditions varied within experimental 

units (treatment areas) and could not be separated for 

analysis. A 164- by 164-foot grid was established in 

each treatment unit to measure fuels. Grid points were 

permanently marked and georeferenced. Ten sample 

plots of 0.25 acres each were established at randomly 

selected grid points within each treatment unit to measure 

vegetation. 

Treatments were selected to alter stand structure in 

a manner to reduce fuels, improve density of oak 

regeneration, and improve habitat for some wildlife 

species by reducing shrub cover and increasing 

herbaceous density. Factorial treatments were randomly 

allocated among treatment units within a site, and all 

treatment units were sampled through the pretreatment 

year (2001). Treatments consisted of prescribed burning 

(B), mechanical fuel reduction (M), a combination of 

mechanical treatment and prescribed burning (MB), and 

an untreated control (C). M involved creating a vertical 

fuel break by chainsaw-felling all tree stems >6 feet tall 

and <4 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) as well as 

all stems of ericaceous shrubs, regardless of size. This 

treatment was accomplished between December 2001 

and February 2002. Prescribed fires were applied in B 

and MB units during March 2003 and again in March 

2006. B and MB plots were burned for the third time in 

winter 2011. Chainsaw felling of small trees and shrubs 

was completed in early 2012 (January to February) in 

M units only. The objectives of prescribed burning were 

to remove vertical fuels and create a few snags. All fires 

were burned with a spot-fire technique. 

Vegetation and fuels data were collected before treatment 

(2001) and at various years after treatment, depending 

on the date the treatment was completed. B plots were 

measured in 2003 (1 year after burning), 2005 (3 years 

after burning), 2006 (1 year after the second burn), 2011 

(1 year before the third burn) and 2012 (1 year after the 

third burn). M plots were measured in 2002 (1 year after 

felling), 2004 (3 years after felling), 2006 (5 years after 

felling), 2011 (1 year before the second felling), and 

2012 (1 year after the second felling). MB plots were 

measured in 2002 (1 year after felling), 2003 (1 year after 

burning), 2005 (3 years after burning), 2006 (1 year after 

the second burn), 2011 (1 year before the third burn and 

second felling), and 2012 (1 year after the third burn and 
36 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

second felling). C plots were measured every year from 

2001 through 2006 and again in 2011 and 2012. 

Vegetation data were collected on the 0.25-acre sample 

plots. Each plot was 164 by 66 feet in size and divided 

into 10 subplots, each 33 by 33 feet in size. All trees 4 

inches dbh or larger were measured in five subplots at 

each sample date. For each tree, the tree number, species, 

dbh, and status (i.e., standing live or dead) were recorded. 

Shrubs >3.3 feet tall were measured on five 33- by 33-foot 

subplots using ocular estimates of the percentage of area 

covered by the crowns of each shrub species. Herbaceous 

cover was estimated for each species in 20 subplots, 3.3 

by 3.3 feet in size, within each 0.25-acre plot.

Litter and duff depth and mass were determined by 

destructively sampling the forest floor at each of the 36 

grid points and in the center of each 0.25-acre plot. A 

square wooden frame with sides 3.3 feet long was used 

along with a cutter to collect each sample by layer (L and 

F/H), and each layer was bagged separately. After careful 

removal of the frame, each layer was measured on each 

side of the sampled area. Each sample was then washed 

to remove soil and rocks and dried to a constant weight in 

an oven set at 185 °F. Litter and duff samples were then 

weighed in the laboratory. 

The down dead-woody fuels were measured before 

and after treatment using the planar intercept method 

described by Brown (1974). Three 50-foot transects were 

established approximately 6 feet from each grid point in 

a randomly selected direction. This method produced a 

total of over 70,000 feet of fuel transects. 

Analysis of treatment effects on vegetation and fuels was 

conducted using repeated-measures analysis of variance, 

with treatment and year modeled as fixed effects and 

block as a random effect. To account for differences 

among years, we interpreted significant treatment and 

(or) treatment-by-year interactions (α = 0.05) as evidence 

of treatment effects, and we made post hoc comparisons 

using linear contrasts. Because much of the data did not 

meet the assumption of normality, it was necessary to 

use data transformations to normalize the distributions. 

Logarithmic and square root transformations were used in 

these analyses. 

RESULTS

Through 11 years of post-treatment measurement, basal 

area in C and M treatment areas is gradually increasing 

as trees grow; there have been no significant differences 

in basal area between these two treatment areas at any 

time (fig. 1). The B treatment resulted in the death of a 

few trees in 2003, and more trees died each year after, 

especially after the second burn. Basal area (BA) was 

significantly lower in B units than in C and M units every 

year. However, basal area in B units was high throughout 

the measurement period, remaining near 120 square feet 

per acre or more. Overstory BA was most affected by the 

MB treatment. The initial burn was very hot, with flame 

heights of 10 to 15 feet, because of heavy residual fuels 

from the mechanical treatment. Some trees died in MB 

plots during every year after the initial burn. Basal area 

in these treatment areas was significantly lower than in all 

other treatment areas during every year. Over time, BA 

reduced from 119 to 82 square feet per acre in MB plots 

and may continue to decline with delayed mortality after 

each burn (Yaussy and Waldrop 2010).

Canopy openness was significantly greater in both B and 

MB treatment areas than in C areas each year (fig. 2). The 

MB treatment created the most open canopy by far, and 

openness there did not change after the initial treatment, 

remaining at about 29 percent. Even though surviving 

trees were likely filling open space, delayed mortality 

was sufficient to prevent canopy closure. In the B areas, 

openness was greater than in M areas the first year after 

treatment, but there were no significant differences in 

any later year, possibly because trees in B areas grew 

faster from a fertilizing effect of fire and less competition. 

Openness did not differ significantly between M and C 

areas at any time. Both M and C areas had increased 

openness over time, which was attributed to ice storms 

that occurred in 2005 and 2009 and to mortality of 

individual trees from unknown sources.

All active treatments reduced shrub cover the first year 

after treatment, and it remained significantly lower than 

in C plots throughout the study period (fig. 3). With 

time, however, shrub cover increased in the M (from 1 

to 9 percent) and MB (from 0 to 7 percent) treatments 

as stump sprouts grew into the minimum size class for 

measurement. Shrub cover remained at about 4 percent 

in B plots until the third fire. In the 11th year after 

initial treatment, the third burn and second mechanical 

treatment reduced shrub cover to approximately 1 percent 

in M, B, and MB treatment areas. 

Ground cover was reduced by the B and MB treatments 

the first year after burning, but was not affected by the 

M treatment without fire (fig. 4). Over time, ground 

cover in the B and M treatment areas was low and at 

about the same amount as measured in C plots. Ground 

cover in MB areas remained significantly higher than in 

C areas beyond the first year after the initial treatment. 

Burning and mechanical treatments during the 11th year 

significantly reduced ground cover in all active treatment 

areas. At that time, ground cover was significantly higher 

(40 percent) in MB areas than in all other areas. Ground 

cover reduced to 24, 23, and 19 percent in C, B, and M 

areas, respectively; these differences were not significant.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 37

The goal of increasing cover of graminoids was not 

successful in any of the treatment areas. Although the 

MB treatment areas had significantly more cover than in 

other treatment areas, the total was never more than 2 1⁄2 

percent (fig. 5). In MB areas, graminoid cover decreased 

between the second and third burns; the 6 years between 

these burns was sufficient for shrubs, tree sprouts, smilax, 

and other plants to grow tall enough to shade out grasses 

and sedges. 

Numbers of oak seedlings and sprouts were stimulated by 

burning but not by chainsaw felling. Numbers in M areas 

never differed from those in C areas (fig. 6). However oak 

regeneration significantly increased after the first burn in 

B and MB areas and remained significantly higher than 

in M and C areas throughout the study. A decline in oak 

numbers that occurred during the 6-year period between 

the second and third burns suggests the need for more 

frequent burning. That suggestion is supported by the 

large increase in oak numbers that occurred immediately 

after the third fire in B and MB areas.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Each fuel reduction treatment changed stand structure 

differently, resulting in different degrees of success in 

achieving restoration goals. After three burns and two 

mechanical treatments, none of the treatment areas 

exhibited all of the characteristics of the target open 

woodland community.

Chainsaw felling of small trees and shrubs (M) left a 

dense canopy with little change in canopy openness. The 

treatment did reduce the shrub layer cover for 7 years; 

most sprouts did not grow back into the shrub layer (>3 

feet) during that time. However, shrub cover increased 

greatly through year 11. A second treatment in the 11th

year reduced the shrub cover to almost zero percent. None 

of the target variables showed a positive response to this 

change in structure with the possible exception of fire 

behavior. Without a shrub layer there was a vertical fuel 

break, especially after 8 to 10 years, as felled decomposed 

stems were flat on the ground. Even though there was a 

reduction in the cover of shrubs, there was not a positive 

response in forest floor vegetation, graminoid cover, or 

oak regeneration. This treatment left an intact overstory 

and forest floor. The best practical use of mechanical 

shrub felling may be for reducing fuels where prescribed 

burning is difficult or impossible. Even frequent use of 

this treatment is unlikely to produce our restoration goals. 

Prescribed burning alone produced a two-storied stand 

structure, similar to that of the mechanical only treatment. 

The first burn essentially removed the shrub layer, and 

subsequent burns were frequent enough to keep it low. 

The canopy layer was thinned somewhat, but basal area 

remained high and openness was low. Ground cover, 

graminoid cover, and oak regeneration increased for a 

short period after each of the first two fires but declined 

by the time of the next burn. The structure of the burnonly plots was closer to that of open woodlands than it 

was before burning, but the restoration objective was not 

met. An initial burn of high intensity followed by more 

frequent prescribed burning may be necessary to open the 

overstory and to maintain gains in graminoid cover and 

oak regeneration.

The combination of mechanical and burn treatments 

produced immediate and large reductions to basal 

area, shrub cover, and ground cover. Stand structure in 

these areas was closest to the desired open woodland 

condition, with a 40 percent reduction in basal area and 

30 percent canopy openness. However, understory shrubs, 

tree sprouts, and herbaceous plants quickly claimed 

the open forest floor and prevented successful growth 

of graminoids and oaks. These results agree with the 

substantial body of literature stating restoration will 

require numerous fires occurring more frequently than 

every 3 years.

Even though the stand structures produced in this study 

largely did not support desired objectives for most 

variables, progress was observed after prescribed burning, 

particularly when burning was done in combination 

with chainsaw felling of the shrub layer. With frequent 

burning, the MB areas may eventually support an open 

woodland community. These areas have an open canopy 

and improved wildlife habitat. Frequent burning will be 

needed for fuel reduction and spread of graminoids and 

oaks.

The Appalachian site of the National Fire and Fire 

Surrogate continues to be an important source of 

information about fire effects in this region, where 

prescribed fire is relatively new and little research is 

available. The study remains active with current efforts 

to continue treatments and follow their impacts on 

vegetation, fuels, soils, herpetofauna, and avifauna. 

LITERATURE CITED

Boerner, R.E.J.; Coates, T.A.; Yaussy, D.A.; Waldrop, T.A. 

2008. Assessing ecosystem restoration alternatives in eastern 

deciduous forests: the view from belowground. Restoration 

Ecology. 16(3): 425-434. 

Brose, P.H.; Schuler, T.M.; Van Lear, D.H.; Berst, J. 2001. Bringing 

fire back: the changing regimes of the Appalachian mixed oak 

forest. Journal of Forestry. 99: 30-35. 

Brown, J.K. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody 

material. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-16. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Forest & Range 

Experiment Station. 24 p.
38 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Hutchinson, T.F. 2006. Fire and the herbaceous layer of eastern 

oak forests. In: Dickinson, M.B., ed. Fire in eastern oak 

forests: delivering science to land managers, proceedings of 

a conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station: 136-151. 

Keenan, S.C. 1998. Soil survey of Polk County, NC. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 218 p.

Phillips, R.J.; Waldrop, T.A.; Simon, D.M. 2006. Assessment of the 

FARSITE model for predicting fire behavior in the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains. In: Konnor, K.S., ed. Proceedings of 

the 13th biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-92. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 521-525. 

Phillips, R.J.; Hutchinson, T.F.; Brudnak, L.; Waldrop, T.A. 2007. 

Fire and fire surrogate treatments in mixed-oak forests: effects 

on herbaceous layer vegetation. In: Butler, B.W.; Cook, W., 

comps. The fire environment innovations, management, and 

policy; conference proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-46. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 475-485.

Stanturf, J.A.; Wade, D.D.; Waldrop, T.A. [and others]. 2002. Fire 

in southern forest landscapes. In: Wear, D.M, Greis, J.G., eds. 

Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 607-630. 

Van Lear, D.H.; Waldrop, T.A. 1989. History, use, and effects of 

fire in the Southern Appalachians. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE‐54. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 20 p.

Waldrop, T.A.; Brudnak, L.; Rideout-Hanzak, S. 2007. Fuels on 

disturbed and undisturbed sites in the southern Appalachian 

Mountains, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

37: 1134-1141. 

Waldrop, T.A.; Phillips, R.J.; Simon, D.M. 2010. Fuels and 

predicted fire behavior in the southern Appalachian Mountains 

after fire and fire surrogate treatments. Forest Science. 

56(1): 32-45.

Waldrop, T.A., Yaussy, D.A., Phillips, R.J. [and others]. 2008. Fuel 

reduction treatments affect stand structure of hardwood forests 

in western North Carolina and southern Ohio, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255: 3117-3129.

Yaussy, D.A.; Waldrop, T.A. 2010. Delayed mortality of eastern 

hardwoods after prescribed fire. In: Stanturf, J.A., ed. 

Proceedings of the 14th biennial southern silvicultural research 

conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-121. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 609-611.

Youngblood, A.; Metlen, K.L.; Knapp, E.E.; Outcalt, K.W.; 

Stephens, S.L.; Waldrop, T.A.; Yaussy, D. 2005. Implementation 

of the fire and fire surrogate study—a national research effort 

to evaluate the consequences of fuel reduction treatment. In: 

Peterson, C.E., Maguire, D.A., eds. Balancing Ecosystem 

Values: Innovative Experiments for Sustainable Forestry. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Station: 315-321.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 39

Figure 1—Change in basal area over the number of years since the first treatment. Letters 

by each line represent the treatment (C=untreated control, B=burn only, M=mechanical only, 

MB=combined mechanical and burn treatments). Letters along the X axis show the timing of 

each treatment.

Figure 2—Change in canopy openness over the number of years since the first treatment. 

Letters by each line represent the treatment (C=untreated control, B=burn only, M=mechanical 

only, MB=combined mechanical and burn treatments). Letters along the X axis show the timing 

of each treatment.
40 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 3—Change in shrub cover over the number of years since the first treatment. Letters 

by each line represent the treatment (C=untreated control, B=burn only, M=mechanical 

only, MB=combined mechanical and burn treatments). Letters along the X axis show the 

timing of each treatment.

Figure 4—Change in ground cover over the number of years since the first treatment. Letters 

by each line represent the treatment (C=untreated control, B=burn only, M=mechanical only, 

MB=combined mechanical and burn treatments). Letters along the X axis show the timing of each 

treatment.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 41

Figure 5—Change in Graminoid cover over the number of years since the first treatment. 

Letters by each line represent the treatment (C=untreated control, B=burn only, M=mechanical 

only, MB=combined mechanical and burn treatments). Letters along the X axis show the timing 

of each treatment.

Figure 6—Change in density of oak regeneration over the number of years since the first treatment. 

Letters by each line represent the treatment (C=untreated control, B=burn only, M=mechanical only, 

MB=combined mechanical and burn treatments). Letters along the X axis show the timing of each 

treatment.
42 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION 

The wide range of soil and moisture conditions on 

which shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) can flourish 

makes it a ubiquitous species across the southeastern and 

eastern United States. Shortleaf pine is found in 22 States 

covering over 440,000 square miles (Lawson 1990). 

The species can form almost pure stands on shallow, 

well-drained upland soils in areas such as the Ouachita 

Mountains of Arkansas. Shortleaf pine typically becomes 

a more minor tree species component with increasing 

site productivity. The species’ rooting habit, low demand 

for soil nutrients, and sprouting capability enable it to 

flourish on a wide variety of sites (Fowells 1965, Guldin 

1986). Initial seedling height growth is typically slow due 

to the formation of a large taproot, but the taproot gives 

shortleaf pine a distinct advantage on poor sites over 

other species. Sprouting maintains the species on sites 

with frequent disturbances where other species unable 

to sprout may decline over time (Lawson 1990). These 

characteristics perpetuate shortleaf pine on poorer sites 

and make it a transitional successional species on more 

productive sites. 

Shortleaf pine has the ability to sprout during the seedling 

or sapling developmental stages, and stems approaching 

6 to 8 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (Fowells 

1965, Lawson 1990, Little and Somes 1956). The species’ 

sprouting ability decreases with increasing age and size, 

similar to other tree species that can sprout. Sprouts 

initiate from axillary dormant buds located at or just 

above a unique physiological feature known as the basal 

crook. The basal crook typically develops within two to 

three months following germination. When shoot growth 

begins, the stem grows horizontally for a time and then 

turns vertically at a point slightly above the cotyledons 

just before it reaches the soil surface, forming a horizontal 

crook (Stone and Stone 1954). Seedlings growing in full 

sun typically grow more developed basal crooks than 

those growing in full or partial shade (Guldin 1986, Lilly 

and others 2010, Little and Mergen 1966). Detrimental 

agents such as fire, herbivory, or injury cause a sprouting 

response in vigorous, young trees. As many as sixty 

sprouts may initiate on a damaged seedling, but typically 

only one to three sprouts will reach maturity if no further 

disturbances occur (Mattoon 1915). 

Landscape-wide factors such as urbanization, fire 

suppression, cessation of free-roaming livestock grazing, 

Southern pine beetle outbreaks, paucity of young 

shortleaf pine age classes, and loblolly pine (P. taeda L.) 

preponderance have all combined in the last few decades 

to diminish shortleaf pine populations (Birch and others 

1986, Coffey 2012, Moser and others 2007). The shortleaf 

pine resource declined by 52 percent across its range from 

the early 1980s to 2010 (Oswalt 2012). Restoration efforts 

of shortleaf pine ecosystems were initiated by the U.S. 

Forest Service in the Ouachita Mountains in the early 

1990s, but other national forests, government agencies, 

and private landowners have shown interest in restoring 

shortleaf pine ecosystems in recent years (Atkinson 2010, 

Bukenhofer and others 1994). Knowledge of shortleaf 

pine sprouting capability and propensity provides insight 

to the management methods associated with restoration 

activities, especially prescribed burning. Ecosystem 

restoration frequently involves disturbances such as 

burning intended to favor shortleaf pine over other species 

and reintroduce fire dependent species into those systems. 

SPROUTING CAPABILITY AND GROWTH OF ONE-YEAR-OLD SHORTLEAF PINE 

SEEDLINGS AFTER DIFFERENT TIMES OF BURNING AND CLIPPING

David C. Clabo and Wayne K. Clatterbuck1

Abstract—Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) is capable of sprouting after the stem is killed. The sprouting ability of 

shortleaf pine could be used to favor the species silviculturally for specific management objectives. Information is limited 

on burning effects at different periods of the growing season on shortleaf pine survival and growth. This study was located 

on the Cumberland Plateau region of east Tennessee and was conducted on one-year-old seedlings. Replicated treatments 

analyzed as a randomized block design included: clipping in March, burning in April, burning in July, burning in November, 

and an untreated control. Results indicate that after one full growing season after the treatment year, survival and growth of 

shortleaf pine sprouts did not differ among the three burning times (treatments) although differences were observed between 

burning and clipping and burning and control (unburned) treatments. Sprout number was statistically different among 

treatments with maximum burn temperatures as a covariate.

1

David C. Clabo, Graduate Research Assistant, The University of Tennessee, Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries, Knoxville, TN 37996-4563

Wayne K. Clatterbuck, Professor, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 43

Few studies (e.g. Campbell 1985, Cain and Shelton 2000, 

Lilly and others 2012, Shelton and Cain 2002), especially 

in the eastern portion of the species’ range outside of 

Arkansas, have examined when disturbances such as stem 

clipping and burning can be applied to young seedlings 

during the growing season to produce the largest and 

greatest number of sprouts. 

The objectives of this study were to determine the 

optimum timing for shortleaf pine survival and the 

sprouting response among four treatments: clipping 

during the early growing season or burning at three 

separate periods of the growing season. We compared 

seedling survival, height of the dominant sprout, and the 

number of sprouts produced among treatments one full 

growing season after the year treatments were applied.

METHODS

The study was conducted on the Cumberland Forest, a 

unit of the University of Tennessee’s Forest Resources 

Research and Education Center (FRREC). The 

Cumberland Forest is located on the Walden Ridge 

subregion of the Cumberland Plateau (Smalley 1982). 

The study site was a previously maintained field with 

soils consisting of fine-loamy, siliceous, semi-active, 

mesic Typic Hapludults on 5-12 percent slopes from the 

Lonewood series. Shortleaf pine has a site index of 70 

feet at base age 50 years for these soils (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 

2012). Shortleaf pine seedlings (1-0 stock) were purchased 

from the Tennessee Division of Forestry Nursery 

at Delano, TN, which used Tennessee seed sources. 

Seedlings were planted on February 25, 2011 and 

averaged 11 inches tall at planting.

The study was established on a 5,796 square foot

section (69 feet by 84 feet) of the field. Three blocks 

were established that consisted of 15 plots each. Each 

rectangular plot measured 4 feet by 9 feet and contained 

50 seedlings planted on a 1 foot by 1 foot spacing with 

6-foot buffers on each side of the plot. Within each block, 

each treatment was applied once to a plot. All seedlings 

within a plot from each block were clipped in late March 

of 2011, closely followed by burning of one plot from each 

block on April 14, 2011. Mid-growing-season burns were 

completed on July 14, 2011 and late growing-season/early 

dormant-season burns on November 10, 2011. One control 

plot from each block that received no treatments was used 

in the analysis as well.

One inconsistency with the experimental procedures was 

that the July burn plots were burned twice within a few 

days of each other using the same methodology because 

of poor ignition and incomplete burn coverage on the first 

attempt, which may have affected some of the survival, 

height growth and sprouting results. Some seedlings in 

these plots burned twice, while others were burned once.

Clipped seedlings were cut 1 to 2 inches above ground 

level. In addition, all root collar sprouts that may have 

already existed on the stem were cut to ensure uniform 

starting heights and sprouting conditions. Prior to 

conducting burns, herbaceous plants and grasses were cut 

to ground level within plots, and a 1.5 percent solution of 

glyphosate herbicide (Cornerstone Plus®) was applied to 

reduce the effects of these fuels on the burns. The fuel 

source used for the burns was eastern white pine (Pinus

strobus L.) needles gathered from nearby plantations. 

Needles were gathered and sifted to remove larger limbs 

and twigs. The needles were then allowed to dry on a tarp 

in full sunlight for at least two hours prior to burning to 

reduce fuel moisture to levels low enough for the needles 

to carry a fire. Needles were distributed evenly within 

plots using 5-gallon buckets to ensure equal fuel volumes 

within plots. 

Burns were established in a ring pattern around plots 

using drip torches. The temperature and duration of 

each burn was measured and recorded for each plot. 

Burn temperatures were recorded every 15 seconds until 

complete flame-out using a Kintrex® Digital Infrared 

Thermometer. The thermometer sat on a pole 4 feet from 

the center of a plot, which was the midpoint between the 

fifth and sixth tree of the third column. The center was 

used as the measurement point due to the likelihood of 

hotter interior temperatures than along the edges. The 

pole measured 3 feet 8 inches tall, and including the 

height of the thermometer handle, the thermometer rested 

approximately 70 inches away from plot center. Fire 

weather data (relative humidity, ambient air temperature, 

and wind speed) were recorded prior to conducting each 

of the burns. 

Survival percentage, height of the dominant sprout, and 

number of sprouts were the three measurements completed 

following treatments. Measurements were recorded in 

January 2013, one full growing season after treatments 

were applied to the first-year seedlings. Analysis of 

variance was used to test for differences among treatments. 

Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block 

experimental design using the PROC MIXED procedure 

in SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., 2012). Least square means 

were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant 

difference test with a significance level set at P = 0.05. Burn 

temperature and duration data were included as covariates 

in the analysis to determine if they had a significant effect 

on the dependent variables. Mean burn temperature, total 

burn duration, maximum burn temperature, median burn 

temperature, and the sum of all temperature readings were 

all tested as covariates using a significance level of P=0.05.
44 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

RESULTS

All seedlings that received burn treatments were topkilled. 

Significant differences in seedling survival occurred 

among the five treatments (P=0.04). Survival rates were 

greatest with the control treatment and the clip treatment, 

which both had a 75.3 percent survival rate (fig. 1). The 

average survival rates among the three burning times were 

not statistically different, ranging from 38.7 to 48.7 percent. 

The clip and control treatments were significantly different 

from the April and July burn treatments, but similar to the 

November burn treatment (fig. 1).

The six variables used in covariate analysis did not affect 

treatment means for dominant sprout height of shortleaf pine 

seedlings. Significant differences in dominant sprout height 

occurred among the five treatments (P<0.001). Seedlings 

averaged 11 inches tall at planting, and the controls, which 

had the tallest mean height, averaged 48.5 inches after 

one growing season (fig. 2). The clip treatment seedlings 

averaged 26.1 inches. This treatment was statistically 

different from the three burn treatments and the control. 

There were no statistical differences among the three burn 

treatments as indicated by their letter groupings, even though 

numerically, seedlings in the July burn treatment were 

shorter on average (15.4 inches) than seedlings burned in 

April (19.2 inches) and November (19.7 inches).

The number of sprouts produced by each seedling was 

significantly affected by the maximum burn temperature 

covariate. Maximum burn temperatures ranged from 

512 degrees Fahrenheit in one of the March burn plots 

to greater than 932 degrees Fahrenheit in one of the 

November burn plots. There were significant differences 

among treatments with the covariate included (P=0.0089). 

Differences in the adjusted (for the covariate) and 

unadjusted (without the covariate) means and standard 

errors are presented in table 1. The July burn produced the 

fewest number of sprouts (4.2), while the April burn (7.0) 

yielded nearly three more sprouts per seedling on average. 

The November burn produced the most sprouts of any 

treatment (11.0). The mean number of sprouts produced 

in the clip treatment (6.0) was statistically similar (letter 

groupings) to the April burn and not significantly different 

from the number of sprouts produced by the July burn. The 

control treatment produced the fewest sprouts (1.3), and 

this treatment was significantly different from the other 

treatments (table 1). 

DISCUSSION

Several studies have observed poor survival rates after 

summer burns as compared to dormant season or early 

growing season burns in shortleaf pine seedlings of 

various ages (Cain and Shelton 2000, Grossmann and 

Kuser 1988, Shelton and Cain 2002) similar to those in 

this study. The low survival rate of seedlings burned in 

April was likely a partial result of poor root/soil contact 

and seedlings not being fully established after their 

February planting (Grossnickle 2005, Rietveld 1989). 

Another study with 6-year-old seedlings reported similar 

survival percentages for an April burn that was assessed 

one full growing season after the treatment year (Lilly 

and others 2012). Although some seedlings in the July 

burn plots were burned twice, survival percentages were 

not statistically different from the April or November 

burn plots. More fully established seedlings should 

attain large enough size for the root collar, develop 

thicker bark, and produce larger basal crooks, which 

may increase survival percentages after burning (Little 

and Somes 1956). Although the survival percentages for 

the November burn was similar to the two earlier burns, 

others have observed that as seedling size increases, 

survival percentage increases (Lilly and others 2012, 

Mattoon 1915).

The control and clip treatments had the same survival 

percentage (75.3 percent). The high survival of the clipped 

seedlings differed from another study in Arkansas that 

found a survival rate of 48 percent for four-year-old 

seedlings that were clipped at a similar height above 

ground level (Campbell 1985). The control seedlings 

had a somewhat lower one-year survival rate (75 versus 

greater than 80 percent) than the expected survival rate of 

shortleaf pine seedlings that are outplanted in Arkansas 

National Forests by the U.S. Forest Service (Mexal 1992). 

The clipped seedlings grew taller than the burned 

seedlings, as expected. The lack of heat damage to the 

basal crook and the dormant buds just above the basal 

crook near the soil line result in a greater likelihood for 

clipped seedlings to grow taller (Cain and Shelton 2000, 

Lilly and others 2012, Little and Somes 1956). Because 

there were no significant differences among the burn 

treatments, data from seedlings older than one year old 

may be necessary to detect statistical differences in height 

growth using these same treatments. The three burn 

treatments had about a 60 percent or less height reduction 

as compared to the controls. A similar study in Arkansas 

found that one-year-old seedlings burned during January 

were 82 percent shorter than the controls measured 

one growing season after burns were applied (Cain and 

Shelton 2000). Height growth following the clip treatment 

and the burn treatments in this study was in the 1- to 

3-foot range expected for this species throughout most of 

its range when typical weather patterns occur during the 

growing season (Lawson 1990, Williston 1951). 

Although the height of shortleaf pine sprouts in burned 

plots was about 60 percent less than that in unburned 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 45

control plots, burning combined with the sprouting ability 

of shortleaf pine could allow shortleaf pine to be more 

competitive with other species during the regeneration 

process. This outcome is reinforced in a site preparation 

study to create mixed pine-hardwood stands by Mullins 

and others (1997) when planting loblolly pine following 

a complete hardwood harvest. The planted loblolly pine 

seedlings only survived and developed when burning 

and/or herbicides were used to hinder initial hardwood 

growth. Those pine seedlings planted in harvested areas 

without site preparation had poor survival because they 

were overwhelmed by the hardwood sprout growth. 

The site preparation burn was conducted following the 

harvest and before the pine planting. Shortleaf pine 

probably would have similar growth properties as loblolly 

pine during establishment. An added advantage is the 

sprouting ability of shortleaf pine. A burning regime 

after planting could put shortleaf pine sprouts on a more 

even footing with sprouting hardwoods. Mixtures of 

pine (shortleaf) and oak were probably initiated and 

maintained with a fire regime before fire suppression 

began in the early 1900s (Brose and others 2001, Elliott 

and Vose 2005).

The mean number of sprouts per tree produced after 

burn treatments was less with the maximum temperature 

covariate included for the April and July burns, whereas 

the seedlings burned in November produced more sprouts 

with this covariate included. This is likely a result of 

the seedlings being better established in November 

following the February planting. All burning treatments 

produced more sprouts than clipping except for the 

July burn. This result is different from a study in New 

Jersey by Grossmann and Kuser (1988), who found more 

sprouts on six- to eight-year-old seedlings after spring 

clippings. The discrepancies in this result could be due to 

differences in burn intensity or duration, which was not 

outlined in the New Jersey study. Lilly and others (2012) 

found more sprouts on average (8.8 +/- 0.7 to 7.51 +/- 0.7 

unadjusted) following an April burn applied to six-yearold seedlings. This finding agrees with the axiom that 

sprouting ability increases with size until a certain size 

threshold is reached. As expected, the controls produced 

few sprouts in comparison to the clip and the burn 

treatments, which has been outlined in previous work 

by others (e.g., Guldin 1986, Mattoon 1915). Managers 

interested in obtaining more or fewer sprouts in young 

shortleaf pine regeneration following burns may want 

to carefully consider the timing of burning to influence 

sprouting. Fewer sprouts would likely be more attractive 

in most situations due to increased vigor. One to three 

sprouts typically differentiate themselves from the rest 

and achieve larger size classes (Mattoon 1915). 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Dr. Kevin Hoyt, director 

of the UT-FRREC Cumberland Forest, Martin Schubert, 

manager of the UT-FRREC Cumberland Forest, Randal 

Maden, and Todd Hamby for their help in establishing and 

conducting the study. 

LITERATURE CITED

Atkinson, K.L. 2010. The shortleaf pine initiative. In: Symposium 

on Shortleaf Pine Research: Past, Present and Future. Stillwater, 

OK: Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management 

(NREM), Oklahoma State University: 16-18.

Birch, T.W.; Hansen, M.H.; McWilliams, W.H.; Sheffield, R.M. 

1986. The shortleaf resource. In: Murphy, P.A., ed. Symposium 

on the shortleaf pine ecosystem. Monticello, AR: Arkansas 

Cooperative Extension Service: 9-24.

Brose, P.; Schuler, T. Van Lear, D.; Berst, J. 2001. Bringing fire 

back: The changing regimes of the Appalachian mixed-oak 

forests. Journal of Forestry. 99:30-35.

Bukenhofer, G.A.; Neal, J.C.; Montague, W.G. 1994. Renewal and 

recovery: Shortleaf pine/bluestem grass ecosystem and redcockaded woodpeckers. Proceedings of Arkansas Academy of 

Science. 48: 243-245.

Cain, M.D.; Shelton, M.G. 2000. Survival and growth of Pinus

echinata and Quercus seedlings in response to simulated 

summer and winter prescribed burns. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 30(11): 1830-1836. 

Campbell, T.E. 1985. Sprouting of slash, loblolly, and shortleaf 

pines following a simulated precommercial thinning. Research 

Note SO-320. New Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 3 p.

Coffey, C. 2012. The history of shortleaf pine on the Cumberland 

Plateau. In: Proceedings of the Shortleaf Pine Conference: East 

Meets West, Bridging the Gap with Research and Education 

Across the Range. Huntsville, AL: Alabama Cooperative 

Extension System and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service: 2-6.

Elliot, K.J.; Vose, J.M. 2005. Effects of understory prescribed 

burning on shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.)/mixedhardwood forests. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 

132(2): 236-251.

Fowells, H.A., ed. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service Agricultural Handbook No. 271. 762 p.

Grossnickle, S.C. 2005. Importance of root growth in overcoming 

planting stress. New Forests. 30: 273-294.

Grossmann, M.N.; Kuser, J.E. 1988. Rooting primary-leaved 

sprouts of pitch and shortleaf pine. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 5: 158-159.

Guldin, J.M. 1986. Ecology of shortleaf pine. In: Murphy, P.A., ed. 

Symposium on the shortleaf pine ecosystem. Monticello, AR: 

Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: 25-40.

Lawson, E.R. 1990. Pinus echinata Mill. shortleaf pine. In: Burns, 

R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. cords. Silvics of North America: Vol. 

1. Conifers. Agriculture Handbook 654, Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service: 316-326. 
46 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Lilly, C.J.; Will, R.E.; Tauer, C.G. [and others]. 2010. Factors 

influencing shortleaf pine sprouting after fire. In: Symposium 

on shortleaf pine research: past, present, and future. Stillwater, 

OK: Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management 

(NREM), Oklahoma State University: 8-9.

Lilly, C.J.; Will, R.E.; Tauer, C.G. [and others]. 2012. Factors 

affecting the sprouting of shortleaf pine rootstock following 

prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management. 265: 13-19.

Little, S.; Somes, H.A. 1956. Buds enable pitch and shortleaf pines 

to recover from injury. Station Paper NE-81. Broomall, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern 

Research Station. 14 p.

Little, S.; Mergen F. 1966. External and internal changes associated 

with basal-crook formation in pitch and shortleaf pines. Forest 

Science. 12(3): 268-275.

Mattoon, W.R. 1915. Life history of shortleaf pine. Bulletin 244, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service. 46 p. 

Mexal, J.G. 1992. Artificial regeneration of shortleaf pine: put it 

all together for success. In: Brissette, J.C.; Barnett, J.P, eds. 

Proceedings of the Shortleaf Pine Regeneration Workshop. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-90. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment 

Station: 172-186.

Moser, K.W.; Hansen, M.; McWilliams, W.H.; Sheffield, R.M. 

2007. Shortleaf pine composition and structure in the United 

States. In: Kabrick, J.M.; Dey, D.C.; Gwaze, D, eds. Shortleaf 

pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of 

a symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station: 19-27.

Mullins. J.A.; Buckner, E.R.; Waldrop, T.A.; Evans, R.M. 1997. 

Site preparation methods for establishing mixed pine-hardwood 

stands in the southern Appalachians. In: Waldrop, T.A., 

ed. Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Southern Silviculture 

Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-20. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 22-25.

Oswalt, C.M. 2012. Spatial and temporal trends of the shortleaf 

pine resource in the Eastern United States. In: Kush, J.; Barlow, 

R.J.; Gilbert, J.C, eds. Proceedings of the shortleaf pine 

conference: east meets west, bridging the gap with research 

and education across the range. Huntsville, AL: Alabama 

Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report No. 11: 33-37.

Rietveld, W.J. 1989. Transplanting stress in bareroot conifer 

seedlings: its development and progression to establishment. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 6: 99-107.

SAS Institute Inc. 2012. SAS version 9.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Shelton, M.G.; Cain, M.D. 2002. The sprouting potential of 

shortleaf pines: implications for seedling recovery from top 

damage. In: Walkingstick, T; Kluender, R.; Riley, T., eds. 

Proceedings of the 2002 Arkansas Forest Resources Center 

Arkansas Forestry Symposium, Little Rock, AR: 55-60.

Smalley, G.W. 1982. Classification and evaluation of forest sites 

on the Mid-Cumberland Plateau. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-38. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Forest 

Experiment Station. 58 p.

Stone, Jr., E.L.; Stone, M.H. 1954. Root collar sprouts in pine. 

Journal of Forestry. 52(7): 487-491.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Web Soil 

Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.

aspx. [Date accessed: March 21, 2012]. 

Williston, H.L. 1951. Height growth of pine seedlings. Journal of 

Forestry. 49: 205.

Table 1—Mean number of sprouts produced after one full growing season adjusted for the signifi cant covariate 

maximum burn temperature and means unadjusted for the covariate 

Maximum covariate Unadjusted means

P=0.0089 F=6.99 P=0.0118 F=27.4

Treatment Mean SE LGa Mean SE LG

BA 7.01 0.706 Bb 7.51 0.706 AB

BJ 4.25 0.666 C 4.81 0.663 B

BN 11.09 0.721 A 10.06 0.647 A

CL ― ― ― 6 0.591 B

CO ― ― ― 1.33 0.588 C

aLG denotes statistical letter grouping.

bMeans within each column not followed by the same letter differ signifi cantly at P = 0.05.

Note: BA is the burn in April of 2011, BJ is the burn in July of 2011, BN is the burn in November of 2011, CL is the clip in March of 2011, 

and CO is the control that received no treatment. 

Note: cells with dashes had no maximum burn temperature covariates because these treatment areas were unburned.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 47

Figure 1—Mean survival percentage by treatment one growing season following 

treatment. Columns with different letters differ significantly at P = 0.05. BA is the burn in 

April of 2011, BJ is the burn in July of 2011, BN is the burn in November of 2011, CL is the 

clip in March of 2011, and CO is the control that received no treatment.

Figure 2—Mean dominant sprout height by treatment one growing season following 

treatment application. Columns with different letters differ significantly at P = 0.05. BA 

is the burn in April of 2011, BJ is the burn in July of 2011, BN is the burn in November of 

2011, CL is the clip in March of 2011, and CO is the control that received no treatment. 
48 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

BACKGROUND—FIRE AND

INVASIVE PLANT BIOLOGY

To best understand how woody invasives are impacted 

by fire and other management practices, it is crucial to 

know the individual life history traits of these plants. 

Invasive species often are prolific seed producers, which 

are either wind or animal dispersed; they typically 

reproduce at a young age; and they can often sprout 

prolifically (Marinelli and Randall 1996). Rebbeck 

(2012) summarized the biological and ecological traits of 

common nonnative invasive trees, shrubs and vines found 

in Eastern U.S. forests. Important traits to consider when 

evaluating a species of interest include: (1) level of shade 

tolerance, (2) dioecious or monoecious reproduction, 

(3) annual seed production rate, (4) mode of seed 

dispersal, (5) seed bank viability, (6) annual growth rate, 

(7) sprouting ability, (8) competitiveness, and 

(9) successional status. Unfortunately, there are numerous 

information gaps for many of the species (Gucker and 

others 2012, Rebbeck 2012). 

Limited empirical data are available regarding how many 

invaders respond to fire in the Eastern United States, 

though more is known about fire and invasives in Western 

U.S. forests and grasslands. Huebner (2006) evaluated 

17 common nonnative invasive species (NNIS) for their 

response to fire and their potential to change current fire 

regimes in eastern oak communities and reported that 

most of the woody species evaluated have the potential 

to be resistant of fire at maturity. These included autumn 

olive (Elaeagnus umbellate), common buckthorn 

(Rhamnus cathartica), Japanese and bush honeysuckles 

(Lonicera spp.), kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata), 

multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Norway maple (Acer

platanoides), and privet (Ligustrum japonicum). The 

response of Ailanthus to fire was not studied directly, 

but Ailanthus was predicted to endure and/or increase 

because of its ability to sprout. While updating the U.S. 

Forest Service Fire Effects Information System, Gucker 

and others (2012) characterized the information available 

on fire and invasive plants in the Eastern United States. 

1

Joanne Rebbeck, Research Plant Physiologist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Delaware, OH 43015

Todd F. Hutchinson, Research Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Delaware, OH 43015

Louis Iverson, Research Landscape Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Delaware, OH 43015

Daniel A. Yaussy, Research Forester Emeritus, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Delaware, OH 43015

Matthew Peters, GIS Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Delaware, OH 43015

Michael Bowden, Natural Resource Administrator, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resources Management, Columbus, 

OH 43229

Greg Guess, Land Management Administrator and Fire Supervisor, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Chillicothe, 

OH 45601

Aaron Kloss, Firewise Coordinator, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Columbus, OH 43229

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 

AILANTHUS AND PRESCRIBED FIRE: IS IT A VOLATILE COMBINATION?

Joanne Rebbeck, Todd Hutchinson, Louis Iverson, Matthew Peters, Daniel Yaussy, 

Michael Bowden, Greg Guess, and Aaron Kloss1

Abstract—Throughout much of the Central Hardwoods region, the use of prescribed fire on public lands has increased 

rapidly in the last decade to improve oak regeneration. While prescribed fire can favor oak regeneration, its use may also 

increase risk of invasion and expansion of nonnative invasive species (NNIS). Although fire has often been shown to 

facilitate the expansion of NNIS in the Western United States, much less in known about the effects of fire on invasives 

in the Eastern United States. In 2008, a team of Ohio scientists and land managers initiated a Joint Fire Science Program 

(JFSP) project to study how the distribution and abundance of Ailanthus altissima (Ailanthus) relates to recent prescribed 

fires, harvesting activity, seed sources, and other landscape and stand characteristics. We found that recent timber harvest 

activity was the best predictor of Ailanthus presence; prescribed fire was not a good predictor. We also quantified the direct 

effects of prescribed fire on the demography of Ailanthus populations, with and without a pre-burn application of steminjected herbicide. We found that after one prescribed fire, Ailanthus germinants and sprouts from topkilled saplings and 

trees were poor competitors with faster-growing post-fire woody regeneration as forest floor shading increased over time. 

This study demonstrates that prescribed fire alone does not appear to facilitate the spread of Ailanthus. These findings also 

suggest that further empirical studies are needed to address the combined impacts of fire and timber harvesting on Ailanthus

invasions in eastern U.S. forests.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 49

They found that often information relevant to fire was 

anecdotal and that observation-based information was 

sparse. The group concluded that more experiments and 

observations are needed, including collecting several 

years of data in a particular ecosystem, studying different 

burning conditions at varying times of year with varying 

fire severities, and varying intervals between burns. 

The authors’ primary message was that “more highquality information is needed for fire managers to avoid 

exacerbating problems with invasive plant species.” We 

do know that fires often topkill vegetation that later 

resprouts prolifically, increase light levels within forest 

stands, and consume leaf litter, which releases nutrients 

and exposes mineral soils. These forest floor changes 

typically favor germination and seedling establishment, 

with opportunistic NNIS often getting a jump start 

on the native species if seed sources are present. Soil 

disturbances resulting from the installment of fire breaks 

can also promote NNIS establishment. The use of dozers, 

tankers, and all-terrain vehicles may introduce seeds of 

NNIS into previously non-infested areas. Because the 

current state of fire and invasive plant species research in 

Eastern U.S. forests is very limited, anecdotal information 

is currently being used by managers.

Adding to the challenge of utilizing prescribed fire 

and other management practices to promote oak 

regeneration is the fact that some invasive plants are, 

like oaks, disturbance-dependent species. They can 

share similar life history traits (e.g., strong sprouters, 

well-developed root systems, and drought tolerance), 

making it a challenge to promote oaks while minimizing 

the establishment and growth of native and nonnative 

competitors. Ailanthus represents one such woody 

invasive species. Prescribed fire topkills stems and 

promotes resprouting of both oaks and nonnatives. When 

developing a management strategy, it is important to link 

the timing of treatments to the phenology and energy 

storage patterns of the targeted species. To be most 

effective, managers need to find the “Achilles heel” of 

the target species and treat it when it is most vulnerable. 

An effective management plan should connect the timing 

of fire and/or cutting to periods of low energy reserves 

in roots to reduce or eliminate subsequent sprouting. 

Since maximum starch accumulation occurs in late 

summer to early fall for most species, this would not be 

an effective time to burn. Conversely, rapid mobilization 

of root starch reserves occurs in the spring when plants 

are producing new leaves, but successful implementation 

of spring prescribed fires can be challenging because of 

typically narrow burn windows. The timing of leaf-out 

can vary considerably with species. Bush honeysuckles 

are typically the first to leaf out in the spring and the 

last to drop leaves in the fall, while oaks are late to leaf 

out and retain leaves well into late fall. Huddle and 

Pallardy (1999) investigated the impact of burn season 

on survival, growth, and root starch of 1- and 2-year-old 

red maple, white oak, and red oak seedlings. They found 

no difference in survival among species after a fall burn 

(pre-leaf drop). In contrast, red oaks survived spring fires 

(after leaf-out) better than maple seedlings because of 

higher resprouting of oaks, which was attributed to higher 

root starch levels. This same physiological approach 

is recommended when determining the most effective 

time to implement a prescribed burn or treat NNIS with 

herbicides. Late summer and early fall is the ideal time 

for stem injections to promote translocation of herbicide 

to roots to prevent resprouting of woody NNIS, but we do 

not recommend it as an effective season to burn. 

Another important component for any land management 

plan is to have a current inventory of NNIS within 

the area of interest. Before implementing a harvest or 

prescribed fire program, it is crucial to be proactive 

regarding nonnative invasive plants before that first tree 

is cut or fire line is installed. Managers need to know 

what nonnative species are present, and where and in 

what numbers they are found, both within and nearby 

units where prescribed fires are planned. Unfortunately, 

managers are often lacking adequate resources to conduct 

NNIS inventories and to treat infested sites. A worst-case 

scenario would be the creation of a NNIS monoculture 

within a landscape with little to no ecological or 

economic value. In 2003, our group witnessed the 

abundant establishment of Ailanthus seedlings following 

a thinning and prescribed fire treatment installed in 

one of three southeastern Ohio State forests as part of 

the national Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) Fire 

and Fire Surrogate Study (Rebbeck 2012, Rebbeck and 

others 2005). It appears that the combination of an ample 

seed source in the stand along with soil and canopy 

disturbances during treatment installation caused the 

surge in Ailanthus seedlings. This was further supported 

by a post-treatment inventory that found few if any adult 

female Ailanthus present in the two adjacent treatment 

units (shelterwood only and burn only), where no large 

post-treatment increase in Ailanthus was observed. 

We learned valuable lessons from the consequences of 

that study. First, early detection of NNIS in advance 

of a disturbance is critical to limit the establishment of 

invasives after the disturbance. Second, it would have 

been advantageous to remove the seed source with an 

herbicide treatment prior to the prescribed burn. Had we 

known the extent of infestation in advance, those observed 

impacts could have been mitigated prior to thinning and 

burning. That post-disturbance increase in Ailanthus did, 

however, initiate the development of an active partnership 

between land managers and researchers that focuses on 

learning where Ailanthus is found on a large forested 

landscape, developing a cost-effective mapping tool, 

identifying predictors of its presence in these forested 
50 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

landscapes, and how Ailanthus responds to prescribed 

fire. Our overarching goal is to develop strategies that 

will help limit the expansion of Ailanthus while also 

sustaining oak in a managed forest landscape. 

SUCCESSFUL MANAGER–RESEARCHER 

COLLABORATION

In 2008, the JFSP sought research proposals that 

specifically addressed the interaction of invasive plants 

and fire in the Eastern United States. We successfully 

secured funding and developed a series of forest 

management questions related to the use of prescribed fire 

and invasive plants focusing on the prolific sprouter and 

seed producer, Ailanthus:

1. Can prescribed fire be used effectively without 

facilitating the spread of NNIS?

2. Can prescribed fire be used as a surrogate for herbicide 

treatment of NNIS?

3. Can herbicide and fire treatments be combined to 

enhance control of NNIS?

4. To what extent does fire interact with timber harvesting 

and natural disturbances to promote the establishment 

and spread of NNIS? 

Our two research objectives were to determine the 

distribution and abundance of Ailanthus across a 

managed forest landscape (Tar Hollow State Forest) and 

quantify the direct effects of prescribed fire on Ailanthus

populations. The forest has a long history of timber 

harvesting and farming since European settlement in 

the late 1700s. Following a Federal land resettlement 

program in the 1930s, a public forest was established. It 

is reforested with both artificial and natural regeneration 

of mixed oak and mixed mesophytic species. It currently 

has an active timber harvesting program, and since 

2001, an active prescribed burn program. Based on 

dendrochronological records, Ailanthus has been present 

on Tar Hollow since the early 1930s. 

The first task of the project was to efficiently identify 

seed-bearing female trees across the forested study area. 

We chose to aerially map Ailanthus during the dormant 

season, when the visibility of its persistent seed clusters 

is most prominent (fig. 1). We utilized a Bell 206 B3 

JetRanger helicopter owned by the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife. ODNR 

Division of Forestry personnel conducted the aerial 

survey using georeferenced digital aerial sketch mapping 

technology developed to conduct forest health surveys 

(Schrader-Patton 2003) (fig. 2). Approximately 9,600 acres 

of highly dissected forested land was mapped in a little 

more than 2 hours. Through a partnership with the ODNR 

Division of Forestry and the Wayne National Forest, we 

continue to refine our mapping tool, and subsequently 

have identified Ailanthus infestations in more than 

500,000 acres of public forests in Ohio. Coordinates 

from these surveys were used to produce infestation 

maps for further management planning and are easily 

downloaded to hand-held global positioning system (GPS) 

units to be used by field crews to locate Ailanthus trees 

for chemical or other treatments. The method is proving 

to be a highly effective and efficient tool to map the 

distribution of Ailanthus seed sources in large landscapes. 

A typical survey, including rental of helicopter time, 

costs approximately $0.40 per acre. A manuscript that 

describes the mapping methodology in detail is currently 

in preparation.

In addition to the aerial mapping of seed-bearing female 

trees, we installed a systematic grid of research plots 

within the 9,600-acre study area to quantify the following: 

abundance, size, and age distribution of Ailanthus; 

proximity to Ailanthus seed sources; timber harvest 

history; fire history and intensity; canopy structure; and a 

suite of landscape features such as slope, aspect, and soil 

properties. Approximately 2,100 acres of the study area 

had been burned between 2001 and 2009. Forest Service 

scientists and research technicians were given full access 

to ODNR timber harvest records from the study area; 

records were digitized and incorporated into a geographic 

information system (GIS) database. Current data analysis 

includes the development of a GIS-based model of key 

factors to predict the presence of Ailanthus. To date, more 

than 60 variables have been tested in models. Fire history 

was not a significant predictor of Ailanthus presence; 

the best predictor of Ailanthus presence was whether 

a timber harvest had occurred within the last 25 years. 

Canopy structure was also important, with more open 

mid-canopies favoring Ailanthus. Plans are underway to 

validate the predictive model of Ailanthus on the Wayne 

National Forest in southeastern Ohio. 

The second objective of this collaboration was to 

document the direct effects of prescribed fire on 

Ailanthus. To date, no previous work on the direct effects 

of fire on Ailanthus has been published. We implemented 

a replicated study at Tar Hollow State Forest to determine 

if an herbicide treatment in advance of a prescribed burn 

would limit Ailanthus expansion after fire. Treatments 

included control (no herbicide, no burn), burn only, 

herbicide only, and herbicide + burn. Ailanthus stems 

(≥1 inch diameter at breast height [dbh]) were steminjected (hack-n-squirt) with imazapyr (6.25% of 

Arsenal®AC [53.1% a.i.]) the fall prior to a spring 

burn. Three years post-treatment, 91 percent of the 

herbicide-only and 95 percent of herbicide + burn treated 

Ailanthus stems 4 inches dbh and larger were dead 

with no resprouting. However, in the burn-only plots, 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 51

Ailanthus mortality was only 37 percent of stems 4 

inches dbh and larger. In the first postfire growing season, 

small sprouts (up to 1 inch dbh) and newly-germinated 

Ailanthus seedlings increased three- to four-fold in the 

burn-only and herbicide + burn treatments. After three 

growing seasons, those numbers dropped to preburn 

levels because these smaller stems competed poorly with 

other vegetation such as the nonnative wineberry (Rubus

phoenicolasius), native blackberry (Rubus spp.), and herbs 

that were also stimulated by the fire. A second prescribed 

burn is planned for 2014 to assess the impacts of multiple 

fires on Ailanthus populations in mixed oak forests.

SUMMARY

To summarize what we have learned about the interaction 

of fire and forest management practices and Ailanthus

from this collaborative project, let us revisit our initial 

questions: 

• What are the direct effects of fire on Ailanthus? A 

single mid-April prescribed fire stimulated both 

Ailanthus seed germination and sprouting. However, 

new Ailanthus germinants and small sprouts did not 

persist in subsequent years because of competition with 

other vegetation. We are in the process of studying the 

impact of multiple burns on Ailanthus regeneration.

• Can prescribed fire be used effectively without 

facilitating the spread of Ailanthus? Perhaps, but 

further long-term study is needed. Timber harvesting 

within the last 25 years appears to be more important 

in facilitating the spread of Ailanthus than a history of 

fire, as indicated in our GIS-based modeling. 

• Can prescribed fire be used as a surrogate for herbicide 

treatment of Ailanthus? Given the results of this single 

study, the use of prescribed fire alone should not be 

considered as an alternative to herbicide to control 

Ailanthus. Although fire topkills Ailanthus, postfire 

sprouting is prolific.

• Can herbicide and fire treatments be combined to 

enhance Ailanthus control? The two treatments 

combined were very effective in killing and preventing 

the sprouting of large saplings (>1 inch dbh) and 

Ailanthus trees (≥4 inch dbh). 

• How does fire interact with timber harvesting and 

natural disturbances to promote establishment and 

spread of Ailanthus? We have just begun to study 

the interactions of timber harvesting and natural 

disturbances on Ailanthus populations. Factors that 

predict Ailanthus presence in forests are emerging. 

However, more collaborative landscape level studies 

between land managers and researchers are needed 

across the Eastern United States.

LITERATURE CITED

Gucker, C.L.; Zouhar, K.; Kapler Smith, J.; Stone K.R. 2012. 

Characteristics of information available on fire and invasive 

plants in the Eastern United States. Fire Ecology. 8(2): 57-81. 

Huddle, J.A.; Pallardy, S.G. 1999. Effect of fire on survival and 

growth of Acer rubrum and Quercus seedlings. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 118: 49–56.

Huebner, C.D. 2006. Fire and invasive exotic plant species in 

eastern oak communities: an assessment of current knowledge. 

In: Dickinson, M.B., ed. Proceedings, Fire in eastern oak 

forests: delivering science to land managers conference. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 218-232.

Marinelli, J.; Randall, J.M, eds. 1996. Invasive plants: weeds of the 

global garden. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Botanical Garden. 111 p.

 Rebbeck, J.; Hutchinson, T.F.; Long, R.P. 2005. Invasive plants 

affecting the management of Ohio’s forests. In: Proceedings, 

16th U.S. Department of Agriculture interagency research forum 

on gypsy moth and other invasive species. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NE-337. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 68-70. 

Rebbeck, J. 2012. Fire management and woody invasive plants in 

oak ecosystems. In: Dey, D.C.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Clark, S.L.; 

Schweitzer, C.J., eds. Proceedings, The 4th Fire in Eastern Oak 

Forests Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-102. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station: 142-155.

Schrader-Patton, C. 2003. Digital aerial sketchmapping. Interim 

Project Report RSAC-1202-RPT2. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service Engineering, 

Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Remote Sensing 

Applications Center. 14 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/

technology/pdfs/1202-RPT2.pdf. [Date accessed: January 24, 

2014].
52 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 1—Dormant growing season view of seed clusters on adult female 

Ailanthus tree.

Figure 2—Digital sketch mapping software tablet used to survey female Ailanthus

during helicopter surveys.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 53

INTRODUCTION

Southern Appalachian montane wetlands, collectively 

known as bogs, are rare natural communities. Forming as 

small, wet concavities within high-elevation depressions, 

valley slopes, and basins, bogs contribute greatly to 

the biodiversity of the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregion. 

Individual bogs can vary considerably in terms of 

geomorphic setting, hydrologic regime, and soil and water 

chemistry, yet most are characterized by a generally 

open vegetative structure with diverse herbaceous flora 

(Schafale 2012). Bogs can vary from permanently wet to 

intermittently dry, with hydroperiods driven largely by 

groundwater seepage. Habitat conditions are generally 

harsh, containing highly acidic, nutrient-poor, anoxic 

soil characteristics from which unique suites of plants 

are established. Through time, abiotic processes and 

disturbances have shaped these wetlands, including 

flooding driven both by beavers and by weather regimes, 

ungulate grazing, clearing by native people, and in some 

cases fire. In the absence of natural disturbance, bogs 

tend to rapidly succeed with shrub and tree invasion. 

Challenges commonly encountered with restoration 

of bogs’ early seral conditions include the extirpation 

of grazers, shorter duration and less frequent flooding, 

absence of beavers, native and nonnative invasive species, 

urban and agricultural development, fire suppression, 

and altered soil and water chemistry from excessive 

nutrient input. In many cases, a combination of these 

factors impedes bog restoration and management. Due 

to the large scale destruction of these unique places, 

land managers must adapt and mimic these processes 

to conserve the few remaining sites and inherently rare 

species. 

North Carolina’s Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program recognizes 

five types of bogs (Schafale 2012) based largely on 

vegetation composition differences. All are recognized 

by the Ecological Classification System as Southern 

and Central Appalachian Bogs and Fens (CES202.300; 

Federal Geographic Data Committee 2008). Southern 

Appalachian Fens are herb-dominated wetlands sustained 

by highly basic groundwater seepage. Swamp Forest 

Bog Complexes are tree-dominated communities that 

occur along streams within floodplains (Schafale 2012). 

French Broad Valley Bogs and Southern Appalachian 

Bogs are similar, but both contain a greater proportion 

of herbaceous vegetation, and French Broad Valley 

Bogs generally contain a proportion of Coastal Plain 

disjunct wetland plant species (Schafale 2012). The Low 

Mountain Seepage Bog is distinguished by a unique suite 

of Piedmont and Coastal Plain disjunct plants (Schafale 

2012). It is important to account for these subtle variations 

when considering management using fire. Variables such 

as presence or absence of sphagnum and specific plant 

species can lend important information and likely prevent 

deleterious outcomes. 

While preserve management and conservation easement 

monitoring are a significant part of The Nature 

Conservancy’s (TNC) mission, TNC is continually 

building capacity to restore natural fire regimes in the 

appropriate places with the help of the Fire Learning 

Network. Similarly, efforts to share bog management 

experience is continually expanding. In light of the 

potential Mountain Bogs National Wildlife Refuge 

establishment, TNC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service have partnered to establish the Bog Learning 

Network. The aim of the Bog Learning Network is to 

share experiences and help provide tools and techniques 

FIRE IN MOUNTAIN BOGS

Adam Warwick1

Abstract—Southern Appalachian montane wetlands are rare natural communities. Distributed throughout the 

Appalachians’ high-elevation depressions, valley slopes, and basins, a highly variable combination of abiotic factors shape 

the character of each “bog.” Most unaltered bogs are distinguished by a generally open vegetative structure and diverse 

herbaceous flora, but with a tendency toward succession to forests. Natural disturbances arrest some bogs in early seres. 

However, anthropogenic influence has increasingly precluded many such disturbance regimes, resulting in uninhibited 

succession, habitat homogenization, and the gradual demise of the specialized flora and fauna. To restore and maintain some 

bogs’ naturally open character, land managers such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) have chosen to mimic disturbance 

using a variety of methods, including prescribed burning. This paper provides insight into how two TNC-owned sites were 

historically influenced by fire, presents some of TNC’s experience using prescribed fire in bogs, and describes trends in 

Green Pitcher Plant (Sarracenia oreophila) abundance as regular fire regimes were restored to the sites. 

1

Adam Warwick, Stewardship Director, The Nature Conservancy, Asheville, NC 28806

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
54 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

that can be used to restore and manage these unique 

places. The goal of this paper is to relate information, 

experiences, and results of burning in a specific type of 

Southern Appalachian montane wetland and generate 

dialogue among managers regarding the use of fire in 

Southern Appalachian wetlands. 

TNC manages two Low Mountain Seepage Bogs that 

occur near the banks of Lake Chatuge (fig. 1). Eller Seep 

Preserve contains a 2.9-acre wetland that represents North 

Carolina’s only Low Mountain Seepage Bog and supports 

one of the largest known populations of Sarracenia

oreophila (Green Pitcher Plant). Just south of the Georgia 

state line lies Reed Branch Wet Meadow Preserve, which 

contains a 3.5-acre Low Mountain Seepage Bog and 

supports Georgia’s only naturally occurring S. oreophila

population. Over the last several thousand years, fire, 

flooding, and grazing have shaped the flora and fauna 

of these bogs, and the fact they still exist is a result 

of continued disturbance. S. oreophila and associated 

herbaceous vegetation indicates open conditions likely 

occurred here historically, as S. oreophila seeds must 

fall on bare, moist mineral soil in order to germinate and 

become established. In the absence of such conditions, 

seedling recruitment decreases, reproduction becomes 

primarily asexual, and populations inevitably decline 

(Folkerts 1992). 

Prior to the damming of the Hiawassee River and creation 

of Lake Chatuge Reservoir in 1942, this region contained 

a series of seepage bogs that supported S. oreophila

(Carlson 1994), and evidence indicates the region’s 

wetlands withstood periodic fire. Adjacent uplands are 

comprised of Mesic Oak-Hickory (Simon 2011), and 

pre-settlement forests suggest low intensity fires occurred 

every 10-15 years with occasional more intense fires help 

to maintain and regenerate fire tolerant oaks (Landfire 

2010). Both of these sites lie near the base of westernfacing slopes within the Hiawassee River Valley. Further, 

Native Americans inhabited the valley from about 2000 

years before present and were known to use fire for 

agriculture and hunting purposes (Govus 1990). The 

previous landowner of Eller Seep burned the site annually 

from 1908-1972 to keep the land open for grazing (Govus 

1990). This is perhaps the most critical factor for S.

oreophila existence at the site. Following his death in 

1972, burning ceased until the early 1990’s. During this 

time hydrologic modifications were made in an attempt to 

drain the site. These activities resulted in rapid hardwood 

invasion and subsequent decline of S. oreophila. Reed 

Branch was burned annually for at least 20 years until 

1990 (Tollner 1997), during which time it was used as a 

pasture. The hydrology of the area was disturbed when 

a ditch was installed to drain an adjacent pasture, and at 

least one tile drain was installed on the property. 

TNC’s management goals for these bogs are to maintain 

the open character, increase S. oreophila populations, 

and promote the continued existence of diverse and 

rare seepage bog plant communities. Thus, the primary 

strategy is to limit hardwood encroachment to the 

center of the bog and expand the herbaceous zone. 

The restoration methods used by TNC are controlled 

burning every 1-3 years and mechanical and/or chemical 

treatment of encroaching hardwoods that would otherwise 

outcompete, such as red maple (Acer rubrum) and smooth 

alder (Alnus serrulata). 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Eller Seep

Since the acquisition of Eller Seep in 1992, TNC has 

conducted seven controlled burns: April 1992, March 

1997, April 2002, January 2005, April 2007, April 2009, 

and April 2011. Approximately 3 months following the 

burns, the number of S. oreophila leaves (i.e., pitchers) 

and flowers was then counted by sampling along ten 

permanent belt transects (fig. 2). The beginning of the 

baseline was marked by a 23-cm diameter at breast height 

tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and was established 

by running a metric tape from this point out at 310°. 

The ten 5 m by 40 m belt transects ran perpendicular 

to this baseline. Each transect was divided into 5 m by 

5 m sections. Transect sections were labeled based on 

the starting distance from the baseline. Thus, Section 0 

identified the first section 0-5 m from the line. Section 5 

is for 5-10 m from the line, etc. (fig. 2). In addition, there 

was a high density area on transects 7 and 8 which was 

divided into 2.5 m by 2.5 m sampling plots. This area 

was located between 0 and 12.5 m from the baseline in 

a block which includes portions of transects 7 and 8. 

Separate counts of a subsample of plots were made within 

this area but not included in the transect counts for years 

before 2007. More intensive data were collected in these 

high density plots, including size classes to gather greater 

detail. However, separate monitoring of the high density 

area did not provide significant additional information, 

and it was discontinued in 2007. In 2007–2008, counts 

for transects 7 and 8 included all plants within the entire 

length of the transects, including the high density area. 

Therefore, the total transect counts prior to 2007 are not 

directly comparable to the total counts for 2007–2008 

because they do not include this high density area. In 

order to compare the older transect data with the more 

recent data, data for transects 7 and 8 are excluded. While 

some transect data are lost, the comparison gives a better 

picture of the trends and changes in the sampled area. 

To compare data for the portions of the transects in the 

high density area, comparisons would need to be made 

between sample counts in earlier years and total counts 

in 2007 and 2008, which would be of questionable value. 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 55

In 1990–1994, only a 5 m by 27.5 m section of transects 

7 and 8 was counted, which excluded the high density 

area from 0 to 12.5 m from the baseline. In 1995–1998, 

transect data appear to exclude the high density area, 

but tabular data are not available, only a summary 

report, so no transect data are presented. Data were not 

collected from 1999–2001. In 2002–2006, transect data 

were collected which excluded the high density area. In 

2007–2008, the entire 5 m by 40 m length of transects 

7 and 8 were counted, including the high density area. 

Clump counts may not be a reliable measure of population 

size changes because it is unclear how clumps merge and 

separate over time. 

Reed Branch Wet Meadow

Since TNC acquired Reed Branch in 1992, eight controlled 

burns have been conducted: September 1998, January 

2002, March 2004, March 2006, March 2008, December 

2009, March 2012, and October 2013. Monitoring at Reed 

Branch consisted of complete S. oreophila pitcher and 

flower counts in late spring. From 1998–2008, monitoring 

occurred annually with one hiatus, 2000–2002. In 2009, 

monitoring was only conducted in the second growing 

season following fire to allow comparisons between 

years, since counts of pitchers and flowers varied greatly 

between fire years and non-fire years. It also allowed 

counts of flowers, since flowering is generally suppressed 

in the season following fire. Lastly, monitoring is easier 

since numbers of pitchers are high in the season following 

fire. Monitoring has since taken place in 2011 and 2013. 

Regression models show that numbers of both pitchers 

and flowers have steadily increased in the population since 

management and monitoring began in 1998. 

RESULTS

The number of S. oreophila clumps at Eller Seep remained 

relatively stable from 1990 to 1994. However, when 

monitored again following an eight-year hiatus, the number 

of clumps had dropped sharply when measured in 2002. 

The numbers then continually increased through 2007 

(fig. 3). Clump count dropped again in 2007 and 2008. 

However, it was determined that clump counts may not be 

a reliable measure of population size changes because it is 

unclear how clumps merge and separate over time. 

From an initial count of 777 in 1990, the number of S.

oreophila pitchers continually increased through 2008, 

with relatively minor declines in 2002 and 2006 (fig. 4). 

The number of flowers was variable from 1990–2008, 

but increased sharply the year after each fire (fig. 5). The 

number of flowers counted increased from 40 in 1990 to 

135 in 2008. Late frosts hinder flowering and thus account 

for some of the variability 

Reed Branch monitoring data show a steady increase in 

number of pitchers each year in both fire and non-fire 

years, appearing as linear growth. (fig. 6). There was a 

sharp increase in number of pitchers from 2006 to 2008, 

which affected the R2

 value. An exponential model was 

used, but it only increased the value slightly and it was still 

below 0.90. There was a steady increase in flowers counted 

from 1998–2006 (fig. 7). After 2006, however, flower 

numbers began to decline. There are 250 less flowers 

counted in 2008 when compared to the next lowest year 

in 1999. There are 795 less flowers counted in 2008 when 

compared to 2006. There was a statistically significant 

increase in number of pitchers during fire years compared 

to non-fire years (p = 0.022). However, there was no 

statistically significant increase in flower production during 

non-fire years when compared to fire years (p = 0.085).

CONCLUSIONS

Restoration of an appropriate fire regime has effectively 

reversed the decline of S. oreophila populations at both 

Eller Seep and Reed Branch. S. oreophila and native 

herbaceous species that inhabit Low Mountain Seepage 

Bogs benefit from controlled burning (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1994) and appear to thrive if burned in 

one- to three-year intervals. Flowering was noticeably 

more prolific in the year after burning. Brush cutters 

have been used to remove hardwoods at Eller Seep, 

which helps increase continuity of the fuel bed and limits 

hardwood growth in years when the bog may not burn. 

The aim at Eller Seep is to further suppress hardwood 

growth by possibly shifting the timing of controlled burns 

to the late spring or early summer, in combination with 

cutting and chemical treatments. These results pertain 

specifically to Low Mountain Seepage Bogs, a rare type of 

montane wetland with characteristic fire-adapted species. 

Implementation of a fire program in sphagnum-dominated 

wetlands and/or those with other Sarracenia species 

should be approached with caution. TNC staff hopes that 

this paper will encourage other land managers to share 

experiences, not only with fire, but with all management 

techniques that help conserve rare plants and animals 

supported by bogs. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to staff from the Georgia Chapter of the Nature 

Conservancy for their hard work over the years and for 

providing the data from Reed Branch: David Wilson, 

Malcolm Hodges, and Erick Brown among others. Thank 

you to Margit Bucher, Megan Sutton, Andrew Roe, and 

Phil Croll from the North Carolina Chapter of the Nature 

Conservancy. 
56 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

REFERENCES

Carlson, B. 1994. RBWM site conservation plan. Unpublished 

report. On file with: The Nature Conservancy-Southern Blue 

Ridge Office, 46 Haywood Street, Asheville, NC 28801.

Faber-Langendoen, D.; Keeler-Wolf, T.; Meidinger, D. [and others]. 

2012. Classification and description of world formation types. 

Part I (Introduction) and Part II (Description of formation 

types). Reston, VA; Arlington, VA: Hierarchy Revisions 

Working Group, Federal Geographic Data Committee, FGDC 

Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey and NatureServe. 216 p.

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2008. Vegetation 

classification standard. FGDC-STD-005. 119 p. http://usnvc.org/

wp-content/uploads/2011/02/NVCS_V2_FINAL_2008-02.pdf. 

[Date accessed: January 20, 2014].

Folkerts, G.W. 1992. Identification and measurement of damage 

caused by flower and seed predators associated with Sarracenia

oreophiIa and recommended management/control measures 

deemed appropriate. Unpublished Report. On file with: The 

Nature Conservancy-Southern Blue Ridge Office, 46 Haywood 

Street, Asheville, NC 28801.

Govus, Thomas E. 1990. Land use history, population study 

methods and management recommendations for the Eller 

Preserve, Clay County, North Carolina. Unpublished Report. On 

file with: The Nature Conservancy-Southern Blue Ridge Office, 

46 Haywood Street, Asheville, NC 28801.

Hodges, Malcom. 2013. Conservation Management Plan: Reed 

Branch Wet Meadow Preserve. Unpublished Report. On file 

with: The Nature Conservancy-Southern Blue Ridge Office, 46 

Haywood Street, Asheville, NC 28801.

LANDFIRE. 2010. [Homepage of the LANDFIRE Program, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service; U.S. Department of 

the Interior]. [Online.] Available: http://www.landfire.gov/index.

php. [Date accessed: January 20, 2014].

NCWRC [North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission]. 2010. 

Bogs and Associated Wetlands-Southern Blue Ridge Mountains. 

http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Conserving/documents/

Mountains/SBR_Bogs_and_associated_wetlands.pdf. [Date 

accessed: January 20, 2014].

Roe, Andrew; Croll, Phil. 2009. Monitoring summary of Green 

Pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila) at Eller Seep. Unpublished 

Report. On file with: The Nature Conservancy-Southern Blue 

Ridge Office, 46 Haywood Street, Asheville, NC 28801.

Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North 

Carolina Fourth Approximation. Raleigh, NC: NC Natural 

Heritage Program. 208 p. 

Simon, S.A. 2011. Ecological zones in the Southern Blue Ridge: 

3rd approximation. Unpublished report. On file with: National 

Forests in NC, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801.

Tollner, B. 1997. Report of visit to the Reed Branch proposed site 

for pitcher plant preservation. Internal report. Athens, GA: The 

University of Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Green Pitcher Plant Recovery 

Plan. Jackson, MS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23 p.

Wilson, David B. 2008. Data analysis of green pitcher plant 

(Sarracenia oreophilia) at Reed Branch Meadow. Unpublished 

Report. On file with: The Nature Conservancy-Southern Blue 

Ridge Office, 46 Haywood Street, Asheville, NC 28801.

Figure 1—Eller Seep Preserve and Reed Branch Wet Meadow Preserve.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 57

Figure 2—Sampling design at Eller Seep Preserve (from Rudd and Sutter, 

1998 Monitoring Report). Low and high density areas sampled with 

numbered transects and plots, respectively.

Figure 3—Trend in the number of S. oreophila clumps at Eller Seep Preserve (1990–2008). Controlled burns 

were conducted in 1992, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. 

80 

56 

114 

74 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 

Clumps 
58 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 5—Trend in the number of S. oreophila flowers at Eller Seep Preserve (1990–2008). Controlled 

burns were conducted in 1992, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. 

Figure 4—Trend in the number of S. oreophila pitchers at Eller Seep Preserve (1990–2008). Controlled burns 

were conducted in 1992, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. 

777 

4184 

0 

2000 

4000 

6000 

8000 

10000 

12000 

1990 1992 1994 2003 2006 2008 

# Leaves (Pitchers) 

40 

162 

12 

182 

135 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 

Flowers 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 59

Figure 6—Trend in the number of S. oreophila pitchers at Reed Branch Wet Meadow Preserve (1996–2008). 

Controlled burns have been conducted in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008.

8490 

26034 

0 

5000 

10000 

15000 

20000 

25000 

30000 

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 

# Pitchers 

Figure 7—Trend in the number of S. oreophila flowers at Reed Branch Wet Meadow Preserve (1996–2008). 

Controlled burns have been conducted in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. 

425 

1974 

52 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

1998 1999 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

# Flowers 
60 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Introduction

The American chestnut [Castanea dentata Marsh. 

(Borkh.)] was a dominant canopy tree in many hardwood 

forest types in eastern North America until decimated by 

primarily two exotic pathogens from Asia. Ink disease 

(causal agent Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands) and 

chestnut blight [causal agent Cryphonectria parasitica

(Murr.) Barr] reduced the species primarily to recurrent 

understory sprouts on upland sites with well-drained 

sandy soils (Anagnostakis 2001, 2012). American chestnut 

has been extirpated as a canopy tree throughout its former 

range since the early to mid-20th century. Restoration 

will require artificial regeneration of trees with durable 

resistance to ink disease and chestnut blight, as natural 

resistance in American chestnut to these pathogens is 

relatively low (Griffin 2000). 

American chestnut was extirpated prior to the emergence 

of modern ecological or forestry research programs. 

Consequently, little is known regarding American 

chestnut’s response to natural or anthropogenic 

disturbance. Although the species has shade-tolerant 

characteristics (Joesting and others 2007), American 

chestnut was probably disturbance-dependent, with 

some life-history characteristics similar to oak (Quercus

L.) genera (Wang and others 2013). Phylogeny studies 

indicate oaks and chestnuts are closely related within 

the Fagaceae (Beech) family (Kremer and others 2007), 

and could share similar responses to disturbances such 

as fire. Experimental research, exploratory analysis, and 

long-term observations have established the premise that 

oaks are well adapted to fire (Abrams 1992), but similar 

information on American chestnut is lacking. An increase 

in Castanea (Mill.) pollen coincided with an increase in 

charcoal abundance, suggesting that chestnut was favored 

by fire and a warming climate in New England forests ca. 

1,500 years ago (Delcourt and Delcourt 1998, Foster and 

others 2002).

Historical literature and studies of remnant trees 

revealed that American chestnut is a species with one 

of the most prolific sprouting capabilities following 

disturbances (Hawley and Hawes 1912, Matoon 1909, 

Paillet 1984). American chestnut grows faster in height 

than competing species following disturbances or when 

planted in high-light environments (Frothingham 1924, 

Jacobs and Severeid 2004, McEwan and others 2006). 

Fast growth and prolific sprouting may be an adaption to 

frequent disturbances, including fire (Foster and others 

2002, Russell 1987). American chestnut has thinner bark 

than oak, however, and fire damage may predispose the 

tree to disease (Hawley and Hawes 1912, Russell 1987). 

Baker (1884) described American chestnut as “greatly 

injured” by fire, and Matoon (1909) noted that American 

chestnut sprouts were particularly prone to rot if the 

parent stump was infected with disease. Throughout 

its range, prescribed fire was often used to facilitate 

The American chestnut and fire: 6-year research results

Stacy L. Clark, Callie J. Schweitzer, Mike R. Saunders, Ethan P. Belair, 

Scott J. Torreano, and Scott E. Schlarbaum1

Abstract—American chestnut [Castanea dentata Marsh. (Borkh.)] is an iconic species with important ecological and 

utilitarian values, but was decimated by the mid-20th century by exotic fungal species from Asia. Successful restoration 

will require sustainable silvicultural methods to maximize survival and afford chestnut a competitive advantage over 

natural vegetation. The study examined effects of prescribed burning and commercial tree harvesting on survival and height 

growth of planted American chestnut on the mid-Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee. American chestnuts grew best in patch 

clearcuts compared to areas that had been commercially thinned. A severe drought during the establishment year probably 

led to decreased survival and growth rates. However, 6-year survival was highest for trees with smaller ground-line 

diameter and taller stem heights at the time of planting and in units that had lower levels of percent full sunlight in the first 

year after planting. Prescribed burning did not affect survival or height growth, but browsing by deer was more common in 

burned versus unburned areas. 

1

Stacy L. Clark, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Knoxville, TN 37996

Callie J. Schweitzer, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Huntsville, AL 35801

Mike R. Saunders, Associate Professor, Purdue University, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources and the Hardwood Tree Improvement and 

Regeneration Center, West Lafayette, IN 47907

Ethan P. Belair, Graduate Research Assistant, Purdue University

Scott J. Torreano, Professor, University of the South, Department of Forestry and Geology, Sewanee, TN 37383-1000

Scott E. Scharlbaum, Professor, The University of Tennessee, Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, Knoxville, TN 37996

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 61

gathering chestnuts, and often the fire would escape and 

damage the timber (Hough 1878). Despite chestnut’s 

apparent susceptibility to fire, these early accounts should 

be viewed in the context of the era in which they were 

written, a time when fire was not actively controlled and 

was often condemned (Brose and others 2001). We can 

hypothesize from these early accounts that too frequent 

or severe fire was detrimental to chestnut’s ability to 

gain dominance (Russell 1987). Infrequent, low-intensity 

fires may have favored species’ expansion, particularly 

in the northern extent of the species’ range (Foster and 

others 2002), suggesting that fire should be evaluated for 

viability as a process to be used in American chestnut 

restoration activities.

Regeneration harvests or intermediate stand treatments 

that reduce overstory stand density increased growth of 

American chestnut seedlings compared to trees planted 

under full canopy conditions (Clark and others 2012a, 

McCament and McCarthy 2005, Rhoades and others 

2009). Effects of prescribed burning and interactions with 

harvesting have only been tested with American chestnut 

when fire was prescribed prior to direct seeding of nuts 

(McCament and McCarthy 2005). In particular, only two 

studies have directly examined the response of planted 

American chestnut seedlings to fire after seedlings were 

planted. One study will be described herein, and the 

other was conducted outside the species range using 

fire simulation (Belair and others, in press). We discuss 

effects from various disturbances, including prescribed 

burning and commercial tree harvesting, on 6-year old 

planted American chestnuts. We modeled probabilities 

for survival and deer browse, as well as height predictions 

for artificially regenerated American chestnut seedlings 

based on silvicultural treatments, seedling size at planting, 

and selected environmental influences.

Methods

This study was established on forest property owned 

and managed by University of the South, in Franklin 

County, near the town of Sewanee, TN. The site is on 

the Weakly Dissected Plateau Landtype Association of 

the mid-Cumberland Plateau (Smalley 1982), and native 

American chestnut sprouts were present in the stand. 

Annual precipitation averages 150 cm per year and is 

greatest from December through March. Soils can be 

described as Hartsells-Lonewood-Ramsey-Gilpin and 

developed in residuum from sandstone. The study site was 

a 20.2-ha hardwood stand and was subdivided into three 

approximately equally sized blocks based on topographic 

characteristics. Site index (base age 50) for northern red 

oak was approximately 20 m. In the winter of 2006–2007, 

all three blocks were thinned to 15 m2

 ha-1 of basal area 

using thinning from below, and within each block, two 

patch clearcuts 0.1 to 0.2 ha in size were harvested. Patch 

clearcuts within each block were a minimum of 90 m 

apart. 

Within each block, prescribed burn units of 1.0 to 1.8 ha, 

including at least one of the patch clearcuts and part of 

the thinning area, were established, with burns originally 

slated for March 2007. The original experimental design 

was a randomized block design with three blocks and a 

two by two factorial with thinning versus patch clearcuts 

and burning versus no burning as the two factors. Due 

to logistical constraints related to a severe drought that 

created unsuitable burning conditions throughout the 

desired burn window (U.S. Drought Monitor 2014), only 

one block was burned in 2007 (table 1). The burn was 

conducted on March 7 and was moderate in intensity with 

0.9 to 1.8 m flame heights. The original experimental 

design was further compromised when two of the patch 

clearcuts were entered and hand-thinned in July 2009 

(table 1). The hand-thinning consisted of removal of red 

maple (Acer rubrum L.) and sourwood (Oxydendrum

aboreum L. DC.) seedlings using hand-saws and 

machetes. In addition, a January 2010 tornado affected 

two experimental units, a patch clearcut and a thinning 

unit (table 1). The tornado-affected thinning unit was 

salvage-logged within a few weeks following the tornado. 

The tornado and the salvage logging effectively removed 

all overstory trees in the thinned experimental unit. 

In March 2010, the original prescribed burn plan was 

implemented, but the burn did not reach the thinning unit 

in block 2. Recorded flame heights and tree scorch marks 

in each experimental unit were used to classify fires 

into mild (flame heights < 0.9 m) and moderate intensity 

(flame heights > 0.9 m) (table 1). All prescribed burns 

were set with backing fires ignited with drip torches. 

In March 2007, immediately following the prescribed 

burn, we planted 5 American chestnuts and 35 northern 

red oak seedlings in each experimental unit. The 

experimental material was pure American chestnut 

provided by the American Chestnut Foundation from 

a Cumberland Plateau seed source. Bare-root (1-0) 

nursery seedlings were produced in the Georgia State 

nursery in Bryomville, GA using protocols developed 

to produce relatively large seedlings with fibrous root 

systems (Kormanik and others 1994). Evidence of root rot 

caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi was not evident on 

any seedlings. Seedlings were planted using JIM_GEM®

KBC bars modified to increase bar width to 30 cm to 

accommodate planting of larger seedlings. The American 

chestnut seedlings were planted on a 3-m by 3-m spacing 

randomly intermixed with the northern red oak seedlings. 

Each seedling was measured for ground-line diameter 

(GLD) and height to the tallest live bud at the time of 

planting in 2007 and then again in years 2008–2012 

after trees had set bud (August through March). Other 

categorical measurements included survival, presence or 
62 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

absence of deer browse to the terminal bud, dieback of 

the main stem, and chestnut blight. Blight was identified 

as a vertical ellipsoid shaped canker on the stem that was 

sometimes sunken or slightly swollen. The canker had 

vertical cracking or fissuring of the bark with mycelial 

fans just below the bark surface (visible with a 5X hand 

lens), and/or with orange stromata protruding from the 

bark (cf. Griffin and Elkins 1986). Chestnut blight was 

recorded on live trees, and we continued to record the 

presence of blight each year after the tree died. Stem 

dieback and deer browse were recorded on live trees. We 

documented if a basal sprout had replaced the original 

leader as the tallest stem. 

During the first growing season (2007), we measured 

the amount of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) 

(μmol m-2 s-1) above the terminal bud, and above the 

widest margins of each live American chestnut and 

northern red oak seedling’s crown using an AccuPar 

ceptometer. Percent full sun (PFS) was estimated by 

comparing the average PAR measurements from each 

seedling to PAR measurements taken at the same time 

from a ceptometer placed in full sun approximately 0.2 

km away. Tree PFS values were averaged across live 

chestnut and northern red oak seedlings within each 

experimental unit to give an estimate of the experimental 

unit’s PAR. We did not use individual PFS values taken at 

each live American chestnut because we had a relatively 

low sample size within each experimental unit (n < 5) 

that increased variability and gave a relatively poor 

representation of the amount of sunlight during the first 

growing season created by the treatments. Additionally, 

PFS measurements taken above live trees could not be 

used to model survival probabilities (described below).

We will only discuss results from the American chestnut 

planting in this paper. Due to the deviation from the 

original experimental design, data were analyzed with 

exploratory methods using logistic regression and multiple 

linear regression model building techniques. All analyses 

were conducted using SAS (SAS Institute 2009). Logistic 

regression (PROC LOGISTIC) was used to predict 

survival and deer browse using the following dichotomous 

or continuous independent variables: year since planting 

(1 to 6), burning prior to planting (burn versus no 

burn), seedling height at planting, ground-line diameter 

at planting, PFS in 2007, the tornado (yes or no), and 

chestnut blight (yes or no). We tested three class variables 

to identify experimental units that were commercially 

thinned and not hand-thinned, and units that represented 

commercial patch clearcuts with and without handthinning, respectively, within the appropriate years. We 

also tested three class variables to identify experimental 

units that had been burned in 2010 with two intensities 

(not burned, a mild intensity burn, and a moderate 

intensity burn). Logistic regression models were built 

using methods described by Hosmer and Lemeshow 

(2000) and Menard (2010). The final model was selected 

after conducting chi-square tests for differences between 

AIC values of the candidate predictor models; the most 

parsimonious (model containing the least number of 

variables with the most explanatory power) was selected 

as the final model. A Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of 

fit statistic was used to test the null hypothesis that the 

model explained the variation in the data, and p-values of 

less than 0.10 were interpreted as poorly fit models. We 

examined the Area Under the ROC (Receiver Operator 

Characteristic; defined by sensitivity versus 1-specificity) 

Curve (AUC), which is a measure of explained variation, 

and we considered models with an AUC value greater 

than 0.5 to have good explanatory power (Menard 2010). 

Surviving seedlings and those with deer browse were 

coded as successful (1), and dead seedlings and seedlings 

without browse as unsuccessful (0) in the logistic 

regression models to predict survival and deer browse 

probabilities.

PROC REG was used to conduct multiple linear 

regression to predict seedling height. Potential 

independent variables tested included the same 

dichotomous and continuous variables used in the 

logistic regression models in addition to dieback of the 

main stem (yes or no) and deer browse to the terminal 

bud (yes or no). The linear regression models were built 

using methods described by Wasserman and Kutner 

(1990). The final model was selected after conducting 

chi-square tests for differences between AIC values of the 

candidate predictor models; the most parsimonious model 

was selected as the final model. We used PROC REG 

to test diagnostics for heteroscedasticity of error terms, 

and normality assumptions were tested by examining 

frequency plots of residuals in PROC UNIVARIATE. 

Parameter estimates and associated p-values for the final 

model were produced using PROC GLM because, unlike 

PROC REG, the GLM procedure does not assume data 

are balanced for categorical variables.

Results

General Trends across Experimental Units

Average height and GLD at planting were 115 cm (SE 

= 4.6) and 9.5 mm (SE = 0.4), respectively, and varied 

from 28 to 190 cm in height and from 4.9 mm to 16.7 

mm in GLD. PFS in 2007 averaged 31 (SE = 1.7) across 

all experimental units and ranged from 13 percent (unit 

3) to 64 percent (unit 10) (table 1). By the sixth growing 

season, trees averaged 236 cm (SE=40) in height and 

had 39 percent (SE = 6) survival across all experimental 

units (table 1). Experimental units varied greatly in terms 

of height and survival. Deer browse averaged 42 percent 

(SE = 8) in year 1, and decreased to 20 percent (SE = 7) 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 63

and 0 percent in year 4 and 6 after planting, respectively. 

Stem dieback averaged 23 percent (SE = 7) in year 1, 40 

percent (SE = 9) in year 4, and 22 percent (SE = 9) in year 

6 after planting. Chestnut blight increased from 2 percent 

(SE = 2) in year 1 to 41 percent (SE = 6) in year 6 after 

planting and was present in all experimental units except 

a thinning unit in block 2. Sprouting occurred in every 

year, but was lowest in year 6 after planting.

Survival Predictions

The logistic regression model to predict survival 

adequately explained the variation according to the 

goodness of fit test (P = 0.97) and the AUC value (0.76). 

Chestnut blight, prescribed burning, combined effects 

of harvesting and hand-thinning, and the tornado were 

not included in the model to predict survival. PFS in 

2007 was the most significant predictor of survival 

probabilities, and survival probabilities decreased as PFS 

increased (table 2). Year since planting was the second 

most significant predictor of survival. Height at planting 

had a weak but positive relationship to survival. Although 

the main effects of planting height and interactions with 

GLD and PFS had p-values greater than 0.05, inclusion 

of these effects in the model significantly lowered the 

AIC value. The negative effect of increasing PFS values 

in 2007 on subsequent survival weakened as tree height 

at planting increased (fig. 1). As GLD increased, survival 

was predicted to decrease according to the logistic 

regression model. Taller trees had the best survival despite 

GLD, particularly for trees taller than approximately 

140 cm at planting. Trees predicted to have the highest 

survival had small GLDs and tall heights at the time 

of planting and were planted in relatively low light 

environments. 

Deer Browse Predictions

The logistic regression model for deer browse adequately 

explained the variation according to the goodness of fit 

test (P = 0.90) and the AUC value (0.79). The effects of 

GLD, chestnut blight, harvesting, and the tornado were 

not included in the model to predict deer browse. Year 

since planting was the most significant predictor of deer 

browse, and deer were less likely to browse as year since 

planting increased (table 2). Burning prior to planting 

and planting height were significant predictors of deer 

browse probabilities. Deer browse was more frequent in 

areas that had burned prior to planting and on seedlings 

with smaller stem heights. Shorter trees planted in 

burned areas 1 year after planting had the highest deer 

browse probabilities, and taller trees planted in unburned 

areas 6 years after planting had the lowest deer browse 

probabilities.

Height Predictions

The final multiple regression model for seedling 

height had an R2

=0.51 (F = 29.95, p < 0.0001). We 

transformed height using a natural log function to avoid 

heteroscedasticity. Prescribed burning prior to and after 

planting, GLD at planting, chestnut blight, and deer 

browse were not significant predictors of height in the 

multiple regression model. Year since planting, height 

at planting, PFS in 2007, stem dieback, the tornado, and 

harvesting treatments were significant predictors of total 

height (table 3). Height at planting was positively related 

to total height, and PFS in 2007 was negatively related 

to total height. Stem dieback was negatively related and 

was the most significant predictor of total height. In 

year 6, dieback was predicted to decrease stem height 

by approximately 150 cm in patch clearcuts that were 

hand-thinned and not affected by the tornado (fig. 2). 

Trees were predicted to be 293 cm tall in patch clearcuts 

that were hand-thinned, 162 cm tall in patch clearcuts that 

were not hand-thinned, and 136 cm tall in commercially 

thinned units by year 6 after planting, given mean PFS 

(31 percent), mean height at planting (115 cm), and no 

effect of tornado or dieback (fig. 2). The tornado increased 

these predicted heights by 129 cm, 71 cm, and 59 cm in 

the patch clearcuts with hand-thinning, patch clearcuts 

without hand-thinning, and the commercially thinned 

units, respectively. 

Discussion

Results should be interpreted with caution for two 

primary reasons. First, sample size was relatively low, 

restricting the power of the statistical analysis and the 

ability to test predictions from the models on a subset 

of data. Low sample size is related to the difficulty in 

securing American chestnut experimental material 

(Hebard 2013). Second, deviations from the original 

experimental design (e.g., alteration of prescribed 

burning, the unplanned hand-thinning, and the tornado) 

were sometimes confounding, and also led to difficulty 

in making inferences. The analysis used individual trees 

as independent observations, when the individual tree 

was originally designed to be a subsample of the larger 

experimental unit. This deviation from the original 

experimental design may have caused an increase in 

Type I errors (accepting significance of effects when 

there was no effect). For example, the tornado affected 

units that burned the same year as the tornado, making 

separation of burning intensity and tornado effects on 

survival and height impossible. Units 10 (patch clearcut) 

and 12 (commercial thin) in block 3 were the only units 

that burned prior to planting, and they also had relatively 

high PFS in 2007. The impacts of the pre-plant burn on 

PFS in the first growing season could be confounded with 

effects of localized site conditions because only one block 

burned prior to planting. Furthermore, a severe drought 

that occurred the year of planting also complicates 

interpretation of results. The drought was characterized 

as exceptional by the end of the first growing season 
64 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

and severe by the end of the second growing season 

(U.S. Drought Monitor 2014). Despite these limitations, 

this study gives some insight into the effects of various 

disturbances on planted American chestnut seedlings. 

Survival

Our results are consistent with previous studies that found 

American chestnut survival was not limited by low light 

levels (Clark and others 2012a, Rhoades and others 2009). 

The species has certain shade-tolerant characteristics 

such as a low light saturation point (~200 μmol m-2 s-1) 

and light compensation point (~30 μmol m-2 s-1 ) (Knapp 

and others, in press; Joesting and others 2009; Wang 

and others 2006) that allow seedlings to survive in 

shaded environments. Survival was limited by high light 

conditions in this study, in contrast to previous studies 

that indicate American chestnut was highly productive 

under an open canopy or full sun conditions (Clark and 

others 2012a, Latham 1992, Wang and others 2006). 

However, the relationship between survival and PFS in 

2007 was confounded by low replication of the pre-plant 

burn and a drought. Units 10 and 12 had relatively low 

6-year survival rates (0 and 40 percent, respectively) and 

relatively high PFS values in 2007 (64 and 37 percent, 

respectively), and appeared to be on a slightly more 

xeric topographic area compared to other units. These 

two units were also the only units to have been burned 

prior to planting. We could not determine if the relatively 

high PFS values recorded in the first growing season in 

these two units were related to the effects of the preplant burn or to the xeric site conditions. We hypothesize 

the effect of the 2007 and 2008 drought interacted with 

site conditions to affect the relationship between PFS 

in the first growing season and subsequent survival. 

Trees planted on xeric sites, such as units 10 and 12, 

would experience more stress during drought compared 

to trees on more mesic sites, leading to lower survival 

rates (Gustafson and Sturtevant 2013). The physiological 

mechanisms that probably mitigate the negative effects 

of drought in American chestnut may have been 

compromised as light levels increased. Drought has been 

shown to decrease stomatal conductance, transpiration, 

and leaf xylem water potential in northern red oak 

seedlings (Jacobs and others 2009). These functions 

would have been further decreased as PFS increased, 

as has been shown in shade-house studies (Brown 2012, 

Wang and others 2006). 

The negative effect of PFS in the first growing season 

on seedling survival in subsequent years was partially 

mitigated if the tree had a relatively large stem height 

at planting (fig. 1), probably because the tree had more 

above-ground structure to physiologically compensate 

for the negative effects of the drought. By year 6, trees 

planted with the tallest stem heights under the highest 

level of PFS had similar survival to shorter trees planted 

under lower level of PFS. An alternative hypothesis 

to explain the negative relationship between PFS and 

survival could be because competition increased over 

time in units that had high PFS in 2007. However, 

competition data (not shown) indicated that competition 

did not increase in density or height in relation to PFS 

levels in 2007.

Root-collar diameter or GLD can be used as a proxy for 

root system development, as it has been highly correlated 

to root volume or number of roots in American chestnut 

and oak species (Clark and others 2000, 2010, 2012b, 

Jacobs and others 2004). The negative relationship 

between GLD and survival was surprising given that 

seedling size at planting, particularly related to root 

system morphology, has been positively related to survival 

in other Fagaceae species such as oak (Dey and others 

2008). Large seedling GLD at planting could be a less 

important indicator for improving survival of American 

chestnut seedlings compared to oak species. Seedling 

size at planting did not affect survival after five growing 

seasons for American chestnut seedlings in high or low 

light conditions (Clark and others 2012a), after 1 year in 

shelterwood or clearcut plantings (Clark and others 2010), 

or after four growing seasons underplanted in a midstory 

removal (Belair and others, in review). In greenhouse 

studies, American chestnut’s root-to-shoot ratio was 

lower than oak species across a range of light availability 

(Latham 1992), suggesting chestnut allocates more energy 

to the stem growth at the expense of root development. 

Another study found that the American chestnut 

seedlings increased root development compared to shoot 

development as PFS increased (Wang and others 2006). In 

this study, the negative effect of GLD was only significant 

in the presence of the PFS variable. Trees were not able 

to support a larger root system, particularly if planted 

in low light conditions. At higher light levels, drought 

conditions appeared to be the primary limiting factor for 

survival. Height at planting also interacted with GLD, 

and the negative effect of GLD was partially mitigated if 

the seedling was tall. Taller seedlings at planting would 

presumably have more leaf area to assimilate carbon 

for maintenance of below-ground structures (Wang and 

others 2006).

Most units that burned in 2010 contained trees that 

sprouted following the burn (table 1), potentially 

diminishing the effect of burning on survival. The ability 

of American chestnut to sprout following topkill has 

been well documented for sprouts from mature rootstock 

(Paillet 1984, 1988), but few studies have sought to 

quantify the response of planted seedlings to topkill 

(Belair and others, in press). 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 65

Deer browse

The negative relationship of seedling height to deer 

browse was consistent with previous studies that have 

shown shorter hardwood seedlings are more likely to be 

browsed (Oswalt and others 2006). The positive effects 

of prescribed burning on the abundance and exposure 

of available browse and mast for deer consumption has 

been documented (Dills 1970, Ivey and Causey 1984). 

Prescribed burning probably increased browsing to 

planted seedlings by attracting deer to the burned area. 

The logistic regression did not show a significant effect 

of harvest treatments on deer browse in the presence 

of other significant variables, but the data do suggest 

that browse on chestnut seedlings was more frequent in 

thinned areas (39 percent) compared to patch clearcuts (7 

percent) 4 years after planting (table 1). Deer browse to 

planted seedlings was not apparent after 2010, probably 

because the University of the South instituted new hunting 

pressure within the forest property that reduced deer 

population levels. Our results indicate that burning could 

negatively affect restoration attempts in areas with high 

deer populations, particularly for smaller size seedlings. 

Protection measures, such as trees shelters, could reduce 

browse effects, but they are expensive and might create a 

microclimate conducive to chestnut blight (Ponder 1995).

Height 

Prescribed burning, either before or following seedling 

planting, did not affect height of seedlings. Our results 

were not in agreement with a previous study that found 

prescribed burning prior to planting increased growth of 

direct-seeded chestnuts in harvested and in unharvested 

forests (McCament and McCarthy 2005). The lack of 

replication of the pre-plant burn probably made response 

to this treatment more difficult to detect. We partially 

attribute the negligible effect of post-planting prescribed 

burning on height to the ability of American chestnut 

to prolifically sprout following topkill (Matoon 1909, 

Paillet 1984). In addition, prescribed fires are often 

highly variable and patchy in nature even within a 

relatively small spatial area (Arthur and others 2012). The 

fires probably did not affect every planted tree or their 

competition similarly. This high variation could lead to 

the inability to detect fire as a significant effect. Other 

variables besides prescribed burning were more important 

in influencing height of American chestnut seedlings. 

Height at planting was predicted to positively influence 

total height, suggesting tree size at planting will be 

important in affecting overall competitiveness of 

American chestnut seedlings. The importance of 

seedling quality has been clearly demonstrated with oak 

species (Dey and others 2008) and has been shown to 

positively affect growth of American chestnuts planted 

in regeneration harvests (Clark and others 2012a). The 

negative effect of PFS on height was surprising given 

that American chestnut grows best as percent full sun 

increases (Latham 1992, Wang and others 2006), but as 

with survival, we attribute this response to influences 

from the 2-year drought that occurred at the time of 

planting. The drought probably interacted with PFS and 

local site conditions to reduce the ability to assimilate 

carbon under the highest light levels, particularly on more 

xeric sites. 

Seedlings should be planted in areas where dieback is less 

likely to occur. While not empirically tested, dieback was 

more common in thinned stands (43 percent) versus patch 

clearcut stands (15 percent) after one growing season 

(table 1). Planting in commercially thinned stands reduced 

height compared to patch clearcut stands, probably 

because trees were limited by available light after the first 

growing season in thinned areas, particularly as drought 

effects diminished. Trees had higher rates of dieback 

in thinned areas because they were compensating for 

low light levels by sacrificing stem growth to maintain 

existing root structures (Latham 1992). Hand-thinning 

within the patch clearcuts increased height, similar to 

other studies that have shown competition control will 

increase height growth of planted hardwood seedlings 

(Spetich and others 2002). The tornado positively affected 

height probably because the tornado and salvage logging 

acted as a release to trees planted in the affected area. 

Conclusions

This is one of the first empirical studies to document the 

ability of planted American chestnut seedlings to sprout 

following topkill by fire. Treatment effects of burning and 

harvesting were probably influenced and confounded by 

external disturbances, including a 2-year long drought and 

a tornado followed by salvage logging. Prescribed burning 

had a negligible effect on survival and height of planted 

American chestnut seedlings after 6 years, but burning 

appeared to attract deer. More browse was documented 

on seedlings planted in burned versus unburned areas. 

Given that American chestnut planting stock is difficult 

to procure and quite valuable, we would not currently 

recommend using prescribed burning in areas where 

American chestnut seedlings have been planted in order 

to avoid losses or injury. Furthermore, injury to seedlings 

from prescribed burning could potentially interfere with 

their ability to resist diseases such as blight. 

Seedlings in this study were more influenced by 

harvesting, amount of PFS in the first growing season, 

and seedling size at planting than by prescribed burning. 

However, PFS in 2007 was probably reduced by a 

drought, and its effects should be interpreted with caution. 

Managers seeking to efficiently use limited resources to 
66 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

artificially regenerate American chestnut should plant 

seedlings with large stem heights in areas treated using 

a regeneration harvest, like a patch clearcut used in this 

study. Planting within commercially thinned areas may 

not be a viable option in restoration of American chestnut 

in the short term. Trees may be able to be successfully 

released several years after being planted in a commercial 

thinning, but these trees may have stagnate height growth 

or even dieback in the meantime. This study also suggests 

that during a severe drought, American chestnut may not 

be able to survive or grow if planted in environments with 

relatively high light levels and/or on xeric sites. Future 

research with more replication is needed to confirm 

or reject predictions made in this study, particularly 

regarding seedling response to various environmental 

conditions and silvicultural treatments, including 

prescribed burning. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the University of 

the South, Department for Forestry and Geology, 

including Nicole Nunley, Ken Smith, and Nate Wilson 

for assistance throughout the study. We also thank the 

University of Tennessee’s Tree Improvement Program 

for partial support of this study. We thank The American 

Chestnut Foundation, Kentucky Chapter, for providing 

experimental material. Ryan Sisk and Nathan Brown with 

the USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

and John Johnson, University of Tennessee, Department 

of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, provided valuable 

assistance in data collection. Todd Hutchinson and 

Leila Pinchot, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, provided reviews that improved the manuscript.

Literature cited

Abrams, M.D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. 

BioScience. 42: 346-353.

Anagnostakis, S.L. 2001. The effect of multiple importations of 

pests and pathogens on a native tree. Biological Invasions. 

3: 245-254. 

Anagnostakis, S.L. 2012. Chestnut breeding in the United States for 

disease and insect resistance. Plant Disease. 96(10): 1392-1403.

Arthur, M.A.; Alexander, H.D.; Dey, D.C. [and others]. 2012. 

Refining the oak-fire hypothesis for management of oakdominated forests of the Eastern United States. Journal of 

Forestry. 110(5): 257-266.

Baker, F.B. 1884. Report upon the lumber and wood trade in certain 

States. In: Report on Forestry, Volume IV (Egleston, N.H. 

preparer). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 421 p.

Belair, E.P.; Saunders, M.R.; Bailey, B.G. [In review]. 

Underplanting American chestnut in oak-hickory forests: effects 

of midstory removal, root trenching, and weeding treatments on 

growth and survival. Forest Ecology & Management.

Belair, E.P.; Saunders, M.R.; Clark, S.L. [In press]. Effects of 

simulated prescribed fire on American chestnut (Castanea

dentata) and Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) regeneration. In: 

Proceedings of the Central Hardwood Forest Conference 2014. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Northern 

Research Station.

Brose, P.T.; Schuler, M.; Van Lear, D.H.; Berst, J. 2001. Bringing 

fire back: the changing regimes of Appalachian mixed oak 

forests. Journal of Forestry. 99: 30-35.

Brown, C.E. 2012. The influence of shade, water stress, and root 

competition on American chestnut regeneration. West Lafayette, 

IN: Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue 

University. 116 p. M.S. Thesis.

Clark, S.L.; Schlarbaum, S.E.; Kormanik, P.P. 2000. Visual grading 

and quality of 1-0 Northern red oak seedlings. Southern Journal 

of Applied Forestry. 24: 93-97.

Clark, S.L.; Schweitzer, C.J.; Schlarbaum, S.E. [and others]. 2010. 

Nursery quality and first-year response of American chestnut 

(Castanea dentata) seedlings planted in the southeastern United 

States. Tree Planters’ Notes. 53(2): 13-21.

Clark, S.L.; McNab, H.; Loftis, D.; Zarnoch. S. 2012a. American 

chestnut growth and survival five years after planting in two 

silvicultural treatments in the southern Appalachians, USA. 

Forests. 3: 1017-1033.

Clark, S.L.; Schlarbaum, S.E.; Saxton, A.M.; Hebard, F.V. 2012b. 

Nursery performance of American and Chinese chestnuts and 

backcross generations in commercial tree nurseries. Forestry: 

International Journal of Forest Research. 85: 589-600.

Delcourt, P.A.; Delcourt, H.R. 1998. The influence of prehistoric 

human-set fires on oak-chestnut forests in the southern 

Appalachians. Castanea. 63: 337-345.

Dey, D.C.; Jacobs, D.F.; McNabb, K. [and others]. 2008. Artificial 

regeneration of major oak (Quercus) species in the Eastern 

United States-a review of the literature. Forest Science. 

54(1): 77-106.

Dills, G.G. 1970. Effects of prescribed burning on deer response. 

The Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(3): 540-545.

Frothingham, E.H. 1924. Some silvicultural aspects of the chestnut 

blight situation. Journal of Forestry. 22: 861-872.

Foster, D.R.; Clayden, S.; Orwig, D.A. [and others]. 2002. Oak, 

chestnut and fire: climatic and cultural controls of long-term 

forest dynamics in New England, USA. Journal of Biology. 

29: 1359-1379.

Griffin, G.J. 2000. Blight control and restoration of the American 

chestnut. Journal of Forestry. 98: 22-27.

Griffin, G.J.; Elkins, J.R. 1986. Chestnut blight. In: G.J. Griffin, and 

J.R. Elkins, eds. Chestnut blight, other Endothia diseases and 

the genus Endothia. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological 

Society. 803 p.

Gustafson, E.J.; Sturtevant, B.R. 2013. Modeling forest mortality 

caused by drought stress: implications for climate change. 

Ecosystems. 16: 60–74. 

Hawley, R.C.; Hawes, A.F. 1912. Forestry in New England: a 

handbook of eastern forest management, 1st ed. London: John 

Wiley & Sons. 479 p.

Hebard, F.V. 2013. Meadowview notes 2011-2012. The Journal of 

the American Chestnut Foundation. 27(1): 19-25.
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 67

Hosmer, D. W.; Lemeshow, S. 2000. Model-building strategies and 

methods for logistic regression. In: Applied Logistic Regression, 

Second Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 91-142.

Hough, F.B. 1878. Report upon forestry, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 650 p.

Ivey, T.L.; Causey, M.K. 1984. Response of white-tailed deer to 

prescribed fire. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12(2): 138-141.

Jacobs, D.F.; Severeid, L.R. 2004. Dominance of interplanted 

American chestnut (Castanea dentata) in southwestern 

Wisconsin, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 

191: 111-120.

Jacobs, D.F.; Selig, M.F.; Severeid, L.R. 2009. Drought 

susceptibility and recovery of transplanted Quercus rubra

seedlings in relation to root system morphology. Annals of 

Forest Science. 66: 1-12.

Joesting, H.M.; McCarthy, B.C.; Brown, K.J. 2007. The 

photosynthetic response of American chestnut seedlings to 

differing light conditions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

37: 1714-1722.

Joesting, H.M,; McCarthy, B.C.; Brown, K.J. 2009. Determining the 

shade tolerance of American chestnut using morphological and 

physiological leaf parameters. Forest Ecology and Management. 

257: 280-286.

Knapp, B.O.; Wang, G.G.; Clark, S.L. [and others]. [In press]. Leaf 

physiology and morphology of Castanea dentata (Marsh.) 

Borkh., Castanea mollissima Blume, and three backcross 

breeding generations planted in the southern Appalachians, 

USA. New Forests. 

Kormanik, P.P.; Sung S.S.; Kormanik, T.L. 1994. Irrigating and 

fertilizing to grow better nursery seedlings. In: Proceedings of 

the Northeastern and Intermountain Forest and Conservation 

Nursery Associations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-243. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 115–121.

Kremer, A.; Casasoli, M.; Barreneche, T. [and others]. 2007. 

Fagaceae Trees. In: Kole, C., ed. Genome Mapping and 

Molecular Breeding in Plants, Vol. 7. Berlin Heidelberg: 

Springer-Verlag: 161-198.

Latham, R.E. 1992. Co-occurring tree species change rank in 

seedling performance with resources varied experimentally. 

Ecology. 73: 2129-2144.

Mattoon, W. R. 1909. The origin and early development of chestnut 

sprouts. Forest Quarterly. 7: 34-47.

McCament, C.L.; McCarthy, B.C. 2005. Two-year response of 

American chestnut (Castanea dentata) seedlings to shelterwood 

harvesting and fire in a mixed-oak forest ecosystem. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 35: 740-749.

McEwan, R.W.; Keiffer, C.H.; McCarthy, B.C. 2006. 

Dendroecology of American chestnut in a disjunct stand of oakchestnut forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 1-11.

Menard, S.W. 2010. Logistic regression: from introductory to 

advanced concepts and applications. Los Angeles: SAGE. 392 p.

Oswalt, C.M.; Clatterbuck, W.K.; Houston, A.E. 2006. Impacts of 

deer herbivory and visual grading on the early performance 

of high-quality oak planting stock in Tennessee, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 229: 128-135.

Paillet, F.L. 1984. Growth-form and ecology of American chestnut 

sprout clones in northeastern Massachusetts. Bulletin of the 

Torrey Botanical Club. 111: 316-328.

Paillet, F.L. 1988. Character and distribution of American chestnut 

sprouts in southern New England woodlands. Bulletin of the 

Torrey Botanical Club. 115: 32-44.

Ponder, F., Jr. 1995. Shoot and root growth of northern red oak 

planted in forest openings and protected by treeshelters. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 12: 36-42.

Rhoades, C.; Loftis, D.; Lewis, J.; Clark, S. 2009. The influence 

of silvicultural treatments and site conditions on American 

chestnut (Castanea dentata) seedling establishment in eastern 

Kentucky, U.S.A. Forest Ecology and Management. 

258: 1211-1218.

Russell, E.W.B. 1987. Pre-blight distribution of Castanea dentata. 

Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 114: 183-190.

SAS Institute Inc. 2009. SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 9. 2nd 

Edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Smalley, G.W. 1982. Classification and evaluation of forest sites on 

the mid-Cumberland Plateau. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-GTR-38. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 58 p.

Spetich, M.A.; Dey, D.C.; Johnson, P.S.; Graney, D.L. 2002. 

Competitive capacity of Quercus rubra L. planted in Arkansas 

Boston Mountains. Forest Science. 48: 504-517.

Wang, G.G.; Baurle, W.L; Mudder, B.T. 2006. Effects of light 

acclimation on the photosynthesis, growth, and biomass 

allocation in American chestnut (Castanea dentata) seedlings. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 226: 173-180.

Wang, G.; Knapp, B.O.; Clark, S.L.; Mudder, B.T. 2013. The silvics 

of Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh., American Chestnut, 

Fagaceae (Beech family). Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-173. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 18 p.

Wasserman, J.N.W.; Kutner, M.H. 1990. Applied linear statistical 

models: regression, analysis of variance, and experimental 

designs, 3rd ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin. [Number of pages 

unknown].

U.S. Drought Monitor. 2014. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

[Online]. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/

DataTables.aspx. [Date accessed: January 29, 2014].
68 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Table 1—Survival, total height, deer browse, stem dieback, chestnut blight, and sprouting after 1 (2007), 4 

(2010), and 6 (2012) growing seasons for American chestnut seedlings planted in experimental units affected by 

harvesting, prescribed burning in 2007 and 2010, percent full sun in 2007, hand-thinning, and tornado

Block 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3

Unit Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 All

Harvest Typea PC PC T T PC PC T T PC PC T T

Burning 2007b No No No No No No No No No Mod No Mod

PFS 2007 33 19 13 21 24 24 20 39 40 64 34 37 31

Hand-thinning 2009 Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No

Tornado 2010 No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No

Burning 2010b No Mild No Mild No Mod No No No Mod No Mod

Survival 

(percent)

2007 100 100 80 60 80 100 80 20 80 40 80 60 73

2010 40 60 80 60 80 40 80 20 40 0 80 40 51

2012 20 60 20 60 80 40 80 20 20 0 40 40 39

Total 

Height 

(cm)

2007 124 148 127 101 130 141 167 18 116 60 122 142 127

2010 343 254 119 114 263 217 103 110 75 -- 149 61 164

2012 558 408 178 262 343 313 129 127 138 -- 57 64 236

Deer 

browse 

(percent)

2007 20 60 20 0 20 60 25 0 100 100 0 67 42

2010 0 33 25 33 0 0 25 100 0 -- 0 50 20

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stem 

Dieback 

(percent)

2007 20 20 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 50 25 33 23

2010 0 33 50 67 0 50 75 100 0 -- 25 50 40

2012 0 0 0 0 33 0 25 0 0 -- 100 50 22

Chestnut 

blight 

(percent)

2007 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

2010 60 60 20 0 25 60 40 0 20 0 40 20 32

2012 60 40 80 40 25 60 40 0 40 0 80 20 41

Sprout 

from base 

(percent)

2007 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 9

2010 0 33 25 0 0 50 25 100 0 -- 25 50 20

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 50 0 4

a PC=patch clearcut; T=Commercial thinning; PFS=percent full sun.

b Prescribed burns were described as mild or moderate (Mod) in intensity. 
Ecology—Plants and Plant Communities 69

Table 2—Parameter estimates (standard errors in parenthesis), Wald chi-square statistics, and p-values for 

variables and interactions in logistic regression models to predict survival probabilities (n = 354) and deer 

browse (n = 188) 

Variable Parameter estimate Wald p

Survival

Intercept 1.0050 (0.3045) 10.8937 <0.0001

YSP -0.3105 (0.0737) 17.7282 <0.0001

HT-115.12a 0.0100 (0.0058) 2.4305 0.1190

1/GLD- 0.114 14.6810 (5.7973) 6.4131 0.0113

(PFS2/100)-11.136 -0.1030 (0.0174) 34.9944 <0.0001

(HT-115.12)*(1/GLD- 0.114) 0.2631 (0.1466) 3.2193 0.0728

(HT-115.12)*[(PFS2/100)-11.136] 0.0008 (0.0004) 3.3269 0.0682

 Deer browse

Intercept 1.9002 (0.7559) 6.3193 0.0119

YSP -0.4556 (0.1281) 12.6419 0.0004

HT -0.0176 (0.0057) 9.6655 0.0019

Burn 2007 1.9382 (0.6019) 10.3683 0.0013

a To avoid multicollinearity, continuous variables were fi rst centered by subtracting the mean before being used in transformations.

YSP=year since planting, HT=planting height, GLD=planting ground-line diameter, PFS=percent full sun in growing season 2007.

Table 3—Parameter estimates (standard errors in parenthesis) and associated F and p values for a multiple 

regression model to predict height (n = 187) 

Variable Parameter estimate F p

Year 0.0368 (0.0250) 2.16 0.1431

Height at planting 0.0036 (0.0011) 11.57 0.0008

PFS 2007 -0.0141 (0.0042) 11.22 0.0010

Dieback -0.7126 (0.0807) 78.06 <0.0001

Tornado 0.3623 (0.1466) 6.11 0.0144

Patch Clearcut (PC) without hand-thinning (no HT)

Intercept 4.8905 (0.1929) 15.92 <0.0001

PC HT 0.5948 (0.1455) 15.92 <0.0001

Thin -0.1755 (0.0840) 15.92 <0.0001

Patch Clearcut (PC) with hand-thinning (HT)

Intercept 5.4853 (0.2282) 15.92 <0.0001

PC no HT -0.5948 (0.1455) 15.92 <0.0001

Thin -0.7702 (0.1383) 15.92 <0.0001

Commercial thinning (Thin)

Intercept 4.7150 (0.1939) 15.92 <0.0001

PC no HT 0.1755 (0.0840) 15.92 0.0381

PC HT 0.7702 (0.1383) 15.92 <0.0001

YSP=year since planting, PFS 2007=percent full sun in growing season 2007. 

Note: Height was transformed by the natural log. Intercepts and parameter estimates unique to each level of the harvesting class

variable are given.
70 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 1—Predicted survival probabilities for American chestnut 

seedlings based on tree height and ground-line diameter (GLD) at 

planting for high and low values of percent full sunlight (PFS) at years 1 

and 6 after planting.

Figure 2—Predicted height 6 years after planting for trees growing under 31 percent full sun in areas affected 

or not affected by the 2010 tornado. Predictions are shown by planting height and stem dieback occurrence 

for three harvesting treatments: commercial thinning (Thin), patch clearcuts (PC) with hand-thinning (HT), and 

patch clearcuts (PC) without hand-thinning (no HT). 
Ecology—Wildlife

Ecology—Wildlife 73

INTRODUCTION

Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and northern long-eared 

bats (M. septentrionalis) are small (~7–10 g) insectivorous 

bats distributed throughout much of the Eastern United 

States, including the Appalachian region (fig. 1). The 

Indiana bat was listed as an endangered species in 1967, 

primarily due to disturbance to and destruction of their 

hibernacula. Despite protection and rehabilitation of many 

of their hibernacula since being listed as endangered, 

Indiana bat populations continued to decline throughout 

the latter half of the 20th century (USFWS 2007). The 

number of Indiana bats appeared to be increasing from 

2000–2007, but White-Nose Syndrome (WNS), a newly 

emerging infectious disease that has resulted in massive 

deaths of hibernating bats (Blehert and others 2009), 

has caused renewed declines (Langwig and others 2012, 

Turner and others 2011). WNS is now found throughout 

the Appalachian region (Turner and others 2011), and 

Indiana bat populations are projected to experience severe 

declines or extirpation throughout their range as a result 

of it (Thogmartin and others 2013). In contrast, northern 

long-eared bat populations were considered secure until 

the introduction of WNS. However, due to high mortality 

rates associated with WNS (Langwig and others 2012, 

Turner and others 2011), the northern long-eared bat was 

proposed for listing as an endangered species in October 

2013 (Federal Register 2013). The final decision regarding 

the status of the northern long-eared bat will be made in 

late 2014. 

The distributions of Indiana bats and northern longeared bats in the Eastern United States overlap much 

of the range of fire-dependent pine (Pinus) and oak 

(Quercus) forests, and both species roost in pine and oak 

trees (Lacki and others 2009a). Historically, fires in the 

Appalachians occurred during the dormant season but at 

fairly frequent (2–13 years) intervals over large extents 

(Flatley and others 2013). The close association of Indiana 

bats and northern long-eared bats with fire-adapted and 

fire-dependent habitats throughout the Appalachians 

presents problems for many managers. Due to their legal 

status, prescribed burns in areas where these species 

occur must be conducted to avoid “take”—take includes 

any action that may result in the harassment, harm, 

pursuit, wounding, or collection of an endangered species, 

where harm can include habitat modification (Bean 2009). 

Because prescribed burning may be critical for ensuring 

future habitat, managers and policymakers must balance 

the long-term needs for habitat restoration with the 

potential for short-term negative impacts. Our objective is 

to review what is known about the potential positive and 

negative effects of prescribed fire on Indiana and northern 

long-eared bats throughout their life cycles. We hope that 

this information can be used to develop science-based 

habitat management strategies that include prescribed fire 

and will allow managers to meet their habitat restoration 

goals and protect these endangered bats.

INDIANA BATS, NORTHERN LONG-EARED BATS, AND PRESCRIBED FIRE 

IN THE APPALACHIANS: CHALLENGES AND CONSIDERATIONS

Susan C. Loeb and Joy M. O’Keefe1

Abstract—The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is an endangered species and the northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis)

has been proposed for listing as endangered. Both species are found throughout the Appalachians, and they commonly 

inhabit fire-dependent ecosystems such as pine and pine-oak forests. Due to their legal status, prescribed burns in areas 

where these species occur must be conducted to avoid harming or harassing the animals, and managers must consider 

the effects of their prescribed burning programs on these species. We review what is known about the potential positive 

and negative impacts of prescribed fire on Indiana and northern long-eared bats throughout their life cycles. Prescribed 

fire may affect Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats by causing short-term disturbance while they are in their roosts, 

and this may impact them more during critical points of their life cycle such as post-hibernation and the early pup-rearing 

phase. Prescribed fires may destroy roosts, although they may also create some. However, several studies suggest that both 

Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats select areas that have been burned for both roosting and foraging, indicating that 

prescribed fire may be beneficial for both species. Further, prescribed fire may be critical for the long-term restoration of 

their preferred habitats. Thus, managers and policymakers must balance the short-term impacts with the long-term benefits 

of prescribed fire within the range of these species.

1

Susan C. Loeb, Research Ecologist, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Clemson, SC, 29634-0331

Joy M. O’Keefe, Assistant Professor, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
74 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY OF INDIANA AND 

NORTHERN LONG-EARED BATS

Like many temperate bat species, Indiana bats and 

northern long-eared bats have four distinct phases of 

their annual life cycle that are important to understand 

when considering the effects of prescribed fire on their 

populations. These phases are: 1) the winter hibernation 

period, 2) spring emergence and migration, 3) the summer 

maternity period, and 4) fall migration and swarming. 

During winter (October or November to March or 

April), both species hibernate in cold caves and mines, 

and bats lower their body temperatures to reduce 

energy expenditures. Indiana bats form large clusters 

in hibernacula, usually on the cave or mine walls and 

ceilings. Population sizes of Indiana bats in hibernacula 

range between 1 and >50,000 (USFWS 2007) with 80 

percent of the population residing in just 16 hibernacula 

(Thogmartin and others 2012). In contrast, northern 

long-eared bats form small clusters in cracks and crevices, 

and hibernating populations tend to be small (<300 bats; 

Caceres and Barclay 2000). However, due to their habit 

of roosting in inaccessible parts of hibernacula, our 

knowledge of winter populations of northern long-eared 

bats is limited.

In spring, Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats 

emerge from hibernation and migrate various distances 

to their summer ranges. Depending on sex and possibly 

geographic region, emergence generally occurs from 

mid-March to the beginning of May, with females leaving 

earlier than males (Cacares and Barclay 2000, Hall 1962). 

In West Virginia, Indiana bats do not leave hibernacula 

until late April or early May (Hobson and Holland 1995), 

whereas northern long-eared bats in Indiana emerge 

in March and early April, somewhat earlier than little 

brown bats (M. lucifugus) and tri-colored bats (Perimyotis

subflavus; Whitaker and Rissler 1992). Female Indiana 

bats have been documented to migrate as far as 575 km 

from their hibernacula to their maternity range (Winhold 

and Kurta 2006), whereas northern long-eared bats stay 

within about 60–90 km of their hibernacula (Nagorsen 

and Brigham 1993). 

Once on the summer range, female Indiana bats form 

maternity colonies that usually contain 30–200 adults 

(USFWS 2007), whereas northern long-eared bats form 

maternity colonies that are usually 30–90 adults (Caceres 

and Barclay 2000). Both species roost in snags and live 

trees, often between a piece of shedding bark and the 

bole of snags; however, northern long-eared bats are more 

likely to use crevices and cavities than Indiana bats (Lacki 

and others 2009a). In the southern Appalachians, optimal 

roosting habitat for Indiana bats is dead pine trees near a 

ridge top in a south-facing mixed pine-hardwood forest 

(Hammond 2013). In other parts of the Appalachians, 

Indiana bats use a variety of roosts, which are primarily 

hardwoods such as oak, hickory (Carya), and maple 

(Acer) species (Brack 2006, Ford and others 2002, 

Johnson and others 2010). Although northern long-eared 

bats have broader roosting niches than Indiana bats, they 

show roosting preferences for a variety of tree species 

across their range including shortleaf pine (P. echinata), 

oaks, and hickories (Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Foster 

and Kurta 1999, Perry and Thill 2007). In the southern 

Appalachians, northern long-eared bats select a variety of 

oak species as roosts but also roost in dead white pines (P.

strobus; O’Keefe 2009).

The summer maternity period is a critical period for 

raising young, restoring fat reserves, and molting, 

all of which require large amounts of energy. Thus, 

foraging resources during this period are an important 

consideration. Indiana bats forage primarily by hawking 

insects from the air, whereas northern long-eared bats 

typically glean insects from vegetation (Faure and 

others 1993). Both species forage in interior or closed 

canopy forests in the Appalachians and elsewhere (Ford 

and others 2005, Jantzen and Fenton 2013, Loeb and 

O’Keefe 2006, Schirmacher and others 2007), although 

they will also use openings (O’Keefe and others 2013, 

Sparks and others 2005). They are opportunistic feeders, 

but Lepidoptera, Diptera, and Coleoptera are prominent 

orders of insects in their diets in most areas (e.g., Carter 

and others 2003, Feldhamer and others 2009, Lacki and 

others 2009b, Tuttle and others 2006, Whitaker 2004).

Starting in mid-August and continuing to October or 

November, bats migrate to their swarming sites and 

hibernacula. Swarming is a behavior in which bats gather 

at hibernacula entrances to familiarize juveniles with 

hibernacula and to mate (Davis and Hitchcock 1965, 

Thomas and others 1979). During this period, many bats 

still roost in trees in the area surrounding the swarming 

sites (Brack 2006, Gumbert 2001). Bats may either enter 

the hibernaculum at which they swarm or move to another 

hibernaculum for the winter. 

EFFECTS OF FIRE DURING HIBERNATION

Little is known about the effects of fire on bats during 

the hibernation period (Perry 2012). Smoke entering the 

cave is a potential concern because this could cause bats 

to arouse (Dickinson and others 2009). Bats typically 

arouse every 2–3 weeks during the hibernation period, 

but each arousal is energetically costly, and the amount of 

fat reserves they have at the beginning of the hibernation 

period is often just sufficient to allow them to make 

it through the hibernation period (Thomas and others 

1990). Because WNS results in frequent arousals during 

hibernation (Reeder and others 2012), smoke inundation 
Ecology—Wildlife 75

may have a significant impact on bats if it causes 

additional arousals and energy expenditure. Fire may 

also alter the vegetation near hibernacula openings which 

could change airflow and, thus, positively or negatively 

affect microclimates within the hibernacula (e.g., Richter 

and others 1993). Only one study has examined the effects 

of smoke on hibernating bats, finding no response by 

bats despite slight increases in noxious gases (Caviness 

2003). To reduce the risk of impacting bats during the 

hibernation period, many forests restrict prescribed fires 

close to hibernacula (e.g., USDA Forest Service 2004). 

However, more data are needed to determine if these 

restrictions are needed.

EFFECTS OF FIRE DURING THE SPRING 

EMERGENCE PERIOD

Late winter-early spring (March through mid-April) is an 

important period for prescribed fires in the Appalachian 

region (Brose and others 2013). However, this is also the 

period when Indiana and northern long-eared bats emerge 

from hibernation and begin using tree roosts. Thus, there 

is potential for conflict between conducting prescribed 

fires during the optimal burn periods and protecting 

Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats during the 

emergence period. 

Prescribed fire during the emergence period may impact 

Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats in several ways. 

When bats emerge from hibernation, they must restore 

their fat reserves for migration and reproduction. For 

WNS-affected bats, restoration of fat reserves is even 

more critical as they may have even fewer fat reserves 

than non-affected bats (Warnecke and others 2012), and 

disruption of bats in their tree roosts during this period 

may add additional stress. Further, bats commonly use 

torpor as a means for conserving energy even after 

leaving hibernacula (Willis 2006). In the southern 

Appalachians, female Indiana bats use daily torpor in 

June and July, particularly in the morning when air 

temperatures are lowest (Hammond 2013). Torpor length 

and depth are negatively correlated with temperature and 

positively correlated with precipitation (Dzal and Brigham 

2013). Thus, torpor bouts during spring will likely be 

more frequent, deeper, and longer than in the summer 

months. For example, hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus) use 

deep, prolonged torpor bouts lasting ~ 4 days/bout during 

spring rain/snow storms in Saskatchewan, Canada (Willis 

and others 2006). Indiana bats that have recently emerged 

from hibernacula in Vermont switch roosts every 4.8 

days and only emerge from roosts about 1/3 of the nights 

(Britzke and others 2006). However, during the summer 

maternity season, female Indiana bats in the same area 

switch roosts approximately every day (Watrous and 

others 2006). This suggests that Indiana bats enter deep 

torpor for energy conservation during the spring. If torpor 

bouts are deep and long during the spring emergence 

period due to cold snaps, Indiana and northern long-eared 

bats may not be able to respond as quickly to the presence 

of fire. Therefore, conducting prescribed fires on warmer 

days or during warmer periods of the day may allow 

bats to respond more quickly to the sound and smell of 

smoke, and to escape the fire (Layne 2009). For example, 

northern long-eared bats left their tree roosts within 10 

minutes of ignition when a fire was lit late in the day 

(1640 and 1650 EST; Dickinson and others 2009). In 

contrast, red bats (Lasiurus borealis) require >20 minutes 

to respond when temperatures drop below 50 °F (Layne 

2009).

Prescribed fire may also impact the availability of roosts 

during the emergence period. Although a great deal has 

been learned about roost site selection of Indiana bats and 

northern long-eared bats during the summer maternity 

season (see below), we are not aware of any studies that 

have examined roost site use or selection by northern 

long-eared bats in spring, and only a few studies that have 

examined Indiana bat roost use and selection in spring 

(Britkze and others 2006, Gumbert 2001, Hobson and 

Holland 1995). Britzke and others (2006) tracked female 

Indiana bats from hibernacula in New York to 39 roost 

trees in New York and Vermont, and noted that bats 

favored live trees such as shagbark hickories (C. ovata) 

more than is typically observed in summer. In Kentucky, 

male Indiana bats primarily roost in oaks and hickories 

during spring, many of which are alive, whereas pines 

snags are used much more in summer (Gumbert 2001). 

Further, the number of crevice roosts increases by 20 

percent in spring compared to summer and fall. The 

greater use of live trees in Vermont and Kentucky during 

spring and the seasonal variation in roost use in Kentucky 

suggests that basing management actions in spring and 

fall on our knowledge of roost selection during summer 

may be misguided. Thus, until more information is gained 

regarding roost site use and selection by these bats during 

the spring emergence period, it will be difficult to develop 

burn programs that avoid disturbing or destroying Indiana 

bat and northern long-eared bat roosts during spring.

Similar to roosting behavior, little is known about 

foraging habitat use during the spring emergence period. 

In particular, it is important to understand how prescribed 

fires affect prey availability and its distribution during 

this period. However, we are not aware of any studies that 

have examined the immediate effect of prescribed fire 

on spring nocturnal insect abundance and composition. 

Further, although several studies have examined foraging 

habitat use during summer, no studies have examined 

foraging habitat use during spring. Bats may use different 

habitats during spring in response to either changes in 

structure (i.e., leaf-off) or insect availability. Thus, bats 

may respond differently to prescribed fire in spring 
76 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

foraging habitats than to those in summer foraging 

habitats. More data are needed to determine what habitats 

these bats use during the spring emergence period and 

how prescribed fire may affect use of those habitats.

EFFECTS OF PRESCRIBED FIRE DURING 

THE SUMMER MATERNITY PERIOD

Growing season burns are usually restricted in areas that 

contain Indiana bats during the maternity season, and 

they may be restricted in areas with northern long-eared 

bats in the future. However, prescribed fire conducted 

during other seasons may still have impacts, both positive 

and negative on summer habitat use by Indiana and 

northern long-eared bats. Fire will most likely have its 

greatest impacts on foraging and roosting habitats.

Prescribed fire may affect foraging habitat by affecting 

insect prey availability and forest structure. The results of 

studies that have examined the effects of prescribed fire 

on nighttime flying insects are equivocal. For example, 

overall insect abundance and abundance of Coleopterans 

and Dipterans increased in the 5 months after prescribed 

fires in Kentucky (Lacki and others 2009b), whereas 

insect availability is not related to burn history in 

Missouri (Womack 2011). In Idaho, a high-severity 

wildfire led to a pulse of nutrients in streams, thereby 

increasing aquatic insects and bat activity up to 5 years 

post fire (Malison and Baxter 2010). 

Several studies in forested habitats across the world 

have examined foraging habitat use of bats in response 

to prescribed fire. In general, bat activity increases in 

areas that have been burned, particularly for large-bodied 

species that are less clutter-adapted than smaller, more 

agile species (e.g., Armitage and Ober 2012, InksterDraper and others 2013, Loeb and Waldrop 2008, Smith 

and Gehrt 2010). Most authors have attributed these 

changes to a reduction in forest clutter. Unfortunately, 

only a few studies have been conducted in areas with 

Indiana bats or northern long-eared bats. Northern longeared bat occupancy of sites in Missouri is negatively 

related to saplings/ac, sawlogs/ac, and conifer basal 

area and positively related to the number of fires within 

the past 10 years, although these relationships are not 

statistically significant (Starbuck 2013). In Kentucky, 

northern long-eared bat forage closer to burned areas than 

to nonburned areas in the 4 months following a prescribed 

burn which may be due to reduced clutter in these areas 

or increased insect availability (Lacki and others 2009b). 

Five of six Indiana bats with home ranges overlapping 

low-severity burns selected the burned areas during their 

foraging bouts; this finding was attributed to more open 

understories in burned areas (Womack and others 2013). 

Prescribed fire may also generate early successional 

conditions in forests; bats that are ecologically similar 

to Indiana and northern long-eared bats show neutral or 

positive responses to moderate- or high-severity fires that 

created these conditions in California (Buchalski and 

others 2013). Thus, based on a small number of studies, it 

appears that prescribed fire has a positive or neutral effect 

on Indiana and northern long-eared bat foraging habitat. 

However, far more data are needed to fully understand 

how prescribed fire affects foraging habitat use of Indiana 

and northern long-eared bats, particularly in relation to 

such factors as fire intensity and fire frequency.

Prescribed fire may also affect summer roosting habitat 

by creating or destroying roost structures and changing 

the fine-scale structure of the habitat around the roosts 

that make them more or less desirable to bats (Perry 

2012). Most of the data on the effects of prescribed and 

wildland fire on snag dynamics are from the Western 

United States. In general, more snags are lost than are 

created, particularly larger diameter snags (e.g., Bagne 

and others 2008, Horton and Mannan 1988, RandallParker and Miller 2002), although small diameter snags 

may increase in abundance (Stephens and Moghaddas 

2005). In the southern Appalachians, snag basal area is 

significantly higher in areas that receive high-severity 

burns compared to areas that have not been burned or 

have received low- or medium-severity burns (Rush and 

others 2012). However, the size distribution of these snags 

is not known. Boyles and Aubrey (2006) also found that 

snag availability was greater in a burned area compared 

to an adjacent nonburned area in Missouri. Thus, it 

appears that prescribed fire may destroy existing snags, 

but in some cases new snags are created. However, before 

conclusions can be drawn about the short-term effects 

of prescribed fire on roost structures, more information 

is needed on how snag creation and loss varies with 

factors such as fire frequency, time since burning, species, 

topography, and fire intensity. Further, if prescribed fire 

is necessary to create the types of habitat that bats prefer 

for roosting (see below), then the short-term effects must 

be balanced against the long-term habitat needs of these 

animals.

Although only a few studies have examined the effects 

of prescribed fire on roost use and selection by Indiana 

bats, these studies suggest that they respond positively 

to prescribed fire in terms of roosting behavior. For 

example, Indiana bats (mostly males) use burned areas 

in proportion to their availability in Kentucky (Gumbert 

2001), and male Indiana bats in West Virginia roost in fire 

killed trees 1–3 years post fire (Johnson and others 2010). 

Most of the roost trees used in West Virginia are adjacent 

to canopy gaps, but the roosts in the burned areas are in 

larger gaps than those in the unburned areas. Bats often 

choose roosts near edges or canopy gaps because these 

trees get more solar exposure, allowing the bats to use 

the warmth of the sun for passive warming (Kalcounis-
Ecology—Wildlife 77

Ruppell and others 2005). For example, in Missouri, 

evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis) show strong 

preference for roosts in burned areas where canopy light 

penetration is significantly greater (Boyles and Aubry 

2006). It appears that changes in forest structure created 

by prescribed fire, such as the creation of more open 

canopies or canopy gaps, is beneficial for Indiana bats. 

Two studies in the Appalachian region have examined 

the effects of prescribed fire on northern long-eared bat 

roosting behavior. In West Virginia, female northern longeared bats respond positively to prescribed fire, possibly 

due to an increase in the amount of exfoliating bark on 

live and dead trees (Johnson and others 2009). Further, 

cavities in areas that were burned are significantly 

warmer than cavities in unburned areas, suggesting that 

roosts in the burned areas receive more solar radiation. 

Similarly, in Kentucky, female northern long-eared bats 

select roosts in burned areas over unburned areas within 

months of a spring prescribed fire (Lacki and others 

2009b), and northern long-eared bats in Arkansas select 

roosts in stands that have been thinned and burned 

(Perry and others 2007, Perry and others 2008). Thus, 

although the data are limited, it appears prescribed fire 

in the Appalachians and surrounding areas results in 

good summer roosting habitat for both northern longeared and Indiana bats. In addition to creating beneficial 

changes in forest structure around roosts, prescribed 

fire may be needed to promote the regeneration of fireadapted species such as pines and oaks, both of which 

are important roosts for Indiana and northern long-eared 

bats. Pines may be ideal roosts due to their faster growth 

rates and tendency for exfoliating bark. Although slower 

growing, oaks can be quite large in diameter and also 

produce exfoliating bark both when alive and dead. 

EFFECTS OF PRESCRIBED FIRE 

DURING THE FALL MIGRATION AND 

SWARMING PERIOD

Little is known is about the behavior of Indiana bats 

and northern long-eared bats during the migration and 

swarming periods. However, in many respects the fall 

swarming period is very similar to the spring emergence 

period. Bats must increase their energy intake to put on 

fat to make it through the hibernation period as well as 

mate, both of which demand high levels of resources. 

As in spring, there is some evidence that tree roosts used 

during the fall are somewhat different from those used 

during the summer. In West Virginia, male Indiana bats 

use primarily live roosts that have a greater amount of 

bark, in areas with greater stand basal area and smaller 

canopy gaps (Johnson and others 2010). In Kentucky, 

male Indiana bats use live white oaks (Q. alba) more in 

fall than in spring and summer, and use live trees with a 

greater amount of bark cover more in fall than in summer 

(Gumbert 2001). Live trees also comprise the majority of 

roost trees used by Indiana bats during the fall in Virginia 

(Brack 2006). Thus, the effects of prescribed fire on fall 

roost tree use and selection may be different than that 

observed during summer. At present, there are no data on 

roost use or selection by northern long-eared bats during 

the swarming period.

Only one study has examined foraging behavior of 

Indiana bats during the fall swarming period, and there 

are no studies on northern long-eared bats. In Virginia, 

Indiana bats use open deciduous forests which have 

experienced a disturbance such as harvesting within the 

past 10–20 years more than expected and more often as 

the season progresses; developed areas, closed deciduous 

forests, mixed hardwood-conifer stands are used less 

than expected in fall (Brack 2006). Due to reduced 

clutter, it may be more efficient for bats to forage in open 

versus closed forests, and thus, prescribed fire may have 

a positive effect on foraging behavior in fall if it creates 

more open forest conditions. 

It is likely that Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats 

use torpor in fall as in spring, even while roosting in trees. 

Similar concerns regarding fires during cold periods of 

the day should be considered when developing burn plans. 

However, potential effects on bats from differences in day 

length, weather conditions, and fuel moisture should also 

be considered. 

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF NOT BURNING

One of the many goals of prescribed fire in the 

Appalachians is the reduction of fuel loads to prevent 

wildfire (Reilly and others 2012). Wildfires are not 

uncommon in areas that contain northern long-eared 

and Indiana bats, and if they occur during the maternity 

period, particularly before the pups are volant, they could 

have a large impact on the reproductive success of these 

species. For example, between 1998 and 2006 there were 

16 lightning-caused fires in Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park (Cohen and other 2007), an area that 

contains both northern long-eared bats and Indiana bats 

(Harvey 2002). In August 2010, a wildfire that began 

from a lightning strike burned ~300 acres of pine and oak 

forests on the southwest side of this park. Fire managers 

adopted a “let it burn” approach to reduce fuel loading in 

the area, but monitored fire lines and protected potential 

Indiana bat roosts by clearing fuels and litter around 

dead pine snags. During wildfires, the probability that 

bats at roost will experience ear burns should increase 

(Dickinson and others 2010). Further, if roost trees are 

destroyed during wildfires or become unusable because 

of the loss of bark, then it may be difficult for bats to 

find alternate roost sites, particularly if the fire is large. 
78 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Surface fuels, which exacerbate wildfire effects, may 

increase as a result of drought, either through direct 

tree mortality or increased prevalence of pathogens and 

disease (Reilly and others 2012). Because drought is 

projected to increase in the South in future decades (Liu 

and others 2013), the probability of more severe wildfires 

is likely to increase due to heavier fuel loadings. Thus, 

to reduce the risk of wildfire during seasonally sensitive 

periods for Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats, it 

may be important to conduct prescribed fires that reduce 

fuel loads. 

Another consequence of not burning or burning 

infrequently is the creation of highly cluttered habitats 

that are not suitable for Indiana bat or northern longeared bat roosting and foraging habitat. More frequent 

prescribed fires result in forests with less clutter and 

greater bat activity (Armitage and Ober 2012). Thus, in 

the absence of other disturbances, frequent prescribed 

fires may be necessary to create and maintain suitable 

habitat for both Indiana and northern long-eared bats in 

the Appalachians. 

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prescribed fire in the Appalachians is 

critical for fuels reduction as well as habitat restoration. 

Reconciling these needs with those of endangered bats 

and other species can be challenging. However, Indiana 

bats and northern long-eared bats have been part of 

the Appalachian ecosystem for thousands of years and 

have adapted to periodic fires on the landscape. In fact, 

although the data are limited, several studies suggest that 

prescribed fire may benefit Indiana bats and northern 

long-eared bats by improving both roosting and foraging 

habitat. Long-term benefits such as the creation of 

pine-oak habitats must also be considered and weighed 

against some short-term effects (e.g., loss of roost trees 

or disturbance of the roost). Conducting burns during 

time periods that will minimize disturbance to bats is one 

way to reduce risk. It is evident that far more research 

is needed on Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats 

during the spring, fall, and winter periods. Research 

should concentrate on potential effects of smoke during 

the hibernacula period, roosting and foraging behavior 

during spring and fall, and how prescribed fire during 

various seasons affects roosting and foraging habitats and 

behavior in spring and fall. This information will allow 

managers to develop effective management plans that will 

permit them to meet their vegetation restoration goals 

while reducing the risk to these sensitive bat species. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank R.W. Perry and L.K. Burns for helpful 

comments on previous drafts.

LITERATURE CITED

Armitage, D.W.; Ober, H.K. 2012. The effects of prescribed fire on 

bat communities in the longleaf pine sandhills ecosystem. Journal 

of Mammalogy. 93: 102-114.

Bagne, K.E.; Purcell, K.L.; Rotenberry, J.T. 2008. Prescribed fire, 

snag population dynamics, and avian nest site selection. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255: 99-105.

Bean, M.J. 2009. The Endangered Species Act: science, policy, and 

politics. Annals New York Academy of Sciences. 1162: 369-391.

Blehert, D.S.; Hicks, A.C.; Behr, M. [and others]. 2009. Bat whitenose syndrome: an emerging fungal pathogen? Science. 

323: 227.

Boyles, J.G.; Aubrey, D.P. 2006. Managing forests with prescribed 

fire: implications for a cavity-dwelling bat species. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 222: 108-115.

Brack, V., Jr. 2006. Autumn activity of Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) 

in Bland County, Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist. 13: 421-434.

Britzke, E.R.; Hicks, A.C.; Von Oettingen, S.L.; Darling, S.R. 2006. 

Description of spring roost trees used by female Indiana bats 

(Myotis sodalis) in the Lake Champlain Valley of Vermont and 

New York. American Midland Naturalist. 155: 181-187.

Brose, P.H.; Dey, D.C.; Phillips, R.J.; Waldrop, T.A. 2013. A metaanalysis of the fire-oak hypothesis: does prescribed burning 

promote oak reproduction in Eastern North America? Forest 

Science. 59: 322-334.

Buchalski, M.R.; Fontaine, J.B.; Heady, P.A., III, [and others]. 2013. 

Bat response to differing fire severity in mixed-conifer forest 

California, USA. PLoS One. 8:e57884.

Caceres, M.C.; Barclay, R.M.R. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. 

Mammalian Species. 634: 1-4.

Carter, T.C.; Feldhamer, G.A. 2005. Roost tree use by maternity 

colonies of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats in southern 

Illinois. Forest Ecology and Management. 219: 259-268.

Carter, T.C.; Menzel, M.A.; Owen, S.F. [and others]. 2003. Food 

habits of seven species of bats in the Allegheny Plateau and Ridge 

and Valley of West Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist. 10: 83-88.

Caviness, M. 2003. Effects of prescribed fire on cave environment 

and bat inhabitants. Bat Research News. 40: 130.

Cohen, D.; Dellinger, B.; Klein, R.; Buchanan. B. 2007. Patterns in 

lightning-caused fires at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 

Fire Ecology Special Issue. 3: 68-82.

Davis, W.E.; Hitchcock, H.B. 1965. Biology and migration of the bat, 

Myotis lucifugus, in New England. Journal of Mammalogy. 46: 

296-313.

Dickinson, M.B.; Lacki, M.J.; Cox, D.R. 2009. Fire and the 

endangered Indiana bat. In: Hutchinson, T.F., ed. Proceedings 

of the 3rd fire in eastern oak forests conference. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-P-46. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 51-75.
Ecology—Wildlife 79

Dickinson, M.B.; Norris, J.C.; Bova, A.S. [and others]. 2010. Effects 

of wildland fire smoke on a tree-roosting bat: integrating a plume 

model, field measurements, and mammalian dose-response 

relationships. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 40: 2187-2203.

Dzal, Y.A.; Brigham, R.M. 2013. The tradeoff between torpor use 

and reproduction in little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Journal 

of Comparative Physiology B. 183: 279-288.

Faure, P.A.; Fullard, J.H.; Dawson, J.W. 1993. The gleaning attacks 

of the northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis, are 

relatively inaudible to moths. Journal of Experimental Biology. 

178: 173-189.

Federal Register. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 12-Month finding on a petition to list the eastern smallfooted bat and the northern long-eared bat as endangered or 

threatened species; listing the northern long-eared bat as an 

endangered species; Proposed Rule, CFR 50, Part 17, Vol. 78, No. 

191: 61046-61080.

Feldhamer, G.A.; Carter, T.C.; Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 2009. Prey 

consumed by eight species of insectivorous bats from southern 

Illinois. American Midland Naturalist. 162: 43-51.

Flatley, W.T.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D.; LaForest, L.B. 

2013. Fire history, related to climate and land use in three 

southern Appalachian landscapes in the Eastern United States. 

Ecological Applications. 23: 1250-1266.

Ford, W.M.; Menzel, J.M.; Menzel, M.A.; Edwards, J.W. 2002. 

Summer roost-tree selection by a male Indiana bat on the Fernow 

Experimental Forest. Report NE-378. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Research Station. 7 p.

Ford, W.M.; Menzel, M.A.; Rodrigue, J.L. [and others]. 2005. 

Relating bat species presence to simple habitat measures in 

a central Appalachian forest. Biological Conservation. 126: 

528-539.

Foster, R.W.; Kurta, A. 1999. Roosting ecology of the northern 

bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the 

endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of 

Mammalogy. 80: 659-672.

Gumbert, M. W. 2001. Seasonal roost tree use by Indiana bats in the 

Somerset Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest, 

Kentucky. Richmond, KY: Eastern Kentucky University. 136 p. 

M.S. thesis.

Hall, J.S. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana 

bat, Myotis sodalis. Volume 12. Reading, PA: Reading Public 

Museum and Art Gallery. 68 p.

Hammond, K. R. 2013. Summer Indiana bat ecology in the southern 

Appalachians: an investigation of thermoregulation strategies and 

landscape scale roost selection. Terra Haute, IN: Indiana State 

University. 87 p. M.S. thesis. 

Harvey, M. J. 2002. Status and ecology of the Indiana bat (Myotis

sodalis) in the Southern United States. In: Kurta, A.; Kennedy, J., 

eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered 

species. Austin, TX: Bat Conservation International: 29-34.

Hobson, C.S.; Holland, J.N. 1995. Post-hibernation movement 

and foraging habitat of a male Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis

(Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), in western Virginia. Brimleyana. 

23: 95-101.

Horton, S.P.; Mannan, R.W. 1988. Effects of prescribed fire on snags 

and cavity-nesting birds in southeastern Arizona pine forests. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 16: 37-44.

Inkster-Draper, T.E.; Sheaves, M.; Johnson, C.N.; Robson, S.K.A. 

2013. Prescribed fire in eucalypt woodlands: immediate effects on 

a microbat community of northern Australia. Wildlife Research. 

40: 70-76.

Jantzen, M.K.; Fenton, M.B. 2013. The depth of edge influence 

among insectivorous bats at forest–field interfaces. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology. 91: 287-292.

Johnson, J.B.; Edwards, J.W., Ford, W.M.; Gates, J.E. 2009. Roost tree 

selection by northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity 

colonies following prescribed fire in a Central Appalachian 

Mountains hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

258: 233-242.

Johnson, J.B.; Ford, W.M.; Rodrigue, J.L. [and others]. 2010. Roost 

selection by male Indiana myotis following forest fires in Central 

Appalachian Hardwoods forests. Journal of Fish and Wildlife 

Management. 1: 111-121.

Kalcounis-Rueppell, M.C.; Psyllakis, J.M.; Brigham, R.M. 2005. 

Tree roost selection by bats: an empirical synthesis using metaanalysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33: 1123-1132.

Lacki, M.J.; Cox, D.R.; Dickinson, M.B. 2009a. Meta-analysis of 

summer roosting characteristics of two species of Myotis bats. 

American Midland Naturalist. 162: 318-326.

Lacki, M.J.; Cox, D.R.; Dickinson, M.B. 2009b. Response of 

northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis) to prescribed fires in 

eastern Kentucky forests. Journal of Mammalogy. 90: 1165-1175.

Langwig, K.E.; Frick, W.F.; Bried, J.T. [and others]. 2012. Sociality, 

density-dependence and microclimates determine the persistence 

of populations suffering from a novel fungal disease, white-nose 

syndrome. Ecology Letters. 15: 1050-1057.

Layne, J.T. 2009. Eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) response to 

fire stimulus during torpor. Springfield, MO: Missouri State 

University. 47 p. M.S. thesis.

Liu, Y.; Prestemon, J.P.; Goodrick, S.L. [and others]. 2013. Future 

wildfire trends, impacts, and mitigation options in the Southern 

United States. In: Vose, J. M; Klepzig, K.D., eds. Management 

options: a guide for natural resource managers in southern forest 

ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 85-125.

Malison, R.L.; Baxter, C. 2010. The fire pulse: wildlfire stimulates 

flux of aquatic prey to terrestrial habitats driving increases in 

riparian consumers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. 67: 570-579.

Loeb, S.C.; O’Keefe, J.M. 2006. Habitat use by forest bats in South 

Carolina in relation to local, stand, and landscape characteristics. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 70: 1210-1218.

Loeb, S.C.; Waldrop, T.A. 2008. Bat activity in relation to fire and 

fire surrogate treatments in southern pine stands. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 255: 3185-3192.

Nagorsen, D.W.; Brigham, R.M. 1993. Bats of British Columbia: 

Royal British Columbia museum handbook. Vancouver, Canada: 

University of British Columbia Press: 177 p.

O’Keefe, J.M. 2009. Roosting and foraging ecology of forest bats in 

the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Clemson, SC: Clemson 

University. 152 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

O’Keefe, J.M.; Loeb, S.C; Gerard, P.D.; Lanham, J.D. 2013. Effects of 

riparian buffer width on activity and detection of common bats in 

the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

37: 319-326.
80 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Perry, R.W. 2012. A review of fire effects on bats and bat habitats in 

the eastern oak region. In: Dey, D.C.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Clark, 

S.L.; Schweitzer, C.J., eds. Proceedings of the 4th Fire in Eastern 

Oak Forests Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-102. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station: 170-191.

Perry, R.W.; Thill. R.E. 2007. Roost selection by male and female 

northern long-eared bats in a pine-dominated landscape. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 247: 220-226.

Perry, R.W.; Thill. R.E.; Leslie, D.M., Jr. 2007. Selection of roosting 

habitat by forest bats in a diverse forested landscape. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 238: 156-166.

Perry, R.W.; Thill. R.E.; Leslie, D.M., Jr. 2008. Scale-dependent effects 

of landscape structure and composition on diurnal roost selection by 

forest bats. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72: 913-925.

Randall-Parker, T.; Miller, R. 2002. Effects of prescribed fire in 

ponderosa pine on key wildlife habitat components: preliminary 

results and a method for monitoring. In: Laudenslayer, W.F., 

Jr.; Shea, P. J., Valentine, B.E. [and others], eds. Proceedings of 

the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood 

in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-181. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 823-834.

Reeder, D.M.; Frank, C.L.; Turner, G.G. [and others]. 2012. Frequent 

arousal from hibernation linked to severity of infection and 

mortality in bats with white-nose syndrome. PLoS One. 7:e38920.

Reilly, M.J.; Waldrop, T.A.; O’Brien, J.J. 2012. Fuels management in 

the Southern Appalachian Mountains, hot continental division. 

In: LaFayette, R.; Brooks, M.T.; Polyondy, J.P. [and others], eds. 

Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the Eastern 

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-161. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 101-116.

Richter, A.R.; Humphrey, S.R.; Cope, J.B.; Brack, V., Jr. 1993. 

Modified cave entrances: thermal effect on body mass and 

resulting decline of endangered Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis). 

Conservation Biology. 7: 407-415.

Rush, S.; Klaus, N.; Keyes, T. [and others]. 2012. Fire severity 

has mixed benefits to breeding bird species in the southern 

Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 263: 94-100.

Schirmacher, M.R.; Castleberry, S.B.; Ford, W.M.; Miller, K.V. 

2007. Habitat associations of bats in south-central West Virginia. 

Proceedings Annual Conference Southeastern Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 61: 46-52.

Smith, D.A.; Gehrt, S.D. 2010. Bat response to woodland restoration 

within urban forest fragments. Restoration Ecology. 18: 914-923.

Sparks, D.W.; Ritzi, C.M.; Duchamp, J.E.; Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 2005. 

Foraging habitat of Indiana myotis (Myotis sodalis) at an urban/

rural interface. Journal of Mammalogy. 86: 713-718.

Starbuck, C. 2013. Bat occupancy of forests and managed savanna 

and woodland in the Missouri Ozark Region. Columbia, MO: 

University of Missouri. 82 p. M.S. thesis.

Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J. 2005. Fuel treatment effects on snags 

and coarse woody debris in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 214: 53-64.

Thogmartin, W.E.; Sanders-Reed, C.A.; Szymanski, J.A. [and others]. 

2013. White-nose syndrome is likely to extirpate the endangered 

Indiana bat over large parts of its range. Biological Conservation. 

160: 162-172.

Thogmartin, W.E.; King, A.; McKann, P.C. [and others]. 2012. 

Population-level impact of white-nose syndrome on the 

endangered Indiana bat. Journal of Mammalogy. 93: 1086-1098.

Thomas, D.W.; Dorais, M.; Bergeron, J.-M. 1990. Winter energy 

budgets and cost of arousals for hibernating little brown bats, 

Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy. 71: 475-479.

Thomas, D.W.; Fenton, M.B.; Barclay, R.M.R. 1979. Social behavior 

of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus. I. Mating behavior. 

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 6: 129-136.

Turner, G.G.; Reeder, D.M.; Coleman, J.T.H. 2011. A five-year 

assessment of mortality and geographic spread of white-nose 

syndrome in North American bats and a look to the future. Bat 

Research News. 52: 13-27.

Tuttle, N.M.; Benson, D.P.; Sparks, D.W. 2006. Diet of the Myotis

sodalis (Indiana bat) at an urban/rural interface. Northeastern 

Naturalist. 13: 435-442.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Indiana bat (Myotis

sodalis) draft recovery plan: first revision. Fort Snelling, MN: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 258 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2004. Land 

and resource management plan for the Daniel Boone National 

Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 117A. Winchester, KY.

Warnecke, L.; Turner, J.M.; Bollinger, T.K. [and others]. 2012. 

Inoculation of bats with European Geomyces destructans

supports the novel pathogen hypothesis for the origin of whitenose syndrome. Proceedings National Academy of Science. 108: 

6999-7003.

Watrous, K.S.; Donovan, T.M.; Mickey, R. M. [and others]. 2006. 

Predicting minimum habitat characteristics for the Indiana bat 

in the Champlain Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70: 

1228-1237.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 2004. Prey selection in a temperate zone 

insectivorous bat community. Journal of Mammalogy. 85: 

460-469.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr.; Rissler, L. J. 1992. Seasonal activity of bats 

at Copperhead Cave. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of 

Science. 101: 127-134.

Willis, C. K. R. 2006. Daily heterothermy by temperate bats using 

natural roosts. In: Zubaid, A.; McCracken, G. F.; Kunz, T. H., eds. 

Functional and Evolutionary Ecology of Bats. New York, NY: 

Oxford University Press: 38-55.

Willis, C.K.R.; Brigham, R.M.; Geiser, F. 2006. Deep, prolonged 

torpor by pregnant, free-ranging bats. Naturwissenschaften. 93: 

80-83.

Winhold, L.; Kurta, A. 2006. Aspects of migration by the endangered 

Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Bat Research News. 47: 1-6.

Womack, K. M. 2011. Habitat and management effects on foraging 

activity of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in northern Missouri. 

Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. 83 p. M.S. thesis.

Womack, K.M.; Amelon, S.K.; Thompson, F.R., III. 2013. Resource 

selection by Indiana bats during the maternity season. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 77: 707-715.
Ecology—Wildlife 81

Figure 1—Approximate ranges of a) the Indiana bat and b) the northern long-eared bat. 

a) b)
82 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Prescribed burning is a common management tool for 

upland hardwood forests, with wildlife habitat improvement 

an often cited goal. Fire management for wildlife 

conservation requires understanding how species respond 

to burning at different frequencies, severities, and over 

time. In upland hardwood forests of the Eastern United 

States, high-severity fires are rare, and effects on breeding 

bird communities are not well known. Research indicates 

that single or multiple low-intensity burns with little tree 

mortality may have a negligible effect on most bird species, 

or short-term effect on some species associated with shrub 

or leaf litter cover (Aquilani and others 2000; Artman 

and others 2001; Greenberg and others 2007, 2013). In 

contrast, high-severity fires with heavy tree mortality may 

create habitat for species requiring open, early successional 

conditions (Greenberg and others 2011) or snags for nest 

cavities, while retaining many species associated with 

closed canopy forests (Greenberg and others 2007, 2013). 

In this study, we experimentally assessed how breeding 

bird communities and species responded to fuel reduction 

treatments, including prescribed fire and a fire surrogate. 

Our study was conducted on the 14,400-acre Green 

River Game Land in Polk County, North Carolina, in 

the mountainous Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of 

Western North Carolina. Our experimental design was 

a randomized block design with repeated measures over 

years. We selected three study areas (blocks) within the 

Game Land. We selected blocks to ensure consistency 

in baseline forest age, type, and management history 

among the treatments. Minimum size of experimental 

units (4 within each block; 12 total units) was 35 acres to 

accommodate 25-acre “core” areas, with 66-foot buffers 

around each. Treatments were: mechanical understory 

reduction in 2002 (M); prescribed fire in March 2003 

and a second burn in March 2006 (B); mechanical 

understory reduction (2002) followed a year later (2003) 

by prescribed fire, and a second burn in 2006 (MB); and 

compared to controls (C). 

We measured density of live trees and snags in each 

experimental unit before treatments (2001), twice after 

initial treatments (2003, 2005), and again twice after the 

second prescribed burns in both burn treatments (2006, 

2011). We surveyed breeding bird communities using 

three, 164-foot radius point counts spaced 656 feet apart 

in each experimental unit. Each point was surveyed for 

10 minutes during three separate visits between 15 May 

and 30 June during 2001–2005 (after initial fuel reduction 

treatments) (Greenberg and others 2007), and in 2006, 

2007, 2009, and 2011 (Greenberg and others 2013) to 

study the longer-term effects of fuel reduction treatments 

that included a second prescribed fire in both B and MB.

During the first prescribed burns (March 2003), flame 

heights of 3 to 6 feet occurred throughout all burn units, 

but reached up to 15 feet in localized spots within blocks, 

where topography or intersecting flame fronts contributed 

to erratic fire behavior. In the 2003 burns, temperature 

at 12 inches aboveground averaged 594 o

F in B, but 

patches (6–22 percent of each burn unit) burned at 

temperatures >1100 oF. In MB, where loading of dead 

fine woody fuels was approximately double that of C and 

M, temperatures at 30 cm aboveground averaged 517 oF, 

and 22–49 percent of each unit burned at temperatures 

>1100 oF. The second burn (March 2006) was less intense, 

with flame heights generally < 5 feet. In 2006, measured 

temperatures 12 inches aboveground were generally 

< 316 oF on B sites and 433 oF in MB sites, with <3 

percent of any burn unit exceeding 1100 oF. A detailed 

description of fire behavior in this study is given by 

Waldrop and others (2010).

1

Cathryn H. Greenberg, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Bent Creek Experimental Forest, Asheville, NC

Thomas A. Waldrop, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC

Joseph Tomcho, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Burnsville, NC

Ross J. Phillips, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC

Dean Simon, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Lawndale, NC

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 

[Extended Abstract]

BIRD RESPONSE TO FIRE SEVERITY AND REPEATED BURNING 

IN AN UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST

Cathryn H. Greenberg, Thomas A. Waldrop, Joseph Tomcho, Ross J. Phillips, and Dean Simon1
Ecology—Wildlife 83

Initial (2003) higher dead fuel loadings and consequently 

high-severity fires in MB killed trees (fig. 1a) and created 

open-canopy structure with abundant snags (fig. 1b). 

These changes to forest structure resulted in much higher 

species density (fig. 2a) and richness (fig. 2b) of breeding 

birds in MB compared to other treatments due to a higher 

occurrence and (or) abundance of species associated with 

young, open forest and edge conditions such as eastern 

bluebirds (Sialia sialis), indigo buntings (Passerina

cyanea), eastern towhees (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), 

brown thrashers (Toxostoma rufum), chipping sparrows 

(Spizella passerina), American goldfinches (Carduelis

tristis), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and pine 

warblers (Setophaga pinus), in addition to most other 

species that also occurred in the other treatments and 

control. Abundance of most other species was not affected 

by the three fuel reduction treatments, even after the 

second burn. 

Although we could not assess whether a second burn 

contributed additionally to the delayed tree mortality 

initiated by a single burn, our results indicate that 

repeated, relatively low-intensity burning with patches of 

higher intensity fire can affect a gradual, subtle change 

in forest structure that may, over time, attract breeding 

bird species associated with young forest conditions. 

In contrast, a single high-intensity, high-severity fire 

can create young forest conditions and a heterogeneous 

canopy structure that can be maintained by repeated 

burning and increase breeding bird relative abundance 

and richness by attracting disturbance-adapted species 

while retaining most other forest species. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This research was funded by the Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture through the National Fire Plan 

and by the U.S. Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP). We 

thank the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

for their field support, for permitting this study to be 

conducted on State Game Lands, and for conducting all 

fuel reduction treatments. Also thanks to Stan Zarnoch, 

Chris Moorman, and Gordon Warburton for their input.

LITERATURE CITED

Aquilani, S.M.; LeBlanc, D.C.; Morrell, T.E. 2000. Effects of 

prescribed surface fires on ground- and shrub-nesting neotropical 

migratory birds in a mature Indiana oak forest, USA. Natural 

Areas Journal. 20: 317-324.

Artman, V.L.; Sutherland, E.K.; Downhower, D.F. 2001. Prescribed 

burning to restore mixed-oak communities in southern Ohio: 

Effects on breeding-bird populations. Conservation Biology. 15: 

1423-1434.

Greenberg, C.H.; Livings-Tomcho, A.; Lanham, J.D. [and others]. 

2007. Short-term effects of fire and other fuel reduction 

treatments on breeding birds in a southern Appalachian 

hardwood forest. Journal of Wildlife Management.

71: 1906-1916. 

Greenberg, C.H.; Collins, B.S.; Thompson, F.R. III; McNab, H.R.; 

2011. What are early successional habitats, how can they be 

sustained, and why are they important? In: Greenberg, C.H.; 

Collins, B.S.; Thompson, F.R. III, eds. Sustaining Young Forest 

Communities: Ecology and Management of Early Successional 

Habitats in the Central Hardwood Region, USA. Managing Forest 

Ecosystems Vol. 21, New York: Springer: 1-10. 

Greenberg, C.H.; Waldrop, T.A.; Tomcho, J. [and others]. 2013. 

Bird response to fire severity and repeated burning in upland 

hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 304: 80-88.

Waldrop, T.A.; Phillips, R.A.; Simon, D.A. 2010. Fuels and predicted 

fire behavior in the Southern Appalachian Mountains after fire 

and fire surrogate treatments. Forest Science. 56: 32-45.
84 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 1—Mean (+SE) total density of (a) live trees and (b) standing snags in 3 fuel 

reduction treatments: burned (2003 and 2006); mechanical understory reduction 

(2002); mechanical understory reduction (2002) then burned (2003 and 2006); and 

untreated controls (n = 3 each), Green River Game Land, Polk County, NC. 
Ecology—Wildlife 85

Figure 2—Mean (+SE) (a) total density and (b) species richness of breeding 

birds in 3 fuel reduction treatments: burned (2003 and 2006); mechanical 

understory reduction (2002); mechanical understory reduction (2002) then 

burned (2003 and 2006); and untreated controls (n = 3 each), Green River 

Game Land, Polk County, NC. 
86 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Introduction

Fire has been a powerful force structuring ecosystems 

for millennia. In recent decades, fire and the use of fire 

for ecosystem management have received much research 

attention. While the use of fire to restore and maintain 

plant communities is relatively understood, there is no 

consensus as to how fire influences fauna, and fire-fauna 

relationships are more difficult to predict. The southern 

Appalachian Mountains comprise a globally-significant 

region of biological diversity that is maintained in part 

by disturbance; fire may have extensively influenced 

the distribution of plants and animals (Lorimer 1980, 

Van Lear and Waldrop 1989). The region has millennia 

of human occupation that may have, at least in part, 

played a role in fire maintenance (Delcourt and Delcourt 

1997). The southern Appalachians have a number of 

plant communities known to be strongly influenced to 

entirely structured by fire. For example, Table Mountain 

pine (Pinus pungens) on dry ridges and southwest-facing 

slopes 1–4000 feet elevation is largely dependent on 

burns (Spira 2011). Furthermore, the most predominant 

fire frequency interval in the region is 11–30 years (fig. 

1). Recent decades have seen rapid expansion of urban 

areas near wildlands, and amenity-based exurban growth 

directly on the edges of forest areas (Brown and others 

2005, Turner and others 2003). Such human settlement 

alters the extent to which prescribed fire may be used to 

manage and restore ecosystems.

Prescribed fire has become an essential landscape-level 

management tool. It is one of the only circumstances 

in which managers directly manipulate disturbance. 

Prescribed fire is invoked to mimic disturbance at specific 

frequencies, intensities, and extents. For example, there 

are a few but rare examples of flood, grazing, and timber 

harvest used to recreate non-anthropogenic disturbance 

(Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001, Seymour and Hunter 

1999). Yet, fire is used in a number of ecosystems as a 

management and restoration tool (Ford and others 2000, 

Noss and others 2006). A number of studies have been 

conducted of the effects of prescribed fire on wildlife. 

We seek to review those studies, compare research 

effort in the region with other areas of the world, and 

synthesize knowledge of fire effects on wildlife. We 

focus our review on effects of prescribed fire on birds, 

mammals, herpetofauna, and invertebrates in the southern 

Appalachians. 

Methods

We approached this review using both quantitative 

and qualitative methods. We conducted a web search 

of peer-reviewed literature and technical reports to 

evaluate the number of studies pertaining to geographical 

regions and taxonomic groups. Our literature searches 

were done using Google Scholar, Google, and Web of 

Knowledge search engines. Search terms included “fire” 

Synthesis of the Effects of Fire on Southern Appalachian Fauna

Amber L. Pitt, Robert F. Baldwin, Joseph J. Tavano, Thomas A. Waldrop, and Ross J. Phillips1

Abstract—We reviewed the effects of prescribed fire on wildlife in the southern Appalachian Mountains and placed our 

results in the context of regional, national, and global studies. We conducted a Web search of peer-reviewed literature 

and technical reports to evaluate the number of prescribed fire studies pertaining to geographical regions and taxonomic 

groups. We obtained 717 relevant, unique studies, the majority of which were from North America (n=513). The most 

studied taxonomic group globally was birds (n=244). Within the United States, most studies occured in the Southeast region 

(n=179), including 21 in the southern Appalachians. All southern Appalachian studies with wildlife as dependent variable 

were of prescribed fire. Our review of the papers specific to the southern Appalachians revealed no strong signals. The lack 

of strong signals that can be generalized across taxa or ecosystems may be due to the limited number of studies and their 

short-term, localized, and/or species-centric character. By focusing new research at multiple spatiotemporal scales, we may 

gain powerful, multi-scale inference.

1

Amber L. Pitt, Assistant Professor, Department of Biological and Allied Health Sciences, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania,Bloomsburg, PA 17815

Robert F. Baldwin, Associate Professor, School of Agricultural, Forest, and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634

Joseph J. Tavano, Research Specialist, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634

Thomas A. Waldrop, Supervisory Research Forester, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Clemson, SC 29634

Ross J. Phillips, Ecologist, Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC 29634

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Ecology—Wildlife 87

and “prescribed fire”, combined in different searches with 

“wildlife”, “bird”, “mammal”, “reptile”, “amphibian”, 

“invertebrate”, “insect”, “frog”, “salamander”, “snake”, 

“lizard”, “turtle”, and “avian”. We found a total of 941 

references that we initially considered relevant. After 

further inspection, 226 were omitted due to their nature as 

conference abstracts, duplicative of other references (same 

research, different publication), general ecology reviews, 

or topically unsuitable (mis-classified by search terms). 

A total of 717 studies was used to compare numbers 

of studies by world region, world region X taxonomic 

group, by North American region, and North American 

region X taxonomic group. Studies focused on the 

southern Appalachian region (n=21) were exhaustively 

read and categorized by effect (direct=behavioral, 

population/community, mortality; indirect=habitat), type 

of measurement (nest success/selection, roost selection, 

habitat selection, abundance, richness, population 

estimate), and taxonomic group. Southern Appalachian 

studies were further reviewed and summarized by above 

categories. 

RESULTS

A total of 717 relevant, unique studies was obtained. By 

a large margin, the majority of studies (n=513) come 

from North America, followed by Australia (n=104), 

Europe (n=48), Africa (n=30), South America (n=13), and 

Asia (n=9; fig. 2). These totals are further subdivided by 

taxonomic group in figure 3. Worldwide, the most studied 

taxonomic group with respect to prescribed fire effects is 

birds (n=244), followed by mammals (189), invertebrates 

(n=155), and herpetofauna (n=152; fig. 3). Within the 

United States, most studies have been conducted in the 

Southeast (n=179), followed by the Midwest (n=98), 

Southwest (n=83), Pacific (n=64), Rocky Mountain 

(43), and Northeast (n=11) regions (fig. 4). In the United 

States, the most studied taxonomic group with respect 

to prescribed fire is birds (n=189), followed by mammals 

(n=121), invertebrates (n=91) and herpetofauna (n=90; 

fig. 5). While most studies from within the United States 

come from the Southeast region, the majority are in 

association with Coastal Plain/longleaf pine ecosystems. 

Relatively few studies have examined the effects of 

prescribed fire on fauna in the southern Appalachians 

(n=21; table 1), the majority of which came from a single 

research site in North Carolina (n=11; fig. 6). Most of 

the studies for the southern Appalachians were of direct 

effects at the population/community level, and only one 

attempted population estimation (small mammals). 

The preponderance of effects was neutral and positive 

(table 2). Depending on taxa, positive effects were strong 

(e.g., browse availability for white-tailed deer; Lashley 

and others 2011), or weak (e.g., behavioral shifts for 

myotis to exploit new snags; Johnson and others 2009). 

Most studies were neutral in that they indicated no effect 

(no significant differences) for most taxa. Behavioral 

adaptations were noted that were not associated with 

differences in reproductive success (e.g., wood thrush 

nesting higher off the ground in burned areas). Negative 

effects were noted for salamanders, shrews, and ground 

and low-shrub-nesting birds (Matthews and others 2010, 

Greenberg and others 2007a, 2007b; Artman and others 

2001). Interannual variability was large in some cases, 

outweighing treatment effects (e.g., shrews; Matthews and 

others 2009). 

Discussion

Globally, North America has benefitted from the greatest 

number of studies of the effects of fire on fauna—the 

Southeastern United States the best studied region of 

the continent. Within the Southeastern United States, 

most research is focused on the formerly extensive and 

emblematic fire-maintained long-leaf pine ecosystems. 

These are especially prevalent in coastal systems where 

habitat fragmentation and over-exploitation has rendered 

that once-extensive system a major conservation concern 

(Noss 2013). The southern Appalachians, despite a history 

of relatively frequent fire in many ecosystems (i.e., not 

only dry-slope, fire-maintained forests), have received 

much less research attention as to the effects of that fire 

on fauna. Of the studied fauna, birds have received the 

most attention, at habitat, community, population, and 

behavioral levels. 

Our review of the 21 papers specific to prescribed fire 

in the southern Appalachians revealed no strong signals 

and mostly neutral effects. Effects of fire on fauna were 

consistent across the studies, in that there was an absence 

of strong, negative effects. No study illuminated acute or 

indirect effects that might result in population degradation 

to the extent that persistence could be negatively 

influenced. By contrast, a number of studies indicated 

positive, short-term effects. Of potential negative effects, 

reduction in leaf litter (some amphibians) and shrubs 

available for nesting (some birds) were noted as potential, 

short-term factors. But at the same time, those studies 

noted only weak negative effects and often, year-year 

differences in responses. All 21 studies were short term, 

covering effects spanning 1–6 years (predominately 1–2 

years), and were site-based rather than landscape scale. 

The bias introduced by site-based, short duration studies 

was counterbalanced by a number of the studies that 

resulted from controlled experiments over multiple years 

(Green River; Wine Spring Creek). 

The sample of papers for the southern Appalachians is 

small, and bias is large because there are few replicates 

within taxa. As a whole, the southern Appalachian 

literature suggests that prescribed fire can have many 
88 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

positive effects for a number of organisms (floral visiting 

insects, beetles, many bird species, deer, shrews, lizards, 

toads). No strong negative influences were noted, with 

the exception of terrestrial salamanders. Despite the lack 

of signal, there is consensus that habitat change happens 

as a result of prescribed fire; that change may have 

short-term effects on some taxa. Those changes may be 

temporarily negative (e.g., leaf litter and some salamander 

species in some sites, cover for ground nesting birds 

and shrews), temporarily positive (e.g., floral visiting 

insects, lizards), or neutral (e.g., bats may exploit gaps 

and new snags following fire), or strongly positive (e.g., 

availability of nutrition for white-tailed deer). As many 

species of wildlife exploit early seral stages, snags, gaps, 

and other artifacts of fire, the positive signals received 

for insects, bats, lizards, rodents, some birds, is not 

surprising. How such patterns would manifest over many 

years in a shifting mosaic of forest disturbance remains 

relatively unkown, which is true for forest disturbance 

generally, not just for fire (Clark 1991). Authors of some 

of the prescribed burning studies noted scale and timing 

effects; for example localized, short-term effects on 

ground nesting birds may be minimal but would intensify 

if cumulative over many burns in time and space (Artman 

and Downhower 2003, Artman and others 2001).

Amphibians have often been mentioned as of concern 

for prescribed burning; in the southern Appalachians 

there are contrasting results. There is some evidence 

that terrestrial salamanders should be studied more 

closely, as reductions in leaf litter and increased drying 

rates of organic matter may negatively impact these taxa 

(Matthews and others 2010). However, anurans seem to 

be little influenced. The most common terrestrial anuran 

is the American toad; its high capture rates may influence 

the perception that there is little effect on anurans 

(Greenberg and Waldrop 2008, Kirkland and Snoddy 

1996). A recent telemetry study of toads in response 

to prescribed fire indicates that long distance breeding 

movements and high tolerance for dessication may 

contribute to the ability of this species to persist following 

that disturbance (Pitt and others 2013). Timing of 

prescribed burning has the potential to have the greatest 

influence on amphibians as amphibian movements in 

terrestrial environments is largely influenced by seasonal 

migration related to reproduction, and expansion of 

surface activities due to increased moisture (Baldwin and 

others 2006, Bellis 1962, Lamoureux and others 2002, 

Madison 1997, Petranka 1998).

The effect of fire on fauna has become increasingly 

well-studied; however, the results of studies of prescribed 

fire on fauna remain ambiguous, casting light on specific 

responses by individual populations and localities. The 

literature proves little basis to assess the potential longterm effects of prescribed fire on distribution of species. 

There is a preponderance of neutral and/or contradictory 

effects, indicating that something is missing in how these 

studies are being conducted. We suggest that missing 

element is scale. Studies that focus on localized areas 

are likely to also be short term and not reveal anything 

but short-term responses. Animals vary in their ability to 

move or otherwise behaviorally adapt to fires; population 

and community responses require long-term research 

to elucidate. Fire intensity, extent, and frequency all 

influence how severe and long lasting its impacts are 

on resident fauna (Noss and others 2006). This amount 

of variability in fire behavior combined with species’ 

adaptations to fire and how those characteristics might 

interact with a particular burn in a particular time 

and place make generalizations from existing studies 

quite difficult. However, there are plant and animal 

communities that are known to be created and maintained 

by fire over the long term, easing management concerns 

somewhat. Fire leads to patchiness at the landscape scale 

and can change distribution of habitats over time and 

space (Vickery 2002). The fire regime at the region scale 

(e.g., fig. 1) has biogeographic effects; and yet this remains 

the least studied aspects of the effect of prescribed fire on 

fauna. 

We suggest these extended spatial and temporal 

scales be the focus of new research for the southern 

Appalachians. Spatial ecology employed at extensive, 

ecoregional scales, combined with dendrochronological 

and historical research on past patterns, could reveal 

how fire has influenced distribution of habitats. Such 

coarse-grained analysis, when combined with data on 

faunal distributions could allow some inference as to past 

effects; when combined with fine-grained field analyses 

of behavioral and population-level effects, such as the 

21 studies from the southern Appalachians, powerful, 

multi-scale inference may be achieved. And, the planning 

of future field research on prescribed fire could combine 

long-term effects (such as the multiple fuel reduction 

treatments from the Green River, NC studies), with more 

spatially extensive treatments. Source sink population 

dynamics are probably very important for understanding 

how wildlife respond to forest disturbance over time and 

space; while the design of such field studies is daunting, 

field study can be augmented with spatial modeling. 

The southern Appalachians, with its high heterogeneity 

of habitats at multiple spatial scales, might represent 

a particularly challenging venue for such research, 

compared to relatively simpler Western systems. 

What may be of concern to forest and wildlife managers 

is the interaction of habitat fragmentation and climate 

change with distribution of wildlife populations, in light 

of fire. Future research could explore how the temporal 
Ecology—Wildlife 89

and spatial distribution of prescribed fire of varying 

intensity could impact distribution of habitats and animal 

populations. Understanding more about how prescribed 

fire can maintain disturbance and diversity in the context 

of anthropogenic change could inform landscape-scale, 

ecosystem-based management. 

LITERATURE CITED

Artman V.L.; Downhower J.F. 2003. Wood thrush (Hylocichla

mustelina) nesting ecology in relation to prescribed burning of 

mixed-oak forest in Ohio. Auk. 120: 874-882.

Artman V.L.; Sutherland E.K.; Downhower J.F. 2001. Prescribed 

burning to restore mixed-oak communities in southern Ohio: 

Effects on breeding-bird populations. Conservation Biology. 

15(5): 1423-1434.

Baldwin R.F.; Calhoun A.J.K.; deMaynadier P.G. 2006. Conservation 

planning for amphibian species with complex habitat 

requirements: a case study using movements and habitat selection 

of the wood frog Rana sylvatica. Journal of Herpetology. 40: 

443-454.

Bellis E.D. 1962. The influence of humidity on wood frog activity. 

American Midland Naturalist. 68: 139-148.

Brown D.G.; Johnson K.M.; Loveland T.R.; Theobald D.M. 2005. 

Rural land use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950-

2000. Ecological Applications. 15: 1851-1863.

Campbell J.W.; Hanula J.L.; Waldrop T.A. 2007a. Effects of 

prescribed fire and fire surrogates on floral visiting insects of the 

blue ridge province in North Carolina. Biological Conservation. 

134(3): 393-404.

Campbell J.W.; Hanula J.L.; Waldrop T.A. 2007b. Observations of 

the Diana Fritillary (Speyeria diana) utilizing forested areas in 

North Carolina that have been mechanically thinned and burned. 

Southeastern Naturalist. 6(1): 179-182.

Campbell J.W.; Hanula J.L.; Waldrop T.A. 2008. Effects of 

prescribed fire and fire surrogates on saproxylic Coleoptera 

in the southern Appalachians of North Carolina. Journal of 

Entomological Science. 43(1): 57-75.

Clark J.S. 1991. Disturbance and population structure on the shifting 

mosaic landscape. Ecology. 72: 1119-1137.

Delcourt H.R.; Delcourt P.A. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native American 

use of fire on southern Appalachian landscapes. Conservation 

Biology. 11: 1010-1014.

Ford W.M.; Menzel M.A.; McGill D.W. [and others]. 1999. Effects of 

a community restoration fire on small mammals and herpetofauna 

in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 

114(2-3): 233-243.

Ford W.M.; Rodrigue J.L.; Rowan E.L. [and others]. 2010. Woodland 

salamander response to two prescribed fires in the central 

Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 260(6): 1003-

1009.

Ford W.M.; Russell K.R.; Moorman C.E., eds. 2000. The role of fire 

in nongame wildlife management and community restoration: 

traditional uses and new directions proceedings of a special 

workshop: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

Northeastern Research Station.

Fuhlendorf S.D.; Engle D.M. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on 

rangelands: ecosystem management based on evolutionary 

grazing patterns. Bioscience. 51: 625-632.

Greenberg C.H.; Forrest T.G.; Waldrop T. 2010. Short-term response 

of ground-dwelling arthropods to prescribed fire and mechanical 

fuel reduction in a southern Appalachian upland hardwood forest. 

Forest Science. 56(1): 112-121.

Greenberg C.H.; Miller S.; Waldrop T.A. 2007a. Short-term response 

of shrews to prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction in a 

southern Appalachian upland hardwood forest. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 243(2-3): 231-236.

Greenberg C.H.; Otis D.L.; Waldrop T.A. 2006. Response of whitefooted mice (Peromyscus leucopus) to fire and fire surrogate fuel 

reduction treatments in a southern Appalachian hardwood forest. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 234(1-3): 355-362.

Greenberg C.H.; Tomcho A.L.; Lanham J.D. [and others]. 2007b. 

Short-term effects of fire and other fuel reduction treatments 

on breeding birds in a southern Appalachian upland hardwood 

forest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(6): 1906-1916.

Greenberg C.H.; Waldrop T.A. 2008. Short-term response of reptiles 

and amphibians to prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction 

in a southern Appalachian upland hardwood forest. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255: 2883-2893.

Johnson, J.B.; Edwards, J.W.; Ford, W.M.; Gates, J.E. 2009. Roost tree 

selection by northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity 

colonies following prescribed fire in a Central Appalachian 

Mountains hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

258: 233-242.

Kirkland G.L.; Snoddy H.W. 1996. Impact of fire on small mammals 

and amphibians in a central Appalachian deciduous forest. 

American Midland Naturalist. 135: 253-260.

Klaus N.A.; Rush S.A.; Keyes T.S. [and others]. 2010. Short-term 

effects of fire on breeding birds in southern Appalachian upland 

forests. Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 122(3): 518-531.

Lamoureux V.S.; Maerz J.C.; Madison D.M. 2002. Premigratory 

autumn foraging forays in the green frog, Rana clamitans. 

Journal of Herpetology. 36(2): 245-254.

Lashley M.A.; Harper C.A.; Bates G.E.; Keyser P.D. 2011. Forage 

availability for white-tailed deer following silvicultural 

treatments in hardwood forests. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

75(6): 1467-1476.

Lorimer C. 1980. Age structure and disturbance history of a southern 

Appalachian virgin forest. Ecology. 61: 1169-1184.

Love J.P.; Vose J.M.; Elliott K.J. 2007. Effects of restoration burns 

on macroinvertebrates in southern Appalachian pine-oak forests. 

Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science. 123(1): 22-34.

Madison D.M. 1997. The emigration of radio-implanted spotted 

salamanders, Ambystoma maculatum. Journal of Herpetology. 31: 

542-551.

Matthews C.E.; Moorman C.E.; Greenberg C.H.; Waldrop T.A. 

2009. Response of soricid populations to repeated fire and fuel 

reduction treatments in the southern Appalachian Mountains. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 257(9): 1939-1944.

Matthews C.E.; Moorman C.E.; Greenberg C.H.; Waldrop T.A. 2010. 

Response of reptiles and amphibians to repeated fuel reduction 

treatments. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74: 1301-1310.
90 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Noss R.F. 2013. Forgotten Grasslands of the South: Natural History 

and Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Noss R.F.; Beier P.; Covington W.W. [and others]. 2006. 

Recommendations for integrating restoration ecology 

and conservation biology in pondersa pine forests in the 

Southwestern United States. Restoration Ecology: 4-10.

Petranka J.W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Pitt A.L.; Tavano J.J.; Baldwin R.F.; Waldrop T.A. 2013. Effects 

of fuel reduction treatments on movement and habitat use of 

American toads in a southern Appalachian hardwood forest. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 310: 289-299.

Raybuck A.L.; Moorman C.E.; Greenberg C.H. [and others]. 

2012. Short-term response of small mammals following oak 

regeneration silviculture treatments. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 274: 10-16.

Rush S.; Klaus N.; Keyes T.; Petrick J.; Cooper R. 2012. Fire 

severity has mixed benefits to breeding bird species in the 

southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 

263: 94-100.

Seymour R.S.; Hunter M.L. 1999. Principles of ecological forestry. 

In: Hunter M.L., ed. Managing Biodiversity in Forested 

Ecosystems. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press: 

22-61.

Spira T.P. 2011. Wildflowers and Plant Communities of the southern 

Appalachian Mountains and Piedmont. The University of North 

Carolina Press.

Turner M.G.; Pearson S.M.; Bolstad P.; Wear D.N. 2003. Effects 

of land-cover change on spatial pattern of forest communities 

in the southern Appalachian Mountains (USA). Landscape 

Ecology. 18: 449-464.

Van Lear D.H.; Waldrop T.A. 1989. History, use, and effects of fire 

in the southern Appalachians. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station.

Vickery P.D. 2002. Effects of the size of prescribed fire on insect 

predation of northern blazing star, a rare grassland perrenial. 

Conservation Biology. 16: 413-421.
Ecology—Wildlife 91

Table 1—Studies of effects of prescribed fi re on fauna in the southern Appalachian region, USA

Effects Measurement Taxa Relevant studies

Direct 

Behavioral Nest success/ 

selection

Birds Artman and others 2001

Roost selection Bats Johnson 2009

Habitat selection Anurans Pitt and others 2013

Population/ 

Community

Abundance Herpetofauna Ford and others 1999; Greenberg and Waldrop 2008; Love and 

others 2007; Ford and others 2010; Matthews and others 2010

Small mammals Ford and others 1999; Greenberg and others 2006; Greenberg and 

others 2007a; Matthews and others 2009; Raybuck and 

others 2012

Birds Artman and others 2001; Klaus and others 2010; Rush and 

others 2012

Invertebrates Campbell and others 2007b; Love and others 2007; Campbell and 

others 2008; Greenberg and others 2010

Richness Herpetofauna Ford and others 1999; Greenberg and Waldrop 2008; Matthews 

and others 2010

Small mammals Ford and others 1999; Raybuck and others 2012

Birds Greenberg and others 2007b; Klaus and others 2010

Invertebrates Campbell and others 2007b; Campbell and others 2008

Population 

estimate

Small mammals Greenberg and others 2006

Direct Mortality Anurans Pitt and others 2013

Indirect

Habitat

Herpetofauna Greenberg and Waldrop 2008; Matthews and others 2010

Small mammals Greenberg and others 2006; Greenberg and others 2007a; 

Raybuck and others 2012

Birds Artman and others 2001; Artman and Downhower 2003; 

Greenberg and others 2007b; Klaus and others 2010; Rush and 

others 2012

Bats Johnson and others 2009

Deer Lashley and others 2011

Invertebrates Campbell and others 2007a; Greenberg and others 2010
92 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

 Table 2—Assessment of the effects of prescribed fi re on fauna in the southern Appalachians, from 21 studies, 

showing negative effects noted for herpetofauna (salamanders), birds (ground nesting birds), and small 

mammals (shrews)

Taxa

Positive 

effect

Negative 

effect Neutral Studies

Invertebrates +,+,+ +,+ Campbell and others 2007a, 2007b, 2008;Greenberg 

and others 2010; Love and others 2007

Herpetofauna +,+ + +,+,+,+ Ford and others 1999, 2010; Greenberg and Waldrop 

2008; Matthews and others 2010; Pitt and others 2013

Birds +,+,+ +,+,+ +,+,+,+,+,+

Artman and Downhower 2003; Artman and others 

2001; Klaus and others 2010; Rush and others 2012; 

Greenberg and others 2007b

Mammals +,+,+,+ +,+,+,+ +,+,+,+,+,+

Ford and others 1999; Greenberg others 2006, 2007a; 

Lashley and others 2011; Matthews and others 2009; 

Raybuck and others 2012; Johnson and others 2009

Figure 1—Mean Fire Return Interval estimated for the southern Appalachian region.
Ecology—Wildlife 93

Figure 2—Studies of the effect of prescribed fire on wildlife by continent.

Figure 3—Studies of the effect of prescribed fire by taxonomic group and continent.
94 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 5—Studies of the effects of prescribed fire by taxonomic group and region of the United States.

Figure 4—Studies of the effects of prescribed fire on fauna by region of the United States. 

Numbers represent the number of studies conducted per region.
Ecology—Wildlife 95

Figure 6—Distribution of studies investigating the effects of prescribed fire on wildlife in the 

southern Appalachians of the United states.

Fire History and 

Fire Effects

Fire History and Fire Effects 99

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, it has become apparent 

that many ecological communities in the Appalachian 

Mountains require periodic burning if they are to be 

maintained (e.g., Brose and others 2001, Williams 1998). 

Most prominent are those communities in which Table 

Mountain (Pinus pungens) and pitch pine (Pinus rigida) 

dominate. These species exhibit traits, such as cone 

serotiny, early development of sexual maturity, and thick 

bark, which enable their populations to persist under 

periodic burning. These yellow pine stands are widely 

distributed on dry south- and west-facing slopes at middle 

and low elevations across the Blue Ridge and the Ridge 

and Valley provinces between Pennsylvania and Georgia. 

They are interspersed with hardwood-dominated forests, 

which predominate on the adjacent slope facets. Various 

oak (Quercus) species are particularly abundant in this 

hardwood forest matrix (Stephenson and others 1993). 

Oaks and some of their associates, e.g., hickories (Carya) 

and the once-common American chestnut (Castanea

dentata), appear to thrive under frequent surface fires, 

which thwart the establishment of mesophytic trees that 

have few traits that would enable them to endure frequent 

burning (Nowacki and Abrams 2008).

Appalachian forests burn infrequently today, a 

consequence of the effective fire prevention and 

suppression tactics that have been implemented by State 

and Federal resource management agencies since the 

early twentieth century (Lafon 2010). These protection 

efforts were adopted in response to the widespread, 

destructive conflagrations that accompanied the 

commercial logging operations during ca. 1880–1930. 

At that time, many researchers and managers feared 

that fire would preclude the development of young forest 

stands to replace the logged forests. The protection efforts 

have been so successful, however, that Appalachian 

forests have developed largely without fire over the past 

60–100 years. Today, following this prolonged absence 

of fire, many fire-associated species and communities 

are declining in abundance and extent, and appear to be 

following a successional trajectory toward denser stands 

abounding in mesophytic, fire-intolerant plant species 

(Nowacki and Abrams 2008). This situation has led many 

resource managers to use controlled burning to restore the 

fire-deprived ecosystems (Waldrop and others 2008).

Restoring fire implies a need to establish historical 

reference conditions, but the dramatic forest changes 

of the past century—logging and burning followed by 

fire exclusion—impede our understanding of how the 

forests functioned prior to the great logging episode. 

How frequently did fire occur in the Appalachian 

forests previously? We have established a network of 

dendroecological sites to investigate fire history in the 

Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, and 

North Carolina. We searched for yellow pine stands that 

contained old, fire-scarred trees—living and dead—that 

would document the longest possible record of fire history 

in the tree-ring record (fig. 1). Pines are especially useful 

THREE CENTURIES OF APPALACHIAN FIRE HISTORY FROM TREE RINGS

Charles W. Lafon, Henri D. Grissino-Mayer, Serena R. Aldrich, Georgina G. DeWeese, 

William T. Flatley, Lisa B. LaForest, and Jennifer A. Hoss1

Abstract—Many researchers and resource managers advocate an increase in fire use to restore fire regimes similar to those 

under which the vegetation of the Appalachian Mountains developed. Restoring fire implies a need to establish historical 

reference conditions. We have developed dendroecological reconstructions of fire history and forest dynamics for a network 

of sites in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Estimates of fire frequency for these sites 

indicate that fire typically returned at intervals of 2–19 years. Burning occurred at a relatively steady level under varying 

land uses until the early twentieth century. Fire activity thereafter plummeted with the onset of organized fire prevention and 

suppression. Our results suggest fire return intervals that managers might target for restoring communities that developed 

under the aboriginal and European land uses that preceded widespread logging and fire exclusion.

1

Charles W. Lafon, Professor, Department of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843

Henri. D. Grissino-Mayer, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996

Serena R. Aldrich, Instructor, Geography Faculty, Division of Social Science, Blinn College, Bryan, TX 77805

Georgina G. DeWeese, Assistant Professor, Department of Geosciences, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118

William T. Flatley, Postdoctoral Scholar, School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011

Lisa B. LaForest, Production Manager, Biology in a Box, Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996

Jennifer A. Hoss, Manager, Opportune LLP, Houston, TX 77002

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
100 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

for such work because the resin with which they saturate 

the fire-injured wood helps preserve the wood from decay, 

even in dead trees. Many hardwood trees also bear fire 

scars, but they decay more readily and generally do not 

preserve as useful a fire history record as do the pines.

METHODS

The study sites are located at several locations within the 

George Washington National Forest, Jefferson National 

Forest, and The Nature Conservancy’s Narrows Preserve 

in Virginia; Great Smoky Mountains National Park and 

House Mountain State Natural Area in Tennessee; and 

Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina (fig. 2). These 

sites represent a wide range of the variations in climate 

and land use history that exist across the Appalachian 

Mountains. Each site comprises multiple neighboring pine 

stands (generally four stands) separated by intervening 

hardwood forest (fig. 3). The spatial configuration of this 

network enables the most reliable possible estimates of 

historic fire frequency at the level of the individual stand 

while also permitting insights into broader (multi-stand 

and multi-site) patterns of burning. We used standard 

dendroecological techniques to sample and analyze 

the fire-scar data. Tree rings were crossdated to permit 

accurate determinations of the year in which each 

fire event occurred, and the fire history analyses were 

conducted using FHX2 software and standard statistical 

analyses. Details of the study sites, sampling strategies, 

and analyses performed can be found in Aldrich and 

others (2010), DeWeese (2007), Flatley and others (2013), 

Hoss and others (2008), and LaForest (2012).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analyzing the intervals between successive fires reveals 

that fires burned often, at intervals typically ranging 

between about 2 and 19 years (Aldrich and others 2010, 

DeWeese 2007, Flatley and others 2013, Hoss and others 

2008, LaForest 2012) throughout the period of record 

(generally the 1700s through the early 1900s). For a fire 

chart that graphically depicts the history of burning at 

one of the study sites, see Figure 4. The 2–19 year range 

in fire intervals reflects the differences among sites and 

between different filtering techniques used for estimating 

fire return interval. Shorter intervals reflect less 

conservative estimates obtained on the basis of including 

all fires recorded at a study site; some of these may have 

been minor fires that burned only one or two trees in a 

single stand. Longer intervals reflect more conservative 

estimates, such as filtering the fires to include only 

the “major” fires that scarred at least 25 percent of the 

trees, or only the “area-wide” fires that burned all the 

neighboring pine stands at a given site during a single 

year. Regardless of which filtering method is used, a 

picture of frequent burning emerges.

The results presented here demonstrate that the montane 

pine stands distributed across the study area burned at 

short intervals before fire prevention and suppression 

were implemented during the early twentieth century. 

Additionally, the short intervals that emerge even for the 

area-wide fires suggest that the intervening hardwood forests 

also burned often: for an area-wide fire to occur, it would 

have had to spread through the hardwood forest to propagate 

from one pine stand to another (Flatley and others 2013). 

In fact, we noted numerous hardwood trees that exhibited 

one or more fire scars (fig. 5). Therefore, our results apply 

not only to the pine stands but also to the broader mountain 

slopes across which the pine stands are scattered.

Analyzing temporal variations in fire frequency reveals 

no long-term trends prior to the era of fire exclusion 

(Hoss and others 2008, Aldrich and others 2010, Flatley 

and others 2013, e.g., fig. 6). The fire chronologies 

that we developed for all the study sites extend back 

to the period of early European settlement, and for a 

few of the sites the chronologies reach back further to 

the period of aboriginal depopulation that preceded 

European settlement in Virginia, or to the period of 

Cherokee occupancy that preceded European settlement 

in Tennessee and North Carolina. Fire appears to have 

burned these landscapes on a regular basis from the 

pre-European period through subsequent settlement and 

agricultural expansion, and also during the episodes of 

mining and/or logging, which affected each study site in a 

different manner. The only pronounced change in burning 

coincided with the advent of active fire prevention and 

protection in the early twentieth century. We detail our 

analyses and interpretations more thoroughly elsewhere 

(Aldrich and others 2010, DeWeese 2007, Flatley and 

others 2013, Hoss and others 2008, LaForest 2012).

As a basis for restoration, our results suggest that burning 

at relatively short intervals, similar to the estimates 

presented here and detailed in our other publications 

(Aldrich and others 2010, DeWeese 2007, Flatley and 

others 2013, Hoss and others 2008, LaForest 2012), 

could be appropriate for maintaining conditions similar 

to those under which the communities developed during 

aboriginal and European land uses of the eighteenth and 

nineteenth centuries. Whether the reintroduction of fire 

would quickly restore pre-exclusion vegetation properties 

is an important question. Following several decades of 

forest development in a nearly fire-free environment, 

some communities may require intensive management 

(e.g., multiple/severe fires, mechanical treatment) to 

initiate a vegetation composition and structure that could 

be maintained thereafter by regular burning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by the National Interagency Fire 

Center’s Joint Fire Science Program through cooperative 
Fire History and Fire Effects 101

agreements with the George Washington and Jefferson 

National Forests and the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park. The research was also enhanced by 

funding from The Nature Conservancy in Virginia and 

from two Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement 

grants from the National Science Foundation. We 

thank Steve Croy, Elaine Sutherland, Rob Klein, Judy 

Dunscomb, and numerous other personnel of Federal, 

State, and private resource management agencies for their 

logistical support and many conversations that helped 

us implement the project. We are especially grateful 

to the many graduate and undergraduate students who 

assisted us with field and laboratory work. We thank Tom 

Waldrop for his support of our research over the years 

and for granting us the opportunity to contribute to these 

conference proceedings.

LITERATURE CITED

Aldrich, S.R.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. [and others]. 2010. 

Three centuries of fire in montane pine-oak stands on a temperate 

forest landscape. Applied Vegetation Science. 13: 36-46.

Brose, P.; Schuler, T.; Van Lear, D.; Berst, J. 2001. Bringing fire 

back—the changing regimes of the Appalachian mixed-oak 

forests. Journal of Forestry. 99: 30-35.

DeWeese, G.G. 2007. Past fire regimes of Table Mountain pine 

(Pinus pungens Lamb.) stands in the central Appalachian 

Mountains, Virginia, U.S.A. Knoxville, TN: University of 

Tennessee. 308 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Flatley, W.T.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D.; LaForest, L.B. 

2013. Fire history, related to climate and land use in three 

southern Appalachian landscapes in the Eastern United States. 

Ecological Applications. 23: 1250-1266.

Hoss, J.A.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. [and others]. 2008. 

Fire history of a temperate forest with an endemic firedependent herb. Physical Geography. 29: 424-441.

Lafon, C.W. 2010. Fire in the American South: vegetation impacts, 

history, and climatic relations. Geography Compass. 4/8: 919-944.

LaForest, L.B. 2012. Fire regimes of lower-elevation forests in 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee, U.S.A. 

Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. 279 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation.

Nowacki, G.J.; Abrams, M.D. 2008. The demise of fire and 

“mesophication” of forests in the Eastern United States. 

Bioscience. 58: 123-138.

Stephenson, S.L.; Ash, A.N.; Stauffer, D.F. 1993. Appalachian oak 

forests. In: Martin, W.H.; Boyce, S.G.; Echternacht, A.C., eds. 

Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial 

Communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 255-303.

Waldrop, T.A.; Yaussy, D.A.; Phillips, R.J. [and others]. 2008. Fuel 

reduction treatments affect stand structure of hardwood forests 

in western North Carolina and southern Ohio, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255: 3,117-3,129.

Williams, C.E. 1998. History and status of Table Mountain pinepitch pine forests of the Southern Appalachian Mountains 

(USA). Natural Areas Journal. 18: 81-90.

Figure 1—Fire-scarred dead pine in the George Washington 

National Forest. Multiple fires have injured the tree, as 

evidenced by the ridges that formed as wood grew over each 

new fire scar.
102 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 2—The distribution of fire history study sites (triangles) across the 

Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

Figure 3—A view of the north slope of Brush Mountain, on the Jefferson National Forest. Pine stands occupy the west face 

(right side in this photograph) of each spur on the dissected mountain slope. The pines in this photograph are evident as darker 

patches surrounded by the lighter-colored hardwood forests. We collected fire-scarred trees from multiple pine stands at 

each study site. Many of the fires burned multiple pine stands, suggesting that fires spread across the whole mountain slope, 

including the hardwood stands that form the forest matrix between pine stands.
Fire History and Fire Effects 103

Figure 4—Fire chart from the Linville Mountain study site in the Pisgah 

National Forest. The timeline at the bottom indicates the period of record, 

while each horizontal line above it represents the period covered by each of 

the scarred trees we dated. The vertical tics along each line indicate dated 

fire scars for each tree, and the longer vertical lines at the bottom of the chart 

represent the composite fire-scar record for all the trees combined.

Figure 5—A hardwood tree located at 

Little Mountain in the Jefferson National 

Forest that exhibited the typical calous 

wood that formed over an injury caused 

by a wildfire event at some point in the 

past. Such fire-scarred hardwoods were 

found in nearly all sites we examined, 

but hardwoods decay more rapidly 

than pines, making them less useful for 

analyzing fire scars to determine fire 

history.

Figure 6—Temporal pattern of fire at the Linville Mountain site, indicated as the mean number of fire scars 

recorded per tree for each decade. This calculation standardizes the fire record across decades with varying 

sample sizes, enabling a depiction of temporal trends in fire occurrence. This graph for Linville Mountain 

reveals little variation in fire frequency from the beginning of the record until the 1930s, after which fire 

activity declined. 
104 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION

The incomplete combustion of plant material during 

vegetation fires produces charcoal fragments of various 

sizes. Some of these fragments are incorporated into 

soils of the burn site, while other fragments are carried 

away by wind or water, in some cases to later settle on the 

surface of a lake or wetland. Researchers study charcoal 

in soils and in sediments of lakes and wetlands at sites 

around the world to document past fires and to understand 

long-term relationships between fire, climate, and human 

activity (Berg and Anderson 2006, Hart and others 2008, 

Horn and others 2000, League and Horn 2000, Sanford 

and Horn 2000, Whitlock and Larsen 2001). We focus 

here on the analysis of macroscopic charcoal in soils of 

the Appalachian region as an indicator of fire and forest 

history. The records of past fires that can be obtained 

from the study of soil or sediment charcoal are coarse 

(low resolution) in comparison to fire histories developed 

from dendrochronological analyses of fire-scarred trees, 

which permit the identification of exact fire years (Flatley 

and others 2013, Lafon and others 2014). However, the 

evidence of fire provided by charcoal studies reaches 

well beyond the oldest trees and tree-ring records in 

the Appalachian Mountains, providing evidence of fire 

thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago. For 

periods of time prior to about 300 years ago, charcoal 

in soils and sediments is the only evidence we have of 

wildland fires in the Appalachian region. 

Interest is growing in soil charcoal as a proxy for fire 

history in the Appalachian region. Welch (1999) examined 

macroscopic charcoal in forests dominated by yellow 

pines on the Cumberland Plateau. She looked only at 

the presence or absence of macroscopic charcoal in soil 

increments, and did not obtain radiocarbon dates. The 

presence of charcoal in 85 percent of the samples from 

seven sites documented the importance of fire. Hart and 

others (2008) quantified macroscopic charcoal in soils 

of mixed hardwood forests on the Cumberland Plateau. 

Radiocarbon dates were obtained on five charcoal 

samples, and several charcoal samples were identified to 

be from trees with diffuse porous growth rings, possibly 

maple, beech, or tulip poplar. The weighted means of the 

calibrated probability distributions of the five radiocarbon 

dates ranged from 6735 to 174 cal yr BP (calibrated years 

before present). No overlap occurred within the 2-sigma 

calibrated age ranges of the dated charcoal samples, 

indicating a minimum of five unique fire events. 

Fesenmyer and Christensen (2010) reconstructed a 

stand-level fire history in the Nantahala National Forest 

in western North Carolina from soil charcoal. They 

sampled a broad array of forest types that included pine 

forest, xeric-oak hardwood forest, and mesic cove forest. 

The median probabilities of the calibrated ages of 81 

soil charcoal fragments ranged from 4000 to 0 cal yr 

BP, with one sample returning a date of 10,570 cal yr 

BP. The prevalence of charcoal from 4000 to 0 cal yr BP 

demonstrated that fires occurred regularly in the study 

area during the Late Holocene. 

Our soil charcoal work in the Appalachian region has 

focused on pine and mixed forests in eastern Tennessee 

and western North Carolina, mainly within Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park. Within the park we have 

quantified, identified, and dated charcoal fragments 

in Table Mountain pine stands and in other stands 

METHODS FOR THE STUDY OF SOIL CHARCOAL AS AN INDICATOR OF 

FIRE AND FOREST HISTORY IN THE APPALACHIAN REGION, U.S.A.

Sally P. Horn and Christopher A. Underwood1

Abstract—Charcoal particles in soils and sediments of the Appalachian region provide evidence of long-term fire 

history relevant to resource management and to studies of paleoclimate, vegetation history, and the effects of prehistoric 

and historic humans on the environment. Charcoal records of fire history are of low resolution in comparison to 

dendrochronological records, but reach well beyond the oldest trees in most areas, providing evidence of fires thousands 

or tens of thousands of years ago. We focus here on fire history reconstruction from soil charcoal, which provides sitespecific evidence of past fires and potentially forest composition. Charcoal > 2 mm may be large enough for taxonomic 

identification, and of sufficient mass to enable AMS radiocarbon dating of individual particles. Soil mixing due to physical 

and biological factors creates soil profiles in the southern Appalachians in which charcoal age is not predictable from 

charcoal depth; soil charcoal records thus require many radiocarbon dates. 

1

Sally P. Horn, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996

Christopher A. Underwood, Assistant Professor and Program Director for Geography, Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, TN 37752

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Fire History and Fire Effects 105

historically dominated by lower-elevation yellow pine 

trees (Underwood 2013) to complement and extend 

analyses of fire-scarred trees in the same study sites 

(Lafon and others 2014). We have also examined 

charcoal in soils surrounding a wetland in which we have 

examined sedimentary charcoal. 

CHARCOAL TAPHONOMY AND SOIL 

CHARCOAL COMPARED TO OTHER 

EVIDENCE OF PAST FIRE

To use charcoal in soils or sediments as an indicator of 

past fire requires knowledge of the processes that create, 

move, and preserve charcoal in different environments 

(Scott and Dablon 2010). Many of these processes are 

not yet completely understood, but they are attracting 

increasing research attention as charcoal in soils is part 

of the carbon pool and of interest from the perspective 

of carbon sequestration and cycling (Licata and Sanford 

2012, Massielo and Louchouarn 2013), as well as for its 

value as a paleoenvironmental indicator. The increased 

use of prescribed fire in Appalachian forests provides 

an opportunity to test ideas about the production and 

fate of charcoal in fires. Recent work by Scales (2011) 

on charcoal distribution following a prescribed fire in 

Virginia provides a good example of what can be learned 

from post-fire sampling of charcoal in burn sites.

Although our focus here is large (≥ 2 mm) macroscopic 

charcoal in soils, consideration of the fate of smaller 

particles during and after burns provides context for 

comparing soil charcoal evidence to evidence from 

studies of charcoal in sediment profiles in lakes and 

wetlands, which focus on smaller charcoal particles. 

Studies of charcoal in sediment cores include studies of 

microscopic charcoal in pollen preparations, sometimes 

called pollen-slide charcoal, and of larger particles that 

are sieved from sediments. Charcoal on microscope 

slides prepared for pollen analysis is generally < 125 

or 180 μm, as sieves of this size are commonly used 

to concentrate pollen. Charcoal that is extracted from 

sediment cores by sieving is usually ≥ 125 μm, as this 

is typically the smallest sieve size used in such studies, 

which often employ nested sieves of 125, 250, and 500 

μm, for example (Whitlock and Larsen, 2001). During 

fires, microscopic charcoal and small particles of 

macroscopic charcoal are lofted into the air by convection 

currents. Once aloft, the smallest of these particles may 

be carried tens of kilometers or more away from the fire. 

Many charcoal particles present on microscope slides 

prepared for pollen analysis are < 50 μm and may derive 

from regional sources (Clark 1988, Whitlock and Larsen 

2001), such that their variable abundance through a lake 

core may reflect the history of burning not just in the lake 

watershed, but also in a large area upwind from the lake. 

In contrast, macroscopic charcoal particles sieved from 

lake sediments provide evidence of fires within the lake 

watershed or nearby. If samples for charcoal analysis 

are taken at a high sampling density, for example in 

contiguous 1-cm intervals, detailed fire history records 

can be developed. Depending on the sedimentation rate 

and the frequency of fires, peaks in charcoal (sediment 

levels with high charcoal abundance) may represent single 

past fires, or periods of high fire activity (Whitlock and 

Larsen 2001). Microscopic charcoal is rarely sampled 

contiguously in cores, so records can miss fires; thus 

these records are of lower temporal and broader spatial 

resolution than macroscopic charcoal records from 

lake sediments. For both microscopic and macroscopic 

charcoal records from sediment cores, the ages of 

charcoal peaks can be estimated from radiocarbon 

or other dates on bracketing sections of the core. For 

example, a peak in charcoal half-way between two dated 

horizons could be interpreted to have an intermediate age. 

In sediment core studies, radiocarbon dates are sometimes 

obtained for individual pieces of charcoal, but often dates 

are obtained for uncharred macrofossils, pooled charred 

or uncharred organic material, or bulk sediment. 

Charcoal that is not blown or washed out of burn sites 

becomes incorporated in soil horizons by various 

processes of mixing, or is buried by geomorphic 

processes. Radiocarbon analyses have demonstrated that 

charcoal in modern soils and paleosols (buried soils) 

can persist for thousands to tens of thousands of years, 

in some cases to beyond the limit of radiocarbon dating, 

which for typical samples is around 45,000 years ago. 

In studies of soil and sediment charcoal, a fragment that 

is too old for radiocarbon dating will have a reported 

“date” with a greater-than symbol. For example, charcoal 

in a paleosol in Costa Rica returned a date of > 43,630 

years (Driese and others 2007). However, most charcoal 

particles do not persist this long; if they did, we would 

be wading through snow-drift like piles of charcoal in 

fire-prone forests of the world, and soils in these and 

other frequently burned ecosystems would be black in 

color.3

 Recently Jaffé and others (2013) demonstrated that 

charcoal may account for a large proportion of dissolved 

organic carbon in ecosystems, and suggested that the 

persistence of charcoal fragments in soils may depend on 

the material burned and charring temperature, as well as 

on soil conditions and fauna. These findings deserve more 

study in the analysis of soil charcoal as they may function 

as a filter on the information we can obtain from such 

studies. 

3

We credit the idea that fire-prone forests would harbor snow-drift 

like piles of charcoal, if charcoal was resistant to breakdown, to our 

colleague Ken Orvis. R. Jaffé was quoted as saying that soils would 

be black if charcoal in soils was resistant to breakdown in a press 

release from Florida International University posted by J. Adkins upon 

publication of the article by Jaffé and others referenced. 
106 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Although large charcoal particles can be moved short 

distances downslope by gravity or overland flow, most 

of the large charcoal in soils located away from stream 

courses and floodplains likely reflects the burning of 

vegetation at or very near the sampling location. Like 

fire scars on standing trees, charcoal in soils provides 

evidence of past fire that is highly site-specific, more so 

than macroscopic charcoal records from lake or wetland 

sediments, which can document fires within a watershed 

but not on a particular portion of the watershed. Another 

advantage of studies of soil charcoal is that charcoal 

fragments are often massive enough that a radiocarbon 

date can be obtained on an individual fragment. However, 

because soils are mixed by biological and geomorphic 

activity, the age of charcoal cannot be reliably estimated 

from dates on other charcoal particles in the soil profile.

FIELD METHODS 

Researchers obtain soil charcoal samples from the walls 

of excavations or road cuts, or by collecting soil cores. 

The number of sites to sample, and the number and 

arrangement of pits or cores at each site, depends on the 

specific aims of the research. Collecting cores rather than 

digging pits in the field offers time efficiency, the ability 

to work in light rain, and less environmental disturbance, 

but it is not feasible if the volume of contiguous soil 

material to be examined is greater than the volume that 

can be obtained in a single core (e.g., Di Pasquale and 

others 2008). We favor a cylindrical soil-coring device 

manufactured by Eijkelkamp© (http://en.eijkelkamp.com/) 

that allows the collection of successive samples in 10-cm 

increments to a depth of 1 m or the depth of refusal (Horn 

and others 1994; fig. 1). The device we use, known as a 

“single root auger,” was developed for use in studies of 

root growth and was first used for soil charcoal research 

by Sanford and others (1985) in the Venezuelan Amazon. 

Despite the name of the device, it does not have a helical 

shaft commonly associated with augers, but a simple 8-cm 

diameter cylindrical bucket that allows recovery of soil 

increments without mixing. The device is pushed down 

while rotating to collect samples in successive 10-cm 

increments (0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, and so forth), or 5-cm 

increments in soils that are difficult to core. Quart-size, 

zipper-top plastic bags are a convenient size for holding 

10-cm soil increments after extrusion from the corer, 

which can be accomplished by inverting the corer and 

stepping on the handle. 

LABORATORY METHODS

Upon return to the laboratory, charcoal particles are 

separated from soil by wet-sieving. Soaking samples in 

water overnight facilitates the sieving process. A simple 

way to soak the samples is to add water to the plastic bags 

in which you collected them, and then very gently knead 

the bag to initiate the disaggregation of the soil sample. 

Two-pound plastic coffee cans make ideal containers to 

hold sample bags with water added (one bag per can); the 

cans keep the bags from falling over and spilling their 

contents on lab counters and contain leaks if they occur. 

In our work in the Appalachian region, we have not found 

it necessary to use chemical pretreatments before sieving 

charcoal. Some researchers have used dispersants such 

as sodium hexametaphosphate to make sieving easier 

(e.g., Titiz and Sanford 2007). Because of the desirability 

of obtaining radiocarbon dates on charcoal particles, 

we recommend against the use of water softeners or 

dispersants sold for home use, as these may include 

carbon-containing compounds that might be absorbed by 

charcoal particles and affect radiocarbon analyses.

Following disaggregation, we wet-sieve soil samples 

for charcoal analysis using 8-inch diameter sieves with 

openings of 2 mm. We have selected this sieve size 

because it will capture particles large enough that it is 

possible to obtain a radiocarbon date on the individual 

piece of charcoal, and because fragments of charcoal of 

this size are potentially identifiable to species or genus. 

Smaller mesh sizes may be appropriate if large charcoal is 

sparse and the documentation of the presence or absence 

of smaller particles is important in the study design. We 

sieve our samples by holding the sieves under a tap-water 

faucet. Care should be taken that the force of the flowing 

water is not so strong that it breaks charcoal or pushes 

sediment or charcoal over the edge of the sieve. If many 

samples are to be sieved, the person doing the sieving 

will be more comfortable if supports are used to hold the 

sieve. A dishpan should be placed under the sieve to catch 

heavier sediment to avoid clogging sink drains or filling 

sink traps.

Charcoal can be distinguished from other materials 

retained on sieves by its dark black color and sheen and 

by the way it will usually fracture if a dissecting needle 

is pressed against it. Dry charcoal will usually leave a 

streak when gently rubbed on paper, but this test is not 

recommended if you plan to obtain a radiocarbon date 

on a specimen, as paper fibers may be transferred to 

the charcoal that can affect the date obtained. Charcoal 

can be picked from the surface of the sieve using fine 

forceps (place wet sieve on a plate or tray to catch drips), 

or the sieve and its contents can be inverted onto a dish 

for sorting. A dissecting scope, visor with magnifying 

lenses, or magnifying light make this task easier. We 

wash charcoal particles with distilled water before placing 

them in vials, aiming to remove as much loose soil as 

possible. We use 20-mL glass scintillation vials that we 

first treat in a furnace at 550 °C for 1 hour to burn off 

any organic contaminants. After the scintillation vials 

have fully cooled, they can be labeled with black marking 
Fire History and Fire Effects 107

pens. We use Sharpie®-brand permanent markers with 

fine points for labeling the sides of glass vials. Extra-fine 

point markers are good for labeling vial lids, but do not 

use them on glass vials as the ink will be too thin and will 

fade over time. We then dry particles at 90 °C overnight 

in a laboratory oven and subsequently weigh them. We 

recommend quantifying macroscopic soil charcoal by dry 

mass. 

Following separation from soils and drying, charcoal 

particles are selected for radiocarbon dating. The material 

dated depends on the research question. We generally 

favor getting dates on individual charcoal particles. 

Hammond and others (2006) obtained radiocarbon dates 

on randomly selected particles. We have dated from 

different horizons, with the assumption that different 

horizons might be of different ages, but from our own 

work and that of Fesenmyer and Christensen (2010) we 

now know that depth in the soil profile is a poor predictor 

of the age of charcoal in soils of Appalachian forests 

(fig. 2). This is a consequence of the mixing of soil due 

to various physical and biological factors. Unlike lake 

sediment sequences, in which ages of charcoal or other 

components can be estimated from radiocarbon dates that 

bracket the materials, determining the ages of past fires 

based on charcoal in Appalachian soils require the dating 

of large numbers of individual charcoal particles.

Researchers working with soil charcoal obtain 

radiocarbon dates by submitting samples to one of several 

private and university laboratories. The standard price for 

radiocarbon dates obtained using the AMS (accelerator 

mass spectrometry) method is $500–$600/date. AMS 

14C dating allows the dating of individual charcoal 

fragments with masses of 5–10 mg and sometimes less, 

depending on the final C in the sample. The charge for 

AMS radiocarbon analysis includes determination of the 

ratio of the stable isotopes of 13C and 12C, used to correct 

for natural isotopic fractionation. Some laboratories offer 

discounts to researchers with funding from the National 

Science Foundation or other Federal agencies: ask! 

Radiocarbon ages can be converted to estimates of 

calibrated calendar years using one of several calibration 

programs. The CALIB program developed by Stuiver and 

Reimer (1993) has gone through several updates; the latest 

version is available on the Internet (http://calib.qub.ac.uk/

calib/) and can be downloaded for free or used online to 

determine calibrated age ranges. Researchers generally 

report the 2-sigma calibrated age range of samples, in 

cal yr BP, or in cal yr CE or BCE (equivalent to AD/

BC; with 0 cal yr BP equal to AD or CE 1950). There 

is a 95 percent chance that the true age of the charcoal 

particle falls within this range. Researchers also typically 

report a point estimate of the calibrated date, such as the 

weighted mean of the probability distribution function, 

or the median (Telford and others 2004). It is important 

to remember that the date is really not a single value but 

a probability range. Also, the radiocarbon date reflects 

the time that the carbon in the plant tissue was fixed by 

the tree, and not the date of the fire event. The time gap 

between carbon fixation and the occurrence of a fire is 

called “inbuilt age” and must be taken into account when 

compiling fire histories from charcoal (Gavin 2001). In 

the southern Appalachian region, the estimated inbuilt age 

is between 50 and 100 years (Fesenmyer and Christensen 

2010). The inbuilt-age error needs to be added to the 

calibrated age range to provide a more realistic range of 

time during which the fire occurred. For example, if the 

2-sigma calibrated age range is 610–470 cal yr BP, adding 

the maximum estimated inbuilt-age error above would 

widen this range to 710–470 cal yr BP. 

Where possible, the morphological identification of 

macroscopic charcoal from soils provides an opportunity 

to identify the type of tree or shrub that burned in the 

fire. Charcoal fragments must be identified before dating, 

as the process of radiocarbon analysis is destructive. 

Charcoal fragments selected for morphological 

identification should be cut transversely with a razor 

blade to analyze wood anatomy. Do not use razor blades 

that are coated with Teflon® or rust-inhibiting oil, as 

these substances could add carbon contamination to 

the charcoal sample, and be sure to rinse the blade 

thoroughly with distilled water before subsequent 

charcoal fragments are cut. Once a clean, transverse cut 

has been made, identification is based on the presence and 

characteristics of anatomical features such as tracheids, 

resin canals, tyloses, rays, and growth-ring boundaries 

(fig. 3). Morphological identification of charcoal is best 

accomplished using reference specimens prepared from 

plant samples. A variety of methods can be used; we 

have created reference collections in our lab by igniting 

samples in crucibles in a muffle furnace (Orvis and 

others 2005). We have also developed collections by 

gathering specimens from charred trees in recent burn 

sites. Charcoal samples can also be identified through 

comparison with photographs and descriptions in various 

references on woody anatomy (e.g., Hoadley 1990). 

CONCLUSION

Examining soil charcoal in Appalachian forests provides 

a way to document fires that occurred long before the first 

written records or tree-ring chronologies. Soil charcoal 

records are coarse in comparison to dendrochronological 

records of fire and, because of soil mixing, require many 

more radiocarbon dates than charcoal records from lake 

and wetland sediments. However, soil charcoal records 

provide site-specific evidence of fire that can be useful for 

forest management and for understanding the long-term 

development of forest stands. The taxonomic identification 
108 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

of dated charcoal particles provides a way to reconstruct 

the vegetation that burned as well as the timing of past 

fires. Soil charcoal studies can also contribute to a 

better understanding of the carbon cycle and of the role 

of carbonized wood as a charcoal sink in Appalachian 

forests.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our studies of soil charcoal in the Appalachian region 

have been supported by grants from the National 

Science Foundation (DGE-0538420, EAR-0822824, 

BCS-0928508), the Joint Fire Science Program, the 

Great Smoky Mountains Conservation Association, 

and the Association of American Geographers, and 

by a Math and Science Partnership program at the 

University of Tennessee. We thank our collaborators 

in charcoal study, in the Appalachians and beyond, for 

their contributions to the development of the methods 

described here, most especially Robert Sanford, Jr., 

Matthew Valente, Ken Orvis, Henri Grissino-Mayer, 

and Charles Lafon, and the many university faculty, 

graduate and undergraduate students, and middle school 

teachers and students who have worked with us to develop 

charcoal datasets. We also acknowledge support from 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, The University 

of Tennessee Archaeological Research Laboratory, and 

the University of Tennessee Forest Resources Research 

and Education Center. Finally, we thank Tom Waldrop for 

the opportunity to contribute to the conference and this 

proceedings volume, and for his interest, over more than 

20 years, in what we can learn about fire from charcoal in 

soils and sediments.

LITERATURE CITED

Berg, E.E.; Anderson, R.S. 2006. Fire history of white and Lutz 

spruce forests on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, over the last two 

millennia as determined from soil charcoal. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 227: 275–283.

Clark, J.S. 1988. Particle motion and the theory of charcoal 

analysis: source area, transport, deposition, and sampling. 

Quaternary Research. 30: 67–80. 

Di Pasquale, G.; Marziano, M.; Impagliazzo, S. [and others]. 

2008. The Holocene treeline in the northern Andes 

(Ecuador): first evidence from soil charcoal. Palaeogeography, 

Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 259: 17–34.

Driese, S.G.; Orvis, K.H.; Horn, S.P. [and others]. 2007. Paleosol 

evidence for Quaternary uplift and for climate and ecosystem 

changes in the Cordillera de Talamanca, Costa Rica. 

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 

248(1–2): 1–23. 

Fesenmyer, K.A.; Christensen, Jr., N.L. 2010. Reconstructing 

Holocene fire history in a southern Appalachian forest using soil 

charcoal. Ecology. 91(3): 662–670. 

Flatley, W.T.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D.; LaForest, L.B. 

2013. Fire history, related to climate and land use in three 

southern Appalachian landscapes in the Eastern United States. 

Ecological Applications. 23(6): 1250–1266.

Gavin, D. 2001. Estimation of inbuilt age in radiocarbon ages of 

soil charcoal for fire history studies. Radiocarbon. 43(1): 27–44.

Hammond, D.S.; ter Steege, H.; van der Borg, K. 2006. Upland 

soil charcoal in the wet tropical forests of central Guyana. 

Biotropica. 39(2): 153–160.

Hart, J.L.; Horn, S.P.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2008. Fire history 

from soil charcoal in a mixed hardwood forest on the 

Cumberland Plateau. Journal of the Torrey Botanical 

Society. 135(3): 401–410. 

Hoadley, R. 1990. Identifying wood: accurate results with simple 

tools. Newton, CT: Taunton Press. 223 p.

Horn, S.P.; Orvis, K.H.; Kennedy, L.M.; Clark, G.M. 2000. 

Prehistoric fires in the highlands of the Dominican Republic: 

evidence from charcoal in soils and sediments. Caribbean 

Journal of Science. 36(1–2): 10–18. 

Horn, S.P.; Wallin, T.R.; Northrop, L.A. 1994. Nested sampling of 

soil pollen, charcoal, and other soil components using a root 

corer. Palynology. 18: 87–89.

Jaffé, R.; Ding, Y.; Niggemann, J. [and others]. 2013. Global 

charcoal mobilization from soils via dissolution and riverine 

transport to the oceans. Science. 340: 345–347. 

Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D.; Aldrich, S.R. [and others]. 

2014. Three centuries of Appalachian fire history from tree 

rings. In: Waldrop, T., ed. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the 

Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 97-101.

League, B.L.; Horn, S.P. 2000. A 10,000 year record of páramo 

fires in Costa Rica. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 16: 747–752.

Licata, C.; Sanford, R. 2012. Charcoal and total carbon in soils 

from foothills shrublands to subalpine forests in the Colorado 

Front Range. Forests. 3: 944–958. 

Massielo, C.A.; Louchouarn, P. 2013. Fire in the ocean. Science. 

2013: 287–288.

Orvis, K.H.; Lane, C.S.; Horn, S.P. 2005. Laboratory production of 

vouchered reference charcoal from small woody samples and 

non-woody plant tissues. Palynology. 29: 1–11.

Sanford, Jr., R.L.; Horn, S.P. 2000. Holocene rain-forest wilderness: 

a neotropical perspective on humans as an exotic, invasive 

species. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, 

J., comps. Wilderness science in a time of change; Volume 3, 

Wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry. Proceedings RMRS 

P-15-Vol-3. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 168–173.

Sanford, Jr., R.L.; Saldarriaga, J.; Clark, K.E. [and others]. 1985. 

Amazon rain forest fires. Science 227: 53–55.

Scales, S.A. 2011. Spatial distribution of charcoal after a prescribed 

fire on Middle Mountain, Virginia. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University. 58 p. M.S. thesis. 

Scott, A.C.; Dablon, F. 2010. Charcoal taphonomy and significance 

in geology, botany and archaeology. Palaeogeography, 

Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 291: 1–10. 
Fire History and Fire Effects 109

Stuiver, M.; Reimer, P.J. 1993. Extended 14C database and revised 

CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon. 

35: 215–230.

Telford, R.J.; Heegaard, E.; Birks, H.J.B. 2004. The intercept is a 

poor estimate of the calibrated radiocarbon age. The Holocene. 

14(2): 296–298. 

Titiz, B.; Sanford, Jr., R.L. 2007. Soil charcoal in old growth 

rainforests from sea level to the continental divide. Biotropica. 

39(6): 673–682.

Underwood, C.A. 2013. Fire and forest history from soil charcoal 

in yellow pine and mixed hardwood-pine forests in the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains, U.S.A. Knoxville, TN: The 

University of Tennessee. 176 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Welch, N.T. 1999. Occurrence of fire in southern Appalachian 

yellow pine forests as indicated by macroscopic charcoal in soil. 

Castanea. 64(4): 310–317.

Whitlock, C; Larsen, C. 2001. Charcoal as a fire proxy. In: Smol, 

J.P.; Birks, H.J.B.; Last, W.M., eds. Tracking environmental 

change using lake sediments; Volume 3, Terrestrial, algal, 

and siliceous indicators. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 

Academic Press: 75–97.

Figure 1―Using the single root auger to collect soil charcoal in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The 

photo on the right shows the extrusion of a 10-cm core increment into a labeled plastic bag. (Photos by Matthew 

Valente)
110 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 3―Macroscopic charcoal from study 

sites in Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park. The upper photograph shows charcoal 

from red maple (Acer rubrum L.). Anatomical 

features that allow identification of red maple 

are narrow rays that are approximately the 

same width as the widest pores, absence of 

tyloses, and diffuse-porous wood. The lower 

photograph shows charcoal from a southern 

yellow pine (Pinus, diploxylon group). 

Anatomical features that allow identification 

of southern yellow pine are tracheids, resin 

canals, and pronounced earlywood to 

latewood transition at ring boundaries. The 

wood anatomy of the diploxylon pines that 

grow in the southern Appalachians is too 

similar to allow differentiation of charcoal 

specimens to species. The scale bar is 

approximate and is for both photographs. 

(Photos by Chris Underwood)

Figure 2―Radiocarbon ages of 81 charcoal fragments plotted against depth of recovery in Nantahala 

National Forest, from the study of Fesenmyer and Christensen (2010); data available at http://www.

esapubs.org/archive/ecol/E091/049/appendix-A.htm. [Date accessed: February 1, 2011].
Fire History and Fire Effects 111

Fire is increasingly applied as a land management tool 

toward achieving multiple objectives in eastern North 

American oak (Quercus) communities. Prescribed fire 

treatments are applied for natural community restoration, 

hazardous fuel reduction, and multiple silvicultural 

objectives (Arthur and others 2012, Brose and others 

2013, Brose and Van Lear 1998, Burton and others 

2011, Dey and Hartman 2005, Pyne and others 1996). 

In southern Missouri, prescribed fire is used to restore 

glades, savannas, and woodlands by decreasing the 

number of woody stems, consuming litter, and creating 

forest canopy openings, thus promoting fire-tolerant tree 

and shade-intolerant herbaceous species (Nelson 2005). 

As land management agencies increasingly move toward 

landscape-level management processes (e.g., burn units 

> 1,000 acres), prescribed fire will burn across ecological 

boundaries more frequently, including into stands of 

merchantable timber. Currently there is much debate as to 

whether prescribed fire management for forest community 

restoration and managing for timber products are 

mutually exclusive practices. There is a need for improved 

understanding regarding how prescribed fire affects 

timber product values in areas containing merchantable 

sized trees.

We measured the economic loss due to fire-caused 

injuries (i.e., fire scars) in terms of volume and value in 

the butt logs of 88 red oak (Quercus velutina, Q. rubra,

and Q. coccinea) trees harvested from prescribed fire 

units in southern Missouri. Trees with varying degrees 

of external fire damage, time since fire, and diameter 

were harvested and milled into dimensional lumber. Fire 

scar dimensions and tree size (diameter at breast height 

(DBH)) were measured prior to tree harvest. Lumber 

grade changes and volume losses due to fire-related 

injuries were tracked on individual boards (n=1298, 

7754 board feet). Lumber values were assigned using 

rough, green lumber values reported by the Hardwood 

Market Report (Southern Hardwoods Category, April 16, 

2011).

Overall, value and volume losses were surprisingly low. 

Volume loss per fire-scarred log averaged 3.9 percent, 

and the average value loss was 10.3 percent. A large 

amount of fire-caused defect was removed incidentally 

during the milling process (fig.1). Statistically significant 

models (p < 0.001) were developed to predict log value 

loss considering tree size, fire scar size, and fire scar 

residence time (time between fire damage occurrence and 

tree harvest). Trees that were mid-sized (i.e., pole size) 

when injured were most likely to experience higher value 

loss, while trees that were small or large in diameter at 

time of injury typically experienced little or no value 

loss. If fire damage is less than 20 inches in height and/or 

20 percent basal circumference injured, then little value 

loss should occur over 14 years. If these thresholds are 

exceeded, value loss is likely. Value loss may be very low 

if trees are harvested within five years after fire damage, 

regardless of scar size. These findings are applicable for 

red oak trees which are at least 8 inches DBH at time of 

fire damage and with fire-scar residence times not greater 

than 14 years. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by the Missouri Department of 

Conservation.

LITERATURE CITED

Arthur, M.A.; Alexander, H.D.; Dey, D.C. [and others]. 2012. 

Refining the oak-fire hypothesis for management of oakdominated forests of the Eastern United States. Journal of 

Forestry. 110: 257-266.

Brose, P.; Van Lear, D. 1998. Prescribed fire effects on hardwood 

advance regeneration in mixed hardwood stands. Southern 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 22: 138-142.

Brose, P.H.; Dey, D.C.; Phillips, R.J.; Waldrop, T.A. 2013. A metaanalysis of the fire-oak hypothesis: does prescribed burning 

promote oak reproduction in Eastern North America? Forest 

Science. 59(3): 322-334.

[Extended Abstract]

RED OAK TIMBER PRODUCT VALUE LOSS DUE TO FIRE DAMAGE

Joseph M. Marschall, Richard P. Guyette, Michael C. Stambaugh, and Aaron P. Stevenson1

1

Joseph M. Marschall, Senior Research Specialist, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211

Richard P. Guyette, Research Professor, University of Missouri

Michael C. Stambaugh, Research Assistant Professor, University of Missouri 

Aaron P. Stevenson, Resource Scientist, Missouri Department of Conservation, West Plains, MO 65775

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
112 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Burton J.; Hallgren, S.; Fuhlendorf, S.; Leslie, D. 2011. Understory 

response to varying fire frequencies after 20 years of prescribed 

burning in an upland oak forest. Plant Ecology. 212: 1513-1525.

Dey, D.C.; Hartman, G. 2005. Returning fire to Ozark Highland 

forest ecosystems: effects on advance regeneration. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 217(1): 37-53.

Nelson, P.W. 2005. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. 

Missouri Natural Areas Committee, Jefferson City, MO. 550 p.

Pyne, S.; Andrews, P.; Laven, R. 1996. Introduction to wildland fire. 

New York: John Wiley & Sons. 769 p.

Figure 1—Fire scarred tree pre- and post-harvest. Tree DBH=19.7 inches, fire scar height=27.0 inches, fire scar depth=5.0 

inches. The dotted circle on the base of the log depicts (to scale) the log’s small end diameter; the solid square represents the 

portion of the round log that is utilized when manufacturing rectangular dimensional lumber. Though this tree appeared heavily 

defected while standing, it only experienced 8.0 percent value loss and 2.8 percent volume loss, with much of the fire-caused 

defect removed during the milling process.
Fire History and Fire Effects 113

INTRODUCTION

North Branch Simpson Creek (NBSC) is located on the 

James River Ranger District of the George Washington 

National Forest about seven miles east of the Town of 

Clifton Forge, VA. The stream drains toward the south 

between the ridges of Mill and Brushy Mountains and 

enters Simpson Creek (SC). The 1837-acre watershed of 

NBSC is located within the boundary of the Rich Hole 

Wilderness Area (RHWA) and is forested primarily 

with a mixture of chestnut oak (Quercus montana), 

northern red oak (Q.rubra), white oak (Q. alba), red 

maple (Acer rubrum), and sugar maple (A. saccharinum). 

Rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.) and mountain laurel 

(Kalmia latifolia) shrubs are abundant, and there are 

some pine stands. Water chemistry has been obtained 

for this stream at a site near the Wilderness boundary 

(VT 16) from April 1987 to present as part of the 

quarterly monitoring program of the Virginia Trout 

Stream Sensitivity Study (VTSSS). On April 9, 2012, a 

human-caused wildfire occurred within the Rich Hole 

Wilderness. Since the fire was within a congressionally 

designed Wilderness, indirect suppression actions were 

taken including backfire operations, line construction, and 

limited aircraft support. Otherwise the fire was allowed 

to burn “naturally;” that is, as it would have done in the 

era before fire suppression became standard practice. By 

April 19, 2012, the fire was extinguished by rainfall and 

containment (fig. 1). It was estimated that 95 percent of 

the understory was burned to the forest floor with about 5 

percent single and group torching.2

It is unusual for an entire watershed in the Ridge and 

Valley geophysical province of Virginia to be subjected 

to a “natural” fire, so the Rich Hole fire has provided 

an opportunity for research. It was suggested by Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture staff that postfire data for NBSC could provide useful information on 

the effect of forest fires on stream water. So in May 2012, 

the Forest Service requested the environmental group at 

James Madison University to participate in such a study. 

Limited funds were available so it was decided to limit 

the study to samples collected by a volunteer and/or 

Forest Service staff during episodic runoff events. It was 

thought that any short-term, post-fire changes in water 

chemistry might be observed in run off. A nearby stream 

that discharges from an unburned watershed, Downy 

Branch (DB), was sampled as a “control” in coincidence 

with NBSC sampling.

General comments on the

effects of fires on streams

Forested landscape may be roughly described with three 

main features: (in order of increasing solar irradiation) 

the soils and floor of the forest; low height vegetation 

including shrubs, juvenile trees and other plants called 

the understory; and an elevated crown of tree limbs 

Water Chemistry of North Branch Simpson Creek and the

Rich Hole Wilderness Fire

Daniel M. Downey, Jens Peter Haraldstadt, and Sydney N. Fisher1

Abstract—In April 2012, the understory of the Rich Hole Wilderness Area in Virginia including the watershed of North 

Branch of Simpson Creek (NBSC) was burned in a major wildfire. This fire presented a unique opportunity for the study of 

effects of forest fires on streams in the Appalachian Mountains. In other locations wildfires have produced changes in soil 

composition, surface runoff, and water chemistry. As the most dramatic effects of wildfires on streams have been the result 

of episodic discharge, sampling was conducted May–September 2012 for precipitation runoff events. In addition, synoptic 

samples were taken in 2012 and 2013 throughout the stream reach. Chemical parameters including pH, acid neutralizing 

capacity, Na+

, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Cl-, NO3

-

, SO4

2- , Al, turbidity, and conductivity were measured for comparison to previous 

data sets. A second stream, Bob Downy Branch, was not affected by the fire and served as a “control” with samples 

collected coincidentally with those from NBSC. The paper presents the unique combination of forest timber stands, historic 

and present day land use, acid deposition, geology, and the fire in the observed water chemistry of NBSC.

1

Daniel M. Downey, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807

Jens Peter Haraldstadt, Research Assistant, James Madison University

Sydney N. Fisher, Research Assistant, James Madison University

2

Personal Communication. 2012. Steve Croy. Supervisor’s Office, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, 

Roanoke, VA 24019.

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
114 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

and foliage termed canopy. All three of these features 

are affected by a forest fire with the extent dependent 

on seasonal timing, availability of fuel, type of fuel, 

air temperature, wind, and desiccation. Fire reduction 

of any of these features can change the physical and 

chemical nature of water discharging from a burned 

forest (Tiedemann and others 1978). Studies have 

demonstrated both short- and long-term changes in 

physical and chemical attributes of streams. Some 

changes such as increased sediment loading in discharge 

may be noted soon after the fire. Other changes such as 

base cation depletion and carbon balance may be long 

term. Considerable information on the impact of fires on 

streams may be found in the literature (Wade 1989). For 

the NBSC study, any changes in water chemistry that may 

have occurred from the Rich Hole fire should be evaluated 

in context of past/present land use and watershed geology.

Rich Hole Wilderness History and Geology

The name “Rich Hole” derives from the drainage holes 

(hollows) of Brushy Mountain. One of these depressions 

on the north slope contains a large stand of old growth 

northern red oak forest that is on the list of National 

Natural Landmarks (NPS 2009, p. 99). Described as a 

“cove” or protected virgin forest of large oak and hickory 

trees, this timber stand was the key to the naming and 

creation of the RHWA.

Pig iron production was the first major industry that 

developed in eastern Alleghany County. In 1827, a stone 

“cold blast” furnace, Lucy Selina (Cappon 1957; Lesley 

1859, p. 71), opened on the south bank of Simpson Creek 

less than a mile downstream from NBSC. In 1854, 

a second furnace, the “hot blast” Australia Furnace, 

was built at the site. These furnaces required iron ore, 

limestone, and charcoal to produce iron metal. Iron was 

produced from mined deposits of limonite, which is a 

mixture of iron oxides and hydroxides known as Oriskany 

iron ore (Lesure 1987, p.11). This ore was 48.2 percent 

iron, and the two furnaces had the greatest production 

total of any in the State (Walker 1936, p. 28). Mining 

of iron ore from the mountain slopes of the then future 

RHWA caused significant changes and erosion of the 

landscape. In addition, the mountains were stripped of 

trees to make charcoal. Pig iron production by the process 

continued until after the end of the War Between the 

States. In fact, much of the iron used for Confederate 

cannon balls and other war material came from these 

furnaces. Rich Hole is in the headwaters of the James 

River, and transportation by canals and the river made 

transport to the forges in Richmond less challenging than 

other locations. Shortly after the war in 1869, the furnaces 

were acquired by Longdale Company (Morton, 1923, 

p. 71). In about 1873, charcoal was replaced by coke for 

iron production. Coke is made from coal, so it may be 

reasoned that the local mountain forests from that time 

forward were less stressed from harvest and regeneration 

occurred. Fancy Hill mine on the south slope of Mill 

Mountain in the RMWA was worked in the late 1800s 

and early 1900s (Watson 1907, p. 440). Production of 

iron in Virginia declined in the early twentieth century 

and by the end of World War I, the production of iron in 

the vicinity of RHWA became extinct due to competition 

with western and northern suppliers. 

By 1935-36, many acres of the mountain lands of the iron 

manufacturing industry were purchased by the Federal 

Government for inclusion in the George Washington 

National Forest. The unique cove of trees mentioned 

above that had not been harvested was soon identified as 

worthy of special protection and the inclusive slopes of 

Brushy Mountain were designated as “roadless.” In 1964, 

Congress passed the Wilderness Act (PL 88-577) that 

designated tracts of Federal land as Wilderness Areas. 

The Forest Service interpreted the act to include only 

those lands that were historically pristine and free of 

human disturbance. In 1974, Congress passed the Eastern 

Wilderness Act (PL 93-622) that extended the opportunity 

for inclusion of lands in Wilderness Areas previously 

used for the diverse activities of humanity which could 

return to a native condition by natural succession. In 

1984, Congress passed the Virginia Wilderness Act (PL 

98-586) that selected Rich Hole (and three other areas) for 

detailed study. In 1988, the Rich Hole Wilderness Area 

was established (PL 100-326).

Lesure (1957) mapped the geology of the ore deposits of 

the Clifton Forge iron district in Alleghany County, and 

repeated his interpretation in a mineral survey report 

done for Rich Hole Wilderness study area (Lesure 1987). 

In the later study, he mapped the hematite and limonite 

resources, both of which he termed “subeconomic” and 

referenced other studies of the geochemistry and geology 

of the RHWA. The National Geologic Database has 

provided on-line and downloadable maps of this work 

(Lesure and Nicholson 1985). Lesure (1987, p. 6) has also 

identified the sites of abandoned iron mines, charcoaling 

pits, cuts, and prospect pits. The largest mine site near 

NBSC, the Fancy Hill mine, was a 20-foot deep open 

cut 100-feet wide and 150-feet long on the south slope of 

Mill Mountain. Not indicated was the grade of a narrow 

gauge railroad that ran from the Fancy Hill mine to the 

Longdale Furnace site.

An understanding of the geology of NBSC is essential 

for interpreting its water chemistry (tables 1 and 2). 

Lesure’s explanation (1987, p. 10) of the formation of 

limonite deposits in RHWA is that acidic groundwater in 

the Romney Shale dissolved iron sulfides which moved 

into underlying carbonate rock and precipitated as iron 

oxides. He describes the general geology as folded marine 
Fire History and Fire Effects 115

sedimentary rocks of the Paleozoic age with interbedded 

shale, siltstone, and limestone of Late Ordovician age, 

overlaying beds of sandstone, quartzite, and hematitic 

sandstone to Middle Silurian age and lower Devonium 

limestone (Lesure 1987, p. 1, 5). The immediate geology 

of the NBSC was mapped with the stream originating at 

3000 feet elevation in Middle Silurian Keefer Sandstone 

(Sk), passing adjacent to landslide colluvium consisting 

of Keefer and Rose Hill Sandstone (Qlc) near 2600 feet, 

then resuming Keefer contact, encountering sandstone 

colluvium (Qa) near 2200 feet that follows the stream 

channel down to the confluence with SC near 1400 feet. 

Near 1800 feet and 1550 feet there are small groups of 

Lower Devonium and Upper Silurian rocks (DSu) on 

the west slope, the latter location having been explored 

for limonite. Near 1700 feet and 1600 feet there are 

insertions of Romney Sale (Dr) from the west slope. 

Kozak (1965) mapped the geology of 15 minute Millboro 

quadrangle that includes the RHWA. His interpretation 

shows NBSC originating from Clinton Formation (Scl) 

near 2800 feet elevation and passing Cayuga Group 

(Scy), Keyser Formation (Sk), Helderberg Group (Dhl), 

Oriskany Sandstone (Do), Millboro Shale (Dm), and 

Brallier Formation (Db) at the stream confluence 

with SC. Alluvium and colluvium are not shown as 

separate mapped areas. Regardless of which geologic 

interpretation is used for assessing water chemistry, the 

upper reach of NBSC drains from acidic sandstone, then 

encounters shale and basic limestone before entering SC.

Downy Branch Geology and History

The sampling location for Downy Branch (DB) lies 

2.6 miles southwest of VT16 on NBSC. This stream is 

not within the RHWM area and was not included in some 

of the referenced geological surveys but was included 

in the Kozak (1965) study. Although DB drains toward 

the northwest from North Mountain, the geological 

associations are quite similar to that of NBSC. The same 

sandstone and limestone formations described above 

contribute to the watershed geology of DB.

The human use history of DB watershed has not been 

reported to the same extent as NBSC. The stream enters 

Blue Suck Branch within the boundaries of an old 

Civilian Conservation Corps constructed recreation area 

0.6 miles upstream of the confluence with SC. There are 

small dams on DB that may have been built as reservoirs 

for the recreation area. Any mining or charcoal sites that 

may have been in the watershed are not identified on the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps.

Coldwater Streams and Water Chemistry

The chemical and physical makeup of a stream is 

dependent on the watershed from which it discharges. 

Streams that discharge from high elevation (elevation 

> 1400 feet) sandstone and shale ridges in the Virginia 

Valley and Ridge geophysical province tend to be cold 

(maximum temperature < 22 °C), free of sediment, 

and low in dissolved minerals. In Alleghany County, 

such clean and clear streams support native brook trout 

(Salvelinus fontinalis) and have been included in the 

VTSSS project. A major goal of VTSSS is establishing 

the effect of atmospheric acid deposition (acid rain) on 

the water chemistry of these streams. The primary water 

quality criterion that is monitored is acid neutralizing 

capacity (ANC), which is defined as the summation of all 

titratable bases in the water. The only base of significance 

in low conductivity headwater streams is bicarbonate 

ion, which originates from the dissolution of carbonatebearing minerals in the watershed geology of a stream. 

In geology where there is little carbonate mineral, the 

streams are low in ANC, and aquatic life is threatened 

from acid injections due to rain, snow, etc. Along with 

ANC, the most common water chemistry parameter is 

pH, which is the hydronium ion concentration expressed 

logarithmically. The experimentally found relationship 

between pH and ANC is illustrated in figure 2. Thus, 

the observed pH in stream water is the combination of 

acid from the atmosphere coupled with the ability of 

geology for a stream to provide neutralizing base (Sharpe 

and others 1987, Zhi-Jun and others 2000). Although 

there is no established value for mortality of brook trout 

and ANC/pH values, it has been observed that streams 

with negative ANC values and low pH are either devoid 

of trout or have low population numbers and biomass. 

Additional water chemistry parameters that are useful 

for evaluating cold water streams are base cations, acid 

anions, aluminum, conductivity, and turbidity.

Water Chemistry and NBSC Survey

On September 20, 2012, two Forest Service staff 

scientists, Dawn Kirk and Fred Huber, hiked the Rich 

Hole Trail to examine the Wilderness five months after 

the fire. Water samples were collected from the stream 

and two tributaries en route from the top of the mountain 

to the lower boundary. These sites were recorded with a 

GPS unit (table 3). The single day collection of samples 

took place two days following a seasonal storm that 

delivered an estimated 3 inches of rainfall to the NBSC 

watershed. It is estimated that the discharge peaked on 

September 18 and was in regression to base flow when 

the samples were collected. The pH and ANC values 

found for these samples revealed much about the way 

water chemistry is influenced by geology. Very low pH 

and ANC values were obtained for all samples taken 

more than a mile from the lower Wilderness boundary 

(table 4, fig. 3) and upstream of 1750 feet elevation. 

These low values reflect the acidic sandstone geology 

(Keefer) which constitutes the upper watershed. Near 1 

mile upstream, the pH and ANC increase dramatically 

due to the injection of water from the limestone 

geology (Helderberg) that provides bicarbonate. On site 
116 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

examination of the 1-mile sampling location suggested 

that ash from the fire may have been a contributing 

factor. The pH and ANC decreased downstream from 

the 1-mile sample location, probably due to the injection 

of additional acidic water from the east side of the 

watershed. Aluminum is a metal toxic to fish that can 

be mobilized under acidic conditions. In this study, all 

observed aluminum values were low and not threatening 

for aquatic life.

Fish Populations

Simpson Creek (SC) drains the east side of Brushy 

Mountain and winds its way nearly 10 stream miles down 

to the confluence with the Cowpasture River 4 miles 

east of Clifton Forge. Self-sustaining brook and rainbow 

trout dominate SC fish populations for about 5 miles 

from its origin spring near elevation 3000 feet to the 

historic Longdale Furnace site at 1300 feet. Downstream 

of Longdale Furnace, the stream temperature increases 

and warm water fish populations dominate. North Branch 

Simpson Creek (NBSC) enters SC upstream of Longdale 

Furnace within the coldwater reach. Blue Suck Branch 

(BSB) with its tributary Downy Branch (DB) enters SC 

about 2 miles downstream of Longdale Furnace within 

the warm water reach. These confluences are important 

because coldwater fish could migrate from NBSC into SC 

and vice versa, whereas migration is less likely into/from 

BSB and DB.

Electrofishing surveys of the above streams have been 

performed by VDGIF (Fink 2012) with 27 different 

species of fish found (table 5). Most of these species are 

native and frequently found in headwater streams in 

western Virginia. Some species are introduced, e.g., rock 

bass, smallmouth bass and rainbow trout, either directly 

into the streams or from migration from the Cowpasture 

River. The diversity of the fish population is impressive 

given that for nearly two centuries, the human impact in 

the watershed has been dramatic. For about 100 years 

after Colonel John Jordan operated his first iron furnace 

Lucy Selina [Longdale], “heavy drafts” on the forests to 

make charcoal (Morton 1923, p. 71) and extensive mining 

took place along the SC drainage. This was done in an 

era when no effort was made to avoid sediment movement 

and damage to the riparian area of streams. Roads and 

railways were built along the stream, beginning as trails 

for mining and travel that connected the furnaces along 

Bratton’s Run, the mineral spring resorts along Alum 

Creek and Jordan’s furnaces. By 1832, the Lexington 

and Covington Turnpike was built over North Mountain, 

following the trace of the old trails (Morton 1920, p.164). 

In the late 1920s, the Turnpike became part of US 60, 

later designated SR 850 North Mountain Road when 

the interstate and Federal highway conjoined. In 1977, 

construction of I-64 sandwiched much of the stream 

between the two roads. An attempt was made to mitigate 

streambank erosion after the highway construction was 

completed (Standage 1986) with semipermeable matting, 

but recent erosion has continued to introduce sediment 

into SC.3

 Fish populations for both BSB and DB have 

been affected by the 1930s construction of dams that are 

part of a recreation area (Downey and others 2012). These 

dams are large enough to inhibit fish migration. It is 

noteworthy that BSB, DB, and NBSC have been listed as 

Exceptional State Waters-Tier III (VDEQ 2004).

Simpson Creek was included in the VDGIF trout stocking 

program until the time of construction of I-64. Hatchery 

raised rainbow trout (RBT) were stocked each year for 

decades, and it is likely that some of these fish parented 

the fish collected by VDGIF surveys in recent years. Of 

the eight different times SC has been surveyed (table 

5), four found RBT, one found brook trout (BKT), and 

three found no trout at all. Unfortunately the location of 

surveys has varied and was not recorded in the database 

except those since 2001. For those locations that were 

identified, l=lower, m=middle and u=upper. The upper 

location is within the coldwater reach at Longdale 

Furnace and showed the greatest number of RBT. The 

other two identified locations are within the warmwater 

section of SC and did not have any trout. It is likely that 

the other surveys that didn’t show trout in SC and BSB 

were done in warmwater sections. The survey (1995) 

for SC that showed BKT but no RBT was from far up in 

the watershed near 1600 feet elevation.4

 It was thought 

that the abundance of brook trout may have been due 

to fingerling stocking in a previous year. In streams 

in Virginia that have been colonized by RBT, water 

chemistry generally shows higher pH, ANC, and lower 

elevation, than in reaches of the same stream that contain 

BKT. The 1979 and 1995 electrofishing site for NBSC 

was also unspecified in the database, but VT16 was likely 

the surveyed site. The NBSC fish data showed BKT 

and nongame fish populations that matched the SC site 

surveyed on the same day.

A dramatic difference in water chemistry (table 6) was 

observed for sites collected near elevation 1444 feet a 

short distance upstream from NBSC and SC confluence 

in May 2012. Unlike NBSC, which discharges through 

sandstone rock for most of its distance, SC discharges 

mostly from Brallier Formation (Db) for several miles 

before reaching the confluence of the two streams (Kozak 

1965). Thus SC has higher pH, ANC, calcium, and 

3

Personal Communication. 2013. Dawn Kirk. Supervisor’s Office, 

George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe 

Parkway, Roanoke, VA 24019.

4

Personal Communication. 2013. Paul Bugas. Virginia Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries, Verona Office, 517 Lee Highway, Verona, 

VA 24482.
Fire History and Fire Effects 117

magnesium concentration than NBSC due to the greater 

contact with limestone and shale geology. This difference 

in stream chemistry has benefited the RBT that are not 

only thriving in SC but have replaced the native BKT. As 

no barrier to fish migration was found, the lower pH, etc. 

may also be a reason that RBT have not colonized NBSC. 

Description of April 2012 Fire

The winter of 2011-2012 was an unusually dry period 

in western Virginia. At about 5:30 pm on April 9, 2012 

(Dooley 2012), a small brush fire was reported along Rich 

Hole Road (North Mountain Road) near the Rockbridge/

Alleghany County line. With dry forest and high winds, 

the fire soon spread throughout the Simpson Creek valley, 

resulting in closure of I-64 for nearly 20 hours (Adams 

2012). Rich Hole fire was one of six different major 

wildfires that became known as the Easter Complex due 

to their occurrence just after Easter Sunday. By April 19, 

all fires were contained. The Rich Hole fire covered more 

than 15,454 acres, including 100 percent of the 6450 acre 

RHWA burned (Inciweb 2012), ending when a sizeable 

storm front passed through the region delivering about 1 

inch rainfall on April 18, 2012.

The Rich Hole fire occurred in the early spring before leaf 

out for deciduous trees and before most grasses and other 

plants had emerged from the forest floor. Most of the litter 

and dead wood that covered the forest floor was partially 

or totally consumed leaving a layer of gray colored ash. 

Small trees and bushes were also consumed, but larger 

trees mostly were not damaged except for minor burn 

scars in most cases. The fire did not char the soil; in 

fact, we could find no effect more than 0.8 inch below 

the surface in the locations we examined. By May, much 

of the forest canopy had grown out, especially in the 

riparian area, and throughout the summer the burned area 

gradually replenished with renewed plant life.

Methods

Rainfall, Discharge and Sample Collection

Streams often show dramatic changes in water chemistry 

with changes in discharge that are due to contact time 

with soils, bedrock geology, and surface materials. During 

low flow periods, ground water makes up streams, while 

surface run off is a greater factor during high flows. It 

would have been worthwhile to measure discharge of 

the streams as part of this study and collect samples 

frequently at all stages. However, there was no funding 

available so sample collection relied entirely on volunteer 

labor and additional work was not possible. It was thought 

that the most likely immediate effects of the fire would 

occur during episodic runoff events, so sample collection 

was made before and after storms passed through the 

area during spring and summer 2012. It was necessary 

for sample collectors to note storm patterns and predict 

when to take samples. This was challenging particularly 

since the summer was relatively dry and some storms 

turned out to deliver small levels of precipitation that 

did not substantially change discharge. As things turned 

out, 15 and 14 water samples were collected from VT16 

on NBSC and DB, respectively (table 7). As no stream 

gauges were in place in the study streams, general 

discharge was calculated. Eastern Alleghany County 

receives an average 3 inches rain annually (Citizen 

Steering Committee 2007). In other studies we have 

estimated annual yield at about 65 percent for similar rain 

and forest cover. With these values—stream gradients of 

7.6 percent and 9.1 percent and watersheds of 1837 and 

990 acres—the average annual discharge is 5.1 and 2.7 

cubic feet for NBSC and DB, respectively. The deviation 

in these averages is near 0.5 cubic feet, ranging from near 

zero during droughts to more than ten fold the average 

with high precipitation.

Rainfall and stream discharge for the time when these 

samples were collected can be estimated from gauges 

maintained by several governmental agencies. Although 

no gauge is located right at the study site, the following 

may serve as surrogates. The IFLOWS network is a 

system of digital rain gauges located throughout the 

mountains for warning of potential flooding. The gauges 

operate with tipple buckets that record rainfall in 0.04-

inch increments; data is sent by telemetry to county 

receivers and made available on the internet. Although the 

primary purpose of the gauges is public safety, archived 

rainfall data may be readily downloaded (table 8). 

Flows or discharge in streams may also be conveniently 

obtained from internet data for a wide network of 

stream gauging stations operated by USGS and other 

agencies. The nearest gauges to RHWA are two IFLOW 

rain gauges, one on Warm Springs Mountain 10 miles 

west, and another on North Mountain 3 miles southeast, 

with a stream gauge located on the Cowpasture River 6 

miles southwest near Clifton Forge downstream of the 

confluence with Simpson Creek (fig. 4). 

Efforts were made to begin this project soon after the 

fire occurred with the first samples collected May 8, 

2012 when a rain front was moving through the region. 

Multiple samples were collected over several days for a 

storm which gave about 0.75 inches rain total. A large 

storm passed through about a week later with 1.5 inches 

rain total. Neither of these storms produced the large 

flushing event that was desired to determine whether 

sediment movement and other changes would occur as 

a result of the fire. Several late May storms and one in 

July were small and did not result in significant rainfall. 
118 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

In September, about 3 inches of rain were delivered in a 

single storm to the NBSC watershed.5

Sample Processing

Observations of water temperature, conductivity, turbidity, 

and pH were made at the time of sample collection 

in the field. Determination of major ions contributing 

to charge balance and dissolved trace elements were 

done in our laboratories. Samples were measured for 

air-equilibrated pH and acid neutralizing capacity at 

68 o F. After filtration with a 0.2-micron filter (Gelman 

4406 LC PVDF), portions of the water samples were 

measured for acid anions (chloride, nitrate, and sulfate) 

directly by ion chromatography (Dionex ICS-3000), while 

a second portion was acidified with high purity nitric 

acid (Fisher Scientific Co.) and analyzed for calcium, 

magnesium, sodium, and potassium by flame atomic 

absorption (Varian SpectrAA 220FS). Other elements 

(aluminum, copper, iron, zinc, etc.) were analyzed in 

filtered, acidified samples by inductively coupled plasma–

mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) (Agilent 7500). Analytical 

methods have been described elsewhere (APHA 1998, 

Downey and others 1994).

RESULTS AND Discussion

Surface soil samples collected for the present study gave 

values of pH 4.23 and 7.76, respectively for unburned 

and burned sites. Corresponding alkalinity (bicarbonate) 

concentrations were 0 and 446 μeq/g. These results 

indicated a large amount of alkalinity was produced in 

the ash from carbon combustion by the forest fire. To 

evaluate whether the bicarbonate or other ash derived 

chemicals were contributing to post-fire stream water 

chemistry, data were compared for the results of our 

analyses to the VTSSS database for NBSC. Average and 

sample standard deviation values were calculated for all 

parameters. Fall and winter samples were excluded from 

the VTSSS set to provide better comparison to the spring 

and summer samples collected for the present study. At 

95 percent confidence, the conductivity (mineral content), 

calcium, and magnesium increased (table 9). Other 

values increased but were not statistically significant. It 

is interesting that both ANC and pH decreased, which is 

the opposite of what would have been anticipated from 

the burned soil results, but there was no difference at 95 

percent confidence. 

Soil erosion was expected to be an important part of the 

post-fire effects of storms washing sediment into the 

stream. Turbidity was measured for all post-fire samples 

and did not increase above baseline values for both NBSC 

and DB, ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 NTU, except for the 

5

Personal Communication. 2012. William McNown. 405 Sammys Road 

Apt 7, Covington, VA 24426. 

September 18 storm which produced values of 32 and 44 

NTU, respectively. Both streams clarified by the second 

day after this storm. All data indicate that the fire did not 

create an erosion problem and that NBSC sediment is 

typical of a Virginia headwater trout stream.

The selection of Downy Branch as the “control” stream 

was made based on its proximity to NBSC, similarity 

in watershed size, land use, forest timber stands, etc. 

However, there are some differences in water chemistry 

that preclude a direct comparison of the paired samples 

taken for this study. For example, average values for pH / 

ANC were 6.18±0.47 / 19.5±6.0 and 6.52±0.15 / 56.7±13.1 

for NBSC and DB, respectively. Yet information may be 

gleaned by comparing changes in water chemistry for the 

paired samples. For each parameter and for each sample 

collection, a difference (delta) value was calculated 

for the two streams and several trends were noted. In 

general, when storms elevate stream discharge dilution 

causes solute concentrations to decrease and delta values 

between comparison streams are smaller. However, when 

storm runoff occurred post fire in the present study, the 

delta value for ANC either increased (fig. 4) or did not 

decrease proportionally. This observation supports the 

observation that ANC for NBSC was reduced after the 

fire and indicates the decrease was greater with increased 

discharge. Conversely, both calcium and magnesium delta 

values increased as a result of concentrations increasing 

with storm flow. This increase may be due to the two 

cations flushing from ash. The most dramatic differences 

were observed during the largest episodic event of the 

study in September, when the concentrations of discharge 

calcium and magnesium were greater in NBSC than in 

DB. These observations may not be conclusive for this 

study due to the limited size of the data set.

Conclusion

The geology of the upper reach for both NBSC and 

DB consists mostly of sandstone with limited or no 

natural carbonate. The streams are acidic until they 

encounter limestone geology low in the watersheds. 

Mining, charcoaling, logging, and road construction were 

widespread in the watersheds before acquisition by the 

Forest Service in the 1930s, with forest timber recovery 

since that time. Pre- and post-fire data for NBSC indicate 

that the stream was discharging increased calcium 

and magnesium during the study period at 95 percent 

confidence level. These results agree with previous studies 

(Tiedemann and others 1979, p. 14). Both pH and ANC 

were lower but not statistically verified at 95 percent 

confidence. Other parameters also were not statistically 

different. Paired samples of DB and NBSC supported the 

observations that calcium and magnesium were increased, 

with ANC decreased. Soil tests indicated increased pH 

and bicarbonate due to ash in the burned forest over 
Fire History and Fire Effects 119

the unburned samples. It is not known why bicarbonate 

(ANC) was not released along with the base cations, 

but charge balance requires some other anions must 

be discharged as well. A small increase in sulfate was 

observed but not enough to match the amount of calcium 

and magnesium. Phosphorus was not measured for this 

study, and it is possible that phosphate is the “missing’ 

anion.

Limitations of this study included a reliance on discharge 

and rainfall data information not directly taken at the 

watershed, a relatively small data set due to a lack of 

flushing storms during the project period, VTSSS data 

for which discharge data are not available, dissimilarity 

between the two streams, and very little pre-fire data for 

DB. Fire effects to the canopy were variable. There was 

75-100 percent mortality in some areas, mostly on rocky 

dry ridges. While in other areas, there was little to no 

damage to the canopy. The soil layer was unaffected and 

in most places the organic duff layer was affected only 

low to moderate. Stream transport of sediment levels did 

not change as a result of the fire. It is possible but doubtful 

that future storms could erode the NBSC, introduce 

sediment, and change water chemistry. Most likely the 

landscape will soon recover and the casual visitor will 

be hard pressed to see that a forest fire occurred in this 

location.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank William “Bill” McNown, Forest 

Service volunteer, for collecting most of the episodic 

water samples for this study. The information and 

guidance of Forest Service staff Dawn Kirk, Steve Croy, 

Fred Huber, and Ed Haverlack are appreciated. Fisheries 

data provided by VDGIF staff Paul Bugas and Brad Fink 

proved most useful. Recommendations and maps provided 

by Dr. Steve Leslie of the James Madison University 

geology department were invaluable. Participation by the 

2012 and 2013 James Madison University Environmental 

Field Camps and James Madison University students 

Mike Petit, Keith Burke, Chelsea Barry (sign language 

interpreter), and Brandon McMillan (Gallaudet 

University) was appreciated. Partial funding for this work 

was from James Madison University and National Science 

Foundation grant CHE-1062629.

REFERENCES

Adams, D. 2012. Firefighters confront a big disadvantage with fires 

in Alleghany, Rockbridge counties. The Roanoke Times. Posted 

April 12, 2012 at Roanoke.com. http://www.roanoke.com/news/

roanoke/wb/307331.

American Public Health Association (APHA). 1998. Standard 

methods for the analysis of water and wastewater, 20th ed. 

Washington, DC: American Public Health Association (APHA), 

the American Water Works Association (AWWA), and the 

Water Environment Federation (WEF). [Number of pages 

unknown].

Cappon, L.1957. Lucy Selina’s Charcoal Era. The Virginia 

Cavalcade. 7(2): 31-39.

Citizen Steering Committee. 2007. Comprehensive plan of 

Alleghany County, Virginia. June 19, 2007. http://www.

alleghenyplaces.com/comprehensive_plan/comprehensive_plan.

aspx. [Date accessed: September 22, 2014]

Dooly, M. 2012. Rich Hole fire closes part of I-64. WSLS News 

10. Posted April 10, 2012. http://www2.wsls.com/news/2012/

apr/10/8/rich-hole-fire-closes-part-i-64-ar-1832609/.

Downey, D.M.; French, C.R.; Odom, M. 1994. Low cost limestone 

treatment of acid sensitive trout streams in the Appalachian 

Mountains of Virginia. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 77: 49-77.

Downey, D.M.; Burke, K.; Haraldstadt, J.P. 2012. Composition of 

mortar and concrete samples taken from Longdale Recreation 

Area: a preliminary archeological study. Report prepared for 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, George 

Washington and Jefferson National Forests, December, 2012.

Fink, B. 2012. VDGIF fisheries biologist email communication 

with DMD 10/16/2012.

Inciweb. 2012. Incident Information System. Updated 4/20/2012. 

http://inciweb.org/incident/2826/.

Kozak, S. J. 1965. Geology of the Millboro Quadrangle, 

Virginia. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. Report of 

Investigations 8. 19 p.

Lesley, J.P. 1859. The iron manufacturer’s guide to the furnaces, 

forges and rolling mills of the United States, with discussions 

of iron as a chemical element, and American ore, and a 

manufactured article, in commerce and in history. New York: 

John Wiley. 772 p. Available: http://www.clpdigital.org/jspui/

handle/10493/158. 

Lesure, F.G. 1957. Geology of the Clifton Forge Iron District, 

Virginia. Virginia Engineering Experiment Station Series 

Number 118. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute. 

130 p. 

Lesure, F.G. 1987. Mineral resources of the Rich Hole Roadless 

Area, Alleghany and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia. U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin B 1667. Denver, CO: U.S. 

Geological Survey Federal Center. 15 p.

Lesure, F.G.; Nicholson, S.W. 1985. Geologic map of the Rich Hole 

Roadless Area, Alleghany and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia: 

U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF1760-A. http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/ILView.pl?sid=7494_1.

sid&vtype=b&sfact=1.25 and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/

proddesc_7413.htm.

Morton, O.F. 1920. A history of Rockbridge County, Virginia. 

McClure Co., Inc., Staunton, VA. 574 p.

Morton, O.F. 1923. A centennial history of Alleghany County, 

Virginia. J.K. Ruebush Company, Dayton, VA. 226 p.

National Park Service (NPS). 2009. National Registry of Natural 

Landmarks. Washington, DC: National Park Service. http://

www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/docs/NNLRegistry.pdf.
120 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Sharpe, W.E.; Leibfried, V.G.; Kimmel, W.G.; DeWalle, D.R. 

1987. The relationship of water quality and fish occurrence 

to soils and geology in an area of high hydrogen and sulfate 

ion deposition. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association. 23(1): 37-46.

Standage, R.W. 1986. Streambank stabilization using geomatrix 

matting—Simpson Creek, Virginia. Fifth trout stream habitat 

improvement workshop. Proceedings of the Annual Conference 

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Lock 

Haven, PA: Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies: 191-198.

Tiedemann, A.R.; Conrad, C.E.; Dieterich, J.H. [and others]. 

1979. Effects of fire on water: a state of knowledge review. 

National Fire Effects Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-10. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 28 p.

 VDEQ. 2004. Cowpasture River & Simpson Creek Proposed Tier 

III Waters 3/10 & 3/11/04 Staff Site Visit Summary. Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality. http://www.deq.virginia.

gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WaterQualityStandards/T3_SITE_

VISITSimpson_Crk_tribs_04.pdf. [Date accessed: 

September 22, 2014]

 Wade, D.D. 1989. A guide for prescribed fire in southern 

forests. Technical Publication R8-TP 11. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Region. 

Walker, L.W. 1936. An economic and social survey of Alleghany 

County. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.

Watson, T.L. 1907. Mineral resources of Virginia. Lynchburg, VA: 

J.P. Bell Co.

Zhi-Jun L.; Weller, D.E.; Correll, D.L.; Jordan, T.E. 2000. Effects 

of land cover and geology on stream chemistry in watersheds of 

the Chesapeake Bay. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association. 36(6): 1349-1365.

Table 1—General description of geologic map units of North Branch Simpson Creek and 

Downy Branch 

ID Name Description

Qa Alluvium (Holocene) Sandstone sand and gravel

Qlc Landslide and Colluvium Quartzite and hematitic sandstone from Keefer and Rose Hill formation

Dr Romney Shale Black, pyritic, fi ssile shale 

DSu Undivided Devonium and 

Silurian

Contains Ridgeley Sandstone, Licking Creek Limestone, Oriskany iron deposits, 

Healing Springs sandstone, New Creek limestone, Kesyer limestone, several 

other sandstones and limestones all undivided

Sk Keefer Sandstone White and light gray sandstone quartz

Source: Lesure and Nicholson (1985).

Table 2—Comparison of sampling sites and heads of North Branch Simpson Creek and Downy Branch

Site Latitude Longitude Elevation Reach Lesure Kozak

feet miles

NBSC VT16 N 37° 49.210 W 79° 40.296 1444 0.04 Qa Db

NBSC head N 37° 52.080 W 79° 39.054 2961 3.8 Sk Scl

DB sample N 37° 47.296 W 79° 41.865 1362 0.4 – Db

DB head N 37o 46.490 W 79o 40.400 2700 2.8 – Scl

–These are data that were not collected by the study cited here.
Fire History and Fire Effects 121

Table 3—September 20, 2012 waypoints of sample sites on North Branch Simpson Creek in order of 

increasing elevation

Site Latitude Lo ngitude Elevation Reach Lesure Kozak

feet miles

 NBSC009 N 37° 49.210 W 79° 40.296 1444 0.04 Qa Db

NBSC008 N 37° 49.554 W 79° 40.241 1541 0.4 Qa Dm

NBSC007 N 37° 50.076 W 79° 40.108 1749 1.0 Qa Dhl

NBSC006 N 37° 50.431 W 79° 39.984 1877 1.6 Qa Sk

NBSC005 N 37° 51.195 W 79° 39.654 2269 2.6 Sk Scl

NBSC004 N 37° 51.513 W 79° 39.400 2579 3.1 Sk Scl

NBSC003 N 37° 51.664 W 79° 39.220 2748 3.5 Sk Scl

NBSC002 N 37° 52.080 W 79° 39.054 2961 3.8 Sk Scl

Start 001 N 37° 52.198 W 79° 37.502 2279 trailhead – –

DB N 37° 47.296 W 79° 41.865 1362 0.4 – Db

Note: Downy Branch and the trailhead are included. The geology of the collection sites was identifi ed by Lesure (1985) and 

Kozak (1965).

–These are data that were not collected by the study cited here.

Table 4—September 20, 2012 North Branch Simpson Creek water chemistry results

Elevation pH ANC Cl NO3 SO4 Na K Ca Mg Al Con

feet

1444 6.48 24.8 20.9 0.3 72.7 17.3 13.0 96.1 48.3 0 19.5

1541 6.36 25.6 20.8 0.5 73.0 17.4 12.1 97.9 48.1 0 20.2

1749 7.37 287.9 28.5 0.1 208.0 19.5 18.8 513.7 75.8 1 72.0

1877 5.03 -6.5 18.1 0.3 64.8 15.6 9.3 29.9 43.8 16 17.2

2269 4.90 -11.0 17.9 0.3 64.2 16.1 8.5 24.0 34.1 26 17.7

2579 4.79 -17.9 18.6 0.0 89.5 17.5 13.5 19.3 48.9 37 24.3

2748 4.86 -11.0 29.0 0.3 54.6 27.4 7.6 19.8 25.8 25 18.6

2961 4.90 -13.4 286.5 0.2 51.2 245.8 7.4 16.3 19.4 35 65.6
122 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Table 5—Electrofi shing information for streams near Longdale Furnace, VA

Stream Date SpDiv BKT RBT BKD FAD MTS TOS

Blue Suck 19860724 6 0 0 14 6 2 2

Blue Suck 19950731 5 0 0 10 10 0 4

Downy 19790131 3 1 0 9 0 2 0

Downy 19860724 4 3 0 25 0 2 2

Downy 19950731 4 3 0 40 1 0 4

NBSC 19760915 4 4 0 26 0 3 4

NBSC 19950731 3 13 0 12 0 0 2

Simpson 19790208 3 0 0 29 0 9 2

Simpson 19790808 9 0 7 10 4 0 4

Simpson 19850827 10 4 26 281 19 ? 243

Simpson 19850828 19 0 39 128 ? ? ?

Simpson 19950731 3 24 0 19 0 0 4

Simpson-l 20010710 12 0 0 0 0 16 3

Simpson-m 20010711 9 0 0 0 0 12 3

Simpson-u 20060811 9 2 48 13 1 3 7

Dates are provided as yearmonthday, SpDiv indicates the total number of different fi sh species found for a location and numbers of fi sh of 

selected species (all ages) found: BKT=brook trout, RBT=rainbow trout, BKD=blacknose dace, FAD=fantail darter, MTS=mottled

sculpin,TOS=torrent sucker (Fink 2012).

Note: question marks indicate that species identifi cation and numbers are uncertain.

Table 6—Comparison of North Branch Simpson Creek and Simpson Creek water chemistry

Site pH ANC Ca Mg Cond SO4 Na Cl

NBSC 6.48 24.8 82.3 48.4 20 72.7 15.8 18.9

SC 7.17 351.1 759.1 130.8 106 180.3 215.5 190.5

Note: samples were collected May 11, 2012 about 200 feet upstream of confl uence. Calcium, magnesium, and ANC are produced from 

carbonate dissolution; conductivity is due to total ionic composition; and sulfate is from pyrite and acid rain. NaCl is most likely from road 

salt used on SR 850 and I-64. Units are same as table 4.
Fire History and Fire Effects 123

Table 7—Dates and times of sample collection from North Branch Simpson Creek (NBSC) and Downy Branch 

(DB) taken for the present study 

Stream Date Time Stream Date Time

NBSC 5/8/2012 930 DB 5/8/2012 1015

NBSC 5/9/2012 815 DB 5/9/2012 930

NBSC 5/9/2012 1600 DB 5/9/2012 1510

NBSC 5/10/2012 940 DB 5/10/2012 910

NBSC 5/11/2012 1000 DB 5/11/2012 1130

NBSC 5/15/2012 915 DB 5/15/2012 940

NBSC 5/15/2012 1515 DB 5/15/2012 1435

NBSC 5/16/2012 1100 DB 5/16/2012 1020

NBSC 5/22/2012 930 DB 5/22/2012 910

NBSC 5/25/2012 850 DB 5/25/2012 820

NBSC 5/30/2012 1000 DB 5/30/2012 920

NBSC 7/9/2012 1115 DB 7/9/2012 1145

NBSC 9/18/2012 1440 DB 9/18/2012 1400

NBSC 9/19/2012 830 DB 9/19/2012 900

NBSC 9/20/2012 1500

Note: date is mon/day/yr; time is military.
124 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Table 8—Rainfall recorded at North Mountain and Warm Spring Mountain IFLOW gauges

Date Time North Mountain Warm Springs 

military inches inches

5/8/2012 930 0.04 0.00

5/9/2012 815 0.36 0.68

5/9/2012 1600 0.60 0.76

5/10/2012 940 0.16 0.12

5/11/2012 1000 0.00 0.00

5/15/2012 915 1.32 0.40

5/15/2012 1515 0.80 0.08

5/16/2012 1100 0.00 0.00

5/22/2012 930 0.20 0.00

5/25/2012 850 0.04 0.00

5/30/2012 1000 0.68 0.40

7/9/2012 1115 0.44 0.16

9/18/2012 1440 0.04 1.68

9/19/2012 830 0.08 1.28

9/20/2012 1500 0.08 0.00

Source: http://72.66.190.197/Virginia_IFLOWS/. [Date accessed 1/22/2013].

Table 9—Virginia Trout Stream Sensitivity Study (VTSSS) values for the period 1987-2010 and post-fi re values for 

NBSC: comparison of average and sample standard deviation for water chemistry parameters

Parameter April/July Post-Fire P < 0.05

pH 6.21 ± 0.15 6.18 ± 0.47 No

ANC (bicarbonate) 24.5 ± 7.5 19.5 ± 6.0 No

Conductivity 15.7 ± 1.0 23.3 ± 5.0 Yes

Sulfate 74.7 ± 9.3 76.3 ± 6.9 No

Chloride 17.5 ± 1.7 18.3 ± 2.0 No

Calcium 60.9 ± 4.6 89.0 ± 12.5 Yes

Magnesium 35.9 ± 2.1 48.8 ± 2.5 Yes

Potassium 13.6 ± 1.6 13.8 ± 2.7 No

Sodium 14.5 ± 0.9 16.6 ± 2.8 No
Fire History and Fire Effects 125

Figure 1—Map of 2012 Rich Hole fire. The 6000-acre fire burned within 

the areas bounded by bold lines. North Branch Simpson Creek VTSSS 

sampling location VT16 is located at the southern boundary of the fire. 

Downy Branch is located south of the mapped area. Map was provided 

by staff of the Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson 

National Forests.

Figure 2—Plot of observed pH values for streams of varying ANC. Since 

ANC is mathematically determined from a two-endpoint titration method, 

it is possible for low pH streams (pH < 5.5) to have a negative value.
126 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 3—Observed pH and ANC values versus upstream stream distance for two synoptic sample 

collections for NBSC. The data points are connected for clarity of display and interpretation. Circle 

and triangle markings represent pH and ANC values, respectively. Broken and solid lines represent 

September 2012 and May 2013 values, respective

Figure 4—USGS staff gauge height for Cowpasture River and delta values for ANC, calcium, and 

magnesium for Downy Branch–North Branch Simpson Creek versus time for the project period. The 

downward triangles mark the dates of sample collection from North Branch Simpson Creek. Delta points 

are connected for clarity. Timeline is discontinuous. Discharge data obtained for USGS 02016000: http://

waterdata.usgs.gov/va/nwis/uv/?site_no=02016000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060,62620,00062. [Date 

accessed: 2/1/2013].
Tools for 

Fire Management

Tools for Fire Management 129

CONTEXT OF THE LANDFIRE PROGRAM

LANDFIRE is approaching its’ 10th birthday, and moving 

forward. A partnership between the U.S. Department 

of the Interior; the Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; and The Nature Conservancy, LANDFIRE 

delivered national spatial data sets representing conditions 

in 2000, 2008, and 2010, and the first comprehensive 

descriptions of all major ecosystems in the United States. 

The impetus of the LANDFIRE Program (formerly 

the LANDFIRE Project) was to provide foundational 

information that could support regional and national fire 

and natural resource management planning programs, 

such as Fire Programs Analysis (FPA), and the Hazardous 

Fuels Prioritization and Application System (HFPAS). 

However, LANDFIRE as it exists today is more than 

originally envisioned and may serve as complementary or 

supplementary information for more local applications as 

well.

WHY SHOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN 

LANDFIRE?

Given the context above, what makes LANDFIRE 

unique? There are five key characteristics of the 

LANDFIRE program that may make it useful and 

interesting to anyone involved in natural resource 

management and wildland fire planning, namely:

• LANDFIRE is comprehensive: every acre in the 

United States, including Alaska, Hawai’i and the island 

territories, is included in the product suite, regardless 

of ownership.

• LANDFIRE is consistent: every attempt was made 

to treat every acre consistently to allow for regional 

comparisons, and only procedural changes that 

improved the usability of the product suite were made 

over time between the various temporal versions.

• LANDFIRE products are internally compatible: the 

vegetation models match the BpS product; all tools 

work with all relevant spatial layers in all versions; all 

layers ‘match’ spatially and thematically. LANDFIRE 

products are ready-to-use from the moment you receive 

them.

• LANDFIRE delivers many one-of-a-kind products: 

LANDFIRE produces more than 20, 30-meter raster 

data layers. Many of these products are unique, such 

as Pre-European settlement vegetation maps, historic 

mean fire return intervals, and annual and compiled 

disturbance layers. In addition, LANDFIRE created 

and made available quantitative, dynamic vegetation 

models for every major ecological system in the 

United States. Where else can you obtain this type of 

information?

• LANDFIRE is regularly updated: the original version 

of LANDFIRE represented landscape conditions 

circa 2001, but vegetation and fuels layers have been 

updated and delivered twice since, once representing 

conditions in 2008 and once in 2010. LANDFIRE 2012 

production is underway.

WHAT SHOULD YOU REMEMBER AS YOU 

CONSIDER USING LANDFIRE PRODUCTS?

All users should remember that LANDFIRE products 

were designed to be used for very large landscape-level, 

regional or national scale analyses. LANDFIRE may be 

used to complement or supplement local data, but should 

not be assumed to represent local conditions faithfully 

as delivered, i.e., “out-of-the-box.” The applicability 

of LANDFIRE data at the local level will depend on 

which products will be used, the specific application, 

and the geography of interest. It requires local review to 

determine the usability of LANDFIRE spatial products 

[Extended Abstract]

LANDFIRE IN THE APPALACHIANS

James L. Smith, Randy Swaty, Kori Blankenship, Sarah Hagen, and Jeannie Patton1

1

James L. Smith, TNC LANDFIRE Project Lead, The Nature Conservancy, Jacksonville, FL 32259

Randy Swaty, Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy, Marquette, MI 49855

Kori Blankenship, Fire Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy, Bend, OR 97701

Sarah Hagen, Spatial Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy, Minneapolis, MN 55415

Jeannie Patton, Communications Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO 80302

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
130 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

and models, and while it is possible that unedited 

LANDFIRE spatial data and models will be useful asis, that should NOT be the user’s expectation. All data, 

regardless of its source, should be reviewed prior to 

acceptance and use.

LANDFIRE PERFORMANCE AND 

APPLICATION IN THE APPALACHIANS

A variety of LANDFIRE Program products have been 

used in the Appalachian region. A few highlights and 

links to learn more are presented below. Note that 

these tidbits of information are based upon personal 

conversations or investigations of all types—informal, 

formal, first-hand, second-hand, and reviewing reports. 

However, we endeavor to pass along any information we 

think is reliable and potentially of interest to our user 

community.

• According to some local users, LANDFIRE Existing 

Vegetation Type (EVT) map accuracy is not sufficient 

at smaller scales (small geographies). This is 

disappointing, but it is not unexpected given the design 

criteria (regional/national scope) for LANDFIRE, and 

the difficulty of mapping the rather complex hardwood 

mixtures ubiquitous in the mountains. Also, users 

should understand that LANDFIRE spatial products 

are not post-processed to improve their visual appeal—

what you see is the raw output of a classification 

algorithm.

• A good alternative to LANDFIRE EVT may be 

the Terrestrial Habitat Map created by The Nature 

Conservancy Eastern Region Science Team. While not 

perfect (and there have been some legend issues with 

this product as well), this map has been relatively well 

received in its coverage area.

• An analysis in the Southern Blue Ridge landscape 

by Steve Simon indicated that LANDFIRE mapped 

too much area as “fire dependent” in the BioPhysical 

Settings (pre-European Settlement vegetation) layer. 

For instance, fire dependency went too far downslope 

into the “Coves” according to Simon.

• The LANDFIRE Ecological System legend created 

some problems in the Appalachian region; for instance, 

there is only one type of “Cove” in the LANDFIRE 

BpS and EVT layers. There were some additional 

omissions as well, and some overlaps between 

ecological systems that did not exactly match local 

expectations.

• Eastern West Virginia was mapped ‘too mesophytic’ 

in the EVT layer. We remember hearing about this 

issue from at least one individual, but could not find 

any specific backup documentation or additional 

information.

• Where it has been investigated and used, the Percent 

Forest Cover spatial layer has held up well. It shows the 

right kind of landscape variation, but does tend to miss 

very small openings (individual tree gaps, for instance). 

Typically, large disturbances and small anthropogenic 

disturbances are visible and relatively well mapped if 

the time since disturbance is not too great.

• A stakeholder group involved with the Cherokee 

National Forest North District localized LANDFIRE 

National Dynamics Vegetation models to develop 

relevant reference conditions to support local planning. 

The models were also used with current vegetation 

condition data developed from a combination of local 

inventory data and LF2008 Existing Forest Cover 

to evaluate the costs and benefits of management 

activities.

• The TNC LANDFIRE Team is currently supporting 

a Central Appalachians Assessment facilitated by 

The Nature Conservancy in Virginia and the National 

Forests of Virginia, primarily utilizing LANDFIRE 

quantitative vegetation models at this time.

• At a meeting in Asheville, NC, a group of interested 

individuals modified LANDFIRE vegetation models to 

develop relevant reference conditions for the important 

ecosystems in the Pisgah/Nantahala National Forest 

region. These models, coupled with current vegetation 

condition information derived from LIDAR, were used 

in an ecosystem assessment led by Josh Kelly, estern 

North Carolina Alliance.

• The TNC LANDFIRE Team is currently working with 

the National Forests of Georgia and partners in the 

Warwoman landscape in Northeast Georgia to develop 

local reference conditions for the major ecosystems 

extant in that watershed.

• The LANDFIRE Program and The Nature 

Conservancy supported the development of local 

information in the Southern Blue Ridge region of 

North Carolina and the Copper Creek watershed in 

North Georgia.

Check out the LANDFIRE Web Hosted Applications 

Map for more information on how LANDFIRE has been 

used across the Nation.

WHERE IS LANDFIRE GOING?

• LANDFIRE vegetation and fuels products updated to 

represent conditions at the end of CY2010 are available 

(LF 2010).

• LF2012 production is underway, and incremental 

delivery is expected to begin in the summer of 2014. 

We expect to complete all production and deliveries 

by 1Q of 2015. The Appalachian region will likely be 

delivered near the end of CY2014 or early CY2015.
Tools for Fire Management 131

• LANDFIRE is considering a complete remap of some 

spatial layers in the future, either before or after a 2014 

update depending on budgets and user needs.

• Finally, LANDFIRE and other national-scale mapping 

programs are investigating their joint interests and 

how we can work together to be more effective and 

efficient. For instance, a formal MOU between GAP 

and LANDFIRE has been approved.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

The LANDFIRE user community plays a key role in the 

future of LANDFIRE, especially helping the program 

improve the usability of its products. Your investment 

should be minimal, with incredible potential returns. We 

are not asking for anything you don’t already have or 

know, just that you provide what you have to us! 

• The LANDFIRE update process is driven by 

disturbance information, be they human-caused or 

natural. Any disturbance information, called ‘Events” 

by LANDFIRE, are used in the LANDFIRE update/

change detection process. More information is 

available on the LANDFIRE program Web site www.

landfire.gov.

• LANDFIRE will use geo-referenced vegetation plots 

to support a future remapping process or to assess the 

accuracy of current products. Quality field data are 

critical to LANDFIRE, so consider providing what you 

have following the guidelines available on the program 

Web site.

• Tell us what you learn or see when you review or use 

LANDFIRE Program products—good and bad. Any 

information is appreciated, but the more specific the 

more useful it is to us. What did you see and where did 

you see it? How are you using LANDFIRE Program 

products? We are working to create an online feedback 

capability, which will be announced when available. 

Communicate with LANDFIRE using helpdesk@

landfire.gov for now, or contact a LANDFIRE team 

member.

• Finally, as you consider using LANDFIRE, think 

deeply about what you really need (not just what you 

would like to have), and remember that LANDFIRE is 

a national/regional scale product suite by design. The 

LANDFIRE Team will help you determine if/how our 

program products can be used in your situation. You 

should not assume they will or will not.

TAKE HOME MESSAGES

LANDFIRE is in the business of providing data and 

information to the fire, resource management, and 

conservation communities. This is a difficult ‘row to hoe’ 

because building data sets for other people and programs 

is like trying to raise their children—you never do it like 

they would. While LANDFIRE spatial data and models 

are not perfect, LANDFIRE has proven its worth across 

the country for regional- or landscape-scale application 

and can often support more local applications following 

review and local adjustment. The LANDFIRE Program 

has evolved the product suite and procedural processes 

to better meet user requirements—both fire and non-fire. 

Users can contribute to this process, and indeed enable 

it, by providing geo-referenced vegetation plots, spatial 

information on man-made or natural disturbance events, 

and by communicating what they see and learn to the 

LANDFIRE Program. Visit the Contribute Data Section 

on the program Web site (see below) and send us a 

message at helpdesk@landfire.gov.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The TNC LANDFIRE Team would like to acknowledge 

our wonderful partners, U.S. Forest Service Fire and 

Aviation Management, Missoula Fire Science Laboratory 

(Rocky Mountain Research Station), DOI Office of 

Wildland Fire Fire Coordination, and the U.S. Geological 

Survey EROS Center. This work was conducted under 

Cooperative Agreement 10-CA-11132543-054.

LINKS TO EXPLORE

• Explore real applications of LANDFIRE Program 

products across the country on the Web Hosted 

Applications Map! (WHAM!). Full link: maps.tnc.org/

landfire/

• Watch LANDFIRE presentation, learn new methods 

and tools, and understand LANDFIRE products by 

viewing videos on our YouTube channel. Full link: 

www.youtube.com/user/landfirevideo?feature=results_

main 

• Join the LANDFIRE discussion community on our 

Twitter site. Full link: twitter.com/nature_LANDFIRE

• Obtain more details about the LANDFIRE Program 

and access products at the official program Web site.

Full link: www.landfire.gov

• Discover new tools that can use LANDFIRE data 

developed by the Wildland Fire RD&A team. Full link: 

www.niftt.gov

• Review additional LANDFIRE application and find 

support materials on The Conservation Gateway.

Full link: www.conservationgateway.org (search for 

LANDFIRE)
132 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION

The determination of fire regime and condition class 

(FRCC) on federally owned land is needed for prescribed 

fire and wildland fire management. Determining fire 

regimes for large areas, particularly natural or historic 

fire regimes can be difficult without fire-scar or 

dendrochronogical records from old-growth forests or 

sediment charcoal from paleoecological sites. Few oldgrowth stands remain in eastern forests, and while there 

is success in establishing disturbance regimes at specific 

locations (Abrams and others 1995, Aldrich and others 

2010, Cutter and Guyette 1994, Guyette and others 2002, 

Guyette and others 2006a, Schuler and McClain 2003, 

Shumway and others 2001), determining fire histories 

over a large area remains difficult. Even with a fire-scar 

record, fires at both ends of the severity spectrum may 

be missed as low-intensity fires may not damage the 

cambium of mature trees (McEwan and others 2007) and 

high-severity fires, by definition, remove most existing 

trees. When direct measures are unavailable, other 

methods can be used to infer historical fire, including 

paleoecology, witness tree studies, historical documents, 

and ethnographic records (Egan and Howell 2001, 

Ruffner 2006).

Recently, large-scale efforts to map fire regimes have been 

made incorporating fire ecology of tree species to assign 

fire regimes (Nowacki and Abrams 2008), fire scars from 

dendrochronology studies (Guyette and others 2006b), and 

climate and chemistry (Guyette and others 2012). Early 

nation-wide maps incorporated many lines of evidence to 

map the role of fire in forested ecosystems. Frost (1998) 

compiled fire histories from across the contiguous United 

States and, combined with landform characteristics, 

created a map of pre-European settlement fire regimes. 

Where fire history studies were lacking, Frost (1998) used 

additional lines of evidence to infer fire regimes including 

charcoal deposits, oral histories, tree species in old land 

surveys, presence of fire-adapted vegetation, vegetation 

response to reintroduced fire, and vegetation responses 

to fire exclusion. Using current and potential vegetation, 

ecological regions, and expert opinion Schmidt and 

others (2002) mapped historical natural fire regimes for 

the contiguous United States at a coarse resolution. The 

authors stressed that this was not a reconstruction of 

exact historical conditions, but represented typical fire 

frequencies expected in the absence of fire suppression 

(Schmidt and others 2002). Unfortunately, the fine-scale 

detail required by fire ecologists, land managers, and 

conservationists for field application was lacking in these 

nation-wide efforts. 

To help identify areas where prescribed burning is 

appropriate for restoration purposes, two local mapping 

products were created for the Monongahela National 

Forest. The first was a rule-based map (Thomas-Van 

Gundy and others 2007), which applied a simple 

weighted-averaging technique of fire-adapted scores to 

polygon data in a GIS. The resultant map of fire-adapted 

vegetation was directly converted to a fire regime group 

map (see figs. 5 and 7 of Thomas-Van Gundy and others 

2007). The second was a witness tree-based map that 

converted point-based witness trees from early land 

surveys into a continuous surface depicting percentage 

of pyrophilic species (Thomas-Van Gundy and Nowacki 

2013). The pyrophilic percentage map was converted 

MAPPING FIRE REGIMES FROM DATA YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE: 

ASSESSING LANDFIRE FIRE REGIME MAPS USING LOCAL PRODUCTS

Melissa A. Thomas-Van Gundy1

Abstract—LANDFIRE maps of fire regime groups are frequently used by land managers to help plan and execute 

prescribed burns for ecosystem restoration. Since LANDFIRE maps are generally applicable at coarse scales, questions 

often arise regarding their utility and accuracy. Here, the two recently published products from West Virginia, a rulebased and a witness tree-based model, are compared to LANDFIRE fire regime groups. A cell-by-cell comparison of 

fire regime groups revealed a 56-percent correspondence between the rule-based map and LANDFIRE and a 61-percent 

correspondence with the witness tree-based map and LANDFIRE. All three maps assign the same fire regime group on 

about 45 percent of the study area with most of the agreement in wetter areas where fire regime group V predominates. 

Subsectional boundary differences are distinct in the LANDFIRE map compared to the local products which placed a 

greater emphasis on forest composition. The intent of this work was to describe alternative means of estimating fire regime 

groups where LANDFIRE products may not represent local conditions. 

1

Melissa A. Thomas-Van Gundy, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Parsons, WV 26241

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Tools for Fire Management 133

to a fire-adapted vegetation map for comparison with 

the rule-based map, but not into a fire regime group 

map; that conversion will be made in this paper. In this 

paper, fire regime groups derived from both mapping 

products will be compared to LANDFIRE fire regime 

groups for assessment and comparison. LANDFIRE fire 

regime groups and other products are a consistent and 

scientifically reliable set of mapped fire and vegetation 

characteristics to be used for national, regional, and subregional planning. LANDFIRE is not meant to replace 

local data; however, for this analysis it is being used as 

a comparison for the locally-derived fire regime groups 

created with different methods. 

STUDY AREA

Fire-adapted vegetation was mapped for the Monongahela 

National Forest (MNF) (fig. 1). The proclamation 

boundary of the MNF covers about 1.7 million acres 

in east-central West Virginia, with national forest land 

making up about 919,000 acres. The study area includes 

portions of the Allegheny Mountains and the Northern 

Ridge and Valley (Cleland and others 2005), two 

ecological sections with distinct geomorphologies and 

climates. 

The Allegheny Mountains Section has a wet and 

cool climate, with 39 to 54 inches of precipitation per 

year (about 20 percent as snow; 30 percent at higher 

elevations), an annual average temperature of 46 to 

52 °F, an average annual maximum temperature of 

58 to 63 °F, an average annual minimum temperature 

of 36 to 39 °F, and a growing season of 126 to 155 

days in the study area (Cleland and others 2005). The 

vegetation of the Allegheny Mountains is strongly 

influenced by elevation, forming four broad zones: 

oak, mixed mesophytic, northern hardwoods, and red 

spruce. The lowest elevations (valleys and foothills) 

are dominated by oaks (Quercus spp.), with sycamore 

(Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), and 

various mesophytes along riparian corridors and in 

floodplains. Upslope, the vegetation transitions into 

mixed mesophytic forests, which include yellow-poplar 

(Liriodendron tulipifera), basswood (Tilia americana), 

white ash (Fraxinus americana), sugar maple (Acer

saccharum), and northern red oak (Quercus rubra). The 

northern hardwood group is found on upper slopes and 

ridge tops and features sugar maple, yellow birch (Betula

alleghaniensis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), 

eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and black cherry 

(Prunus serotina). Red spruce (Picea rubens) forests 

occur at the highest elevations (above ~3,000 feet), often 

mixing with northern hardwoods.

Much of the Northern Ridge and Valley Section lies 

in the rain shadow of the Allegheny Mountains and 

supports vegetation reflective of drier conditions (Abrams 

and McCay 1996, McCay and others 1997). Annual 

precipitation ranges from 39 to 42 inches (Cleland and 

others 2005). Annual temperature ranges from 50 to 

54 °F, with an average annual maximum temperature of 

63 to 66 °F, an average annual minimum temperature 

of 39 to 41 °F, and the growing season ranges from 

149 to 170 days (Cleland and others 2005). In general, 

northern red oak and white oak (Quercus alba) occur 

on productive mesic sites, often intermixed with eastern 

white pine (Pinus strobus) on side slopes. Increases in 

scarlet (Q. coccinea) and black oak (Q. velutina) occur 

on progressively drier sites. On the driest sites, pitch (P.

rigida), Table Mountain (P. pungens), or Virginia (P.

virginiana) pines predominate, either in pure stands or 

mixed with scrub oak (Q. ilicifolia) or other oak species.

METHODS

A map of fire-adapted vegetation was created from 

multiple GIS-based data sources through assigning 

fire-adapted scores to attributes and calculating a 

weighted average (for details see: Thomas-Van Gundy 

and others 2007). Data input included existing vegetation 

(forest type), potential natural vegetation (primary and 

secondary plant associations as separate inputs), and 

landtype association (a mid-level ecological hierarchical 

unit, essentially giving the biophysical setting). For each 

dataset, existing literature on species-fire relationships 

were reviewed to assign a fire adapted score of 1 (most 

adapted) to 5 (least adapted) to each forest type, plant 

association, and landtype association. If a fire relationship 

was unknown or unclear, a 5 was assigned. The data 

inputs were assigned weights for the calculation of 

an average fire-adapted score with primary potential 

vegetation and current vegetation weighted equally 

and higher than landtype association and secondary 

plant associations. Fire-adapted scores were converted 

to standardized fire regime groups (FRGs) as used in 

LANDFIRE (Barrett and others 2010; see table 1 for 

definitions) by expert opinion. Considering the dominant 

vegetation, annual rainfall, and elevation range of the 

study area, the existence of fire regime group II (stand 

replacement fires with a return interval of 0-35 years) 

was unlikely. The fire regime assignments were; fire 

adaptation score of 2 = FRG I, fire adapted score of 3 

= FGR III, fire adapted score of 1 = FRG IV, and fire 

adapted scores of 4 and 5 = FRG V. 

The creation of a map of fire-adapted vegetation from 

witness tree data is documented in Thomas-Van Gundy 

and Nowacki (2013). Briefly, the tree species listed 

in early deeds from the MNF (Thomas-Van Gundy 

and Strager 2012) were categorized as pyrophilic or 

pyrophobic based on current literature and assuming 

recurring fire of low to moderate intensity. At each deed 
134 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

corner, this categorization was used to calculate a percent 

pyrophilic species value. These values were interpolated 

between points through ordinary kriging to create a 

continuous surface. Maps were created displaying the 

percentage of pyrophilic species in classes, and these 

classes were translated into fire-adapted scores used in the 

previous fire-adapted vegetation map. 

The percentage pyrophilic values were simply binned 

by 20-percent classes with 0-20 percent = fire adapted 

score of 5, 20-40 percent = fire adapted score of 4, 40-60 

percent = fire adapted score of 3, 60-80 percent = fire 

adapted score of 2, and 80-100 percent = fire adapted 

score of 1. Since FRGs were not approximated from the 

witness tree data in the 2013 publication, fire-adapted 

scores similar to the methods used in the rule-based map 

were assigned to percent pyrophilic classes and assigned 

an FRG. With further consideration of the standard FRGs 

and considering characteristics of the study area such 

as the dominant forested conditions, main tree species, 

annual rainfall, and elevation range, I do not believe FRGs 

II and IV (stand replacement fires with a return intervals 

of 0-35 and 35-200 years, respectively) are appropriate 

for the study area at the scale of this analysis. Therefore, 

in this analysis, fire-adapted scores of 1 and 2 (60-100 

percent pyrophilic) were assigned to FRG I, score of 3 

(40-60 percent pyrophilic) was assigned to FGR III, and 

scores of 4 and 5 (0-40 percent pyrophilic) were assigned 

to FRG V. 

With these FRG assignments, the rule-based and witness 

tree-based maps were compared to the most recent 

LANDFIRE FRG map (LANDFIRE 2013). The locally 

derived maps were converted to ~98-foot (30-m) grids for 

these comparisons. All maps were compared on a cell-bycell basis in ArcMap 10 to spatially display and calculate 

FRG departure. All three maps were also compared 

directly in ArcMap 10 through calculating the number of 

unique values (variety) for fire regime group between the 

three maps for each cell.

RESULTS 

The three estimates of FRG (table 1; figs. 2a, 2b, and 3a) 

are very different and it is not surprising that differences 

were found. The cell-by-cell comparison of the rule-based 

map and LANDFIRE shows that the two versions of 

FRGs agree exactly on about 57 percent of the area (table 

2; fig. 2c). Most of the departures (about 36 percent of the 

area) were positive 2 or 4 meaning the rule-based map 

FRGs were greater than LANDFIRE; about 8 percent of 

the area was in departures of negative 2 or 4. 

Creating FRGs from the witness tree-based map resulted 

in about 30 percent of the study area classified as FR I, 

about 14 percent as FR III, and about 56 percent as FR 

V (table 1, fig. 3a). The fire regime groups inferred from 

the witness tree data matched LANDFIRE on about 61 

percent of the area (table 2). Departures from LANDFIRE 

from the witness tree-based map were more evenly 

distributed above and below zero (compared to departures 

between LANDFIRE and the rule-based map) with about 

22 percent of the area with a difference of positive 2 or 4 

and about 17 percent in negative 2 or 4 differences. 

The grids resulting from these calculations spatially 

depict where the agreements and departures occur (figs. 

2c and 3c). All three versions of FRGs for the study area 

identify the higher elevations in the mountainous center 

of the study area as an area of low fire frequency. The 

influence of subsection boundaries (Cleland and others 

2005) is more obvious in the LANDFIRE estimation of 

FRG (fig. 2b) and is a main contributor to departures from 

the two locally-derived maps. Also, the influence of river 

corridors is more defined in the LANDFIRE FRGs than 

either the rule-based or witness-tree based maps. 

The simultaneous comparison of the three maps shows 

that all three maps agree on FRG assignments on about 

45 percent of the study area, and mostly agree on the 

location of FRG V (38 percent; table 3). Two of the three 

maps agree on about 46 percent of the study area and 

areas of no agreement make up only 9 percent of the 

study area. When viewed spatially, with FRG estimations 

for the witness tree-based map as background (fig. 4), all 

three maps have greatest agreement in areas where fire 

is not likely to be used as management tool or be reintroduced as a disturbance (FRG V, table 3). These areas 

are the highest elevations and receive higher inputs of 

precipitation relative to other parts of the MNF. 

DISCUSSION

In creating the FRG map from witness tree data, the 

cut-off values of percent pyrophilic witness tree species 

were subjectively set based on knowledge of the general 

ecology of the study area. Using 0-40 percent pyrophilic 

species to create the FRG V group may have included 

areas where fire may have occurred more frequently than 

the national definition would suggest. Other break-point 

values were considered; however, to remain consistent 

with published comparisons between the rule-based 

and witness tree-based maps (Thomas-Van Gundy and 

Nowacki 2013), the break points were retained. This also 

demonstrates the difficulty in applying a nation-wide 

standard. The witness tree data could easily be used 

without conversion to FRGs to aid managers in planning 

and designing projects. 
Tools for Fire Management 135

The LANDFIRE FRGs were mapped similarly to the 

methods of Schmidt and others (2002), incorporating 

existing and potential vegetation and the biophysical 

setting. The rule-based mapping effort (ThomasVan Gundy and others 2007) attempted to mirror 

the methods of Schmidt and others (2002); however, 

the choice of landtype association as the biophysical 

setting limited fire score inputs as binary, aiding in 

the resulting conservative nature of the inferred FRGs 

(fig. 2a). In the witness tree-based map, no biophysical 

setting was included. The distinct breaks between 

FRGs in LANDFIRE (especially the western edge of 

the MNF, fig. 2b) correspond to subsection boundaries 

(fig. 1). The potential natural vegetation for the Western 

Allegheny Mountains subsection is 38 percent mixed 

mesophytic, 35 percent northern hardwoods, and 27 

percent Appalachian oak; and for the Eastern Coal Fields, 

52 percent mixed mesophytic, 28 percent Appalachian 

oak, and 20 percent northern hardwoods (Cleland and 

others 2005). The representation of these two subsections 

within the MNF may not be typical of the subsection as 

a whole as these areas are at either the extreme northern 

(Eastern Coal Fields) or extreme southern (Western 

Allegheny Mountains) end of the larger subsection. 

For these reasons, the methods for estimating FRGs in 

LANDFIRE may have overstated the role of fire in these 

two subsections. However, the two locally-derived FRG 

estimations may have understated the role of fire in these 

areas. The areas where either local estimate differs greatly 

from LANDFIRE are likely areas where more field-based 

information is needed. 

Although LANDFIRE data are best suited for national, 

regional, and sub-regional questions, the FRGs from 

LANDFIRE are useful for comparison with locallyderived fire regimes since LANDFIRE data are consistent 

across boundaries and supported by science. While 

LANDFIRE products are not a substitute for local 

products, these inferred fire regime groups from fireadapted vegetation are not a substitute for stand-level 

data but are useful for local planning and placing fire in 

a larger context. Although issues with witness tree data 

are known, for example they do not represent a random 

sample or a systematic sample, the witness tree-derived 

map appears to be an improvement and refinement over 

the rule-based map. 

The mapped differences between the two locally-derived 

FRGs and LANDFIRE FRGs are a useful starting point 

for detailed, site-specific reviews for project planning. The 

methods described here are applicable to other landscapes 

and should be useful for others trying to define areas 

to restore fire-adapted vegetation. Managers should not 

limit themselves to one product—witness trees, historical 

records, potential natural vegetation mapping, fire scars, 

responses to prescribed fire—all can inform options for 

restoring fire as a disturbance regime. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank John Kabrick and Greg Nowacki for technical 

reviews of the manuscript. 

LITERATURE CITED

Abrams, M.D.; McCay, D.M. 1996. Vegetation-site relationships 

of witness trees (1780-1856) in the presettlement forests of 

eastern West Virginia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

26: 217-224.

Abrams, M.D.; Orwig, D.A.; DeMeo; T.E. 1995. Dendroecological 

analysis of successional dynamics for a presettlement-origin 

white pine-mixed oak forest in the southern Appalachians, 

USA. Journal of Ecology. 83: 123-133. 

Aldrich, S.R.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. [and others]. 

2010. Three centuries of fire in montane pine-oak stands on a 

temperate forest landscape. Applied Vegetation Science. 

13: 36-46. 

Barrett, S.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J. [and others]. 2010. Interagency 

fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 3.0 [Homepage 

of the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and The Nature 

Conservancy]. [Online], Available: http://www.frcc.gov/. [Date 

accessed: February 5, 2014]

Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A.; Keys, J.E. [and others]. 2005. 

Ecological subregions: sections and subsections for the 

conterminous United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service. [Map, presentation scale 

1:3,500,000; colored]. 

Cutter, B.E.; Guyette, R.P. 1994. Fire frequency on an oak-hickory 

ridgetop in the Missouri Ozarks. American Midland Naturalist. 

132: 393-398. 

Frost, C.C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United 

States: a first approximation. In: Pruden, T.L.; Bennan, L.A., 

eds. Fire in ecosystem management, Tall Timbers Fire Ecology 

Conf. Proc. No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station: 70-81.

Guyette, R.P.; Muzika, R.M.; Dey, D.C. 2002. Dynamics of an 

anthropogenic fire regime. Ecosystems. 5: 472-486. 

Guyette, R.P.; Spetich, M.A.; Stambaugh, M.C. 2006a. Historic fire 

regime dynamics and forcing factors in the Boston Mountains, 

Arkansas, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 234: 293-304. 

Guyette, R.P.; Dey, D.C.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Muzika, R. 2006b. Fire 

scares reveal variability and dynamics of eastern fire regimes. 

In: Dickinson, M.B., ed., Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering 

science to land managers, proceedings of a conference; 2005 

November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. 

Newtown Square, PA; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station: 20-39.

Guyette, R.P.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Dey, D.C.; Muzika, R. 2012. 

Predicting fire frequency with chemistry and climate. 

Ecosystems. 15: 322-335. 

Egan, D.; Howell, E.A. 2001. The Historical Ecology Handbook. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 469 p.
136 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

LANDFIRE. 2013. LANDFIRE Fire regime groups layer. (2013, 

June - last update). U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey. [Online]. Available: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/. 

[Date accessed: 2013, September 17].

McCay, D.H.; Abrams, M.D.; DeMeo, T.E. 1997. Gradient analysis 

of secondary forests of eastern West Virginia. Journal of the 

Torrey Botanical Society. 124(2): 160-173.

McEwan, R.W.; Hutchinson, T.F.; Ford, R.D. 2007. An experimental 

evaluation of fire history reconstruction using dendrochronology 

in white oak (Quercus alba). Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 37: 806-816.

Nowacki, G.J.; Abrams, M.D. 2008. The demise of fire and 

“mesophication” of forests in the Eastern United States. 

BioScience. 58(2): 123-138.

Ruffner, C.M. 2006. Understanding the evidence for historical fire 

across eastern forests. In: Dickinson, M.B., ed. 2006. Fire in 

Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers, 

Proceedings of a Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station: 40-48. 

 Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Hardy, C.C. [and others]. 2002. 

Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and 

fuel management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-87. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 41 p. + CD.

Schuler, T.M.; McClain, W.R. 2003. Fire history of a ridge and 

valley oak forest.Res. Pap. NE-724. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern 

Research Station. 9 p.

Shumway, D.L.; Abrams, M.D.; Ruffner, C.M. 2001. A 400-year 

history of fire and oak recruitment in an old-growth oak 

forest in western Maryland, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 31: 1437-1443. 

Thomas-Van Gundy, M.A.; Strager, M.P. 2012. European 

settlement-era vegetation of the Monongahela National Forest, 

West Virginia. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-101. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 39 p.

Thomas-Van Gundy, M.A.; Nowacki, G.J. 2013. The use of witness 

trees as pyro-indicators for mapping past fire. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 304: 333-344.

Thomas-Van Gundy, M.A.; Nowacki, G.J.; Schuler, T.M. 2007. 

Rule-based mapping of fire-adapted vegetation and fire regimes 

for the Monongahela National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-12. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 24 p.

Table 1—Fire regime groups derived from the rule-based map and from the witness tree-based map of fi readapted vegetation of Monongahela National Forest maps and from 2010 LANDFIRE data

Fire regime group

% total area rulebased map% total area 

witness tree map

% total area 

LANDFIRE

I - ≤ 35 yr return interval, low & mixed severity 13.9 29.8 30.6

II - ≤ 35 yr return interval, stand replacement severity 0 0 0

III - 35-200 yr return interval, low & mixed severity 13.9 13.8 20.9

IV - 35-200 yr return interval, stand replacing severity 0.3 0 0.3

V - > 200 yr return interval, any severity 71.9 56.4 48.1

Table 2—Results of cell-by-cell comparisons of the 

rule-based map and the witness tree-based map of fi re 

regime groups to LANDFIRE

Difference 

from 

LANDFIRE

2007 

version

% total area

Witness tree 

version 

% total area

-4 1.3 3.8

-3 0.0 0.0

-2 6.2 13.0

-1 0.0 0.1

0 55.6 60.8

1 0.3 0.2

2 20.6 15.1

3 0.1 0.0

4 15.8 7.0

Table 3—Results (percent of study area) of three-way 

comparison of rule-based, witness tree-based, and 

LANDFIRE estimations of fi re regime groups

Agreement FRG I FRG III FRG V Total

All three 7.0 0.5 38.0 45.4

Two maps 18.6 9.1 17.9 45.6

None 4.3 4.2 0.5 9.0
Tools for Fire Management 137

Figure 1—Study area; bold line is the boundary between Northern Ridge and Valley (east) and Allegheny Mountains (west). 
138 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 2—Fire regime group maps derived from (a) the rule-based map (Thomas-Van Gundy and others 2007), 

(b) LANDFIRE, and (c) the difference between them.
Tools for Fire Management 139

Figure 3—Fire regime group maps derived from (a) the witness tree-based map (Thomas-Van Gundy and Nowacki 2013), 

(b) LANDFIRE, and (c) the difference between them.
140 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 4—Three-way comparison of all three maps. Areas of full color indicate agreement between all 

three maps, faded colors represent areas where two maps agreed, and grey areas represent areas 

of no agreement between the three maps. Fire regime groups from the witness tree-based map are 

shown.
Tools for Fire Management 141

INTRODUCTION

The last decade saw a dramatic proliferation of software 

systems intended to help fire and fuels managers in the 

United States. Funding for these software systems came 

from a variety of sources without any central control or 

vision. A governance process with stated requirements on 

how to transition a research-grade software application 

to an operationally ready one was never created. This 

resulted in a fuels management environment with 

numerous, fragmented, stand-alone tools; system and 

data access issues; decentralized planning and support; 

minimal security; and ad-hoc training. 

To help mitigate this problem situation, the Joint Fire 

Science Program (JFSP), working in conjunction with 

the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) 

Fuels Management Committee (formerly the National 

Interagency Fuels Coordinating Group), initiated the 

Software Tools and Systems (STS) study in 2007. 

Between 2010 and 2012, the JFSP released a series of 

pilot versions of IFTDSS that demonstrated growing 

functionality and conformance with field user needs. 

These pilot versions were made available to a large body 

of test users in an active program to gather user feedback. 

The most current version of IFTDSS (Beta version 2.0) 

was released in October 2012. The IFTDSS software 

integration framework is available at iftdss.sonomatech.

com. All project documentation, including a detailed final 

report, is available at www.frames.gov/iftdss.

WHAT IS IFTDSS?

The Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support 

System (IFTDSS) is an existing service integration 

platform, currently with over 100,000 lines of software 

code, that provides command and control for software 

modules and datasets executing from within a common 

user interface. It provides capabilities for use and 

integration of standardized and custom datasets, supports 

treatment unit- and landscape-scale analyses, data 

visualization functionality, estimates of fire behavior 

and first-order fire effects, and quantitative hazard and 

risk assessments. It allows users to choose pre-designed 

solution pathways for the most commonly performed 

fuels treatment tasks. These pre-designed solution 

pathways, called workflows, were designed and reviewed 

by members of the user stakeholder community to 

ensure that offered functionality matched real needs. It 

is important to understand that IFTDSS is not another 

new fuels treatment system. It is a service integration 

framework that organizes and makes available a large 

number of pre-existing software modules through a 

single, Web-based graphical user interface.

HOW CAN IFTDSS HELP FIRE AND FUELS 

MANAGERS AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS?

IFTDSS transforms a chaotic, ungovernable set of 

stand-alone, stove-piped software applications into a 

consolidated, manageable single software application 

focused on helping users solve their mission critical 

business needs. The primary orientation is to support 

local, project-scale analyses but as part of a landscape 

area of interest that could be up to 2 million acres in 

size. IFTDSS takes the model processing power of many 

different systems and brings them together into one 

place. The IFTDSS process is easy to understand and 

use. Users no longer need to learn and to use multiple 

tools with different interfaces, thus reducing training 

and re-familiarization time. Users no longer need to 

spend most of their time on data transformation issues 

from one software system to another. Users can use 

the collaboration features of IFTDSS to share data and 

project analyses with other professionals. Finally, for the 

first time, users of IFTDSS have access to a credible, yet 

easy to learn and apply risk assessment process that they 

can perform themselves at their local office. 

[Extended Abstract]

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERAGENCY FUELS TREATMENT 

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (IFTDSS)

H. Michael Rauscher and Stacy A. Drury1

1 H. Michael Rauscher, Science Advisor to Joint Fire Science Program, Rauscher Enterprises LLC, Leicester, NC 28748

Stacy A. Drury, Senior Ecologist, Sonoma Technology Inc., Petaluma, CA 94954

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
142 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

HAS IFTDSS BEEN TESTED 

AND EVALUATED?

IFTDSS has been developed with the intimate 

involvement of numerous members of the fire and fuels 

community since its inception in 2007. Users were 

involved at the design state and the early testing stages. 

Their suggestions and critical comments were a dominant 

guiding force throughout the development process. In 

2013, IFTDSS had over 400 users all across the United 

States. IFTDSS has also been subjected to an independent 

evaluation by members of the Software Engineering 

Institute of Carnegie Mellon University located in 

Pittsburgh, PA. The report of that evaluation concluded 

that IFTDSS represented a significant improvement in 

the software support available to fire and fuels managers 

(Bennett and others 2013). In general, IFTDSS is well 

aligned with the interagency Wildland Fire Information 

and Technology strategic vision as described by Douglas 

and Phipps (2012). IFTDSS provides a significantly 

improved platform for the integration of data and models 

in fire and fuels when compared to the current situation. 

Eleven workshops, eight in person and three virtual, 

on-line sessions, were held across the United States. 

Ninety-eight workshop attendees completed the same 

post-workshop survey, which was a response rate of 

98%. Given the notional size of the fuels management 

community of approximately 1,000, the survey responses 

represent approximately 10% of the target community. 

The users were overwhelmingly positive about IFTDSS 

(Bennett and others 2013). 

WHAT FUNCTIONALITY DOES IFTDSS 

MAKE AVAILABLE?

Five workflows have been identified and implemented in 

IFTDSS Version 2.0. Each workflow provides a logical, 

step-by-step process of using the various tools needed 

to perform the tasks of that workflow. IFTDSS fielduser designed workflows are a set of business-oriented 

modeling pathways intended to capture the problemsolving needs of the fuels treatment analysis and planning 

community. They provide access to scientific models 

in a stepwise, intuitive pattern, reducing the emphasis 

of individual models. These workflows were developed 

based on direct user input from JFSP-sponsored fuels 

treatment working group and other test user groups.

The Data Acquisition and Editing Workflow is used 

to identify the appropriate vegetation, geophysical, 

and weather data for IFTDSS that will be needed for a 

project. The Hazard Analysis Workflow is used to identify 

potentially hazardous areas across a landscape. The Risk 

Assessment Workflow provides a first-approximation 

probabilistic risk assessment for fuels treatment planning. 

The Fuels Treatment Workflow (a) simulates fuels 

treatment placement in areas of high fire hazard within 

an area of interest, and (b) simulates post-treatment 

influences on fire behavior and fire effects potentials. 

The Prescribed Burn Planning Workflow provides the 

information needed to plan and document a proposed 

prescribed fire. 

REFERENCES

Bennett, C.M.; Brown, N.; Doney, D. [and others]. 2013. Final 

Report of the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support 

System (IFTDSS) Evaluation Study. Special Report CMU/

SEI-2013-SR-017. [Place of publication unknown]: Software 

Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. 142 p. 

Available at: http://www.frames.gov/documents/iftdss/IFTDSS_

SEI_FINAL_07-01-2013.pdf.

Douglas, J.; Phipps, J. 2012. Wildland fire information and 

technology: strategy, governance, investments. Unpublished 

Interagency report. http://www.frames.gov/documents/iftdss/

Signed_IT_Report_March_23_2012.pdf.
Tools for Fire Management 143

INTRODUCTION

The George Washington and Jefferson National Forests 

(GWJNF) span 1.8 million acres along the Appalachian 

and Blue Ridge Mountains, sharing a 13-mile long border 

with the Warm Springs Mountain Preserve owed by The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Bath County, VA. The 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture and TNC 

first came together in 2006 to develop a fire management 

program for the preserve. This collaboration helped spark 

the creation of the Alleghany Highlands Fire Learning 

Network (FLN). The FLN comprises several Federal 

and State cooperators from Virginia and West Virginia, 

allowing multiple agencies to meet and work together 

in achieving fire restoration and management goals. In 

2008, the GWJNF and TNC joined forces again to create 

a monitoring protocol, Forest Composition and Structure 

Monitoring (FCS), for the prescribed burn programs 

on the forest and the preserve in an effort to establish 

land management activities implementing the adaptive 

management cycle.

An important element of decisionmaking in any land 

management program is the use of current and applicable 

scientific information. The adaptive management 

cycle is one process which continuously incorporates 

new information through the concept of “learning by 

doing” (Haney and Power 1996). Adaptive management 

comprises six steps: researching the system, developing 

objectives, planning and conducting monitoring, 

implementing management actions (burning), conducting 

post-burn monitoring, and analyzing results. As new 

information is gathered through monitoring, it is fed 

back into the system and the cycle repeats; managers can 

then change burn objectives to meet more realistic goals 

or may decide to change implementation techniques to 

achieve desired results on the landscape. Additionally, 

adaptive management benefits land managers by 

supporting National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, 

claims, proving especially useful if appeals are made to 

management actions. Those who question or doubt the 

use of fire in land management are provided with tangible 

numbers and photos of objective-driven changes taking 

place in the landscape. 

THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT CYCLE

Research the System

Successful land management cannot begin without a 

thorough understanding of the ecological systems and 

associated disturbance regimes found on the landscape. 

Fire management officers and ecologists must understand 

vegetation type and occurrence, terrain, climate and fire 

regimes to begin to understand how the landscape has 

deviated from pre-European settlement and even pre-

[Extended Abstract]

USING THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROCESS TO DEVELOP A MONITORING 

PROGRAM ON THE GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS 

AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S WARM SPRINGS MOUNTAIN PRESERVE

Lindsey A. Curtin and Beth Buchanan1

Abstract—The George Washington and Jefferson National Forests (GWJNF) in collaboration with The Nature 

Conservancy began planning a monitoring program utilizing adaptive management methods to guide prescribed burning in 

2008. The development of a successful monitoring program requires extensive research, planning, and cooperation between 

fire management officers and ecologists to establish measurable burn objectives. Working together, the GWJNF and The 

Nature Conservancy developed monitoring protocols then utilized the database Feat and Firemon Integrated (FFI), free 

software developed by the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture to promote data storage easily used and shared 

between multiple agencies. The data, once collected in the field and entered into the FFI database, is statistically analyzed, 

and those objectives identified in the burn plan are reviewed. Management action alteration is dependent upon the results 

generated from data collection. As management adapts, the cycle continues, allowing land managers to apply scientific 

principles and knowledge in restoring landscapes to historical fire regimes. 

1

Lindsey A. Curtin, Fire Ecologist Trainee, USDA Forest Service, Natural Bridge Station, VA 24579

Beth Buchanan, R-8 Southern Region Fire Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Roanoke, VA 24019

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
144 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

fire suppression conditions. Fire regime comprises the 

general patterns of fire periodicity, seasonality, intensity, 

and size that emerge over time (Lafon and others 2005). 

This principle information serves as the foundation for 

management, giving insight to landscape conditions that 

will promote a healthy ecosystem.

As the monitoring program was being developed, 

the Forest Service and TNC cooperators shared their 

knowledge and expertise of the central Appalachian 

landscape, fire regimes and characteristics, and the 

diverse vegetation types found in the mountains. In order 

to more easily group and describe the ecological systems, 

the expansive landscape owned by the two agencies was 

condensed into ecological zones, units of land that can 

support a specific plant community or plant community 

group based on environmental factors (Simon 2011). 

The FLN combined and compared various ecological 

types using a crosswalk between Simon’s Ecological 

Zone Modeling and the George Washington Forest Plan 

Systems, establishing three broad system types where fire 

typically has the greatest effect: mesic, dry-mesic and 

dry. Prescribed burning efforts on the forest and preserve 

focus on ecological zones where fire is beneficial to 

restoring the systems’ ecological integrity or condition to 

their historic range of variability. Using Simon’s model, 

the agencies began planning and prioritizing burn units in 

landscapes that would likely benefit from fire (table 1). 

Develop Objectives

Treating the landscape with prescribed fire requires each 

burn unit to have obtainable objectives outlined prior to 

ignition. These objectives guide ignition implementation 

and techniques, driving burn bosses to conduct firing 

in ways which achieve specific results on the unit. 

Additionally, objectives in a burn plan also relate directly 

to data collected during monitoring. Burn plans across 

the GWJNF and the preserve have incorporated specific, 

measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely (SMART) 

objectives. Specific infers that an objective should clearly 

define its purpose and subject. A measurable objective 

is one that can be quantitatively measured through data 

collection. Relevance ensures objectives are appropriate 

and feasible for the burn. Timely sets deadlines for results 

and data collection. For example, one burn objective 

may call for a 40-percent reduction in red maple (Acer

rubrum) saplings less than 1 inch dbh within one year 

post burn. This objective specifically states species, size 

class, and percent reduction desired then can be measured 

using protocols developed for the monitoring program. 

It is relevant to a burn unit with the presence of shadetolerant red maple and the mortality should be visible on 

the unit one year post burn. To achieve this objective, the 

burn boss would conduct firing on the unit with enough 

intensity to reduce the maple saplings. 

Plan and Conduct Monitoring

Objectives cannot be measured in the field without 

consistent and quantitative data collection. A structured 

monitoring program is an essential component to the 

adaptive management cycle because it gives a way to 

measure changes seen on the landscape after fire. The 

FCS Protocol, first created in 2008, was revised in 2013. 

It includes guidelines for plot design, placement within 

burn units, and specific instructions for data collection. 

This guides consistent and accurate collection methods 

across the forest and preserve. The monitoring program 

uses randomly stratified, circular hundredth-acre plots 

across burn units to collect data in ecological systems 

of concern, such as Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine 

Forests (table 1). Each plot is visited before and after a 

burn at specific intervals to collect data (table 2). The 

plots are permanently retained through the use of visible 

paint markers, rebar stakes driven at plot center, and 

recorded GPS coordinates. Pre-burn or baseline data is 

collected prior to implementation of a burn to establish 

a “control” from which change following fire will be 

measured in the following visits. 

Implement Monitoring Actions

Management actions are treatments applied to the 

landscape, such as timber harvesting, thinning, prescribed 

fire, or use of herbicides. Both the GWJNF and TNC 

utilize prescribed burns across large portions of the 

landscape and multiple ecosystems. Burns are typically 

conducted in the spring, dependent upon weather 

conditions, personnel availability, and ongoing wildfires 

in the area. Fire management officers, including burn 

bosses and firing bosses, work to burn the unit in a way 

that achieves desired objectives (fig. 1). Communication 

both pre-burn and throughout the burn is essential for 

firing the unit to meet objectives. The burn boss must 

explain the objectives during briefing, clearly outlining 

how those objectives should be met to all personnel on the 

fire, not simply firing bosses. This ensures all personnel 

have an understanding of why the burn is taking place and 

may better understand how certain techniques are used 

to create results. As the burn is conducted, the burn boss 

must ensure that firing is appropriate to meet objectives. 

This may include instructing firing bosses to increase or 

decrease intensity by using various firing methods. 

Conduct Monitoring

As mentioned previously, FCS plots are permanent, 

allowing data to be recorded post burn at the same 

location. Within six months following a burn, each plot on 

the unit will be visited and immediate post-burn photos 

are taken to show immediate fire effects. A full visit is 

made after one full growing season post burn. Collected 

data includes photographs of north and south views from 

plot center, canopy cover measurements taken along 
Tools for Fire Management 145

four transects using a Densitometer, density quadrats to 

determine ground cover and seedling abundance, stem 

count and size of sapling tree/shrub species, and basal 

area of overstory trees using a Basal Area 10 prism (fig. 

2). The plots are visited again five years post burn if the 

unit is not burned again within that time. If the unit is 

burned again within five years, immediate post-burn 

photos and a one-year post burn visit are made for the 

second entry. This process is continued for the duration 

the burn unit is treated. Data, once collected, is entered 

into Feat and Firemon Integrated (FFI). This database 

program acts to store data that can be shared between 

cooperators (including those outside Virginia) and 

performs statistical analyses. 

Analyze Results

The analysis and informed use of monitoring data 

ultimately feeds back into the adaptive management cycle. 

As new information becomes available, managers and 

ecologists continue to revise and implement objectives in 

prescribed burns, using the monitoring program to study 

future burns. Using Forest Service-developed FFI or 

other programs, such as Microsoft Excel®, the data can be 

analyzed on large or small scales. The questions posed by 

burn objectives (e.g., did we kill 40 percent of red maple 

saplings under one inch dbh?) are answered. The analyzed 

data can be easily used by fire management officers to 

read results of their burn treatments, enabling them to 

make informed decisions for future burns. New burn 

objectives may be developed with the new information 

and/or firing techniques may be altered to achieve 

different results in the future. For example, if only 20 

percent of red maple saplings were killed after one year, 

fire management officers may decide to burn the unit with 

more intensity in the next entry and will alter the firing 

plan to achieve those results. Alternatively, the data may 

show managers that the burn objectives are unobtainable, 

prompting them to revise them to more accurately reflect 

changes that occur on the landscape after a burn. 

CONCLUSION

The adaptive management process has become a major 

focus of the prescribed burn program on the GWJNF and 

TNC’s Warm Springs Mountain Preserve. Through the 

development of a monitoring program, both the forest and 

TNC have the ability to use relevant research and data 

to modify burn plans and firing techniques to best meet 

predetermined burn objectives. The use of a monitoring 

program not only provides feedback to fire management 

officers, but has also established a close working 

relationship between the Forest Service and TNC. It 

further supports NEPA claims and provides the public 

with quantitative evidence of how prescribed burning 

influences the landscape by improving ecological integrity 

in different community types. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Steve Croy, Forest Ecologist/Fire Planner & Aviation 

Officer USDA Forest Service, Roanoke, Virginia; 

Marek Smith, Director, Alleghany Highlands Program, 

The Nature Conservancy, Warm Springs, Virginia; 

Nikole Swaney, Alleghany Highlands Restoration 

Coordinator, Alleghany Highlands Program, The Nature 

Conservancy. 

REFERENCES

Haney, A.; Power, R.A. 1996. Adaptive management for sound 

ecosystem management. Environmental Management. 20(6): 

879-886. 

Lafon, C.W.; Hoss, J.A.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2005. The 

contemporary fire regime of the Central Appalachian 

Mountains and its relation to climate. Physical Geography. 

26(2): 126-146.

Simon, S.A. 2011. Ecological zones on the George Washington 

National Forest: first approximation mapping. The Nature 

Conservancy, Virginia Field Office. On file with:[The Nature 

Conservancy, Virginia Field Office, 530 East Main St, Ste. 800, 

Richmond, VA 23219-2428].
146 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Table 1—Plant community groups used to describe changes from a narrow to broad range of ecological 

communities across the landscape at the introduction and use of prescribed fi rea

Simon’s Ecological Zones

George Washington systems

(Forest Plan)

Fire Learning Network 

systems

Spruce Spruce Forest

Mesic

Northern Hardwood Slope Northern Hardwood Forest

Northern Hardwood Cove

Acidic Cove Cove Forest

Spicebush Cove

Rich Cove

Alluvial Forest Floodplains, Wetlands, and Riparian 

Floodplain Forest Areas

High Elevation Red Oak

Oak Forests and Woodlands Dry-Mesic

Montane Oak Rich

Montane Oak Slope

Montane Oak Cove

Colluvial Forest

Dry Mesic Oak

Dry Mesic Calcareous Forest

Dry Oak Evergreen Heath

Dry Oak Deciduous Heath

Low Elevation Pine

Pine Forests and Woodlands

Dry

Pine-Oak Heath (eastside ridge)

Pine-Oak Heath (westside ridge)

Pine-Oak Heath (ridgetop)

Pine-Oak Shale Woodlands

Shale Barren Cliff, Talus and Shale Barrens

Alkaline Woodland Mafi c Glade and Barrens and Alkaline

Glades & Woodlands Dry-Mesi c

Mafi c Glade and Barren

a Plant community groups are defi ned by Simon (2011), the George Washington National Forest Plan, and the Alleghany Highlands Fire 

Learning Network.
Tools for Fire Management 147

Table 2—Monitoring statuses with descriptions of appropriate use in the Forest Composition and Structure 

Monitoring Programa 

Monitoring status Comment (desc ription and appropriate use)

Pre Burn01 Most appropriately used when unit has not burned in (recent) past. Will be “baseline” data, 

collected before the fi rst burn. 

Baseline Used in situations where the fi rst data collected is not collected at the beginning of fi re 

reintroduction. Used in lieu of “Pre Burn” data, since it is not technically “pre” burn.

Burn01ImmedPost Data collected immediately after the 1st burn. Usually is limited to fuels, severity and photos, 

unless dictated by additional objectives.

Burn01 Year 1

Data collected one full year after the 1st burn, preferably during growing season (which may 

be 2nd growing season post-burn). Overstory and midstory tree diameters do not need to be 

re-collected at this time, unless dictated by objectives.

Burn01 Year 5

Data collected 5 full years after the 1st burn. If unit is re-burned before this time, start 

monitoring sequence over (for example, Burn02 Year1, Burn02ImmedPost) without using this 

status.

Burn02ImmedPost Data collected immediately after the 2nd burn. Usually is limited to fuels, severity and photos, 

unless dictated by additional objectives.

Burn02 Year 1

Data collected one full year after the 2nd burn, preferably during growing season (which may 

be 2nd growing season post-burn). Overstory and midstory tree diameters do not need to be 

re-collected at this time, unless dictated by objectives.

Burn02 Year 5

Data collected 5 full years after the 2nd burn. If unit is re-burned before this time, start 

monitoring sequence over (for example, Burn03 Year1, Burn03ImmedPost) without using this 

status.

a These statuses are also used in FFI to separate and compare data taken at different times on plots.

Figure 1—Implementation of prescribed burn on the Warm Springs Ranger 

District on the Hidden Valley burn unit. The burn was conducted alongside 

of personnel from The Nature Conservancy in the Alleghany Highlands 

Fire Learning Network. 
148 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 2—Datasheets used in Forest Composition and Structure monitoring. Data is transferred into FFI after collection 

in the field. 
Tools for Fire Management 149

INTRODUCTION 

Prescribed fire is a fundamental tool for land managers to 

mitigate wildfires and restore ecosystems (Costanza and 

others 2013, Melvin 2012). While individual fire events 

are often the focus of managers, it is the cumulative 

impact of successive fires that lead to ecosystem 

restoration particularly in the Southeast. Fire frequency 

is the critical metric to determining if fire management 

goals are being achieved, whether the manager is 

managing fuels in a wildfire landscape of the West 

or a prescribed fire landscape of the Southeast. Such 

calculations have been made with Landsat data, ArcGIS 

model builder, or in Oracle databases (Hiers and others 

2003), but each requires substantial time and resources, 

pose a steep learning curve, and often do not use 

specific recorded fire events in the calculation. ArcGIS 

is a commonly used program by most fire planners and 

managers; so, we developed a python script-based tool to 

evaluate our fire management program on the Talladega 

Division in east central Alabama. 

The Talladega Division is the largest remaining tract 

of montane longleaf located among the highest points 

in Alabama on the terminus of the Appalachian chain. 

The Division is mandated with endangered species 

recovery and currently has 30 active red-cockaded 

woodpecker clusters. It is projected to have 230 clusters 

by 2050 to achieve recovery. Fire management is central 

to restoration of this unique ecosystem, and fuels 

management in the wildland-urban interface is also of 

concern. The Talladega’s proximity to large metropolitan 

areas creates smoke management issues not unique to 

National forests throughout the Southeast. Currently 

only 150,000 acres or 60 percent of the Division has 

experienced active fire management in the last 22 years, 

and the frequency of fire is not achieving historic return 

intervals to create desired future conditions or manage 

smoke. 

In 1823, cartographers of the day noted that the area 

consisted of an “extensive pine forest” (fig. 1). Subsequent 

land surveys circa 1832 (Shankman and Wills 1995), 

prior to settlement, indicate slopes and ridge tops were 

dominated by pines with steeper slopes dominated by 

longleaf, transitioning to shortleaf pine on more gentle 

slopes and broad ridge tops to loblolly pine in the 

bottoms. Fire-adapted hardwoods were intermixed in 

this pine matrix on differing slopes and aspects. Bale 

(2009) examined the fire scar dendrochronology record 

on two ridge systems on the Shoal Creek Ranger District 

and revealed that from 1653 to 1831, prior to Native 

American extirpation, the fire return interval was 2.7 to 

3.2 years. After settlement, the fire frequency increased 

to a range of 2.5 to 2.6 years from 1832 to 1940. Bale 

also found that 97 percent of the fires occurred during 

the dormant season and that fuel bed analysis showed 

that three years post fire the fuel bed was saturated 

and capable of carrying a fire. The Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculturebegan acquisition in 1937 and 

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARCGIS FIRE FREQUENCY, FUEL ACCUMULATION, 

SEASONALITY AND PRIORITIZATION TOOL TO FACILITATE PRESCRIBED FIRE 

DECISIONMAKING ON THE TALLADEGA NATIONAL FOREST, ALABAMA

Jonathan M. Stober and Geoff Holden1

Abstract—Prescribed fire is used widely to mitigate wildfires and restore ecosystems. However, there are few 

tools developed to evaluate fire’s cumulative impact, calculate frequency, examine seasonality, and estimate fuel 

accumulation to facilitate decisionmaking in targeting successive prescribed fire application. An ESRI shapefile of all 

wildfire and prescribed fire events was assimilated from 1978 to 2012 for the 235,000-acre Talladega Division in east 

central Alabama. A python script-based tool was developed for ArcGIS10 to calculate the annualized average fire return 

interval, years of fuel accumulation (i.e., date last burned), and frequency of growing to dormant season fire events. 

Development of a comprehensive fire database that can calculate generalized fuel accumulation will allow for more 

targeted pairing with appropriate smoke dispersion and better smoke management. Calculations of fire frequency will 

determine if adequate fire return intervals are occurring on the landscape and focus on areas that need increased effort to 

meet frequency targets for restoration. 

1

Jonathan M. Stober, District Biologist, Shoal Creek Ranger District, Talladega National Forest, Heflin, AL 36264 

Geoff Holden, Forest Geospatial Program Manager, Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, Columbia, SC 29212

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
150 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

promptly began controlling and suppressing all wildland 

fire, effectively removing fire out of a fire-dependent 

ecosystem. Prescribed fire began in the mid to late 

1980s to manage fuels and comply with management for 

endangered species. Managers have utilized prescribed 

fire since then but had never systematically evaluated the 

fire program’s extent or ability to achieve a fire frequency 

to manage fuels or mimic the natural disturbance regime. 

To evaluate the fire program, fire records were digitally 

recorded and an ArcGIS tool developed to summarize the 

cumulative effect of fire events through time. 

METHODS

An ESRI shapefile of all wildfire and prescribed fire 

events from 1978 to the present was gathered for the 

Division by assimilating paper and digital records. The 

master shapefile with all fire records must have a ‘date’ 

field in the ESRI date field format. The master shapefile 

attributes included fire weather conditions, objectives, 

date, fire type, and location. From the master file, the 

fire history time period of interest was exported into 

a new shapefile and the Integrate tool in ArcGIS was 

used to unify concomitant roads, streams, and burn 

block boundaries to reduce polygon slivers. The tool was 

executed in ArcCatalog by identifying the shapefile, an 

output folder, and the beginning and ending dates of the 

growing season for the area. The result was a geodatabase 

containing a feature class that can be brought into 

ArcMap for display and interpretation of the frequency, 

seasonality, and recency of the fire program. 

The output gives the user the total number of fire events 

in each polygon to calculate the annualized average 

fire return interval or fire frequency, years of fuel 

accumulation (i.e., date last burned), and frequency of 

growing and dormant season fire events and the relative 

dates they were last burned during those seasons. The 

tool also records the last date a fire occurred in each 

polygon, which can be used to create a fuel accumulation 

map with annualized rough accumulations. Further 

calculations can be made by examining the total acreage 

under fire management, the relative percentages of 

the fire frequencies across intervals. The extent of the 

fire program less the boundary of ownership will also 

illustrate areas missing fuels management. Going back to 

the master file summaries can be made for the timing of 

prescribed fires and wildfires to further expose trends in 

fire management history. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

By gathering and summarizing the fire management 

on the Talladega Division, we were able to see several 

critical trends. Figure 2 illustrates the annualized rough 

accumulation on the Division. This information can be 

used by managers in identifying areas in need of fuels 

treatment and pairing the relative fuel load with the best 

atmospheric conditions. For example, the middle of the 

Division has not been burned since before the year 2000. 

The liabilities of a fuel load in excess of 13 years and its 

proximity to highways, parks, and the public may merit 

that the area either falls out of fire management or that 

they are only attempted if frequent firing can be sustained 

into the future to reduce fuel loads and smoke emissions. 

The areas without fire history also illustrate the ecological 

and fuel management need to mitigate future wildfire 

events, a full third (36 percent) of the ownership has no 

record of fire management. The tool also identifies areas 

where fuel loads are diminished and moving towards 

maintenance conditions. For the manager and the 

decisionmaker, the tool illustrates the trade-off and aids 

in illustrating the decisions to be made in managing fuels 

and focusing management. Ultimately, fuels management 

works by reducing fire intensity and extent which is 

illustrated on the Division with a declining trend in 

dormant season (October to March) wildfire events from 

1985 to 2012 (fig. 3). 

Based on Bale’s (2009) analysis, fires were considerably 

more common during the dormant season. However, 

lightning ignitions are a common event on the Division, 

and there is a place for periodic growing season fire 

events on the Talladega for site prep or top killing and 

shifting understory vegetation from shrubby hardwood to 

a more grassy herbaceous community. Growing season 

prescribed fires were first tested in 1998 and used in 

earnest since 2003 with a third of all prescribed fires 

occurring during the growing season. Seasonality expands 

the fire management window and has its place with 

current “fire deficit” across the landscape. Ultimately, the 

more important metric of successful fire management is 

fire frequency rather than seasonality. 

Looking back over 22 years of fire management on 

the Division, the fire deficit on the landscape becomes 

apparent but the lack of frequent fire is of greater concern 

if smoke is to be mitigated and if ecosystem restoration is 

to be achieved. Table 1 shows a breakdown of annualized 

fire rotations across two-year intervals on a 150,000-

acre basis (prescribed and wildfire fire extent) and 

under the entire ownership. On the 150,000-acre basis, 

only 40 percent is receiving prescribed fire on a return 

interval less than six years. Sixty percent has greater 

than a six-year fire return interval, is not restoring the 

ecosystem, and is marginally helpful with fuel and smoke 

management. When looking across the entire ownership 

on a 235,000-acre basis, the same pattern is illustrated 

with a third of the forest without any fire management, 

another third with very marginal fuel management, 
Tools for Fire Management 151

and a final third—where fire frequency is approaching 

historic norms—ecosystem restoration is eminent, 

fuel loads are being managed, and smoke is mitigated 

(fig. 4). Moving forward using this tool to summarize 

cumulative effect of fire events, managers will be able to 

improve decisions on where prescribed fire is utilized by 

concentrating resources where restoration can be achieved 

then expanding outward from a core of fire maintained 

habitats. 

Fire management is constrained by resources, weather, 

personnel, air sheds, and smoke management concerns. 

In order to address these limitations, it is useful to 

know the legacy of previous fire management actions 

and a generalized knowledge of fuel accumulation, 

fire frequency, and seasonality of previous prescribed 

fire events when planning. Monitoring the extent and 

condition of fire events is critical information that can be 

used to make better decisions and focus limited resources 

to achieve desired future conditions. 

Go to www.cafms.org/fft to download the tool. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Carl Beyerhelm for devising the best code. 

Eric Schmeckpeper, Blake Morris, Stanley Glover, Mary 

Rodgers, and Karen McKenzie aided and abetted this 

project. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Bale, A. 2009. Fire effects and litter accumulation dynamics in a 

montane longleaf pine ecosystem. M.S. Thesis. Columbia, MO: 

Univerity of Missouri-Columbia. 114 p.

Costanza, J.K.; Weiss, J.; Moody A. 2013. Examining the knowingdoing gap in the conservation of fire-dependent ecosystem. 

Biological Conservation. 158: 107-115.

Heirs, J.H.; Laine, S.C.; Bachant, J.J. [and others]. 2003. Simple 

spatial modeling tool for prioritizing prescribed burning activities 

at the landscape scale. Conservation Biology. 17: 1571-1578.

Melvin, M.A. 2012. 2012 National prescribed fire use survey report. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Coalition of Prescribed Fire 

Councils, Inc. Technical Report 01-12. 19 p.

Shankman, D.; Wills, D.K. 1995. Pre-European settlement forest 

communities of the Talladega Mountains, Alabama. Southeastern 

Geographer. 35: 118-131. 

 Table 1—Percentage of average annualized fi re 

frequency by 2-year intervals for the 150,000 acres 

under fi re management from 1990 to 2012 and for the 

entire 235,000 acre ownership

Fire frequency 150K 235K

---- percent ----

< 2 years 1 1

2.1-4.0 years 16 10

4.1-6.0 years 17 10

6.1-8.0 years 30 19

8.1-12.0 years 2 1

12.1- 22 years 34 22

No fi re 0 36

100 100

Figure 1—Map in 1823 prior to extirpation of Creek and 

Cherokee Indian Nations identifying the area as an 

“extensive pine forest.”
152 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 2—Fuel accumulation (rough accumulation) illustrated as time since last fired from 1990 to 2012. 
Tools for Fire Management 153

Figure 3—Declining trend in dormant season (October-March) 

wildfires from 1985 to 2012 illustrating the impact of fuels 

management on the Talladega Division. 
154 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 4—Annualized average fire frequency for the Talladega Division from 1990 to 2012.
Tools for Fire Management 155

INTRODUCTION

Beginning in 2006, the Monitoring Trends in Burn 

Severity (MTBS) project was tasked to map and assess 

burn severity for all “large” fires across the United 

States from 1984 to the present using 30-meter Landsat 

imagery (Eidenshink and others 2007). Federal fire 

occurrence data (FOD) from 2004 were used to estimate 

the magnitude of the nationwide fire occurrence as well 

as the staffing and data resources required to meet MTBS 

project objectives. Based upon this analysis, minimum 

size constraints were imposed: 1000 acres in the West 

and 500 acres in the East. At the outset of the MTBS 

project, Landsat imagery was not free, so there were 

constraints the on the number of Landsat scenes that 

could be purchased in a given year. Consequently, many 

fires identified in the FOD could not be reliably mapped 

because optimal imagery could not be obtained. 

Since 2004, the annual number of fire occurrences in the 

FOD has grown because of better fire event reporting, 

which has led to more fires being mapped and the 

subsequent need for more resources to map fires (table 

1). Some of these wildfire and prescribed fire records 

were duplicates as multiple agencies reported the same 

fire. As awareness of the MTBS program grew, State 

fire management agencies, primarily in the Southeastern 

United States began to provide records of fire occurrence. 

However, due to the magnitude of the additional fire 

events, the project decided to postpone assessment of the 

State reported prescribed fires until all historical Federal 

fires had been completed. By 2010, the yearly FOD 

contained many more fire records in comparison with the 

2004 (table 1). Of the 1,249 mapped fires for 2010, 1,134 

were mapped as “initial” assessments (i.e., using imagery 

collected shortly after the fire was out because the fire 

scar quickly fades from the landscape), and 115 were 

mapped as “extended” assessments (i.e., using postfire 

imagery acquired usually in the year following the fire in 

order to assess recovery and delayed mortality). 

In 2008, the Landsat archive was opened for free 

distribution. This provided an opportunity to investigate 

thousands of historical fire records that were originally 

declared “unmappable” due to imagery constraints. It 

became apparent that MTBS processing methods need 

to be improved to efficiently process large numbers of 

fires for both current and future fire assessments and for 

a better assessment of historical fire occurrence. More 

specifically:

1. There needed to be an automated method for 

identifying fire events. Each year, MTBS uses the 

FOD information from the previous year to guide the 

USE OF MULTI-SENSOR ACTIVE FIRE DETECTIONS TO MAP FIRES IN THE 

UNITED STATES: THE FUTURE OF MONITORING TRENDS IN BURN SEVERITY

Joshua Picotte, Michael Coan, and Stephen Howard1

Abstract—The effort to utilize satellite-based MODIS, AVHRR, and GOES fire detections from the Hazard Monitoring 

System (HMS) to identify undocumented fires in Florida and improve the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) 

mapping process has yielded promising results. This method was augmented using regression tree models to identify 

burned/not-burned pixels (BnB) in every Landsat scene (1984–2012) in Worldwide Referencing System 2 Path/Rows 16/40, 

17/39, and 1839. The burned area delineations were combined with the HMS detections to create burned area polygons 

attributed with their date of fire detection. Within our study area, we processed 88,000 HMS points (2003–2012) and 1,800 

Landsat scenes to identify approximately 300,000 burned area polygons. Six percent of these burned area polygons were 

larger than the 500-acre MTBS minimum size threshold. From this study, we conclude that the process can significantly 

improve understanding of fire occurrence and improve the efficiency and timeliness of assessing its impacts upon the 

landscape. 

1 Joshua Picotte is Fire Specialist, ASRC Federal InuTeq, Contractor to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Earth Resources Observation and Science 

(EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198. Worked performed under USGS contract G13PC00028. 

Michael Coan is Senior Scientist, Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Contractor to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Earth Resources Observation and 

Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198. Worked performed under USGS contract G10AC00044. 

Stephen Howard is Geographer, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
156 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

mapping program. This time lag is due to the need for 

individual agencies to finalize the current year’s fire 

records and for MTBS to compile the finalized records. 

Mapping, review, and preparation for distribution 

take more time. Therefore, it can be almost two years 

before the annual burn severity products are available. 

This delay is problematic for users who depend on 

MTBS fire records to evaluate important fire-related 

disturbance and ecological change. 

2. A complete record of fire events is needed. When 

mapping known fires, MTBS is required to map any 

“discovered” fires, i.e., those meeting MTBS size 

requirements but not reported in the FOD. Since 2006, 

over 17,000 fires have been mapped by MTBS and 

more than 2,200 were discovered during the process 

of mapping known fires. These discovered fires may 

actually be undocumented or exist in the FOD but have 

an error of location and/or date. Because we only look 

at scenes for fires identified within the FOD, we suspect 

there are many fires yet to be discovered, especially in 

the historical era. Early historical fire record keeping 

was inconsistent, error prone, and not comprehensive. 

The latter is an issue especially in the southeastern 

States, which have a long tradition of widespread 

prescribed burning. Therefore, a method that does not 

rely upon human-recorded tabular data is needed.

3. A more efficient method is needed for the selection 

of imagery to complete the burn severity assessment. 

The MTBS mapping protocol involves an analysis of 

a prefire image in conjunction with a postfire image 

acquired up to one year postfire in order to assess the 

impacts of the fire, allowing for postfire recovery or 

mortality to be expressed. The current scene selection 

process is very labor intensive and compromised by 

online browse imagery with low resolution: fires near 

the MTBS size threshold are difficult to see, so it is 

hard for an analyst to confirm that the FOD point 

actually falls on a fire in the image.

4. The MTBS protocol must be applicable for all fires. 

Local land managers and fire ecologists are interested 

in fires that are below MTBS size thresholds. They will 

need a way to find and assess these fires.

METHODS

Study Area

We obtained the historical fire records for three national 

forests in Florida: the Apalachicola, Osceola, and Ocala 

(fig. 1). These forests were chosen because of their 

complete burn histories (1984–2012) and because of the 

large number of prescribed burns conducted during this 

time frame. They are located within three Landsat Path/

Rows in the Southern Coastal Plain, a region with a long 

history of prescribed burning for clearing undergrowth, 

reducing hardwood encroachment into pinelands, and 

promoting various wildlife species (fig. 1). Hundreds of 

prescribed fires occur each year within this area. 

Inputs

Hazard Mapping System Fire Detections— The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Hazard Mapping System (HMS) utilizes satellitebased fire and smoke detections that are collected 

daily by GOES, AVHRR, and MODIS sensors. The 

detections are logged as point locations and utilized by 

NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory to model the next 

48 hour’s potential smoke emissions and dispersion 

across North America (Ruminski and others 2006). 

Frequent observations, as often as every 15 minutes 

(Zhang and others 2011), allow for a more timely and 

spatially complete record of fire occurrence than is 

available from Federal and State fire records. Daily HMS 

observations have been archived since 2003, which will 

support retrospective assessments. Operationally, the 

daily observations are quality checked by NOAA HMS 

analysts to remove commission errors and add fires visible 

within the imagery that were not detected by the sensors 

(Ruminski and others 2006). These data are posted 

weekly and available online for six months. All post2011 HMS data were downloaded from the HMS website 

(http://satepsanone.nesdis.noaa.gov/FIRE/fire.html). HMS 

data prior to 2011 were obtained from NOAA. 

Landsat-Derived Burned Area Polygons—During the 

development phase of this project, the burned/not-burned 

(BnB) methodology was developed to automatically 

generate burned area perimeters from Landsat imagery. 

A number of previously mapped MTBS fires in the 

three Paths/Rows of interest were selected. The fires 

events chosen represented a variety of vegetation types, 

phenological seasonality, burn severity ranges, and 

geographic distribution over these Path/Rows. Landsat 

imagery was chosen that best represented the freshly 

burned extent of each fire. MTBS burn severity images, 

produced by the methodology described in Eidenshink 

and others (2007), were used to identify areas of low, 

moderate, and high severity within each fire event. Each 

fire was sampled throughout its range of burn severity 

as well as was surrounding unburned vegetation. All 

samples were combined into a training dataset to 

create a regression tree model, which is a collection of 

multivariate linear models (Cubist; Rulequest Research 

2004). The regression tree model was then run using 

selected Landsat imagery to create a “likelihood estimate” 

that each pixel was recently burned. The continuous 

estimate (1-100) was thresholded at a selected value (i.e., 

95 and above) to standardize all the image estimates and 

create a binary thematic product identifying burned pixels 

in each Landsat image (1984–2012). Because clouds and 
Tools for Fire Management 157

shadows in Landsat imagery can obscure portions of fire 

perimeter, our approach combines all available Landsat 

imagery to fully delineate a fire perimeter. 

The accurate fire perimeters are delineated using Landsat, 

validated by the presence of an HMS point, and labeled 

with the correct fire date determined by the HMS record. 

The burned area polygons provide spatially accurate 

data, but the temporal resolution is limited to 16 or 8 days 

depending on satellite availability. Using the capabilities 

of spatially enabled open source PostgreSQL/PostGIS 

software, we combine the temporal strengths of the HMS 

data and the spatial strengths of Landsat imagery to 

determine the start date and spatial extent of a fire.

Open Source Software—One goal of this effort is to 

freely distribute data processing scripts developed for 

this project. We utilized open source (http://www.osgeo.

org) PostgreSQL/PostGIS (http://www.postgresql, http://

postgis.net) to process all data and Quantum GIS (QGIS; 

http://www.qgis.org) to view the data. PostgreSQL is 

a relational database that can be spatially enabled by 

coupling it with the PostGIS extension. Complex queries 

can be performed in PostgreSQL to determine the spatial 

relationships of objects.

Data Processing

Landsat image processing methods currently used by 

MTBS involves several steps. Each terrain-corrected 

(L1t) scene is downloaded from the U.S Geological 

Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and 

Science (EROS) Center’s image archive by the analyst. 

The imagery is then corrected to top of atmosphere 

reflectance, reprojected from UTM to Albers Equal Area, 

and processed to create a Normalized Burn Ratio (NBR) 

image. To increase our image processing throughput, the 

USGS Land Satellites Data System Science Research and 

Development Project and the EROS Science Processing 

Architecture (ESPA) system used processing scripts to 

process 1,800 Landsat scenes covering our study area. All 

Landsat 5 TM and Landsat 7 ETM+ reflectance images, 

water, cloud, and cloud shadow masks were created by 

ESPA. This Landsat imagery was used to determine 

possible burned areas using the Landsat burned area 

delineation described above. 

To accurately date each burned area, we utilized 

PostgreSQL/PostGIS queries to determine whether HMS 

points were within 1,500 m of the Landsat-derived fire 

perimeters and if they were correctly associated with 

the proper Landsat acquisition (i.e., dated no more than 

8 days prior to the Landsat acquisition first showing 

the burned area polygon). It is likely that a fire could be 

obscured by clouds in several Landsat overpasses before 

it is visible. More sophisticated queries can be created to 

determine precise HMS dates; however, the burned area 

polygons are sufficient to identify a “probable” fire.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Approximately 1,800 Landsat images (1984–2012) and 

88,000 HMS points (2003–2012) were assessed for 

Paths/Rows 16/40, 17/39, and 18/39. Within these Paths/

Rows, we identified approximately 300,000 burned area 

polygons. The average size of these fires was 257 acres, 

and almost 18,000 fire polygons exceeded the MTBS 

500-acre minimum threshold. By comparison, MTBS 

mapped 1,400 fires covering the 1984–2011 time period. 

This suggests there are many unreported prescribed fires 

above the MTBS size thresholds. However, the southeast 

region is probably a “worst case scenario” as prescribed 

fires are not nearly as common in the Western United 

States. Additionally, it is clear this approach identifies 

many smaller fires; however, we have not yet determined 

the minimum fire size threshold that can be reliably 

delineated and mapped.

To determine the reliability of the results, we visually 

compared the data to the U.S. Forest Service National 

Forests of Florida (Apalachicola, Ocala, and Osceola) 

fire records. We found the fires identified by the burned 

area delineation process closely matched National Forest 

records. We identified potentially more MTBS-sized 

fires than were assessed by MTBS (fig. 2), and for the 

post-2003 fires, the dates of occurrence were effectively 

determined by HMS (fig. 3). Further, the burned area 

perimeters better represented the overall fire patterns and 

should provide more accurate estimates of burned acreage 

because MTBS does not delineate unburned islands 

within the overall perimeter (fig. 2). 

After reviewing the burned area products, we determined 

that some of the burned pixels were detected within 

urban areas, harvested cropland, and seasonally flooded 

areas. MTBS is not concerned with cropland, but these 

areas can be set aside for anyone who has interest in 

burnable agriculture. Some actual commission errors 

occurred, apparently due to confusion with freshly plowed 

agricultural ground, clear cuts, and special types of 

wetland vegetation in senescence. No effort was made at 

this time to separate these from the truly burned areas. 

A refinement of burned croplands vs. plowed ground, 

and burned emergent wetlands vs. senescent vegetation, 

are potential problems. A majority of the urban area 

confusion appears to have a seasonal (solar angle) 

component that might be addressed by application of a 

seasonally tuned regression tree model. 

For MTBS, it is necessary to identify the best prefire 

and postfire Landsat images in order to create the burn 

severity assessments. In the past, MTBS analysts reviewed 
158 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

low resolution browse imagery. This has been improved 

utilizing ESPA processing system, which searched the 

Landsat archive and retrieved candidate scenes and 

clipped them based upon a bounding box derived from 

the automatically generated burned area perimeter. The 

full resolution image subsets provide analysts with a more 

detailed view of the data than was previously possible 

with the low resolution browse images.

MTBS Viewer Tool and Automation

All the candidate full resolution Landsat image clips 

are loaded into a Google Earth® KML and viewed with 

the MTBS QuickLook tool (fig. 4). The QuickLook tool 

allows analysts to rapidly review the Landsat clips to 

determine if the detection is in fact a fire and then to 

record the optimal scenes for the severity assessment, 

whether the assessment type will be initial (within several 

months) or extended (at peak of green the following 

season), and the vegetation type in which the fire 

occurred. All information entered into the QuickLook 

tool is stored in a PostgreSQL database.

ESPA processing eliminates many of the image 

preprocessing steps outlined in the “Processing” section 

above. Currently, MTBS burn severity processing 

scripts are run manually after analysts select and order 

the optimal scenes and make other critical processing 

decisions (e.g., initial vs. extended). These critical 

analyst processing decisions are collected by the MTBS 

QuickLook tool and will be used to automatically drive 

the MTBS process using the existing scripts: creation 

of the differenced NBR (dNBR) and Relativized dNBR 

(RdNBR) images which form the basis of the thematic 

burn severity map.

Furthermore, we have completed regionally based 

analyses of all 1984–2010 historical MTBS analystdetermined burn severity breakpoints for each vegetation 

type (Fry and others 2011) throughout the Unites States to 

determine the regional average burn severity breakpoints 

for each vegetation type. These breakpoints will be used 

to automatically create preliminary MTBS burn severity 

products. MTBS analysts will then review preliminary/

default burn severity products with the next iteration of 

the automation process.

Potential Improvements 

to Current MTBS Process

This project has the potential to improve the MTBS fire 

perimeter and burn severity mapping process. The overall 

effect of these improvements is to enable the processing 

of many more fires that would have been previously too 

time-consuming and expensive to undertake. Further 

testing of the automated procedures and subsequent 

product outputs still needs to be completed; however, 

the basic automated processing framework has been 

developed. This current project worked on a small subset 

of the total footprint of the United States that will need 

to be processed if burn perimeters and severity are to be 

mapped on a nationwide scale. The methods will be tested 

in other regions as resources are available.

We anticipate that the previously described automated 

fire perimeter mapping, creation of thresholded burn 

severity images, and subsequent review of all products 

should increase the MTBS mapping capabilities. MTBS 

will be able to map and review fires more quickly, 

thereby reducing production time and cost. MTBS may 

subsequently be able to decrease the current fire mapping 

thresholds 1,000 acres in the Western United Staes to 

increase its mapping capabilities. Overall, this would 

result in the production of a more complete fire history 

within the United States. 

Generally, MTBS fire products become available within 

two years after fire occurrence. This production timing 

is purposely structured in this manner to allow for the 

mapping of extended fire assessments and a rigorous 

quality control process to ensure that all mapped 

fires meet MTBS’s stringent mapping requirements. 

If the MTBS project is able to complete the current 

mapping output in less time, it may be possible to map 

initial assessments of fires in near real-time. Under 

this paradigm, MTBS would use HMS fire detections 

in conjunction with recent postfire Landsat BnB fire 

perimeters to automatically map fire perimeters. 

Automated processes would generate thresholded burn 

severity products. All products would be reviewed for 

accuracy and revised as needed by MTBS analysts using 

the QuickLook viewer. This process would be different 

from the current MTBS mapping process because it 

would create initial assessments of burn severity for the 

entire United States. Subsequent extended assessments 

of burn severity for the United States would be mapped 

using the original MTBS protocols. 

In addition to improving the MTBS process, we expect 

that the HMS and BnB combined fire perimeter mapping 

protocols will generate products useful to managers of 

public and private lands. Many more mapped fires will 

subsequently become available. Better geospatial records 

should inform land managers’ decisions when attempting 

to reduce wildfire risk and managing fire-adapted 

ecosystems with prescribed fire.

CONCLUSION

Our protocols provide a useful methodology for 

determining previously unknown burned areas within the 

Southeastern United States. These products will provide 

MTBS with potential fire perimeters that can then be used 

to drive the semi-automated procedures that result in the 
Tools for Fire Management 159

more efficient identification of suitable Landsat imagery 

and production of burn severity products. Although 

MTBS will not assess fires that are less than 500 acres, 

these fire perimeters can provide land managers with 

a more complete resource then is currently available to 

monitor the actual extent and acreage of wildfires and 

prescribed fires on their lands. In the future, there is the 

potential that these project methodologies could be used 

to identify potential fire perimeters at near real-time as 

new Landsat images become available for the continental 

United States. This would work towards the creation of a 

national fire atlas.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this work was provided by NASA ROSES 

grant NNH11ZDA001N and MTBS. We would especially 

like to thank Jason Drake and the U.S. Forest Service 

National Forests of Florida for their help in providing 

base data and product evaluation, Krishna Bhattarai for 

testing the capabilities of the MTBS QuickLook tool, and 

Jeffrey Eidenshink and Birgit Peterson for reviewing this 

manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Eidenshink, J.; Schwind, B.; Brewer, K. [and others]. 2007. A 

project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire Ecology. 

3(1): 3-21.

Fry, J.A.; Xian, G.; Jin, S. [and others]. 2011. Completion of the 

2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United 

States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 

77: 858-864.

Rulequest Research. 2004. Data mining tools. http://www.rulequest.

com/ [Online] (verified 23 September, 2014). 

Ruminski, M.; Kondragunta, S.; Draxler, R. [and others]. 2006. 

Recent changes to the hazard mapping system. In: Reinventing 

Inventories: New Ideas in New Orleans: Proceedings of the 15th 

International Emission Inventory Conference [Online]. [Place of 

publication unknown]. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conferences.

html. [Date accessed: January 17, 2014].

Zhang, X.; Kondragunta, S.; Quayle, B. 2011. Estimation of biomass 

burned areas using multiple-satellite-observed active fires. 

IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 49(11): 

4469-4482.

Figure 1—Location of the Apalachicola (A.), Osceola (B.), and 

Ocala (C.) National Forests (red). Dashed gray lines indicate 

the approximate Landsat WRS2 Path/Row locations for 18/39 

(nearest A.), 17/39 (nearest B.) and 16/40 (nearest C.).

Table 1—FOD tallies and total number of MTBS fi res 

that were assessed in 2004 and 2010

FOD 

year

Federal 

fi re 

records

Total 

fi res 

mapped

Wildfi res 

mapped

Prescribed 

fi res 

mapped

2004 1,257 427 326 101

2010 3,164 1,249 309 940
160 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 2—Example of 2011 compiled burned area fire polygons (orange) and their proximity to the MTBS Fire 

Occurrence Database (FOD) fire perimeters (black). MTBS fire perimeters without any associated orange 

polygons result from the FOD fire perimeters being derived from 2012 Landsat imagery. The yellow circle in 

the left image denotes the location of the enlarged fire perimeter shown in the right image and a more precise 

delineation of the burned area when compared to the MTBS perimeter.

Figure 3—Example of 924-acre burned area polygon (yellow) derived from Landsat scene 

dated 7/6/2012 and corresponding HMS fire detections (red dots) from 6/29/2012.
Tools for Fire Management 161

Figure 4—Screen shot of the MTBS QuickLook Web-enabled viewing and analyst data entry tool used to store information 

about each fire assessment.
162 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

manages 193 million acres of forests and grasslands. The 

Southern Region of the Forest Service encompasses 13 

States and Puerto Rico, including 14 National forests and 

two special units. Unlike some other areas of the country 

(e.g., the Western United States), most of the South is 

privately owned. The Forest Service manages only 13.3 

million acres in this region, which is also referred to as 

Region 8. Across the agency, prescribed fire is a common 

management tool and nowhere is it more prevalent than in 

the Southern Region. In 2012, Region 8 burned 885,112 

acres.2

 In comparison, the rest of the agency burned 

84,448 acres (National Interagency Fire Center 2014). The 

region that makes up about seven percent of the agency’s 

land base burned more than 91 percent of the total 

prescribed fire acres. State agencies in the south ignited 

millions more. Controlled burning is critical in the fireadapted South because fire is an essential disturbance for 

natural systems and when intentionally applied also helps 

protect landowners from the threat of damaging wildfires.

While the South is very fire-adapted, it is also vegetatively 

diverse. Region 8’s States are covered by Braun’s (1950) 

southeastern evergreen, oak-pine, oak-chestnut, mixed 

mesophytic, western mesophytic, and oak-hickory forest 

regions (Puerto Rico is not a focus of this discussion). 

Within Region 8’s physiographic regions—including the 

Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, Piedmont, Appalachian 

Mountains, and the Interior Highlands—plant 

composition varies greatly. Coastal plain communities 

were historically dominated by longleaf pine; piedmont 

by shortleaf pine and a variety of oaks; and upland areas 

were or still are oaks, mesic hardwoods, and yellow pines. 

But even within these general groups, diversity is the 

rule rather than the exception. Topography, precipitation, 

historic land use, and disturbance regimes, including 

fire, contribute to the patterns of vegetation across the 

landscape.

National forests are located in each of the vegetative and 

physiographic divisions. Each forest currently prescribeburns anywhere from a few thousand to more than a 

hundred thousand acres annually. However, in most of 

the region, fire had been absent as a landscape-scale 

disturbance for decades before being reintroduced. 

Managers recognize the need for fire, but because it is a 

relatively new management practice for this generation, 

they often are unsure of the nuances of fire application 

and effects. In the time since fire was removed from the 

landscape, vegetation has changed; simply putting fire 

back at a certain return interval does not necessarily 

achieve a desired future condition. Fire management 

officers (FMOs) track changes over time and movement 

towards desired conditions. Until recently, there was a 

paucity of fire ecology research in the Eastern United 

States. FMOs indicated that existing research often was 

not specific to the situations found on a particular forest. 

Effective land management is difficult without utilizing 

current and applicable monitoring or research.

MULTI-PARTY MONITORING—A GOOD TOOL FOR MANAGERS

Beth Buchanan1

Abstract—The use of prescribed fire has increased dramatically over the last 15 years in the Appalachian Mountains; 

managers are interested in tracking the effects of their fire programs. Since the mid-1990s, Southern Region National 

forests have been required to collect data on fuels and vegetation in permanent plots. However, lack of personnel dedicated 

to this effort has limited the number of plots each forest is capable of maintaining. Thus, National forests are encouraged 

to work across boundaries and share information with neighboring districts, National forests, and agencies with similar 

burn prescriptions and monitoring types to increase the size of datasets. We discuss the results of this endeavor, including 

recommendations for improving this approach. In general, data collected in such a manner can be used at least to document 

trends, which can be used to supplement the more-rigorous research projects which now are becoming more commonplace. 

Fire effects monitoring completed internally by firefighters and other employees offers multiple benefits to the local units.

1

Beth Buchanan, Regional Fire Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Roanoke, VA 24066

2

Personal Communication. 2013. Calvin L. Miller, Operations Coordinator-Aviation, Southern Area Coordination Center, 1200 Ashwood Parkway, 

Suite 230, Atlanta, GA 30338. 

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Tools for Fire Management 163

Because of the diversity of vegetation, fuels, fire regimes, 

and fire behavior, fire personnel need to understand fire 

effects in relation to fire prescription. In 2003, Region 

8 FMOs asked for direction with regard to internal data 

collection within permanent plots in order to document 

local changes as well as to educate new employees with 

regard to fire effects. Ultimately, they wanted local 

data that answered their questions, in language they 

understood.

Monitoring the effects of prescribed fire is essential for 

documenting movement toward a desired future condition 

and tracking changes. Data provide the scientific basis 

for planning and implementing future burn treatments. 

Monitoring is a critical part of the adaptive management 

cycle, an iterative feedback loop that allows prescribed 

fire managers to alter management if objectives are not 

achieved. It is, in effect, learning by doing.

FIRE EFFECTS MONITORING 

IN FOREST SERVICE REGION 8

In 2003, a regional team recommended a program of 

monitoring prescribed fire effects to be implemented 

within the Southern Region. The team developed 

monitoring direction for National forests across Region 

8, facilitating a uniform standard of data collection 

associated with prescribed fire. Those standards include 

methods to evaluate fuel reduction and vegetative effects. 

The recommended protocols allow flexibility within 

National forests and geographic areas to determine the 

amount and extent of monitoring needed to meet local 

issues of concern, while still maintaining a minimum 

standard dataset. Most protocols and datasheets rely 

heavily on those described in the National Park Service’s 

Fire Monitoring Handbook (FMH) (USDI National 

Park Service 2003). Since 2004, fire effects monitoring 

has been required work on National forests in Region 8 

(USDA Forest Service 2011a).

National forests receive direction on where to install plots, 

how many to install, and what data shall be collected 

(USDA Forest Service 2011b). Collecting the data via 

standard protocols and using the recommended plot size 

are encouraged, although National forests have the option 

to use different protocols and plot sizes, as long as the 

minimum data are collected.

Plots are installed in a stratified random method. Strata 

are defined as “monitoring types,” or areas of similar 

vegetation, fuels, burn prescription, and management 

history. Plots are installed randomly within monitoring 

types. National forests are encouraged to work together 

to define monitoring types, to facilitate data sharing 

across unit boundaries. Each forest district is instructed 

to install two permanent monitoring plots per year, in the 

monitoring types of their choice. The agency recognizes 

that such a small number of annual plots generates 

concern in that the vegetation and weather conditions 

inherently vary from year to year, but the Forest Service 

does not employ dedicated monitoring personnel; 

monitoring is but one of many job duties for each data 

collector. Thus, the number was a compromise that would 

allow some data to be collected with minimal interference 

with other duties. Trends can be documented in these 

burn units, even if the monitoring results cannot prove 

statistically valid changes.

Vegetation and fuel data are collected at each visit. Trees 

are documented by species, density, diameter at breast 

height (dbh), mortality, and damage. Live tree seedling 

(all trees <2 inches at dbh or less than 4.5 feet tall) density 

is also tracked by species. Understory cover in classes 

is recorded by lifeform, including grass and grass-like, 

ferns, other forbs, woody shrubs, and vines. Individual 

species and/or species groups of special interest are also 

recorded. Examples are mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)

and great rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), 

which are important because of their role in fire behavior, 

and nonnative invasive species including Microstegium

vimineum. National forests track dead and down fuels 

in size classes and also record litter and duff depth. A 

minimum of four photos is taken at each visit. Plots are 

visited the growing season before each burn, and then 

revisited multiple growing seasons following the burn. 

In addition, plots are visited immediately post-burn to 

document fuel consumption and severity.

PARTNERSHIPS

Over half the National forests in Region 8 have joined 

the U.S. Fire Learning Network (FLN), a federallyfunded initiative to decrease barriers to restoring fire on 

the landscape. Collaborative planning, implementation, 

adaptive management, and the sharing of lessons learned 

are at the core of the FLN. One of the most commonly 

cited barriers is the lack of local fire ecology data to 

inform the fire management program, and consequently 

the National forests often also work with partners on 

monitoring projects. Districts are encouraged to work 

together internally (intra- and inter-forest) in order to 

improve the expertise level and increase the workforce, as 

well as sample size. Additionally, some National forests 

work with external agency partners in the FLN including 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC); the National Park 

Service, which employs permanent monitoring crews; and 

other agencies who are similarly strapped for time and 

funding.
164 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Some National forests have dedicated a position to 

oversee fire effects monitoring on the districts. Those 

National forests and districts that recognize the value 

of monitoring tend to devote the most resources toward 

this program. For example, the Cherokee National 

Forest (Tennessee) has installed about 40 0.2-acre plots 

beginning in 2002. The plots are mainly in oak and 

yellow pine monitoring types and have been tracked 

through several prescribed fire applications. Program 

oversight, including data entry, quality control, and 

plot visit scheduling, comes from the forest level. The 

Unaka District shares the workload with National Park 

Service partners from the Southern Appalachian fire 

effects monitoring crew based in neighboring Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP, North 

Carolina and Tennessee). Since datasheets and collection 

methodologies are very similar, there is quick adaptation 

to the work assignment. In addition to more expedient 

data collection, the forest personnel exchange valuable 

fire behavior and effects observations with partners. Both 

the Cherokee National Forest and GSMNP are active 

members of the Southern Blue Ridge FLN, which allows 

both sets of data to be incorporated into a much larger 

dataset encompassing the same monitoring types across 

the southern Appalachians.

The Southern Blue Ridge FLN partnership includes, 

along with previously mentioned units, the Nantahala 

and Pisgah National Forests (North Carolina), the 

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest (Georgia), and the 

Francis Marion-Sumter National Forest (South Carolina). 

Other major partners include TNC and several State 

agencies in each of these States (in particular, North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission), and Land 

Trust for the Little Tennessee, a conservation owner 

working in the same landscape. In addition to data being 

collected by these agencies and organizations, the FLN 

funds Forest Stewards, Inc. (FSI), to more than double 

the number of permanent plots on these lands. FSI is 

headed by a professor at Western Carolina University 

(North Carolina), who is working with the Forest Service 

Southern Research Station to analyze the data for the 

four-state area. 

The neighboring George Washington and Jefferson 

National Forests (GWJNF, Virginia), in the central 

mountains, is a member of the Appalachian FLN. This 

network is active in Virginia and West Virginia. The 

GWJNF is similarly working with their primary fire 

effects monitoring partner, TNC of Virginia. Through 

a cost-share agreement, TNC employees work closely 

with all the districts of the GWJNF, using identical 

protocols, datasheets, and plot placement decisions. 

Their interagency monitoring working group had a 

very productive 2013 with progress made on a number 

of projects, especially revision of the collaborativelydeveloped Forest Structure and Composition (FSC) 

monitoring protocol and data forms. Revisions included 

editing monitoring goals and measureable objectives 

that can be referenced in burn plans and development 

of standardized data entry forms for Feat and Firemon 

Integrated (FFI) (Lutes and others 2009). FFI is a free 

software program for ecological monitoring which 

includes components for data entry, data storage, 

Geographic Information System, summary reports, and 

analysis. The most current versions of the FSC protocols 

and data forms can be found on the Conservation 

Gateway Web site. Significant progress was also made 

entering a backlog of previously collected data, with 

55 percent of pre- and/or post-burn visits to the 0.01-

acre plots monitored by TNC and the GWJNF into FFI. 

After five years of plot installation, the partnership 

has 330 plots in three monitoring types analogous and 

easily cross-walked to the monitoring types used in the 

Southern Blue Ridge. A next step for this network will 

be to determine whether more plots should be installed in 

any of the monitoring types.

The Ozark and Ouachita National Forests (Arkansas 

and Oklahoma) are active members in the South Central 

FLN, and have been working with TNC of Arkansas 

and many other partners to collect data since 2003. For 

example, more than 120 fire effects monitoring plots have 

been established across the Big Piney and Pleasant Hill 

Ranger Districts. Plots also have been established on the 

Sylamore and Boston Mountain Ranger Districts. Data is 

entered into FFI and may be combined in the future with 

data from similar monitoring types in the central and 

southern Appalachians for a meta-analysis across the oak 

and yellow pine systems.

Regardless of land ownership, burn plans include 

objectives such as reducing litter depth, increasing 

density of oak and pine seedlings, and reducing small 

dbh non-fire-adapted trees. Across all three Fire 

Learning Networks, data analysis is under way. Data 

in the South Central FLN indicate that fire is moving 

landscapes toward desired future conditions. Analysis is 

less complete in the other two FLNs, though managers 

observe positive changes across their landscapes. 

SUMMARY

Prescribed fire is being increasingly reintroduced across 

the southern landscape. Only within the last ten years 

have managers had access to much fire ecology literature 

for landscapes outside the Coastal Plain, to help inform 

their fire management decisions. Even now that research 

is much more widely available, managers often would 

prefer to have data collected on their own unit and to be 
Tools for Fire Management 165

involved with the process. In 2004, National forests in the 

Southern Region received direction to collect fire effects 

monitoring data for vegetative strata ranging from the 

understory to the canopy, as well as for dead and down 

fuels. Managers also were advised to capture change 

using photo points. Plots are permanent and are remeasured on a schedule which is dependent on time since 

last treatment. All data is entered into FFI in order to 

facilitate sharing and also because this program provides 

basic statistical analyses that are easily interpreted by 

managers.

It has become apparent that regardless of good intentions, 

some National forests are unable to dedicate a position 

to oversee the fire effects monitoring at the forest level. 

Thus, the regional program has become one in which 

the units with the time, personnel, and interest are the 

ones with quality datasets. Additionally, National forests 

recognize that sharing data across unit borders is critical 

to increase the size of datasets and correspondingly 

reduce the variability within them. With the help and 

encouragement of partners—the FLN in particular—

units work together to describe monitoring types, 

establish desired future conditions, define protocols, 

synchronize monitoring visits, and enter and analyze 

data. Each time managers work across boundaries, 

relationships are strengthened, trust is garnered, and 

information is exchanged. When they are collecting data, 

firefighters are given the chance to observe the changes 

to the landscape, without needing to focus attention on 

other management tasks. They can visually connect the 

fire effects to the fire application techniques, and their 

sense of ownership of and commitment to the project 

increases. When managers compare notes, whether in 

the field or via analyses, they improve the corporate fire 

ecology knowledge base amongst all their partners. In 

the near future, fire effects databases will be merged and 

analyzed, and compared with research projects in similar 

monitoring types, thus expanding our understanding of 

fire effects in the Southern United States.

LITERATURE CITED

Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. 

Philadelphia: Blakiston Co. 596 p.

Lutes, D.C.; Benson, N.C.; Keifer, M. [and others]. 2009. FFI: 

a software tool for ecological monitoring. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire. 18: 310-314. http://www.frames.

gov/files/6213/6631/8579/FFI_Overview.pdf. [Date accessed: 

January 9, 2014].

National Interagency Fire Center. 2014. [Homepage of National 

Interagency Fire Center]. http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_

stats_prescribed.html. [Date accessed: January 9, 2014].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2011a. 

[Homepage of Forest Service Manual Southern Region], 

[Online]. (2011, December 20). FSM 5100, Chapter 5140 Fire 

Management. R8-5140-2011-1. http://fsweb.r8.fs.fed.us/spf/fire/. 

[Date accessed: January 9, 2014].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2011b. 

[Homepage of Forest Service Manual Southern Region], 

[Online]. (2011, December 20). FSM 5100, Chapter 5140 Fire 

Management. R8-5140-2011-1, Included by reference. http://

fsweb.r8.fs.fed.us/spf/fire/documents/2011/SOUTHERN%20

REGION%20PRESCRIBED%20FIRE%20EFFECTS%20

MONITORING%20GUIDEBOOK%202011.pdf. [Date 

accessed: January 9, 2014].

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) National Park Service. 

2003. Fire Monitoring Handbook. Boise, ID: Fire Management 

Program Center, National Interagency Fire Center. 274 p.
166 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION

The acreage of land burned annually in the Appalachian 

region has increased steadily over the last thirty years, 

with the rate of increase nearly doubling in recent 

years (Lafon and others 2005). Projected increases 

in fire activity in the southeast due to climate change 

strongly suggest the area of recently burned land in the 

southern Appalachian Mountains is likely to continue 

increasing (Bachelet and others 2001). As a result, there 

will be a growing need for managers to understand the 

effects of fires returning to recently burned stands in 

relation to how repeated fire affects management goals. 

Unfortunately, information on re-burns in the southern 

Appalachian Mountains is limited (Arthur and others 

1998), and managers in the region can only use inference 

from past studies from the Western United States for 

insights into effects of previous fires on re-burn severity 

(Romme 1982, Thompson and others 2007). With little 

information available from within the region, it is difficult 

for land managers in the southern Appalachian region to 

understand variability and predict wildfire effects.

Past studies on areas subject to re-burn in the Western 

United States indicate that fire severity depends on 

the response of live fuels to carry fire (Romme 1982, 

Thompson and others 2007). The abundant pine 

regeneration and vigorous sprouting of hardwood trees 

and ericaceous shrubs typical after fire in the southern 

Appalachian Mountains suggest that live fuels may 

respond rapidly and are likely capable of carrying severe 

fire soon after an initial burn. In this scenario, young 

pine and oak regeneration may be destroyed prior to 

reaching maturity, and subsequent regeneration will 

depend on input of seeds from outside areas. However, if 

mature pines and oaks can survive them, higher severity 

re-burns may be more successful than initial burns at 

eliminating understory shrubs and saplings and reducing 

litter and duff depth. These effects would further promote 

regeneration of desirable species [e.g., Table Mountain 

Pine (Pinus pungens)] as well as promoting diversity in 

the understory. 

The occurrence of several large fires from 2000 to 2008 

in and around Linville Gorge, North Carolina afforded a 

unique opportunity to study how landscape characteristics 

and recent burn history (including sites that burned 

twice) interact to influence fire behavior in the southern 

Appalachian Mountains. The specific objectives of this 

study were to:

• Develop a field-based Composite Burn Index (CBI), 

based on readily obtainable litter and vegetative 

characteristics, to quantify fire severity.

• Use the CBI to examine severity patterns in areas 

subject to initial and repeated wildfire across major 

environmental gradients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Linville Gorge is in the Appalachian Mountains of 

western North Carolina and contains a 10,843-acre 

federally designated wilderness area. Steep slopes and 

complex topography within the gorge create a wide range 

of environmental gradients, which results in an extremely 

diverse landscape. From 2000 to 2008, five wildfires 

burned a large portion of the area in and surrounding 

Linville Gorge (fig. 1; table 1). The 2000 fire (a.k.a. the 

Linville Gorge Fire) was the first major surface fire in 

the area since the 1950s and burned approximately 4,000 

acres. In spring 2007, three separate fires (Pinnacle, 

Dobson Knob, Shortoff Mountain) burned a large portion 

of the landscape previously burned in 2000, as well 

as much of the remaining unburned area surrounding 

Linville Gorge. Another large wildfire (Sunrise) occurred 

in 2008 and burned much of the area immediately 

adjacent the area that burned in 2000 and 2007. 

A Composite Burn Index (CBI) was applied in 57 plots 

established across gradients of burn severity in Linville 

Gorge. The goal was to capture the full spectrum of fire 

impacts, from low to high severity, in sites burned once 

or twice. We used a modified version of the Fire Effects 

[Extended Abstract]

A CUMULATIVE FIRE SEVERITY INDEX 

FOR THE 2000-2008 LINVILLE GORGE WILDFIRES

Matthew Reilly, Donald Hagan, and Thomas A. Waldrop1

1

Matthew Reilly is a PhD candidate in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 

Donald Hagan is a Lecturer in the School of Agricultural, Forest, and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634

Thomas A. Waldrop is a Supervisory Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC 29634

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Tools for Fire Management 167

Inventory and Monitoring (FIREMON) protocol (Lutes 

and others 2006) to visually estimate fire effects in four 

categories within a 50-foot radius of plot center on a 300 

point scale. This slight modification of the FIREMON 

protocol allows variables of local importance to be used. 

The four categories were percent duff consumption, 

percent mortality of shrubs, percent mortality of 

subcanopy trees, and percent mortality of overstory trees. 

We then summed the fire effects scores for each category 

(maximum score=1200) to calculate CBI values for 

each plot. In order to test how well our remotely sensed 

estimates of fire severity predicted actual fire effects, 

we created regression models using RdNBR values and 

estimated wildfire effects for each year. A regression 

model was created for each year using the RdNBR and 

CBI values. The models were then applied to the RdNBR 

raster data for each year to create a spatial model of CBI 

values within each wildfire. All pixels in each wildfire 

were then sampled for CBI, elevation, slope, and aspect. 

We compared the distributions of CBI values across each 

of these gradients in each landscape. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All wildfires resulted in extremely heterogeneous 

patterns of fire severity across the landscape, ranging 

from low levels of litter consumption to total litter and 

duff consumption and complete midstory and canopy 

mortality. The distributions of CBI values over major 

environmental gradients were similar among each of 

the five burn units, although they were highly variable 

within each landscape. CBI values were generally higher 

in landscapes subject to repeated fire and showed similar 

patterns along gradients in elevation, slope, and aspect 

(figs. 2-4). Severity was highest at mid to upper elevation 

on steeper southwestern facing slopes in both cases but 

was generally higher in re-burned forests. 

We propose that re-burn severity in the southern 

Appalachians is higher due to the rapid response of live 

vegetation following initial fire. Abundant regeneration 

of conifers from serotinous cones, a dense layer of 

sprouting ericaceous vegetation, and large increases in 

herbaceous cover provide the fine fuels necessary to 

carry fire. Elevated amounts of dead and downed woods 

from mortality in the first fire provide larger fuels which 

increase residence time and heat output. However, if the 

second fire is soon enough after the first, the forest floor 

may not have had sufficient time to reach pre-burn levels, 

thus exposing soil and creating conditions of greater 

severity. 

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study highlight the utility of linking a 

field-derived burn severity index with remote sensing for 

assessing wildfire severity in the southern Appalachian 

Mountains. Estimates of fire severity were easily 

generated based on simple field observations, yet they 

facilitated robust comparisons across a complex mountain 

landscape. Overall our findings suggest that landscape 

heterogeneity is a major driver of spatial patterns of fire 

severity, and that higher severity fires may occur when 

an area is burned for the second time. This information 

will benefit land managers as it will help them identify 

area most severely impacted by wildfire, thereby enabling 

a more efficient allocation of resources for post-fire 

rehabilitation and restoration. 

LITERATURE CITED

Arthur, M.A.; Paratley, R.D.; Blankenship, B.A. 1998. Single and 

repeated fires affect survival and regeneration of woody and 

herbaceous species in an oak-pine forest. Journal of the Torrey 

Botanical Society. 125: 225-236.

Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P.; Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, R.J. 2001. 

Climate change effects on vegetation distribution and carbon 

budget in the United States. Ecosystems. 4: 165-185.

Lafon, C.W.; Hoss, J.A.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2005. The 

contemporary fire regime of the central Appalachian Mountains 

and its relation to climate. Physical Geography. 26: 126-146.

Lutes, D.C.; Keane, R.E.; Caratti, J.F. [and others]. 2006. 

FIREMON: fire effects monitoring and inventory system. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-164-CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 1 CD.

Romme, W.H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine 

forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 

52: 199-221.

Thompson, J.R.; Spies, T.A.; Ganio, L.M. 2007. Reburn severity 

in managed and unmanaged vegetation in a large wildfire. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104: 743-748.

Wimberly, M.C.; Reilly, M.J. 2007. Assessment of fire severity and 

species diversity in the southern Appalachians using Landsat 

TM and ETM+ imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment. 

108: 189-197.
168 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists Manager/Scientist Success St

Xxxx

Citation	for	proceedings:	Xxxx

Xxxx

Xxxx

Table 1—Area impac ted by zero, one, or two wildfi res 

between 2000 and 2008 in Linville Gorge Wilderness 

Area, North Carolina, USA

Fire history Area (acres)

Unburned 5,017

Burned once in 2000 4,031

Burned once in 2007 or 2008 3,957

Burned twice, 2000 and 2007 6,118

Figure 1—Map of the study area showing burn histories and plot locations. “Pinnacle 2” indicates an area previously burned by 

the Sunrise fire that was re-burned by the Pinnacle fire. “Pinnacle 1” indicates the portion of the Pinnacle fire that did not impact 

a previously burned area. 
Tools for Fire Management 169

Figure 4—Distribution of CBI values across an aspect gradient for areas 

burned 1x and 2x in Linville Gorge, North Carolina.

Figure 2—Distribution of CBI values across an elevation gradient for areas burned 

1x and 2x in Linville Gorge, North Carolina.

Figure 3—Distribution of CBI values across a slope gradient for areas burned 

1x and 2x in Linville Gorge, North Carolina.
170 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION

Defined in neutral, objective terms by sociologists, 

propaganda refers to the deliberate, systematic attempt 

to shape public perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and 

direct behavior to achieve desired social goals. A classic 

in-group/out-group double standard exists in the use 

of propaganda, however. Government agencies’ public 

service announcements and corporations’ advertisements 

are rarely viewed as propagandistic, while the statements 

and slogans of foreign governments or nonprofit 

advocacy groups are often labeled as propaganda. Hence, 

propaganda has become a pejorative term in American 

society; however, the historic efforts by Federal land 

management agencies and the news media to affect the 

American public’s beliefs and behaviors in support of 

wildfire prevention and suppression rightfully should be 

acknowledged as propagandistic. 

Beyond public campaigns to gain citizen support for 

fire prevention or suppression programs, much of the 

terminology used in wildland fire management lends itself 

to propaganda in that it is not unbiased or value-neutral, 

but rather, heavily slanted by militaristic discourse and 

terminology that foments anti-fire attitudes. Suppression 

terms like fire fighting, initial attack, strike teams, 

aggressive suppression, etc. represent concepts and a 

mindset that suited 20th century attitudes about wildfire 

as an enemy or threat to natural resources and human 

communities. But these words fail to accurately describe 

emerging pro-fire policies and practices to use fire as 

a management tool—and respect wildfire as a natural 

process—to further goals of protecting communities and 

restoring ecosystems. Accordingly, if the wildland fire 

community wants to help society forge a new relationship 

with wildland fire and garner more public support for fire 

use, then new words, symbols, and identities will have to 

be consciously created as part of a paradigm shift towards 

ecological fire management. 

PYROGANDA BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

AND THE NEWS MEDIA

I will use the word pyroganda to refer to efforts to 

propagandize the public and workers to influence their 

attitudes and actions in regard to wildland fire. Pyroganda 

can be used to stimulate anti-fire beliefs and behaviors 

to further wildfire prevention and suppression goals, 

or pro-fire beliefs and behaviors to further fire use and 

restoration goals, and I will be offering suggestions for 

the latter. Historically, most pyroganda has been Statesponsored and intended to create anti-wildfire attitudes 

in the general public. The clearest example is the Smokey 

Bear campaign and its gallery of wildfire prevention 

posters and slogans. The Smokey Bear campaign was 

a joint creation of the U.S. Forest Service and the War 

Advertising Council—a propaganda organ that was part of 

mobilizing the American people to support the war effort 

of the 1940s. World War II era posters that said “Forest 

Fires Aid the Enemy” provided a conceptual bridge to 

the notion that forest fires are the enemy (fig. 1). Long 

after the Second World War ended, the war on wildfire 

continued. 

State-sponsored pyroganda has been echoed and 

amplified by corporate news media. Sensationalistic 

headlines constantly depict wildfires as catastrophes, 

associating them almost exclusively with disaster, death, 

PYROGANDA: CREATING NEW TERMS AND IDENTITIES 

FOR PROMOTING FIRE USE IN ECOLOGICAL FIRE MANAGEMENT

Timothy Ingalsbee1

Abstract—Much of the language used by the wildland fire community and news media has implicit anti-fire bias that 

perpetuates anti-fire attitudes. In order to promote greater fire use for ecological fire management, new words need to be 

created; existing words should be redefined; and new identities for fire management workers must be developed. FUSEE 

presents some examples of the new words, symbols, and slogans it uses in its public education and policy advocacy work 

to nurture pro-fire attitudes and help support a paradigm shift in fire management. This paper argues that other agencies, 

organizations, and institutions in the wildland fire community will have to engage in an explicit pro-fire “pyroganda” 

campaign to help counter its historic anti-fire propaganda and inspire necessary changes in consciousness and behavior in 

the public and fire management workforce. As part and parcel of this effort, FUSEE proposes renaming wildland firefighters 

as fire rangers.

1

Timothy Ingalsbee, Executive Director, Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE), Eugene, OR 97405

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Tools for Fire Management 171

and destruction. Journalists often emulate the style of 

war reporting in their stories, using dramatic terms and 

images that focus on firefighters bravely battling blazes. 

The constant framing of wildfires as catastrophes and 

suppression operations as fire fighting obscures the 

social and ecological benefits of fire and thwarts the use 

of alternative management techniques such as fire use. 

Unfortunately, what most people know and believe about 

wildfires comes via news stories, so if the bulk of news 

coverage is slanted by the use of anti-fire language, then 

it is not surprising that anti-fire attitudes persist despite 

the recent efforts of some fire professionals to explain the 

benefits of natural fire ecology processes or progressive 

fire use policies.

As an intentional State policy to manipulate the behavior 

of citizens to prevent wildfires, and as a deliberate 

strategy by the news media to attract more readers and 

viewers, State-sponsored and media-supported antifire pyroganda has been very successful. However, 

now that fire management agencies desire to use more 

prescribed and wildland fires to restore and maintain 

fire-adapted ecosystems, many fire managers are 

bemoaning the “Smokey Bear syndrome” that prompts 

public complaints to prescribed burning and politicians’ 

pressure for aggressive wildfire suppression. In essence, 

fire management agencies have become victims of their 

past success as propagandists. If agencies are to cultivate 

public support for greater fire use in land management, 

then they will have to conduct a deliberate fire promotion 

campaign with as much vigor and commitment as they 

conducted their fire prevention campaign. That campaign 

will require new pro-fire language.

FIREFIGHTERS UNITED FOR SAFETY, 

ETHICS, AND ECOLOGY (FUSEE)

Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology 

(FUSEE) is a nonprofit organization founded in 2005. 

Our members are current, retired, and former wildland 

firefighters from Federal and State agencies, private 

companies, and rural volunteers; fire researchers and 

managers; educators and students; and other interested 

citizens. Our mission is to do public education and 

policy advocacy to promote greater firefighter and public 

safety, ethical use of taxpayer funds and resources, and 

ecological protection and restoration of fire-adapted 

ecosystems. Our ultimate goal is to help nurture a 

paradigm shift in fire management policies and practices 

that changes society’s relationship with wildland fire. 

FUSEE produces white papers and press statements 

into which we devote significant creative energy to 

deconstruct conventional fire management terminology 

and rearticulate or invent new concepts or phrases that 

we hope will help shift public consciousness and agency 

behavior. FUSEE focuses its public education projects 

mainly on re-educating journalists about fire ecology and 

management, believing that if we can alter the way the 

news media talk about fire then this will have a larger 

impact on changing public attitudes and opinions. FUSEE 

has produced a series of manuals and tipsheets called 

A Reporter’s Guide to Wildland Fire. We encourage 

reporters to go beyond the war reporting approach 

to covering wildfire events and offer suggestions for 

alternative words, angles, and frames to use in writing 

news stories about wildfire events and the full breadth of 

fire management issues and activities beyond firefighting. 

The Reporter’s Guide contains a section that we call 

“All the Words Fit to Print.” It displays a table of terms 

ranging from what we consider to be “loaded” terms 

(i.e., official words that are biased or slanted to induce 

anti-fire attitudes), “neutral” terms (i.e., less biased or 

more objective terms), and “new” terms (i.e., words that 

could nurture pro-fire attitudes). For example, we present 

“natural disaster” as a loaded term, “natural disturbance” 

as more neutral, and “ecological stimulus” as a preferred 

new term. The Reporter’s Guide encourages journalists to 

discard loaded terms and start using what we call neutral 

or new terms in their stories. Admittedly, our proposed 

new terms are as, if not more, loaded as conventional 

terms, but the difference is that we are consciously trying 

to craft pro-fire language to counter the anti-fire bias in 

current official fire management terminology. 

OLD SYMBOLS AND NEW MEANINGS 

IN LOGOS AND SLOGANS

In addition to creating new words and redefining old 

words, FUSEE aims to shift consciousness through the 

use of symbols and slogans. Symbols offer a means of 

conveying messages and meanings, and the most powerful 

persuasive messages come from traditional symbols that 

are rearticulated with new meanings. A traditional symbol 

used in fire management is the fire combustion triangle 

(heat, oxygen, fuel) and the fire environment triangle 

(weather, topography, fuel). Triangles are used in several 

logos of fire-related organizations (fig. 2). For example, 

the U.S. Forest Service Fire and Aviation Management, 

the Fire Research and Management Exchange System, 

and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers all utilize the 

triangle as core graphical elements of their logos. 

FUSEE has also incorporated the triangle in its 

organizational logo, and we use it to symbolize our concept 

of the “FUSEE triad.” The three legs of our triangle refer 

to safety, ethics, and ecology, and represent our core belief 

that firefighter safety is fundamentally interconnected 

with professional and public service ethics, and ecological 
172 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

protection and restoration. If you compromise the integrity 

of one leg of that triad, the system fails or collapses. Thus, 

for example, if ecological integrity is compromised through 

inappropriate land management or fire suppression actions, 

then these will ultimately negatively impact firefighter 

safety on future wildfire incidents. The symbol of the 

triangle is a deliberate part of our pyroganda to persuade 

the fire community to manage wildfires in ways that link 

firefighter safety with ethical and ecological management 

actions.

In general, organizations doing propaganda should 

pay attention to the spelling and phonetics of their 

organizational acronyms, and where these acronyms 

symbolize meaningful words or images, they are more 

likely to rally community or public support. FUSEE spent 

some effort creating a name for our organization that has 

an acronym that also symbolizes a meaningful word to 

firefighters. FUSEE (pronounced “FEW-zee”) represents 

a fusee, the hand-held torch used by wildland firefighters. 

Hotshots and smokejumpers consider fusees to be safety 

items they can use to burn out safety zones in situations 

where they may face entrapment or burnover. They are 

also used to ignite burnouts or backfires to contain or 

control wildfires. FUSEE works to shift the primary use 

of fusees from stopping wildfires to be more associated 

with starting controlled fires for prescribed burns or 

wildland fire use. Reintroducing fire and restoring fireadapted ecosystems—the occupational environment 

of firefighters—would proactively enhance the safety 

of fire crews. We have found that the fusee symbol 

usually prompts a smile among folks in the wildland fire 

community who appreciate its meaning; among citizens 

with no experience in fire management, it sometimes 

prompts confusion and a fair amount of mispronunciation 

(e.g. “fussy”). The real utility of our acronym, however, is 

its use as a symbol for the torchbearer. 

The torchbearer is a traditional symbol that refers both 

to pathbreakers (or “trailblazers”) and advocates for 

social change. For example, the Statue of Liberty is a 

torchbearer who lights the path toward freedom and 

democracy in America, and advocates for the spread 

of freedom and democracy to other countries abroad. 

FUSEE has displayed a torchbearing hand in its logos and 

developed a motto that functions like our organizational 

tagline: “We’re torchbearers for a new fire management 

paradigm!” This symbolizes our unashamed role as 

advocates promoting fire use in safe, ethical, ecological 

fire management. We formed our nonprofit organization 

in large part to enable fire professionals working in 

government agencies or private companies to anonymously 

engage in progressive policy advocacy without facing job 

reprisals. The fusee torchbearer symbol thus works for 

us in multiple ways to advocate for pro-fire policies and 

recruit more fire professionals as advocates (fig. 3).

PRO-FIRE MESSAGES AND 

FIRE PRO MESSENGERS

Effective propaganda creates memorable messages that 

articulate ideas and information in ways that inspire 

change in consciousness or behavior. FUSEE crafts 

messages that often revise, redefine, or reword existing 

messages from other organizations and agencies 

conducting their own pyroganda. For example, we believe 

that the official phrase “community wildfire protection” 

conveys an anti-fire message. It focuses on wildfire while 

excluding other kinds of fire (e.g., controlled burning, 

fire use), and adopts a defensive posture (i.e., wildfire is 

a threat we must protect ourselves from) while excluding 

other possible responses and relationships to fire. 

Consequently, we revised that phrase to become 

“community fire preparation” because we feel it is a more 

inclusive message that opens up people to be prepared for 

fire in all its forms—prescribed fire, wildfire, and fire use. 

And preparation means not just defensively warding it off, 

but also taking proactive steps to possibly welcome it in! 

If homeowners have proactively prepared their properties 

using FireWise2 principles, then wildfire may not be a 

threat, and prescribed burning may be a viable tool for 

managing fuels within the wildland-urban interface zone. 

Thus, we crafted the slogan, “The sooner communities are 

prepared for fire, the sooner ecosystems can be restored 

with fire.” The use of words like “for” and “with” denote 

a new non-antagonistic relationship with wildland fire and 

add to the implicitly pro-fire message that we hope will be 

persuasive with homeowners.

FUSEE continues to experiment with messages that we 

hope will resonate with the public, and equally if not 

more importantly, inspire fire management workers and 

managers. Referring to the FUSEE triad of safety, ethics, 

and ecology, people usually have clear ideas about the 

concepts of fire safety and fire ecology, but often ask what 

we mean by “fire ethics?” In response, FUSEE crafted 

a message to address this question, drawing upon the 

beloved figure of Aldo Leopold and his renowned concept 

of a land ethic. Paraphrasing Leopold, we articulated our 

own fire ethic: 

“A thing is right when it contributes to the safety of

firefighters and the public, ethical use of public resources,

environmental protection of fire-affected landscapes, and

ecological restoration of fire-dependent ecosystems. It is

wrong when it tends otherwise.”

2

National Fire Protection Association. 2014. FireWise Communities. 

http://www.firewise.org/?sso=0. [Date accessed: September 2014]
Tools for Fire Management 173

We also use Leopold’s metaphor of “green fire” as a 

symbol of wildness to create our slogan, “Keep the 

Greenfire burning!” Our use of green fire is intended 

to represent fire use for ecological restoration and a 

rewilding of landscapes altered by past fire suppression. 

Our hope is that such clear references to a beloved 

messenger will help make fire professionals more 

receptive to our message.

Research demonstrates that often the messenger 

is as important as the message itself in effective 

communication. In that respect, we founded FUSEE 

with the belief that wildland firefighters would make 

persuasive spokespersons for advocating change in fire 

management policies and practices. FUSEE has leveraged 

the iconic image of firefighters as heroes to bravely say 

what our supporters would not or could not say publicly 

for fear of job retributions from their employers, or 

political backlash from industry representatives and 

elected officials. FUSEE has produced several white 

papers and press statements that critique the safety 

risks to firefighters, economic costs to taxpayers, and 

ecological impacts to public wildlands that result from 

aggressive suppression actions. The news media are 

particularly keen to quote a firefighters’ group speaking 

out against controversial firefighting policies or incidents. 

Compared to other messengers like industry lobbyists 

or environmental activists, veteran firefighters can raise 

these criticisms and speak out on controversial fire issues 

with much more credibility.

PARTNERS IN FIRE EDUCATION

I was invited to a workshop in Boise in 2008 called, 

“Partners in Fire Education” (PIFE). Two major public 

opinion polling companies had just completed a 

national survey and a series of focus groups on public 

attitudes about the ecological role of fire and the role 

of fire management. After an hour-long presentation to 

professional fire educators and agency officials describing 

the survey sample, methods, and margins of error in 

their study that cost several tens of thousands of dollars, 

the polling companies boiled down their analysis to two 

recommendations for agencies to conduct more successful 

fire-related messaging:

1) When talking about fire issues to the public, if you 

can lead with safety-related messages, then this makes 

people more receptive to additional messages about fire 

issues. 

2) In the eyes and ears of the public, firefighters are the 

most credible and persuasive messengers to deliver 

those messages because they are the ones on the front 

lines dealing with the full risks and consequences of 

fire.

At that point, several heads turned to look at me. I 

was more than embarrassed not only because I did not 

anticipate the sudden attention, but also because I knew 

that the name “Firefighters United for Safety...” was 

dreamed up by myself and a couple friends for the mere 

cost of a round of beers, a far cry from the companies’ 

expensive survey!

The recommendations of the PIFE pollsters seem to 

be validated by the excellent success that our young, 

small organization has enjoyed with the news media 

and policymakers. Measured both in terms of the 

quantity and quality of news articles that have quoted 

FUSEE members, we have had great success, indeed. 

We occasionally provide provocative statements that 

are intended to induce “shock and awe” that we hope 

will make people stop and think. For example, FUSEE 

criticized one of the dominant symbols and iconic 

media images of firefighting—fire retardant dumped 

by air tankers—because we were concerned about the 

environmental effects and economic costs of these toxic 

chemicals. The Los Angeles Times’ editors selected 

FUSEE’s statement to be the “pull quote” for their 

Pulitzer prize-winning story on the costs and impacts of 

aerial fire suppression.3

We believe that our success in getting high-profile quotes 

in the media is due as much to the novel messenger we 

are presenting—the voice of wildland firefighters—as it is 

due to the messages we are communicating that critique 

specific firefighting actions that are unsafe, expensive, or 

ecologically damaging. Our media messages sometimes 

get through to policymakers. For example, in response 

to increased public scrutiny and press coverage over 

aerial retardant, companies are redesigning the chemical 

composition of fire retardants, and the Forest Service has 

developed new policies to more carefully target retardant 

drops to avoid waterways.4

NEW IDENTITIES FOR 

FIRE MANAGEMENT WORKERS

Some people have pointed out the contradiction that 

our organization has firefighters in its name when, in 

actuality, many of our members are highly critical 

of certain firefighting policies and practices. Our 

philosophical opposition to the use of the war metaphor 

3

Cart, Julie, and Boxall, Bettina. 2008. Air tanker drops in wildfires are 

often just for show. The bulky aircraft are reassuring sights to those in 

harm’s way, but their use can be a needless and expensive exercise to 

appease politicians. Fire officials call them ‘CNN drops.’ Los Angeles

Times. July 29.

4

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2014. 

Interagency Policy for Aerial and Ground Delivery of Wildland Fire 

Chemicals Near Waterways and Other Avoidance Areas. http://www.

fs.fed.us/fire/retardant/. [Date accessed: September 2014].
174 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

in fire management should logically extend to the term, 

“firefighter” and admittedly, we look forward to the day 

in the future when that word will become as obsolete 

and anachronistic as the word “smokechaser” is today. 

Consequently, we are striving to create a new word and 

identity for ecological fire management workers that 

will encompass the broad array of duties and functions 

they will be performing. Ideally, this new identity will 

be attractive to the fire community at the same time as it 

captures the news media’s and public’s imagination and 

maintains the high social esteem that people feel towards 

firefighters. 

Fire-Lighters, Fire-Guiders, and Pyrotechnicians

In the early days of our organization’s founding, we 

initially experimented with using the terms “fire-lighters” 

and “fire-guiders.” They both rhyme with firefighters 

and more accurately describe the role of fire use workers 

starting prescribed fires and steering wildfires. But our 

supporters commented that these words conjured up 

images of arsonists, cigarette smokers, or New Age firewalkers rather than fire use workers. We also tried out the 

term “pyrotechnicians.” This described our vision of fire 

use workers as high-skill/high-wage professionals using 

the best science and advanced technology to manage 

wildfire. However, too many people heard “pyro” as 

meaning arsonists and failed to hear “technicians,” so 

we stopped promoting that term, too. Besides, the word 

pyrotechnicians already refers to those that work with 

fireworks, and we want to see fire artfully applied down 

on the ground rather than up in the sky.

Firefighters as Cowboys or Native Americans?

For propaganda purposes, the best symbols to use are 

ones already embedded in the dominant culture and 

generating positive emotional responses. So what existing 

images could we adopt that would be positively accepted 

by wildland firefighters and the public and would 

nurture pro-fire attitudes in support of ecological fire 

management? How about cowboys? In fact, the image of 

loose-herding fires comes close to our vision of managing 

wildfires with fire use tactics. However, the cultural image 

and historical legacy of cowboys are mixed: they lived 

and worked on the land, but they also played an active role 

in domesticating western wildlands. This is not exactly 

the image we want to associate with fire restorationists. 

How about Native Americans? Indeed, there is much 

that society could relearn about sustaining habitats 

from Native American burning practices. In fact, we 

have promoted the slogan, “Native forests need Native 

fires!” to symbolize our view that we need to reintroduce 

indigenous burning practices for both cultural and 

ecological restoration purposes. However, we are wary 

of cultural appropriation of Native Americans, so in our 

view likening firefighters to Native Americans would be 

inappropriate. 

Firefighters as Shepherds or Stewards?

FUSEE wants to link ecological fire management with 

the concept of land stewardship, so what other cultural 

images might make that connection? Would shepherds 

or stewards work well as new identities for firefighters? 

Although these identities may better symbolize the 

monitoring work of fire use tactics, images of shepherds 

passively watching over tender flocks of flames misses 

something important to many individuals attracted to 

present-day firefighting: the adventure and adrenaline 

rush of working alongside uncontrolled flames. They 

enjoy the adventure of jumping out of airplanes, flying in 

helicopters, hiking in rugged country, cutting and digging 

line alongside wild fire. A kind of macho militarist 

bravado endures in firefighter culture that is sustained by 

agency terminology (e.g., one of the Ten Standard Orders 

is to “fight fire aggressively...”) and the news media’s 

penchant for portraying firefighters as brave heroes. We 

doubt that firefighters would accept trading away their 

heroic warrior identity for that of a shepherd or steward. 

Besides, if the objectives of a given fire change from 

fire use for ecological restoration to full suppression 

for community protection, then workers will need an 

empowering identity that addresses the extra risk and 

need for bravery that comes from suppressing rather than 

stewarding flames. There must be some alternative to 

an aggressive soldier or passive steward type of identity 

that empowers active fire management for ecological 

restoration with all the adventure and hard work that will 

entail, but discards images of machismo or militarism.

Firefighters as Rangers?

According to the PIFE poll, after wildland firefighters the 

occupations with the most public credibility on wildfire 

issues were park and forest rangers. What if firefighters 

were identified as rangers? While the National Park 

Service (NPS) is comfortable identifying its seasonal 

employees as rangers, the U.S. Forest Service reserves 

that identity for its District line officers and does not 

share it with other permanent or seasonal employees. 

Regardless, most citizens identify workers in the NPS and 

Forest Service as “rangers.” Rangers in the Forest Service 

have long been focused on firefighting, while rangers in 

the NPS have long been focused on law enforcement. 

There is nothing essentialist about social identities; rather, 

each identity must be consciously defined and articulated. 

Simply renaming firefighters as rangers could continue to 

be linked in peoples’ minds with firefighting or policing 

rather than fire use for ecological restoration. 

In FUSEE’s opinion, re-identifying firefighters as fire 

rangers has the most potential for symbolizing the full 
Tools for Fire Management 175

spectrum of possible roles and duties needed by fire 

use workers in ecological fire management, but it all 

depends on how this identity is articulated. For example, 

Ontario, Canada has been calling its firefighters “fire 

rangers” since the late 1800s, but their work is exclusively 

focused on fire prevention and suppression. There is 

nothing essential about social identities—they all must be 

carefully defined and articulated—so as important as it is 

to make careful use of language, we cannot assume that 

simply changing the name to fire rangers will help shift 

the fire management paradigm from firefighting to firelighting and fire-guiding. The fire ranger concept must 

be part and parcel of a wider pyroganda campaign that 

promotes fire use for ecological fire management.

FIRE RANGERS USE FIRE FOR 

ECOLOGICAL FIRE MANAGEMENT

FUSEE’s conception of fire rangers is a work in progress, 

and we welcome input from other fire professionals. In 

our vision, natural ignitions will trigger opportunities for 

fire rangers to use fire for ecosystem restoration. Using the 

latest technology for monitoring, mapping, and modeling 

fire behavior and effects, fire rangers will actively manage 

wildland fires to accomplish preplanned restoration 

objectives, and dynamically shift their tactics and strategy 

according to current and expected conditions. They 

will be guiding fires as they range across the landscape, 

steering fires into places they want to burn and away from 

places that should not burn, slowing down or speeding 

up fire spread as the weather and fuel conditions warrant, 

stopping fires when they must, but starting them wherever 

they can. In essence, fire rangers will be doing something 

like a hybridized form of “prescribed natural fire use.”

For individuals who cherish the hard work and adventure 

of wildland firefighting, there will still be plenty of that 

in a job whose description is changed from fighting to 

managing and using fire. There will be lots of fire line 

construction; however, instead of reactively cutting fire 

lines in a suppression state of emergency, many fire 

lines will be proactively built as fuel breaks to facilitate 

the creation of firesheds for managing fire and fuels at 

landscape scales. And we will still need the ability to 

rapidly deploy crews in remote wildlands to manage 

ignitions, so smokejumpers, helitacks, helirappellers, 

and hotshot crews may become the vanguard of the fire 

rangers corps. While firefighters might lose some of their 

current status as heroes, we believe fire rangers may gain 

even more respect as healers—public servants doing 

the hard work of landscape stewardship and ecosystem 

restoration. They may even maintain that heroic image as 

they strive to ward off environmental disasters resulting 

from climate change.

CONCLUSION

On November 1, 2013, at the “Words on Fire: Toward a 

New Language of Wildland Fire” Symposium, renowned 

fire historian and keynote speaker, Dr. Stephen Pyne, 

argued that the words used by wildland fire management 

is out of sync with the needs of fire managers to increase 

the use of fire for ecological and cultural restoration goals. 

Although the National Wildfire Coordinating Group has 

repeatedly revised the official glossary of Federal fire 

management terms, some of these revisions have not 

always been well received by managers or effectively 

described the changing goals and objectives, strategies, 

and tactics of wildfire operations. Much of the current 

terminology of fire management unwittingly conveys 

an implicit anti-fire bias that historically functioned as 

propaganda to guide public and professional beliefs and 

behaviors toward wildfire. But now that fire ecology 

science and progressive policy changes are leading society 

towards a new relationship with wildland fire, the fire 

community must develop new language with deliberate 

intent to nurture changes in consciousness and behavior. 

Whether or not fire professionals can acknowledge this, 

this reeducation campaign will involve creating new 

propaganda or pyroganda.

Most fire management workers would rather be working 

with fire than fighting against it, would prefer to protect 

and restore the land than damage or degrade it. In the 

future, fire will change from being an adversary to an 

ally, a valuable management tool, and a respected force 

of nature. The wildland fire community will need to 

re-envision and rearticulate the identity of its workforce 

that will be more focused on ecosystem restoration 

than wildfire suppression, serving more as stewards 

than soldiers. Thus, continuing to call these workers 

firefighters wrongly perpetuates anti-fire attitudes and 

plainly misrepresents the nature of their work.

FUSEE proposes that we change the identity of crews 

from the explicitly anti-fire name of firefighters to the 

implicitly pro-fire name of fire rangers. Selling this new 

image and identity to the public will require designing 

creative logos, symbols, and slogans that communicate 

how fire rangers are as skilled, brave, wise, hardworking 

and adventurous as is the reputation of contemporary 

firefighters. But it will not be enough to simply change 

workers’ job titles. The wildland fire community needs to 

change its entire discourse—jettison all loaded anti-fire 

or militaristic terms, and consciously promote neutral/

new pro-fire management terms—in order to nurture 

and sustain public support for fire use in ecological fire 

management. Ultimately, however, it will matter less the 

kind of language, logos, messages, and messengers we use 
176 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

than the kind of actions on the ground that we implement. 

In that respect, fire rangers’ pyroganda of the deed as 

torchbearers will be the most decisive element in shifting 

the paradigm.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the FUSEE Board 

of Directors, in particular Joseph Fox, Tom Ribe, 

Rich Fairbanks, and Julie Rogers for our numerous 

conversations and collaborations that influenced my 

thoughts about ecological fire management and inspired 

many of the concepts described in the paper. 

Figure 1—Examples of State-sponsored anti-fire pyroganda.
Tools for Fire Management 177

Figure 2—Pyroganda in logos: images as symbols used to create meanings and motives for action.

Figure 3—Examples of FUSEE graphics displaying torchbearer and the triangle symbols. 
178 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology 

(FUSEE) is a national nonprofit organization promoting 

safe, ethical, ecological wildland fire management. FUSEE 

members include current, former, and retired wildland 

firefighters; fire managers, scientists, and educators; forest 

conservationists; and other interested citizens who support 

FUSEE’s holistic fire management vision. 

FUSEE’s primary mission is to provide public education 

and policy advocacy in support of a new, emerging 

paradigm that seeks to holistically manage wildland 

fire for social and ecological benefits instead of simply 

‘fighting’ it across the landscape. We seek to enable fire 

management workers to perform their duties with the 

highest professional, ethical, and environmental standards. 

Our long-term goal is the creation of fire-compatible 

communities able to work safely and live sustainably with 

wildland fire. 

FUSEE Promotes a Fire Ethic

Inspired by Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, FUSEE advocates a 

new fire ethic in fire management policies and practices: 

“A thing is right when it contributes to the safety of

firefighters and the public, ethical use of public resources,

environmental protection of fire-affected landscapes, and

ecological restoration of fire-dependent ecosystems. It is

wrong when it tends otherwise.”

FUSEE Informs and Empowers the 

Fire Management Community

FUSEE calls for a renewed professionalism, public 

service ethos, and environmental conscience among 

fire management workers. We provide a safe forum for 

firefighters to stand up and speak out for safe, ethical, 

ecological fire management.

FUSEE Educates Rural Communities 

How to Prepare for Wildland Fire

FUSEE advocates an expansive program of public 

education and community preparation to support the full 

range of fire management: prescribed fire, fire use, and fire 

suppression. The sooner communities are prepared for fire, 

the sooner ecosystems can be restored with fire.

FUSEE Educates People about Safety Risks, 

Economic Costs, & Environmental Impacts of 

Firefighting

FUSEE opposes endlessly ‘attacking’ and ‘fighting’ fires 

with costly and environmentally harmful suppression 

actions that put firefighters at extra risk. We advocate for 

proactive fire and fuels management that restore wildland 

ecosystems. We believe every fire management action, 

including suppression, should be based on ethical, efficient 

use of taxpayer resources and pre-planned ecological 

restoration objectives.

FUSEE Promotes Restoring Our Cultural Legacy 

as Torchbearers Using Fire on the Land

FUSEE advocates a new role and identity for wildland 

firefighters as fire rangers. It is safer and more effective for 

fire management workers to start prescribed fires or steer 

wildfires for desired fire effects than it is to stop wildfires. 

FUSEE works to instill a renewed public service ethos and 

professional pride among firefighters as dedicated wildland 

stewards and skilled ecosystem restorationists.

FUSEE Educates Journalists about 

Fire Ecology and Management Issues

FUSEE critiques the news media’s ‘catastrophe mentality’ 

and overuse of the ‘war metaphor’ that frames the majority 

of news coverage of wildfire events. FUSEE offers alternative 

words, angles, and frames for reporters to write informative 

and investigative stories about a wide range of fire issues 

beyond the narrow focus on wildfire suppression incidents.

Check out FUSEE’s fire reports:

• Getting Burned: A Taxpayer’s Guide to Wildfire 

Suppression Costs

• Smoke Signals: The Need for Public Tolerance and 

Regulatory Relief for Wildland Smoke Emissions

• Fire Watch: A Citizen’s Guide to Wildfire Monitoring

• Collateral Damage: The Environmental Effects of 

Firefighting—The 2002 Biscuit Fire Suppression Actions 

and Impacts

• A Homeowner’s Guide to Fire-Resistant Home Construction

• A Reporter’s Guide to Wildland Fire

Find them all at www.fusee.org.

[Extended Abstract]

TORCHBEARERS FOR A NEW FIRE MANAGEMENT PARADIGM: 

FIREFIGHTERS UNITED FOR SAFETY, ETHICS, AND ECOLOGY (FUSEE)

Timothy Ingalsbee1

1

Timothy Ingalsbee, Executive Director, Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE), Eugene, OR 97405

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Manager/Scientist

Success Stories

Manager/Scientist Success Stories 181

NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES 

COMMISSION MANAGEMENT

Natural resource managers have long desired to obtain 

user-friendly, management-directed answers to guide 

their efforts in pursuing goals and objectives for lands 

they manage. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission (NCWRC) has been mandated, since its 

creation in 1947, to “conserve and sustain the State’s 

fish and wildlife resources through research, scientific 

management, wise use, and public input.” But the 

NCWRC is also a regulatory agency, and a primary part 

of its mission is providing opportunities for public use 

of these natural resources. The NCWRC manages more 

lands than any other State agency in North Carolina, 

totaling over 2 million acres in its Game Lands program, 

about one forth of which is owned by the NCWRC, 

making it also the largest landowner agency among State 

agencies in North Carolina. Providing “an optimally 

sustainable yield of forest products where feasible 

and appropriate as directed by wildlife management 

objectives” is also a very important Game Lands program 

mission objective because of the importance of this 

revenue, along with the sale of hunting, fishing and 

trapping licenses, to the agencies budget and financial 

support. And, while the NCWRC has authority and ability 

to manage these lands actively, especially the State-owned 

areas as needed to meet agency goals and objectives, 

hosting and implementing research along with managing 

habitats and regulating game harvest and protection 

and conservation of wildlife resources is sometimes a 

challenging endeavor.

The NCWRC has long considered the sportsmen and 

women of North Carolina (those that buy licenses to hunt, 

fish, and trap) its primary constituents. So, right from the 

start, the agency faces the issue of conducting research in 

and among this primary user group and all the associated 

user conflict and safety issues. Add to this the numerous 

other public use demands on these lands such as hiking, 

biking, bird watching, and kayaking to name a few, and 

it becomes apparent that there is a lot for a manager to 

juggle. Also, keep in mind that $3.3 billion in total were 

spent on wildlife-related recreation in North Carolina 

last year. It’s no wonder that NCWRC managers find 

that fitting in opportunities for research and filling the 

needs and requests to host studies and provide adequate 

sites, replications, and accommodating suitable spatial 

distribution of sampling to meet study design needs and 

satisfy statistical significance needs for the research and 

also dealing with user conflicts can be challenging, to say 

the least.

Routine infrastructure maintenance (such as work on 

roads, gates, and other access issues) along with regular 

habitat management operation schedules related to 

prescribed burning, forestry and timber harvest, creating, 

planting, and maintaining wildlife openings, and other 

land management projects, don’t always accommodate 

timely implementation of research projects without 

some flexibility, tweaking, and give and take among 

managers and researchers. Compromise by managers 

and researchers has been an integral part of this 

process as well. This is especially true with prescribed 

burning, which has seen a huge increase (nearly triple) 

MANAGEMENT–RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS FROM A MANAGER’S PERSPECTIVE

Dean M. Simon1

Abstract—Natural resource managers have long desired to obtain user friendly, management directed answers from 

research results. Through partnerships with researchers, cooperative projects, and management hosted endeavors, mutually 

beneficial outcomes have been accomplished that provide quantifiable data and applicable direction for both research 

and management professionals. Often times, projects conducted by managers are further facilitated by having research 

associated elements, which provide support and justification through science-based monitoring and assessment to evaluate 

outcomes and results. This information transfer from researchers to managers has been an evolving relationship cultured 

through understanding by both parties of needs, limitations, feasibility, and applicability. Flexibility and compromise by 

managers and researchers have been an integral part of this process as well. Numerous examples of successful ventures 

between managers and researchers have occurred, where research has been facilitated by the managers hosting these 

projects, while managers have benefited by site-specific data of implemented management actions.

1

Dean M. Simon, Mountain Region Wildlife Biologist/Forester, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Lawndale, NC 28090

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
182 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

in landscape-level application on NCWRC mountain 

region Game Lands for forest restoration, fuels reduction, 

maintenance of wildlife openings, site preparation, 

general habitat improvement over the past decade, and 

issues related to the limited suitable and appropriate 

burning days available in the mountains. Issues associated 

with wildland-urban interface and smoke management 

have certainly complicated its implementation. But 

often times, projects conducted by managers are further 

facilitated by having research associated elements, which 

provide support and justification through science-based 

monitoring and assessment to evaluate the outcomes and 

results. The days of using anecdotal observation as a 

sole source of support for implementing landscape-level 

habitat management projects are long gone on public 

lands and questions and challenges from stakeholder 

groups, various organizations, and the general public are 

more and more common, thus further emphasizing the 

need to justify management actions based on scientific, 

research-based quantifiable data and knowledge.

Providing habitat diversity across the landscape and 

accommodating a diversity of wildlife while managing 

appropriately for the rare plant and animal species and 

associated communities that occur on the Game Lands 

is also a vital part of NCWRC’s management direction. 

An important function for research on NCWRC lands 

is documenting, studying, and providing information 

to managers on locations and needs for these natural 

resources. While this has often resulted in a change in 

how, when, and where land management projects have 

been conducted, it has also forged a better understanding 

among researchers and managers. This information 

transfer from researchers to managers has been an 

evolving relationship cultured through understanding 

by both parties of needs, limitations, feasibility, and 

applicability. However, as a result of knowledge gained 

through some of these research projects, beneficial 

changes in forest management have resulted, including 

modifications to timber harvest methods directed by 

specific wildlife habitat management goals and objectives 

(for example, hard and soft mast production), better 

identification of appropriate sites for establishing desired 

tree species in forest regeneration operations through tree 

planting and natural regeneration, defined goals for forest 

restoration, detection and strategies for mitigating impacts 

to sensitive plant and animal species, and detection and 

strategies for mitigating forest health issues.

NCWRC RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS

Through partnerships with researchers, cooperative 

projects, and management-hosted ventures, mutually 

beneficial outcomes have been accomplished that 

provide quantifiable data and applicable direction for 

both research and management professionals. Some 

examples of research projects on mountain region Game 

Lands in North Carolina that have directly influenced 

habitat management operations include studies of fire 

effects in table mountain-pitch pine on vegetation 

and wildlife habitat, fire and fire surrogate studies, 

regional oak regeneration studies, fire and ecosystem 

restoration monitoring, and regional oak savanna 

studies. NCWRC managers have worked with numerous 

research cooperators on these studies including the U.S. 

Forest Service Southern Research Station, Clemson 

University, North Carolina State University, Western 

Carolina University, University of Tennessee, The 

Nature Conservancy, North Carolina State Parks, and 

the Southern Blue Ridge Fire Learning Network. These 

researchers have provided well over 100 publications 

with results specific to NWWRC lands. The partnership 

with the Southern Blue Ridge Fire Learning Network 

researchers and managers in particular has also led to 

numerous cooperative projects and benefits to managers 

in the mountain region through Ecotype Modeling 

and Burn Project Prioritization, sharing of manpower 

and equipment resources through Memorandum of 

Understanding, partnership cooperative prescribed 

burning projects across landscapes on multiple land 

ownerships, and standardization of research monitoring 

plots among cooperators in mountain region landscapes 

for tracking forest restoration efforts. In most cases, 

research projects on mountain region Game Lands 

in North Carolina have been funded primarily by the 

researchers. In some cases, the NCWRC has provided 

relatively minor funding for these research projects; 

however, those costs have usually been mostly associated 

with implementing project treatments, which are often the 

same types of forestry and wildlife habitat management 

projects conducted routinely as part of regular Game 

Lands management. Additionally, many of the research 

projects hosted by NCWRC have included forestry 

treatments where timber is harvested and revenues are 

received by the NCWRC from these timber sales, more 

than covering any costs to NCWRC for their part in the 

research effort. 

A challenge to both managers and researchers is to 

know what the right questions are to ask. Additionally, 

deciding this answer can often be complicated and involve 

a complexity of issues for managers hosting research, 

related to feasibility, logistics, costs, and revenues as well 

as study design, location, timing, and installation needs. 

On NCWRC Game Lands, there is also a Game Lands 

research approval process where ultimately applicability 

to management operations and benefits of the research 

to the State’s natural resources are strongly considered 

and Memorandum of Understanding and contracts are 

the final step. Final research results and conclusions 
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 183

often require researchers to make an interpretation and 

translation to management action. This is where managers 

truly benefit from the modifications and tweaking of 

operational procedures and tools used, as per those 

recommendations, to more efficiently and effectively 

direct management efforts towards desired outcomes and 

results and at the same time, have a better understanding 

of management action impacts and effects. From a 

wildlife manager’s standpoint, the wider the research “net 

is cast” or more parameters are measured for wildlife 

species and habitat components, the larger the data base 

for addressing impacts and effects. From salamanders 

to songbirds, bats to bog turtles, all data collected by 

researchers on these projects provides managers a data 

base of occurrence and potential changes associated 

with treatments. As stated early on, game species are a 

very important resource the NCWRC manages, and any 

research monitoring that includes these wildlife species is 

very valuable as well. Measures of forest vegetation and 

fuels accumulation data provided from researchers also 

add greatly to the information base that managers use in 

making management decisions.

Another benefit that managers have derived from 

management-research partnerships is exposure to 

new technology that they might not otherwise have 

opportunity to become familiar with. Advances in 

computer software, handheld devices, compact measuring 

tools, high-tech field equipment, and access to numerous 

other beneficial resources are often a result of establishing 

these partnerships. Additionally, the opportunity for 

networking with other researchers and managers, 

introduction to new sources of information, and even 

development of new contacts for sources of materials and 

equipment often results from the working relationships 

that develop among researchers and managers. The 

establishment of management-research partnerships 

provides opportunities for public information delivery, 

media day events, and educational outlets, especially on 

sites of manager-hosted research projects. This is a very 

beneficial and effective way to have management action 

results and effects explained and demonstrated through 

field review and on-site discussion.

CONCLUSION

In summary, management-research partnerships are a 

very valuable, beneficial, and important part of natural 

resource management and provide needed monitoring, 

evaluation, and quantifiable data for management actions, 

tools, and land management practices used. Research 

provides managers a measure of success for restoration 

efforts and results of implemented projects. Research 

can provide management direction for achieving State 

Wildlife Action Plan goals and Partners in Flight 

priorities more efficiently and effectively through 

a better understanding of wildlife habitat needs for 

providing and improving wildlife food resources (browse, 

plantings, mast, etc.), cover (for nesting, escape, etc.), 

and distribution (diversity on the landscape, habitat 

connectivity, etc.).
184 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

INTRODUCTION

SILVAH, originally an acronym for Silviculture of 

Allegheny Hardwoods, is a systematic approach 

to silvicultural prescription development based on 

inventory and analysis of stand data for Allegheny 

hardwood, northern hardwood, and mixed oak forests of 

Pennsylvania and adjoining States. It is relevant to the 

Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists 

because of its success in creating a community of practice 

in which scientists and managers work together through 

the full cycle of research, from problem selection and 

hypothesis formation through study implementation, data 

collection, analysis, delivery of results, and organization 

of those results into guidelines useable by managers. Such 

a community increases the probability that problems 

of high priority to managers will receive appropriate 

research attention and that research results will actually 

influence practice. In this paper, we give a brief history of 

the development of SILVAH and the lessons learned about 

building a community of practice that improves research 

and management.

ORIGINS

In 1967, managers in northwestern Pennsylvania 

organized a Society of American Foresters (SAF) 

meeting around regeneration failures that were, in their 

opinion, too common in the local maturing secondgrowth Allegheny and northern hardwood forests, 

consisting of black cherry (Prunus serotina), red and 

sugar maple (Acer rubrum and saccharum), American 

beech (Fagus grandifolia), black and yellow birch 

(Betula lenta and allegheniensis), and other species. They 

invited Ben Roach (fig. 1), a research assistant director 

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, headquartered 

near Philadelphia. Managers wondered about the relative 

importance of everything from seed production, soil and 

site factors, interplant competition and interference, to 

browsing by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) as possible 

reasons for the observed failures. 

Roach assigned a protégée, David Marquis (fig. 1), to the 

Warren, PA, Forest Service Research Lab in northwestern 

Pennsylvania and helped him recruit scientists from 

around the region whose skills represented the possible 

explanations of regeneration failures. Ted Grisez (fig. 

1), already in place, had a near-encyclopedic knowledge 

of local forest ecology and some familiarity with both 

natural and artificial regeneration methods (Grisez and 

Huntzinger 1965, Grisez and Peace 1973). John Bjorkbom 

(fig. 1) came from New England, where he had studied 

regeneration of the highly desirable birch species (Betula

spp.) of those northern hardwood forests (Bjorkbom 1979, 

Bjorkbom and others 1979). Lew Auchmoody 

SILVAH: MANAGERS AND SCIENTISTS WORK TOGETHER 

TO IMPROVE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT

Susan L. Stout and Patrick H. Brose1

Abstract—SILVAH is a systematic approach to silvicultural prescription development based on inventory and analysis of 

stand data for Allegheny hardwood, northern hardwood, and mixed oak forests. SILVAH includes annual training sessions 

and decision support software, and it ensures a consistent, complete, and objective approach to prescriptions. SILVAH has 

created a community of practice with common vocabulary and framework for assessing forest stands. Lessons learned 

from thirty years of research-manager cooperation may be relevant to the work of the Consortium of Appalachian Fire 

Managers and Scientists. Managers benefit in at least three ways from participation in the SILVAH community of practice: 

their prescriptions are demonstrably based on data and science and are internally consistent; relationships with scientists 

help attract research attention to emerging problems; and they have access to lessons learned by other managers using 

SILVAH. Scientists also benefit: they have confidence that their work is on problems of high priority to managers; their 

impact is increased by early adoption of research by managers; the scale and scope of forest observation is increased by the 

community of observers sharing a common framework and vocabulary; and managers are often able and willing to help 

locate appropriate study sites and provide in-kind services, such as treatment applications.

1

Susan L. Stout, Research Forester and Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Irvine, PA 16365

Patrick H. Brose, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Irvine, PA 16329

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 185

(fig. 1) came from West Virginia, where his research 

focused on soil nutrition and individual species responses 

to changes in nutrition (Auchmoody 1973, 1978). Steve 

Horsley (fig. 1) came from New Jersey, and his knowledge 

of ecophysiology was soon applied to understanding 

interference with regeneration from other native plants 

like ferns (Horsley 1977a, 1977b). Eventually, Roach 

himself became a scientist at the Warren Lab, where he 

focused on studies related to his long established expertise 

in quantifying relative density and growth responses to 

intermediate cuttings (Roach and Gingrich 1968, Roach 

1977). Marquis himself took on additional studies on 

regeneration and the role of white-tailed deer browsing in 

regeneration failures (Marquis 1974, 1975).

As the scientists arrived in Warren, they prepared 

problem analyses and a plan of work focused on the 

regeneration problems. Figure 2 is from a flow chart in 

the problem analysis that organized the early research. 

First, the scientists adopted a definition of successful 

regeneration from earlier work that Roach and colleagues 

had conducted (Roach and Gingrich 1968). A stand 

was considered to have regenerated successfully if 70 

percent of sample plots in the harvest area were stocked 

with desirable or commercial seedlings or saplings, with 

stocking criteria represented as numbers of seedlings 

taller than a certain height (Marquis and Bjorkbom 

1982). The scientists thought about what decisions, data, 

and knowledge were essential to managers for making a 

successful regeneration prescription, and they organized 

their studies to provide the data and knowledge needed to 

make better decisions and achieve better outcomes. For 

example, they asked, “What constitutes adequate advance 

regeneration? Does abundant advance regeneration ensure 

success without fencing? What soil-site-stand factors are 

correlated with regeneration success?” And for each of 

these questions (and many more), they designed a study. 

The flow chart even prioritized the studies. Although we 

do not know this for certain, we suspect that in addition 

to the traditional scientific approach to choosing research 

questions, this flow chart was influenced by the ideas 

that had been expressed by managers at that 1967 SAF 

meeting, and by ideas that Marquis was hearing as he 

built relationships with managers of public and private 

forests across the region.

As the research began, collaboration between 

management and research deepened, as many of the 

new studies were done in partnership with management 

agencies. For example, Allegheny National Forest 

managers cooperated when researchers sought to erect 

fences within a subset of the harvest areas in which 

regeneration had failed to develop. Even though the 

fences were erected after the harvest had been declared a 

regeneration failure, full stocking of desirable seedlings 

developed inside fences on 87 percent of the study areas 

(fig. 3). This result indicated that deer were a critically 

important barrier to regeneration success (Marquis 1974). 

Another study on lands of the Allegheny National 

Forest showed that the presence of abundant advance 

regeneration was the most effective predictor of 

which final harvests would regenerate to desirable 

species composition and stocking (Grisez and Peace 

1973, Marquis and Bjorkbom 1982). The news that 

advance regeneration mattered was delivered with 

recommendations for how to collect inventory data that 

would help managers recognize which stands met the 

advance regeneration requirements, and which would 

need some kind of silvicultural intervention to increase 

advance regeneration before a final harvest would lead 

to successful stand regeneration. Although understory 

inventory may seem obvious for hardwood silviculturists 

from a vantage point 40 years in the future, implementing 

such an inventory program demanded significant changes 

in forest management practice. Selecting appropriate 

stands to harvest had been something silviculturists could 

do based on overstory inventory data collected at any 

time of year. Now, they needed inventory data that were 

twice as expensive to gather, because both overstory and 

understory data were needed, and the effective season 

for such inventory was shortened to a few months in 

the growing season. Because the payoff was so high, 

and the guidelines for implementation were sensitive to 

managers’ constraints, most agencies and industries on 

the Allegheny Plateau implemented the new inventory 

procedures. Managers implemented the inventory 

practices, but more important, they began to plan harvests 

in stands where advance regeneration was adequate. 

When those stands regenerated successfully, managers 

had real-world confirmation that the pre-harvest analysis 

was a sound basis for management.

BEGINNING A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 

Another reason for widespread adoption of these early 

guidelines was the Allegheny Hardwood Silviculture 

training sessions (fig. 4). By 1976, research results had 

accumulated to the point that Roach and Marquis thought 

they were ready to give silviculturists something to aid 

with management decisions and improve outcomes from 

both regeneration harvests and intermediate treatments. 

Two people worked with the research staff to ensure 

that the content was useful and accessible to managers. 

One was the Penn State Extension forester of that era, 

Sandy Cochran, a partner from the very beginning. 

He had a special gift for asking the question everyone 

else was thinking, and he institutionalized post-session 

reviews of participant evaluations that led to progressive 

improvements in later sessions. The second person 

was Jim Redding (fig. 1), a forester from the Allegheny 

National Forest who joined the research staff and gave 
186 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

presentations at training sessions about how to use the 

SILVAH approach to inventory and marking and how the 

approach improved his practice. Cochran’s role was later 

taken up by Dr. Tim Pierson.

In many ways, the training sessions shared the ideals of 

today’s fire consortia: creating a forum for structured 

conversations about research needs, research results, 

and their application to management problems. The 

fundamental idea of the training sessions has not changed 

since the beginning; gathering high quality data about 

current conditions and analyzing those data using 

consistent and rigorous procedures gives professional 

resource managers an objective, research-based starting 

point in planning silvicultural prescriptions. This idea is 

the essence of what is now known as the SILVAH system. 

SILVAH guidelines were never intended as a substitute 

for professional judgment, but rather as a starting point, 

ensuring objective, consistent, and complete review of key 

factors. 

When the first training sessions were given, the staff 

believed that in a few years they would have reached all 

the foresters on the Allegheny Plateau and the sessions 

would end. Very quickly, both managers and scientists 

realized that there were unforeseen benefits from annual 

training sessions. Organizers encouraged a diversity of 

participants, limiting any single agency or company to no 

more than 20 percent of the seats in any given class. They 

also encouraged full participation by the research staff, 

not “drop in, give a lecture, and depart.” Marquis and 

his colleagues published a handbook of guidelines and a 

synthesis of their research basis, as well as the lectures 

from the training session (Marquis 1994; Marquis and 

others 1984, 1992). Organizers realized that the training 

sessions were creating relationships and a common 

vocabulary and framework for discussing emerging 

problems. In addition, as scientists regularly spent a 

week together listening to each other weave new research 

results into the SILVAH framework, they learned to 

resolve potential conflicts between results from different 

studies. Equally important, as agency heads and field 

foresters alike saw that research results could really help 

them do their jobs, the willingness—even eagerness—of 

management agencies to host research studies increased. 

Thus the cycle of research-management collaboration 

began to be self-perpetuating. 

COMPUTERIZED DECISION SUPPORT

Even though the SILVAH approach to inventory, analysis, 

and prescription was always quantitative, it did not start 

out as a computer program. There were pages and pages 

of calculations, and in the early days, those were done 

with pen and pencil or a simple handheld calculator. 

Rich Ernst (fig. 1), a scientist at the Lab, began to 

program his handheld HP calculator to do the SILVAH 

calculations just to stay ahead of his crews in the training 

sessions. Over time, the software graduated to a Data 

General mainframe, then to early PCs, and continues 

to be updated as new scientific results are translated to 

management guidelines (Marquis and Ernst 1992; Knopp 

and Stout, in press). This happened just as PCs were 

beginning to be widely available, so we started to think 

that people might benefit from software to process their 

inventory data, producing both comprehensive analysis 

and the SILVAH recommendations. An early adopter was 

the Hammermill Paper Company, which used SILVAH to 

inventory all of its lands and develop a database of stand 

characteristics. In addition to helping with ownershipwide treatment plans —on how many acres will we 

plan to apply herbicide this year, and where are they?—

the database also enabled them to have some market 

nimbleness: sugar maple (Acer saccharum) prices are up? 

We know exactly how to figure out which of our stands 

are stocked with a high proportion of sugar maple and 

which of those would benefit from a thinning.

EXPANDING SILVAH TO OTHER 

FOREST TYPES

When the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry sought 

third-party certification from the Forest Stewardship 

Council (FSC) in the 1990s, FSC commended the 

structured framework of SILVAH and recommended 

its expansion to mixed oak (Quercus spp.) forests. The 

Bureau of Forestry convened a committee of scientists 

and managers to address this recommendation. It included 

faculty from Penn State and Forest Service scientists 

from the Irvine, PA, (formerly Warren) Lab and from 

the Morgantown, WV, Lab. The process that emerged 

was quite remarkable. Participants worked to translate 

the important results from research elsewhere into the 

SILVAH framework. For example, using prescribed fire in 

combination with shelterwood harvests to regenerate oak 

forests in Pennsylvania was a novel approach, so research 

results from South Carolina (Barnes and Van Lear 1998) 

and Virginia (Brose and Van Lear 1998) were used to 

develop interim guidelines. Similarly, stump sprouting 

and dominance probabilities of oak reproduction in 

regenerating stands from Missouri (Sander and others 

1976, 1984); and North Carolina (Loftis 1990) were used 

to develop interim criteria for inventorying oak seedlings. 

Equally important, the group identified research gaps 

and priorities to strengthen the recommended guidelines 

over time, and because the Bureau of Forestry has both 

regeneration and research funding available, they have 

been able to make a very substantial investment of dollars, 

lands, and in-kind support for silvicultural research to fill 

those gaps. The group also worked with field foresters to 

test the proposed new SILVAH procedures before fullscale adoption and to modify them as needed.
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 187

Once the SILVAH-Oak process had been validated and 

adapted to accommodate field forester observations 

and research studies had begun, Brose and others 

(2008) published a second SILVAH handbook for using 

SILVAH in mixed oak forests and launched a parallel 

series of training sessions focused on the SILVAH-Oak 

guidelines. The Bureau of Forestry is the primary partner 

in this effort. While there is considerable overlap of 

students within Pennsylvania for the SILVAH-Oak and 

Allegheny Hardwood Silviculture training sessions, the 

mixed oak sessions have also been in demand in several 

other States, and varying versions of the SILVAH-Oak 

training sessions have been offered in Indiana, Kentucky, 

Maryland, Ohio, and West Virginia. 

MUTUAL BENEFITS ENSURE CONTINUED 

RESEARCH-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION

What has sustained SILVAH through 37 years since 

the first Allegheny Hardwood Silviculture training was 

offered in 1976? Why do foresters continue to use the 

software, attend the training sessions, and request specific 

research studies from the SILVAH team? Why do land 

management agencies, public and private, adopt SILVAH 

guidelines to support their silvicultural decision processes 

and provide sites and in-kind services for SILVAH-related 

studies? Why do scientists continue to work to ensure that 

research results are fit within the SILVAH system and 

reported at training sessions, and why do they continue 

to participate in the several weeks of preparation and 

participation that the training sessions demand each year? 

We believe that the success of the SILVAH system is due 

to the continued flow of benefits for both managers and 

scientists (table 1).

The benefits for managers include the obvious, consistent, 

and objective relationship between their decision-making 

criteria and scientific research. By using the SILVAH 

system, managers can show their stakeholders, from 

stockholders to members of the public, the link between 

research, the guidelines and data used for a specific 

decision, and the choices they make on the ground. For 

example, foresters in the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry 

must submit a SILVAH printout reporting both inventory 

results and SILVAH’s recommended prescription when 

seeking approval of a timber sale. They are free to deviate 

from the SILVAH recommendation when working in a 

forest type SILVAH doesn’t recognize, after mortality or 

wind events, in aesthetic road buffer zones, or on strip 

mine remediation. They are also encouraged to suggest 

deviations when local circumstances such as adjacency 

to a recently harvested stand, local evidence of a good 

seed crop of a seed-banking species, such as black 

cherry (Prunus serotina) or yellow-poplar (Liriodendron

tulipifera), evidence of insect and disease impacts, or 

proximity to a stream suggest a modification, and they can 

use the SILVAH vocabulary and framework to explain 

their deviation.2

 Similarly, the Allegheny National Forest 

plan cites SILVAH in its Silvicultural Guides for ANF

Forest Types.(USDA Forest Service 2007, appendix A, 

page A-5).

An additional benefit for managers is the opportunity to 

interact with scientists and managers from other agencies 

on a regular basis, using a common vocabulary and 

framework. Many agencies and organizations encourage 

or even require new employees to participate in a SILVAH 

training session early in their tenure, and they allow more 

experienced employees to participate again after intervals 

of 5 to 10 years. A week-long shared experience with 

ample field time and informal engagement during breaks 

builds comfortable relationships among all participants 

in the sessions, making it easier for either a manager to 

phone a scientist with an observation, question, or concern 

or for a scientist to contact a land manager to confirm 

the range of a particular problem or situation or to seek 

a study site. It also creates relationships among those 

who work for different agencies, so that as one agency or 

institution develops new ways to apply or even modify 

SILVAH guidelines, the innovation is diffused to other 

agencies and to the research community more rapidly 

than it would diffuse between agency heads.

The third benefit for managers is the ability to participate 

in the scientific process. The SILVAH community 

of practice makes this happen in several ways. First, 

concerns and observations voiced by managers at training 

sessions or in followup conversations influence the choice 

of problem selection for scientists. Second, managers 

become aware of studies early in their development 

and have opportunities to see treatments as applied and 

view preliminary results in the field. Finally, managers 

and scientists in the community may be able to see and 

hear preliminary research results as they make their 

way through the sometimes long and arduous process 

of publication. Although there is some risk that peer 

review may result in re-interpretation of results, scientists 

can communicate these changes easily to those who 

have requested early results, and to agencies through 

the regular training sessions. The manager-scientist 

relationship also allows for immediate discussion of 

seemingly new or unique problems as they arise, as 

well as timely site visits to improve the effectiveness of 

consultations.

The SILVAH community of practice helps both scientists 

and managers better understand the different cultures of 

science and management (USDA Forest Service 1997), 

2

Personal communication. 2014. Scott A. Miller. Chief, Silviculture 

Section, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Bureau of Forestry, P.O. Box 8552, Harrisburg, PA 

17105-8552.
188 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

which in turn helps scientists design studies in ways 

that increase the probability that lessons learned will be 

relevant to management decisions and will help managers, 

over time, ask questions in ways that lend themselves 

to testable hypotheses and formal research studies. 

Such open communications also allow for adjustments 

in recommendations as information in older published 

results is superseded by new, yet-to-be-published findings.

A second benefit for scientists is a wide network of 

thoughtful observers. Managers who are increasingly 

comfortable with the culture of science are often able 

to classify their field observations into useful classes. 

Two examples from the SILVAH history illustrate this 

advantage. As scientists and managers began to share 

concerns about sugar maple health in the Allegheny 

Plateau ecoregion, it was the observations of astute 

managers across the ecoregion that helped scientists 

design a study to test slope position and glacial history 

as potential causes of variation in sugar maple health, 

growth, and regeneration. The resulting gradient study 

relied on cooperation with managers to identify 19 

different locations, some glaciated and some unglaciated, 

all with sugar maple in plateau-top and lower landscape 

positions, where the study took place, leading to real 

breakthroughs in understanding the effects of site quality 

on sugar maple health (Horsley and others 1999, Long 

and others 2009). The second is a current study of oak 

regeneration problems in south-central Pennsylvania that 

was designed to test differences in soils resulting from 

different geological formations as observed by the forester 

on site.

A third major benefit for scientists is access to both 

research sites and in-kind services, such as treatments. 

The sugar maple example, where managers helped 

scientists find 19 different topographic gradients with 

sugar maple growing along the gradient, is also illustrative 

of this example. A more recent case involves a current 

test of the hypothesis that the impact of white-tailed deer 

on vegetation is a joint function of the actual density of 

deer and the heterogeneity of vegetative communities, 

age classes, and forage production in the landscape 

surrounding the subject stand. To test this hypothesis, 

which itself was generated by shared observations of 

scientists and managers, scientists needed to find more 

than 20 locations in which harvests were planned in 

a given year, and in which the prior treatments were 

essentially the same. The cooperation of managers, the 

use of similar silvicultural practices, and lots of scientific 

legwork later, the study moved forward with 25 sites 

representing 7 different ownerships. One land manager 

even agreed to plan a harvest specifically to create sites 

for the study, if needed. An example of in-kind services 

provided by cooperating managers involves another study 

of changing deer impact on vegetation, where landowners 

cooperating in the Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative have 

completed more than 1,300 miles of transects to detect 

deer pellets and browse damage on seedlings over the last 

12 years (Royo and others 2010, Stout and others 2013).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: LINK TO 

CONSORTIUM OF APPALACHIAN FIRE 

MANAGERS AND SCIENTISTS

There are many parallels between the SILVAH 

community of practice and the Consortium of 

Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists. These 

parallels include regular interactions dedicated to 

understanding each other’s knowledge and observations, 

along with emerging problems and emerging solutions. 

The SILVAH experience suggests that a well-defined 

framework that integrates management challenges with 

research-based solutions and highlights and prioritizes 

research gaps using common vocabulary will strengthen 

research-management collaboration in the long run. The 

SILVAH example also confirms that there are benefits 

to all participants, including early access to emerging 

solutions, increased access to careful observations of 

natural phenomena, and increased access to research 

sites and in-kind services. The community of practice 

or consortium model provides a basis for sustained 

relationships between managers and scientists that allows 

for the orientation of new participants, the maturation of 

existing participants, and retention of collective memory 

as older participants retire.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to the many scientists who have contributed 

to SILVAH over the years, its research relies on 

contributions of an excellent team of forestry technicians, 

programmers, and data managers who share the team’s 

commitment to research that engages managers and 

informs both policy and practice. These include Vonley 

Brown, John Crossley, Virgil Flick, Dave Saf, Harry 

Steele, Ernie Wiltsie, Eric Baxter, Josh Hanson, Greg 

Sanford, Julie Smithbauer, Corinne Weldon, Carl Bylin, 

Pete Knopp, and Scott Thomasma. This manuscript was 

substantially improved by comments from reviewers 

Lucy Burde, Tara Keyser, Gary Miller, Scott Miller, Chris 

Nowak, and Brian Salvato.

LITERATURE CITED

Auchmoody, L.R. 1973. Intensive culture of black cherry. Southern 

Lumberman. 227 (2824): 112-115.

Auchmoody, L.R. 1978. Response of young black cherry to 

fertilization. [Abstract] in Agronomy Abstracts: 70th Annual 

Meeting of the American Society of Agronomy. Madison, WI: 

American Society of Agronomy. 186 p.
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 189

Bjorkbom, J.C. 1979. Seed production and advance regeneration in 

Allegheny hardwood forests. Res. Pap. NE-435. Broomall, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. 10 p.

Bjorkbom, J.C.; Auchmoody, L.R.; Dorn, D.E. 1979. Influence of 

fertilizer on seed production in Allegheny hardwood stands. Res. 

Pap. NE-439. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 5 p. 

Barnes, T.A.; Van Lear, D.H. 1998. Prescribed fire effects on 

advanced regeneration in mixed hardwood stands. Southern 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 22(3): 138-142.

Brose, P.H.; Van Lear, D.H. 1998. Responses of hardwood advance 

regeneration to seasonal prescribed fires in oak-dominated 

shelterwood stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

28: 331-339.

Brose, P.H.; Gottschalk, K.W.; Horsley, S.B.; Knopp, P.; [and others]. 

2008. Prescribing regeneration treatments for mixed-oak forests 

in the mid-Atlantic region. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-33. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 100 p.

Grisez, T.J.; Huntzinger, H.J. 1965. Direct seeding studies with black 

cherry. In Abbott, H.G., ed. Proceedings of the symposium: 

direct seedling in the northeast - 1964. Amherst, MA: University 

of Massachusetts, College of Agriculture, Experiment Station: 

41-43.

Grisez, T.J.; Peace, M.R. 1973. Requirements for advance 

reproduction in Allegheny hardwoods—an interim guide. Res. 

Note NE-180. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 5 p.

Horsley, S.B. 1977a. Allelopathic inhibition of black cherry by fern, 

grass, goldenrod, and aster. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

7(2): 205-216.

Horsley, S.B. 1977b. Allelopathic inhibition of black cherry. II. 

Inhibition by woodland grass, ferns, and club moss. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 7(3): 515-519.

Horsley, S.B.; Long, R.P.; Bailey, S.W. [and others]. 1999. Factors 

contributing to sugar maple decline along topographic gradients 

on the glaciated and unglaciated Allegheny Plateau. In: 

Horsley, S.B.; Long, R.P., eds. Sugar maple ecology and health: 

proceedings of an international symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE261. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station: 60-62.

Knopp, P; Stout, S.L. [In press]. Users guide to SILVAH, a stand 

analysis, prescription, and management simulator program for 

hardwood stands of the Alleghenies. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-xx. 

Newtown Square, PA: U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 

Loftis, David L. 1990. Predicting post-harvest performance of 

advance red oak reproduction in the southern Appalachians. 

Forest Science. 36(4): 908-916.

Long, R.P.; Horsley, S.B.; Hallett, R.A.; Bailey, S.W. 2009. 

Sugar maple growth in relation to nutrition and stress in the 

northeastern United States. Ecological Applications. 

19(6): 1454-1466.

Marquis, D.A. 1974. The impact of deer browsing in the Allegheny 

hardwood regeneration. Res. Pap. NE-308. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 8 p.

Marquis, D.A. 1975. Seed storage and germination under northern 

hardwood forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

5: 478-484.

Marquis, D.A., ed. 1994. Quantitative silviculture for hardwood 

stands of the Alleghenies. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-183. Radnor, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. 376 p.

Marquis, D.A.; Bjorkbom, J.C. 1982. Guidelines for evaluating 

regeneration before and after clearcutting Allegheny hardwoods. 

Res. Note NE-307. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 4 p.

Marquis, D.A.; Ernst, R.L.; Stout, S.L. 1984. Prescribing silvicultural 

treatments in hardwood stands of the Alleghenies. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NE-96. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 90 p. 

Marquis, D.A.; Ernst, R.L. 1992. User’s guide to SILVAH: stand 

analysis, prescription, and management simulator program for 

hardwood stands of the Alleghenies. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-162. 

Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 124 p.

Marquis, D.A.; Ernst, R.L.; Stout, S.L. 1992. Prescribing silvicultural 

treatments in hardwood stands of the Alleghenies (revised). Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NE-96. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 101 p. 

Roach, B.A. 1977. A stocking guide for Allegheny hardwoods and its 

use in controlling intermediate cuttings. Res. Pap. NE-373. Upper 

Darby, PA: U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 30 p.

Roach, B.A.; Gingrich, S.F. 1968. Even-aged silviculture for upland 

central hardwoods. Agric. Handbk. 355. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington 

Office. 39 p.

Royo, A.A.; Stout, S.L.; deCalesta, D.S.; Pierson, T.G. 2010. 

Restoring forest herb communities through landscape-level deer 

herd reductions: is recovery limited by legacy effects? Biological 

Conservation. 143: 2425-2434.

Sander, I.L.; Johnson, P.S.; Rogers, R. 1984. Evaluating oak advance 

reproduction in the Missouri Ozarks. Res. Pap. NC-251. St. Paul, 

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station. 19 p.

Sander, I.L.; Johnson, P.S.; Watt, R.F. 1976. A guide for evaluating 

the adequacy of oak advance reproduction. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC23. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Stout, S.L.; Royo, A.A.; deCalesta, D.S. [and others]. 2013. The 

Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative: can adaptive management and 

local stakeholder engagement sustain reduced impact of ungulate 

browsers in forest systems? Boreal Environment Research. 18 

(suppl. A): 50-64.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 1997. 

Integrating science and decisionmaking: guidelines for 

collaboration among managers and researchers in the Forest 

Service. FS-608. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Washington Office. 11 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2007. 

Allegheny National Forest Plan Record of Decision for Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Warren, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest. 296 p.
190 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Table 1—Attributes of the SILVAH system and the associated benefi ts to managers and scientists that have 

sustained the system through decades 

Attribute of research/management 

cooperation Benefi t to managers Benefi t to scientists

SILVAH Decision Charts and Guidebooks 

provide objective, consistent, sciencereferenced basis for decisions

Demonstrably science-based decisions Framework for resolving apparent 

confl icts as new research results emerge

Regular interactions provide scientists 

and managers with shared vocabulary 

and framework at training sessions

Access to emerging research results, 

relationships with scientists that provide 

timely consultations

Much wider network of systematic 

observations, relationships with 

managers that identify high-priority 

research needs

Managers are engaged in the full 

research cycle

Training sessions and resulting 

relationships allow users to participate in 

problem selection, research design, and 

science delivery

Scientists have increased confi dence 

that research is relevant and that results 

will be adopted

Increased understanding of cultural 

differences between science & 

management

Managers develop increased 

understanding of scientifi c uncertainty

Scientists gain increased understanding 

of managers’ timeframes and broader 

social context of decisions 

Sharing of resources Managers gain new tools for data 

collection, analysis, and interpretation

Scientists gain access to research sites 

and in-kind services.

Figure 1—Key members of the Forest Service team that launched the SILVAH system. Top row, left to right: Ben Roach, 

Dave Marquis, and Ted Grisez. Second row, left to right: John Bjorkbom, Lou Auchmoody, Steve Horsley, Rich Ernst, and 

Jim Redding.
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 191

Figure 2—Excerpt from Research Problem Analysis, Research Work Unit NE-1108 (1971).

Figure 3—Regeneration on left is inside a deer-excluding fence and 

developed after the same harvest as the grasses on the right, which 

developed where deer eliminated seedling regeneration.
192 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 4—Participants in the first one-day SILVAH training session in 1976 and the most recent session in 2013. 
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 193

INTRODUCTION

The Fire Learning Network (FLN) is a national 

level cooperative program of the Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; agencies of the Department 

of the Interior; and The Nature Conservancy. Its goal is 

to restore forests and grasslands and to make (human) 

communities safer from fire working through regional 

networks. It provides a framework for land managers 

to collaborate with scientists in the planning and 

implementation of prescribed fire. 

The Southern Blue Ridge Fire Learning Network (SBR 

FLN) was born out of the recognition by land managers, 

wildlife biologists, and ecologists that forests across the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains are changing due to a 

lack of fire. Recent studies of fire history (Delcourt and 

Delcourt 1997; Fesenmyer and Christensen 2010; Flatley 

and others 2012; Lafon and Grissino-Mayer 2007, 2011) 

show that thousands of years of frequent fires shaped 

pine and oak forest types across the region until the 19th

century, when changes first in land use followed by fire 

policy led to fire suppression and exclusion (Pyne 1982). 

Lack of fire is thought to be related to observed changes 

in forest structure and composition, leading—particularly 

in the eastern uplands—to “mesophication” (Nowacki 

and Abrams 2008). It has led to increased fuel loads 

and made both forests and human communities more 

vulnerable to catastrophic fire. In both situations, 

fire exclusion has worked to the detriment of fireadapted species such as upland oaks and yellow pines. 

Reintroducing fire in the Southern Appalachians is 

expected to benefit pine and oak regeneration (Brose 

and others 2001, 2006; Elliott and others 2004, Kinkead 

and others 2013), wildlife (both game and nongame), 

and a number of rare animal and plant species such as 

golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) and 

mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana). In some 

cases, prescribed fire will also reduce community wildfire 

risk. Hazardous fuels are an increasing concern in many 

THE SOUTHERN BLUE RIDGE FIRE LEARNING NETWORK: A COLLABORATIVE 

PARTNERSHIP TO RESTORE FIRE-ADAPTED ECOSYSTEMS AND BUILD RESILIENT 

FORESTS AND COMMUNITIES IN THE SOUTHERN BLUE RIDGE

Margit Bucher, Beth Buchanan, Wendy Fulks, Josh Kelly, Peter Bates, 

Gary Kauffman, Steve Simon, and Helen Mohr1

ABSTRACT—The Southern Blue Ridge Fire Learning Network (SBR FLN) is a cooperative program between the 

Forest Service, the Department of the Interior agencies, and The Nature Conservancy. Its goal is to restore forests and 

grasslands and to make (human) communities safer from fire. Since 2007, the SBR FLN has engaged Federal, State, 

and private partners to integrate science and local knowledge. Eight landscape teams focus on restoring pine and pine 

oak forests, primarily through prescribed burning. Common vegetation maps/models are used to identify areas most in 

need of restoration, and to develop a common vision of restoration needs across the region. A burn prioritization tool 

(“ecomath”) has been developed based on these maps in most landscapes. The modeling has enhanced our understanding 

of why and where fire is needed, focused planning, and begun to broaden support for burning and restoration through a 

systematic approach that can be explained. A network of monitoring plots tracks the effectiveness of restoration treatments. 

A partnership with the Consortium for Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists (CAFMS) has accelerated transfer of 

knowledge through workshops, field trips, and webinars. The SBR FLN is currently expanding and integrating some of its 

activities with the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network.

1

Margit Bucher, Fire Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Durham, NC 27707 

Beth Buchanan, Regional Fire Ecologist, USDA Forest Service Southern Region, Roanoke, VA 24019 

Wendy Fulks, Associate Director, Fire Adapted Communities Network, The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO 80302

Josh Kelly, Botanist, Western North Carolina Alliance, Asheville, NC 28806

Peter Bates, Associate Professor, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723 

Gary L. Kauffman, Botanist, USDA Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC 28802 

Steven A. Simon, Ecologist, Ecological Modeling and Fire Ecology Inc., Asheville, NC 28804

Helen Mohr, Forester, USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC 29634

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
194 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

places, and some recent wildfires have been challenging 

and expensive to control (USDA Forest Service, Pisgah 

National Forest 2009).

The SBR FLN was formed in 2007 at a meeting of 

major public land managers (Forest Service, National 

Park Service, and State land management agencies) as 

well as nongovernmental organizations interested in 

forest health (such as The Nature Conservancy, Western 

North Carolina Alliance, and Land Trust for the Little 

Tennessee). The group collaboratively identified a project 

area (fig. 1) and five goals: 

1. Enhance landscape-level fire planning to help restore 

and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems; 

2. Transfer lessons learned about fire effects among SBR 

FLN partners; 

3. Develop outreach tools to explain the benefits of fire to 

public and agency staff; 

4. Find opportunities to increase and share resources for 

implementing prescribed fire; and 

5. Exchange information about fire ecology and fire 

management using a variety of outlets.

The SBR FLN partners have since organized into placebased landscape teams formed by local stakeholders, 

and developed landscape goals appropriate for their 

areas and organizational missions (fig. 1). These teams 

selected focal areas to apply prescribed fire, developed 

annual work plans, and share ideas across the network 

through regular conference calls and an annual three-day 

workshop. The annual workshops provide opportunities 

for land managers and researchers to discuss lessons 

learned, network, and peer-review their ideas. 

This paper uses examples for each of the goals to describe 

the methods and approaches used by SBR FLN partners 

to establish a science-informed restoration approach.

GOAL 1. ENHANCE LANDSCAPE-LEVEL FIRE

PLANNING TO RESTORE AND MAINTAIN 

FIRE-ADAPTED ECOSYSTEMS

Ecological Zone Mapping

Based on the scientific literature and partner expertise, 

partners identified pine, oak pine, and oak-hickory as fireinfluenced forest and woodland types. To identify areas 

that would potentially benefit most from re-introduction 

of fire, partners were looking for the best available map/

model to show current and potential vegetation in the 

SBR. Partners settled on ecological zone (ecozone) 

mapping (Simon and others 2005). Ecological zones in 

the Southern Appalachian Mountains, identified from 

intensive field data that defined plant communities, 

were associated with unique environmental variables 

characterized by digital models. In 2008, FLN and 

LANDFIRE provided funding to evaluate the usefulness 

of an updated ecological zone map to predict landscapes 

that support fire-adapted plant communities in the 

SBR. This map was completed by incorporating higher 

resolution digital elevation data and additional plot 

data from other areas within the Southern Appalachian 

Mountains and expanded ecological zone mapping to 5.9 

million acres in the Southern Appalachians. Maximum 

entropy (Phillips and others 2006) was used in place 

of logistic regression as the statistical analysis tool in 

model creation, additional field data were collected, and 

more zones were mapped for a 3rd Approximation of 

Ecological Zones that expanded the model area to 8.2 

million acres (Simon 2011). 

Ecological zones are units of land that can support a 

specific plant community or plant community group 

based upon environmental factors such as temperature, 

moisture, and fertility that control vegetation distribution. 

They are equivalent to biophysical settings, which 

represent the vegetation that may have been dominant on 

the landscape prior to Euro-American settlement, and are 

based on both the current biophysical environment and 

an approximation of the historical disturbance regime 

(LANDFIRE 2009). Table 1 provides a snapshot of the 

distribution of ecozones in each landscape that could 

benefit from restoration. Each local landscape team has 

this information to inform management planning. 

Network partners have found this common map/model 

very valuable as a consistent baseline and tool to assess 

fire needs across all lands. The ecozone map/model also 

served as a springboard for additional tools such as the 

burn prioritization referred to as “ecomath,” and a forest 

structure assessment described below. 

Ecomath

One of the landscape teams (Central Escarpment) 

sought a systematic way to identify burn priorities, and 

developed a computer-based scoring tool referred to as 

“ecomath” using ArcMap. The process required scoring 

various conservation assets in the landscape through 

a system of weighting and scaling. Factors considered 

included acreage of fire-adapted native vegetation, special 

biological areas, presence of rare species benefiting from 

fire, and anthropogenic early-successional habitat in 

wildlife openings.

In ArcMap, boundaries of potential burn units were 

intersected with ecozones, rare species occurrences, 

Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) (North 

Carolina Natural Heritage Program) and wildlife 

openings. Ecozone modeling (Simon 2011) was used to 

delineate boundaries of ecosystem-scale forest types. 

Forest types were weighted by their historical fire return 
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 195

interval, with forest types where fire is not a significant 

disturbance weighted as zero (see table 2). The simplistic 

approach of assigning yellow pine-dominated forests a 

weight of three and oak dominated forests a weight of one 

was chosen, based on dendrochronology evidence that 

fire is two to three times more common in yellow pine 

forests than oak forests (Flatley and others 2012; Lafon 

and Grissino-Mayer 2007, 2011; McEwan and others 

2013). Acreage of forest was scaled by dividing by 100 

so as not to overwhelm other conservation targets such as 

maintaining important natural areas and management of 

fire-adapted rare species. 

Rare species were weighted based on global and 

State rarity rankings (Gadd and Finnegan 2010). G1-

G3 ranked species were given a weight of 10 points, 

and S1-S3 ranked species were given a weight of five 

points. Individual taxa were only counted once per 

unit, regardless of the number of occurrences. Special 

emphasis was given to mountain golden heather 

(Hudsonia montana Nutt.). H. montana is a restricted 

endemic whose entire range occurs on two ridges, 

covering less than 7 acres in total occupied habitat, in the 

study area. Without fire, this diminutive shrub is typically 

overtopped and displaced by other woody plants and 

does not regenerate due to absence of mineral soil (Frost 

1990). Because of its affinity for fire and the conservation 

concern surrounding this plant, it was given a weight of 

50 points. 

High quality fire-adapted vegetation areas were scored 

using ratings provided by the North Carolina Natural 

Heritage Program (Gadd and Finnegan 2010). The top 

three rankings assigned to SNHAs were given a weight 

of 15, 10, and 5, respectively, if a SNHA with fire-adapted 

vegetation overlapped a burn unit. Open areas managed 

for wildlife were scored by assigning one point for every 

acre of wildlife opening present in a burn unit. Wildlife 

opening acreage by burn unit ranged from 0 acres to 16.6 

acres. 

In all, 42 potential prescribed fire areas totaling over 

95,000 acres (38 445 ha) were evaluated, ranging in 

size from 5,163 acres (2089 ha) to 610 acres (247 ha). 

Scores ranged from a high of 175 to a low of 7, providing 

consistent separation in scores between units and giving 

a clear hierarchy of priorities for conservation-based 

prescribed fire.

Ecomath has helped managers and stakeholders 

understand and track which burn units will benefit 

most from fire. In addition, the process of developing 

the model, which involved experts from a variety of 

disciplines (e.g., timber management, fire management, 

wildlife management, conservation) and organizations, 

improved relationships and fostered the development 

of a shared vision. Presentations on the development 

and use of the tool can be found at http://www.

conservationgateway.org/Files/Pages/index-fln-webinarrecordi.aspx.

Forest Structure Assessment 

to Determine Restoration Goals

While recognizing the need for a restoration goal, we 

found defining reference or desired condition challenging. 

We know that ecosystems are naturally variable in their 

structure, and hence set as restoration goals not just the 

ecosystem type but also its natural range of variability 

(NRV). We estimate restoration needs by how far an 

ecozone’s current structure and composition is departed 

from its NRV in the process summarized below. 

Accurately assessing ecosystem condition is dependent 

upon the quality of the data available, and we selected the 

study area based upon this requirement.

We used the ecozone approach described above to identify 

ecosystems on the landscape. Another national mapping 

approach called ‘LANDFIRE’ uses ‘Biophysical Settings’ 

to combine scientific research, historical information, and 

expert opinion to describe the disturbance probabilities 

of ecosystems. Biophysical Settings have fewer taxa and 

are mapped at a broader resolution than ecozones. Both 

approaches use computer models (Vegetation Dynamic 

Development Tool, or VDDT) to simulate a NRV. Light 

Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data are recognized as 

one of the most comprehensive and accurate types of data 

for measuring vegetation structure. We used LiDAR to 

assess current conditions and then compared how current 

condition departed from NRV to inform restoration needs. 

A study area was defined based on available data 

to include the overlap of the 2005 Phase III North 

Carolina LiDAR data and the proclamation boundary 

of Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest. In total, over 

700 000 ha (1,760,000 acres) of forest were evaluated 

using LiDAR-measured height and Forest Service stand 

records to estimate forest age, and LiDAR measurements 

of canopy closure and shrub density to measure those 

physical characteristics. 

In general, we found that ecosystems with a more frequent 

historical fire return interval were more departed from 

reference conditions than mesic forests. Of 11 forest 

ecosystems evaluated (see table 1), 5 were found to be 

highly departed from reference conditions. Both oak 

and pine ecosystems’ canopies were much more closed 

than the reference models, while the canopies of cove 

ecosystems were more open than the reference models. 

For oak, cove, and spruce ecosystems, the NRV included 

a much higher proportion of old forests than the 2005 

conditions, while the converse was true for shortleaf pine 

and pine-oak/heath ecosystems. Ecosystems with greater 
196 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

timber value (cove and northern hardwood forests) were 

found to be more disturbed than ecosystems with less 

economic value. This analysis indicates that increased 

fire management and the continued restoration of oldgrowth conditions would be ecologically beneficial. It will 

be provided to FLN and landscape partners as a tool to 

inform their restoration goals and plans.

GOAL 2. TRANSFER LESSONS LEARNED 

ABOUT FIRE EFFECTS AMONG PARTNERS

The ecozone mapping approach has been expanded across 

landscapes in the SBR FLN including North Carolina, 

Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina, and National 

Forest lands outside the boundary of the SBR FLN. 

Additionally, it has been used successfully for planning in 

our sister network, the Appalachian FLN, including both 

the George Washington and Jefferson (GWJeff) National 

Forests, and in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina on the 

Francis Marion National Forest.

Additionally, the systematic burn unit prioritization 

through ecomath has been adapted by other SBR FLN 

landscapes and across the National forests in North 

Carolina, and across portions of the Appalachian FLN 

including the GWJeff National Forests and Shenandoah 

National Park (Mahan and others 2012). All landscapes 

used ecozones as a base layer but modified criteria and 

weighting to meet their landscape needs and address the 

missions and goals of the agency. 

The Cherokee National Forest pioneered ignitions along 

ridge lines allowing fire to back downhill. They also 

added burn days by adding a fall season. These practices 

have been shared during SBR FLN field trips and 

subsequently expanded to other landscapes.

Monitoring Program 

In 2006, the SBR FLN began a monitoring program 

to assess the effects of operational prescribed fires on 

forest stand structure and fuels. Monitoring occurs in 

demonstration burn units established on properties owned 

or managed by SBR FLN partners including the Forest 

Service, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 

North Carolina State Parks, South Carolina Department 

of Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy and the 

Land Trust for the Little Tennessee. Property managers 

have committed to restoring a historical fire regime on 

each demonstration unit, and beginning this effort an 

initial series of prescribed fires at 3- to 5-year intervals. 

Fourteen burn units have been established that extend 

from eastern Tennessee through western North Carolina 

into north Georgia and the upstate of South Carolina 

(fig. 1). Seven units are dominated by oak-hickory 

communities and seven are dominated by yellow pine 

communities. Twelve units have been burned once, one 

unit has been burned twice, and two units have not yet 

been burned. Nine of the completed burns have been 

spring burns, and the remaining three have been fall 

burns.

Our goal is to evaluate the overall effects of prescribed 

fire on forest structure and fuels and, where possible, 

tease out how these effects might vary with other factors, 

such as vegetative community, fire behavior, and season 

of burn. Fire effects are being monitored using a series 

of permanent, 0.1-acre plots established prior to each 

burn. Except for our first unit (where we installed more 

plots), we have installed 20 plots in or around each burn 

unit. Fifteen plots were established inside each burn 

unit and five plots were installed outside the burn unit 

and in areas where future burns are not planned, as 

control plots. Demonstration burn units vary in size from 

approximately 75 acres to over 2,000 acres, and plots are 

located using systematic randomization. Plot locations 

were predetermined in ArcGIS by randomly choosing 

intersections of UTM grid lines that fall within target 

vegetative communities (Simon 2005, 2011) in areas that 

are accessible.

All sampling is completed during the growing season. 

Pre-burn sampling is designed to occur during the 

summer prior to the first prescribed fire; however, in 

several cases burns have been delayed one or more years 

due to weather or other logistical constraints. Post-burn 

sampling is conducted during the second growing season 

following the prescribed fire. The following data are 

collected at each plot:

• A photograph taken from a permanent photopoint.

• Forest overstory: species, diameter at breast height (dbh), 

crown class, and condition (ranging from 1=healthy to 

4=dead) for all trees ≥ 2 inches dbh.

• Tree regeneration (data collected in a 0.02-acre subplot): 

count of stems by species, height class (1 to 3 feet, 3 to 

4.5 feet, and > 4.5 feet), and origin (single stem or stump 

sprout). All stump sprouts from the same origin are 

considered as a single plant.

• Ground cover and vegetative life forms (data collected 

in a 0.02-acre subplot): estimates of percent cover to the 

nearest 5 percent for bare ground, boulders, moss and 

lichens, grass and grass-like, herbs, vines, deciduous 

shrubs, coniferous shrubs (including mountain laurel 

and rhododendron), mountain laurel (separately), and 

rhododendron (separately). In addition, we estimated the 

average height of the top of the shrub layer.
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 197

• Fuels: litter depth; duff depth; and 1-hour, 10-hour, 

100-hour, and 1,000-hour woody fuels were estimated 

along three, 50-foot transect lines following procedures 

outlined by Brown (1974).

• In addition, immediate post-burn sampling was 

completed in five units to assess fire severity in each 

plot based on bark char height, percent canopy scorch, 

and the percent of the plot characterized by each of five 

severity classes (1=unburned to 5=heavily burned).

The data from 10 demonstration units are currently being 

analyzed to assess the effects of the first prescribed 

burn. The results will inform managers of the degree to 

which forest structure and fuel loadings can be altered 

by a single burn. These results will also provide a tool 

to evaluate how well the results from research burns 

conducted under more tightly controlled conditions can be 

applied to larger, operational burns.

Collaboration with CAFMS

In 2010, the Joint Fire Science Program sought to connect 

researchers more closely with land managers to improve 

the transfer of science information into practice and to 

direct research more toward answering the questions 

land managers had. The SBR FLN has partnered with the 

Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists 

(CAFMS) since its inception. The partnership has 

brought mutual benefits by better connecting managers 

to researchers through workshop topics such as smoke 

management, and fire effects on bats and rattlesnakes. 

CAFMS also regularly solicits input from managers 

on needed research topics to be prioritized for funding 

through the Joint Fire Science Program.

GOAL 3. DEVELOP OUTREACH MATERIALS 

REGARDING THE BENEFITS OF FIRE FOR 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY STAFF

We recognized that we needed to explain to the public 

and a wider audience why the re-introduction of fire to the 

mountains was a beneficial change over fire suppression 

and exclusion practices in the past century. A brochure, 

Bringing Fire Back to the Mountains, was developed 

and distributed, and more informative press releases for 

controlled burns as well as wildfires have been shared 

among partners and with the North Carolina Prescribed 

Fire Council and distributed to a wider audience than in 

the past. We have conducted field trips inviting concerned 

neighbors, reached out to groups that might potentially 

oppose controlled burns, and shared reviews of lessons 

learned if burns did not go entirely as expected. It appears 

that improved outreach efforts are slowly building more 

public support based on responses and comments our 

partners receive.

GOAL 4. EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO 

INCREASE AND SHARE RESOURCES FOR 

IMPLEMENTATION

The relationship-building that has occurred over the 

years through regular network activities (FLN meetings, 

conference calls, project meetings) has proven to be 

invaluable. Strengthened interpersonal and agency 

relations are facilitating cross-boundary prescribed 

burning across the region, allowing landscape teams to 

garner more resources, improving wildfire outcomes,2

and creating better public relations outcomes.

The collaboration of a broad partnership in the 

development of the ecomath tool built trust and capacity 

that allowed the Central Escarpment landscape team to 

expand and successfully submit a grant proposal under 

the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act. 

This program has allowed the Forest Service to triple its 

acres treated through controlled burning in 2013 in this 

landscape (Kelly 2012).

Partners in North Carolina and Georgia have developed 

Memoranda of Understanding (with statewide or at least 

regional scope) that allow sharing of resources for all 

partners on cross-boundary burns. This allows for larger 

burns with safer fire lines and less impact, and it provides 

training opportunities. Multi-jurisdictional burning 

demonstrates consistency and unity among partnering 

agencies. Given these partnerships, the Southern Blue 

Ridge Escarpment landscape team, for example, has 

boosted their burn acreage by approximately 1,000-2,000 

acres per year.

GOAL 5. SHARE FIRE ECOLOGY (E.G., FIRE 

HISTORY, FIRE EFFECTS) RESOURCES 

USING A VARIETY OF OUTLETS

SBR FLN partners have given presentations about 

FLN-related work at international, national, and regional 

conferences. Webinars hosted through the national 

FLN provided further opportunities for sharing lessons 

learned, new tools and ideas developed in other networks, 

and additional avenues for scientists to share pertinent 

information. A list of webinars is available on the FLN 

website (www.conservationgateway.org/fln).

A monthly newsletter (the FLN Networker) is published 

by the national FLN team and shared electronically 

with partners and interested parties to keep everybody 

informed on recent findings and training opportunities. 

This newsletter is mailed to more than 500 people and 

is regularly forwarded to others across the country. SBR 

FLN partners are regular contributors. The CAFMS 

2

Personal Communication. 2013. Nicholas Larson, 109 Lawing Drive, 

Nebo NC 28761.
198 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

newsletter is another vehicle for SBR FLN participants to 

share fire ecology findings.

CONCLUSIONS

We consider our landscape-level assessments and tools 

such as ‘ecomath’ as works in progress, designed to further 

systematic, science-informed restoration planning. We 

intend to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration actions 

through our monitoring network as well as research 

collaborations with CAFMS. The tools developed 

collaboratively by our partners have been exported to many 

interested partners and other regional FLN networks. We 

believe that we are on track and making good progress 

toward restoring fire-adapted ecosystems that will 

hopefully be resistant to climate change. Our success is 

demonstrated by the fact that our network is growing, from 

five landscapes in 2007 to eight in 2014.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This work would not have been possible without the 

generous support by Promoting Ecosystem Resiliency 

through Collaboration: Landscapes, Learning and 

Restoration, a cooperative agreement between The 

Nature Conservancy, U.S. Forest Service, and agencies 

of the Department of the Interior (for more information, 

contact Lynn Decker at ldecker@tnc.org or (801) 320-

0524), LANDFIRE, and U.S. Forest Service Southern 

Research Station. Special thanks go to Dean Simon, 

Ryan Jacobs, Mike Brod, Nathan Klaus, Jim Wentworth, 

Malcolm Hodges, Kristen Austin, Greg Salansky, Robert 

Klein, Robert Cherry, David Ray, John Crockett, Marek 

Smith, Greg Philipp, Bob Gale, Hugh Irwin, Greg Lowe, 

Katherine Medlock, Jim Smith, Megan Sutton, Gordon 

Warburton, Riva Duncan, Marek Smith, Sam Lindblom, 

Tom Dooley, Judy Dunscomb, Debbie Crane, and many 

others for inspiration and assistance with this work. 

REFERENCES

Abrams, M.D., Nowacki G.J. 2008. Native Americans as active and 

passive promoters of mast and fruit trees in the Eastern USA. 

Holocene 18: 1123-1137.

Aldrich, S.R.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. [and others]. 

2010. Three centuries of fire in montane pine-oak stands on a 

temperate forest landscape. Applied Vegetation Science. 

13: 36-46.

Brose, P.H.; Schuler, T.M; Van Lear, D.H.; Berst, J. 2001. Bringing 

fire back: the changing regimes of the Appalachian mixed-oak 

forests. Journal of Forestry. 99(11): 30-35.

Brose, P.H.; Schuler, T.M.; Ward, J.S. 2006. Responses of oak and 

other hardwood regeneration to prescribed fire: what we know 

as of 2005. In: Dickinson, M.E., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: 

delivering science to managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 123-135.

Brown, J. K. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody 

material. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-016. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. 

Delcourt, H.R.; Delcourt, P.A. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native 

American use of fire on southern Appalachian landscapes. 

Conservation Biology 11: 1010-1014.

Elliott, K.J.; Vose, J.M.; Clinton, B.D.; Knoepp, J.D. 2004. Effects 

of understory burning in a mesic mixed-oak forest of the 

Southern Appalachians. In: Engstrom, R.T.; Galley, K.E.M.; 

de Groot, W.J., eds. Proceedings of the 22nd Tall Timbers fire 

ecology conference. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, 

FL: 272-283.

Fesenmyer, K.A.; Christensen, N.L. 2010. Reconstructing Holocene 

fire history in a southern Appalachian forest using soil charcoal. 

Ecology 91(3): 662-670.

Flatley, W.T.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2011. Climatic 

and topographic controls on patterns of fire in the southern and 

central Appalachian Mountains, USA. Landscape Ecology. 

(2011) 26: 195-209.

Frost, C.C. 1990. Hudsonia montana final report. Effects of fire, 

trampling, and interspecies competition. 1985-1989. Parts 

I (Final Report) and II (Appendices). Submitted to the U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service, Asheville Ecological Services Field 

Office. 93 p.

Gadd, L.; Finnegan, J. 2010. Natural Heritage Program list of 

rare plant species of North Carolina 2010. North Carolina 

Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, 

and Community Affairs, NC Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources. 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 

27699-1601. 136 p.

Kelly, J. 2012. An assessment of the ecosystems of NantahalaPisgah National Forest & surrounding lands: a synthesis 

of the eCAP methodology and LiDAR vegetation analysis. 

Report to the Fire Learning Network. 21 p. http://

www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/

FireLandscapes/FireLearningNetwork/NetworkProducts/Pages/

Final-Report-SBR-Assessment-Kelly-2013.aspx. [Date accessed: 

12/7/2013]

Kinkead, C.O.; Kabrick, J.M.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Grabner, K.W. 

2013. Changes to oak woodland stand structure and ground flora 

composition caused by thinning and burning. In: Miller, G.W.; 

Schuler, T.M.; Gottschalk, K.W. [and others], eds. Proceedings, 

18th Central Hardwood Forest Conference; 2012 March 26-28; 

Morgantown, WV. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-117. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 373-383 p. CD-ROM.

LANDFIRE. [N.d.] Vegetation data products: Biophysical 

Settings. [Online]. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/

NationalProductDescriptions20.php. [Date accessed: 

29 Jan 2009].

Lafon C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2007. Spatial patterns of 

fire occurrence in the central Appalachian Mountains and 

implications for wildland fire management. Physical Geography. 

28: 1-20.

Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2011. Fire regimes and 

successional dynamics of yellow pine (Pinus) stands in the 

central Appalachian Mountains. College Station, TX: Texas 

A&M University. Final Report of Project 01C-3-3-09 to the 

Joint Fire Science Program. 24 p. 
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 199

Mahan, C.G.; Young, J.A.; Forder, M. 2012. Prioritizing forest 

communities and areas for the use of prescribed fire at 

Shenandoah National Park. Natural Resource Technical Report. 

NPS/SHEN/NRTR-2012/625. Fort Collins, CO: National Park 

Service. Published Report-2191666.

McEwan, R.W.; Pederson, N.; Cooper, A. [and others]. 2013. Fire 

and gap dynamics over 300 years in an old-growth temperate 

forest. Applied Vegetation Science. 17: 312-322.

Nowacki, G.J.; Abrams, M.D. 2008. The demise of fire and 

the mesophication of forests in the Eastern United States. 

BioScience. 58(2): 123-138.

Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P.; Shapire, R.E. 2006. Maximum 

entropy modeling of species geographic distribution. Ecological 

Modeling. 190: 231-259.

Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 654 p.

Simon, S.A.; Collins, T.K.; Kauffman, G. [and others]. 2005. 

Ecological zones in the Southern Appalachians: first 

approximation. Res. Pap. SRS-41. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 41 p.

Simon, S.A. 2011. Ecological zones in the Southern Blue Ridge: 

3rd approximation. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, National Forests in North Carolina. Unpublished report 

available through Gary Kauffman, 160 Zillicoa St., Suite A, 

Asheville, NC 28801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Pisgah 

National Forest. 2009. Grandfather Ranger District, Linville 

Gorge Wilderness Fire Management Plan. 26 p. Unpublished 

report for the National Forests in NC, 160 Zillicoa St., Suite A, 

Asheville, NC 28801. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Pisgah 

National Forest, 2011. Grandfather Restoration Project: 

a collaborative forest landscape restoration proposal.

February 9, 2011. 39 p. Submitted to U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Washington Office from the 

National Forests in North Carolina. On file with: 160 Zillicoa 

St., Suite A, Asheville, NC 28801. 

Table 1—Fire mediated ecozones in each of the original SBR FLN landscapes (ecozone mapping is not yet 

available for the Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains Landscape) 

Landscape

Pine-oak 

heath

Shortleaf 

pinea

Highelevation 

red oak

Drymesic 

oak

Dry 

oakb

Mesic 

oakc

Fire 

mediated

ecozones

Non-fi re 

ecozonesd

Total 

acres

Percent 

fi re

adapted

Southern 

Blue Ridge 

Escarpment

14,261 81,207 1,044 109,674 37,493 19,593 263,272 64,091 327,363 80%

Unaka/

Great 

Smokies

116,009 20,451 19,917 78,357 44,714 180,158 459,606 401,268 860,874 53%

Central 

Escarpment 41,403 15,136 1,336 17,627 17,022 30,451 122,975 87,907 211,152 58%

South 

Mountains 3,527 478 0 4,976 10,403 5,656 25,040 8,950 33,990 74%

Northern 

Escarpment 3,743 0 2,060 4,570 2,466 10,807 23,646 20,844 44,490 53%

New River 

Headwaters 413 0 1,631 37 89 3,084 5,254 7,470 12,724 41%

Nantahala/

Balsam 

Mountains

60,497 62,885 39,940 89,826 42,003 166,274 461,425 407,802 869,227 53%

aShortleaf Pine = low elevation pine and shortleaf pine-oak/heath. 

bDry Oak = dry oak evergreen heath and dry oak deciduous heath.

cMesic Oak = montane oak-hickory shortleaf pine, montane oak-hickory cove, and montane oak-hickory rich.

dNon-fi re adapted ecozones include: spruce-fi r, northern hardwood slope, northern hardwood cove, rich cove, acidic cove.
200 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Figure 1—The map shows the eight landscapes and location of monitoring plots in the 

SBR FLN. Note: The Northern Escarpment and New River Headwaters joined the FLN 

in 2011, the Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains and Jocassee Gorges Focal area in summer 

2013.

Table 2—Ecological departure of ecosystems in the North Carolina Southern blue Ridge 

Ecosystem

Percentage of 

departure

Historic fi re 

return intervals Drivers of departure

Dry Oak Forest 80% 10 Too much closed canopy, lacks old-growth

Pine-Oak/Heatha 79% 5 Too much closed canopy, too much 

late-seral

Shortleaf Pine-Oaka 71% 3 Too much closed canopy, too much lateseral, lacks early-seral

Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory 71% 14 Too much closed canopy, lacks old-growth

Mesic Oak-Hickory 72% 18 Too much closed canopy, lacks old-growth

High Elevation Red Oak Forest 65% 18 Too much closed canopy, lacks old-growth

Rich Cove Forest 55% 70 Lacks old-growth

Acid Cove Forest 56% 70 Lacks old-growth

Spruce-Fir Foresta 39% 500 Too much mid-seral, too little late-seral; 

questions about species composition

Northern Hardwoods Covea 10% 250 No signifi cant departure, but old-growth 

not modeled

Northern Hardwoods Slopea 4% 250 No signifi cant departure, but old-growth 

not modeled

aOld-growth S-classes are not included in these models. 

Note: severely departed ecosystems are indicated in red, moderately departed in yellow, and other in green. Historic fi re return intervals 

are based on LANDFIRE 2009. 

Drivers of departure
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 201

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: TAKING SCIENCE FROM THE BOOKS 

TO THE GROUND AT BENT CREEK EXPERIMENTAL FOREST

Julia E. Kirschman1

Abstract—Technology transfer has been an important part of the research program at Bent Creek Experimental Forest 

(Bent Creek) since its establishment in 1925. Our stated mission is to develop and disseminate knowledge and strategies 

for restoring, managing, sustaining, and enhancing the vegetation and wildlife of upland hardwood-dominated forest 

ecosystems of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. 

Over the years, disseminating knowledge has taken many forms to address the needs of many different user groups. 

The diversity of user groups make disseminating knowledge challenging. Groups range from professors and scientists, 

graduate and undergraduate students, resource managers and foresters, to garden clubs, and Boy Scout troops. Bent Creek 

communicates research findings interpersonally—through tours of the demonstration forest, workshops, and presentations—

and visually—through websites, publications, interpretive signs, and other written and electronic material. 

Since the 1980s, Bent Creek has included a technology transfer specialist on staff. As a technology transfer specialist, there 

are many rewards and challenges. Some of the challenges are internal, and some are external. But the rewards are great 

when study results connect with individuals who understand, support, and are excited about the work being conducted by 

U.S. Forest Service Research and Development scientists.

INTRODUCTION

Congress established the Bent Creek Experimental Forest 

(Bent Creek) in 1925 originally on 1,100 acres of National 

Forest land set aside to conduct research on a variety 

of topics. Bent Creek is located on the Pisgah National 

Forest near Asheville, North Carolina, and is operated 

by the U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station 

(SRS). It is part of a network of experimental forests and 

ranges across the United States. Experimental forests 

were created to conduct scientific research in-house, 

apply research findings on National Forest System lands, 

continue long-term research, and demonstrate research 

results to cooperators and resource managers. 

Each experimental forest is located strategically within 

ecosystems that represent the area. Bent Creek represents 

the Southern Appalachian Mountain region. The 

experimental forest is located within a watershed that 

reaches elevations from 2,100 to 4,000 feet and contains 

a rich diversity of flora and fauna. An additional 5,200 

acres were added in 1935 bringing the total area to 6,300 

acres. The research conducted at Bent Creek changes 

over time to address ecological issues affecting forests. 

Early 1920s work focused on fire control, surveying and 

mapping, creating 50-acre compartments for research on 

degraded stands, and reforestation planting. Our focus 

changed in the 1950s to large scale studies of hardwood 

stand management, even-aged versus uneven-aged forest 

management, long versus short rotations, tree grades, soil 

moisture, seed sources, managing woodlots, reclaiming 

land with laurel thickets, and white pine (Pinus strobus) 

plantations.

Today research includes replicated small plot research, 

long-term growth and yield, hardwood regeneration, site 

classification, mast and forest fruit production, restoration 

of American chestnut (Castanea dentata), effects of 

climate change on forests and wildlife, sustainability, 

and carbon sequestration. The research unit also added a 

wildlife component to examine bird, bat, small mammal, 

reptile, and amphibian community response to both 

silvicultural treatments and natural disturbances. 

Though research topics at Bent Creek Experimental 

Forest have changed over the years with the emergence 

of new challenges and issues, the end products are 

still the same: valuable long-term data and research 

findings. A major challenge is to take the 90 years of 

research findings and make them accessible and relevant 

for today’s resource managers. This paper discusses 

technology transfer and how it has become successful at 

the Bent Creek Experimental Forest.

1

Julia E. Kirschman, Technology Transfer Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC 28806

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
202 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Technology transfer can be seen as science unto 

itself. Dr. Everett M. Rogers (2003), in Diffusion of

Innovations defines technology transfer as the process of 

communicating a technology from a source organization 

to a receptor organization.” There are three components 

in this process: knowledge, use, and commercialization. 

For example, the U.S. Forest Service Research and 

Development branch that includes the Southern Research 

Station is a source organization, world leaders in 

producing scientific research. The source can be the whole 

organization, or specific units within an organization. 

Receptor organizations are the groups that receive the 

information from the source organization. We call 

these receptor organizations our user groups. Scientists 

who create knowledge through research comprise the 

knowledge component in the technology transfer process, 

while the second component is the “use” component that 

is made up of methods and formats that facilitate the 

use of that knowledge. The last is the commercialization 

component which is the process of how the knowledge 

is packaged and “sold” to the receptors. “Sold” in this 

use refers to persuading the use of an idea, not making a 

monetary exchange.

 

A technology transfer specialist can help organizations 

move their science from the knowledge stage to the use 

and commercialization stages. The job of the technology 

transfer specialist is to transfer this knowledge to different 

user groups through a variety of methods and formats. 

Over the years, technology transfer has evolved to become 

not just an art and skill, but a science as well. 

METHODS

Technology transfer has evolved over the years at Bent 

Creek, and throughout the scientific community, in the 

way research results are disseminated to user groups. 

The knowledge component is still the same in that 

scientists still conduct research to obtain knowledge, 

but the way knowledge is transferred has radically 

changed over the years. Early transfer methods included 

interpersonal communication such as face-to-face contact 

between scientists and groups who participated in field 

trips to view and discuss research results. Nonverbal 

communication was in the form of written research 

papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and 

in-house publications (Muth and Hendee 1980).

In the 1980s, Forest Service project leaders began to see 

the importance of having a technology transfer specialist 

on staff, though the title “technology transfer specialist” 

was not yet an official job title. Technology transfer 

specialists were listed mostly as research foresters 

performing technology transfer tasks. The specialist 

at Bent Creek served as the go-between for scientists 

and user groups. Their duties included promoting Bent 

Creek science by creating partnerships and outreaches, 

developing materials such as brochures and booklets, 

and organizing tours and events. The specialist also 

helped develop a hiking trail system that included metal 

signs on a variety of natural resources subjects and a 

demonstration forest installed in 1991 to show forest 

management treatments side-by-side.

Today, technology transfer Specialist is recognized as 

an official job description and title. SRS administration 

includes a Science Delivery Group that is responsible for 

the commercialization or the conversion of an idea from 

research into a product or service, a process that includes 

the packaging, production, manufacturing, marketing, and 

distribution. Technology fransfer specialists work with the 

Science Delivery Group to produce materials and design 

marketing strategies.

The advancements and use of mass media technology 

since the 1990s has allowed technology transfer methods 

to expand even further. A Web site, an online forest 

encyclopedia, modeling simulators, webinars, and an 

introductory film on Bent Creek were created over 

the past 15 years. The adoption of social media such 

as, Facebook, blogs (CompassLive!), and Twitter are 

now common formats for instantly posting events, new 

research findings, and other information, making it 

available to anyone. 

The Bent Creek Research Work Unit created a week-long 

Upland Hardwood Silviculture Workshop in 1991as a 

result of numerous requests from State forest agencies for 

application of research results to the forest. Participants 

working in upland hardwood ecosystems came to learn 

from experts how to manage forests using the most upto-date research available through indoor lectures and 

field trips (fig. 1). The workshop covers 16 topics under 7 

modules by 10 or more experts in their respective fields 

of study. The topics ranged from management objectives, 

stand management on existing stands, stand management 

for regenerating new stands, forest health, site 

classification, restoration of American chestnut and other 

species, and wildlife. The first class was so successful that 

the week-long workshop became an annual event adding 

topics over the years to meet the needs of land managers. 

In 2007, the workshop was filmed to create an online 

course (available on DVD) that gives continuing learning 

credits.

Technology transfer duties still include tours on the 

demonstration forest and publications but also community 
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 203

events, information panels on the forest, research notes, 

brochures, fact sheets, educational programs, and 

interpretive signs. Scientists and technology transfer 

staff participate in speaking engagements at symposia, 

meetings, and other events such as the North Carolina 

Science Expo and the Forest Festival Day to promote 

science.

In earlier years, user groups (receptors) were mostly 

forestry students and professors, scientists, land 

managers, and an occasional visiting government official 

who contacted us for information and tours. The early 

user groups represented just a small percentage of the 

population from universities and professional forestry 

agencies that used our research. Because of the specialty 

of the research, just a small percentage of the public was 

being reached. 

One goal of Bent Creek’s technology transfer program 

was to expand the user groups and make this knowledge 

available to more people. With the experimental forest 

located within 10 miles of the city of Asheville, it 

has become a popular site for recreationists. Most 

people in the local area did not know the purpose of 

the experimental forest or about the research being 

conducted. If they did know, they did not know how to 

take the information and apply it on their own land. A 

new goal became reaching recreationists and local user 

groups. This required “selling the idea” or promoting 

our research by actively letting people know about the 

research, why the research is important, and how it affects 

them. The challenge was how to convey this knowledge to 

these new users groups.

With the nature of user groups changing, the technology 

transfer specialist must study and know the audience and 

use appropriate language to help people understand the 

information presented. Making contacts and gathering 

information on potential user groups and using different 

media to show research results expands the user groups. 

A two-year Visitor Use survey conducted on the forest 

in 2005 and 2007 helped us assess who visits our forest 

and why. The survey collected data on education levels 

and also other demographic information, which helped 

us determine the education level to use for preparation of 

materials. 

One method used was the installation of 33 interpretive 

signs (fig. 2). The signs have catchy titles and pictures 

with captions to pull the visitor in. Each sign has a 

“Research Shows” section with quick bullets, a “Did you 

know?” question and answer section, and a longer piece 

describing the research being done at that location. To 

have the most visual impact, the signs are strategically 

placed at trailheads where people congregate. The 

objective is to familiarize general public user groups with 

ongoing research at Bent Creek and why it is important 

to support this research. Educating the public about our 

research promotes good relationships and support.

Educational programs for children were added in 2000, 

with outreach to local schools offering classroom and 

field trip experiences to explore forests; teach forestry 

concepts; and learn about tree identification, forest 

ecosystems, tree growth, and other natural resource 

subjects.

Today we are reaching out not only to professional 

foresters and forestry students, but also State agencies, 

nonprofit organizations, international visitors, 

college students within other disciplines, along with 

recreationists, children, clubs, the media, and the general 

public.

CHALLENGES

My job is to take research results and disseminate (share/

package) the information in useable and understandable 

formats—a challenging task. Some of the challenges 

are internal, such as budget constraints, breakdown 

in communications within departments, changes in 

priorities, and limited personnel. Leadership changes 

can change the support for technology transfer services. 

Another leader might not necessarily share the same view. 

Some challenges are external, such as not knowing your 

audience or how to get information on the audience. One 

of the biggest challenges is writing clearly about complex 

issues for all levels of communication. 

Another challenge is forming partnerships and 

exchanging information within the organization and to 

outside user groups. This requires a lot of outreach and 

sitting down with resource managers to see what formats 

work best for their organization and finding out what they 

need from the scientific community. 

A technology transfer specialist needs to understand the 

scientific community and also the audience. There is a gap 

between the two. Scientists create their own community 

subcultural language made up of scientific jargon and 

terminology that is not used by other community groups 

within their organization and the outside user groups. 

Creating materials in other languages to reach ethnic and 

specific user groups is important if you want to effectively 

diffuse the information. 

Another challenge is the fact that scientists are sometimes 

thrown into technology transfer tasks and do not have the 

skills to format and commercialize their products in the 
204 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

most effective way to meet diverse audiences. Scientists 

and technology transfer specialists need to work together.

CONCLUSION

There are new avenues to explore in the area of 

technology transfer. Communication technology 

changes almost daily. The good news is that new formats 

can create new paths to disseminate knowledge to a 

wider and more diverse community. Being creative 

and understanding audiences and technology transfer 

principles are key to taking science from journal articles 

and getting it into the hands of managers to use on the 

ground.

LITERATURE CITED

Muth, R.M.; Hendee, J.C. 1980. Technology transfer and human 

behavior. Journal of Forestry. 78(3): 141-144. 

Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, ed. 5. New York: Free 

Press. 576 p.

Figure 1—Managers and students interact with scientists 

in field trips showing ongoing research.

Figure 2—Interpretive signs are an important means of 

communicating with recreationists on the Bent Creek 

Experimental Forest.
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 205

INTRODUCTION

Wildland fire research has been conducted by government 

and nongovernment organizations for over 80 years. 

Results have been available through research notes, 

conference proceedings, and refereed papers, and 

translated into a variety of training manuals and guides 

for fire manager use. With formation of the Joint Fire 

Science Program (JFSP) in 1998, federally-funded fire 

research ramped up across the United States to levels 

well above historical efforts. This increase in research 

funding has produced thousands of papers, reports 

and presentations, at a rate that is far greater than fire 

managers can follow; they do not have time to sift through 

and apply the plethora of research to their particular 

geographic and ecosystem conditions. Recognizing the 

opportunity to substantially improve the application of the 

immense body of new fire science information (as well as 

older research), in 2009, JFSP began developing regional 

consortia to facilitate communication about fire science 

and management.

Each consortium evolved from an intensive regional 

needs assessment that sought the experience and input of 

fire managers and scientists to identify mechanisms that 

would be most helpful to them for accessing and applying 

fire research results. JFSP provided sideboards for the 

consortia in terms of general goals and principles 

(http://www.firescience.gov/JFSP_consortia_vision.

cfm), but they allowed each consortium to develop an 

implementation plan based on ecologically similar 

conditions, existing regional resources, and stakeholder 

input. Through this process, a network of 14 regional 

consortia evolved over a three-year period, covering all 

parts of the country except the Northeast (fig. 1). All 

consortia are now in full operation, working to accelerate 

the awareness, understanding, and adoption of wildland 

fire science information by Federal, tribal, State, local, 

and private stakeholders. This paper describes how the 

consortia are operating to provide timely, accurate, and 

regionally relevant science-based information to assist 

with fire management activities and challenges.

CONSORTIA PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

The consortia use a variety of outreach methods: 

newsletters, fact sheets, research briefs, working papers, 

reports, websites, webinars, demonstration sites, field 

days, workshops, presentations at regional meetings, and 

conferences (LeQuire 2011). Each of these is strengthened 

through collaboration and partnerships. 

Each consortium distributes regular electronic and/or 

printed newsletters that contain new research highlights, 

information on upcoming training/learning opportunities, 

applications of new and old fire science information, 

descriptions of various information resources, and a 

number of other types of information that may help fire 

managers in their particular operations. Fact sheets, 

research briefs, working papers, research syntheses, and 

reports may provide: a short summary of new research or 

a research publication, a broader synthesis of published 

research results relevant to a particular topic, or a detailed 

evaluation of a body of literature that addresses specific 

needs such as fuel reduction techniques. 

Each consortium has also developed a website with 

varying functionalities, ranging from calendars of 

professional development and training opportunities 

[Extended Abstract]

FACILITATING KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE ABOUT WILDLAND FIRE SCIENCE

Alan Long1

Abstract—The Joint Fire Science Program’s Knowledge Exchange Consortia Network is actively working to accelerate 

the awareness, understanding, and adoption of wildland fire science information by Federal, tribal, State, local and private 

stakeholders within ecologically similar regions. Our network of 14 regional consortia provides timely, accurate, and 

regionally relevant science-based information to assist with fire management challenges. Regional activities, through 

which we engage fire managers, scientists, and private landowners, include online newsletters and announcements, social 

media, regionally-focused web-based clearinghouses of relevant science, field trips and demonstration sites, workshops and 

conferences, webinars and online training, and syntheses and fact sheets. 

1

Alan Long, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL 32312-0918

Citation for proceedings: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p. 
206 Proceedings • Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

to lists of key research papers, to links to a variety 

of other wildland fire information resources. These 

websites have been developed to serve as a ‘first stop’ for 

locating region-specific fire science information without 

duplicating existing Web sites that provide a large amount 

of other fire information such as those maintained by the 

Geographic Area Coordination Centers and the National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group. A phenomenon experienced 

by some of the consortia was the keen interest in on-line 

forums expressed by fire managers and other stakeholders 

during the needs assessment, but to date there has been 

very limited use of forums that have been developed.

Written and Web-based products are effective for 

conveying new information, facilitating access to both 

new and old information, and increasing end user 

awareness and comprehension of fire science. However, 

science delivery is generally enhanced through webinars, 

presentations, and in-the-field interchange between 

researchers and managers. Although webinars are 

largely a one-way flow of information, they do provide 

opportunities for participants to ask questions. Thus, 

they represent a great opportunity for field personnel 

to increase awareness of research results and field 

applications, similar to conference presentations. All 

webinars have been archived so people can access them 

at a convenient time. Webinar use by consortia has 

rapidly increased during the last two years and provides 

an opportunity to reach fire science users when travel 

budgets are limited.

Research summaries and applications are frequently 

described in presentations at local and regional fire 

meetings. For example, Prescribed Fire Councils meet 

regularly in each State in the South and the Southern 

Fire Exchange has been able to give short presentations 

at most of those annual or biannual meetings that include 

highlights of recent published research. Scientists also 

frequently describe their work at these and other fire 

meetings. The best and most direct active science delivery 

occurs when scientists, managers, and landowners meet 

in the field (workshops, field days, demonstration areas) 

to discuss particular issues and topics and how research 

results have been, or might be, applied in different 

situations. Several of the consortia (Southwest, Great 

Basin, Northern Rockies, Northwest) have conducted 

very successful field workshops in the last two years. 

Most of the other consortia have assisted with at least one 

of these types of events, but all consortia will be doing 

more of these in the future. Unfortunately, participation 

in these is increasingly threatened by travel constraints 

for Federal agency employees, but the consortia at least 

partially overcome this challenge by utilizing the many 

collaborative partnerships they have developed.

COLLABORATION IS VITAL

Although programs in each consortium are built on 

a variety of collaborations and partnerships, perhaps 

the most valuable collaboration for the consortia has 

been with each other. Upon initiating the first round of 

consortia, JFSP made it clear that the consortia should 

not consider themselves in competition with one another. 

Consequently, the 14 consortia across the country have 

demonstrated a remarkable interest in working together, 

learning from each other, and building a community 

representing dozens of organizations with a commitment 

to cross pollination and mutually improving knowledge 

exchange about fire science and management. From 

annual meetings to regular conference calls to ‘steady 

talk’ via email, the consortia share ideas, describe 

pitfalls that others might want to avoid, cross-post 

information, and promote each other’s programs. This is 

especially significant with consortia that share geographic 

boundaries, but widely-separated consortia also benefit 

from interacting with each other.

Collaboration is also vital within each consortium. Most 

of the consortia involve two or more organizations and 

agencies as principal partners. Each consortium also has 

an advisory group composed of representatives from 

many other organizations, including universities, Federal 

agencies, research stations, not-for-profit organizations, 

rural communities, State agencies, Prescribed Fire 

Councils, Fire Learning Network, and others. Many of 

these groups are also key partners in conducting programs.

WILL THEY MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

The regional consortia are becoming established 

mechanisms of fire science delivery, with strong 

continuing support from JFSP. ‘Subscriber’ lists to each 

consortium are growing. Web sites are maturing and 

regularly adding new information and features. Webinar 

and other research summary products are increasing. 

Annual evaluations indicate that the consortia are 

becoming recognized as major resources within each 

region for getting fire science ‘on the ground.’ Yet, 

the challenge remains to move increased awareness to 

application and adoption of scientific products. This will 

happen as we increase the opportunities for scientists 

and fire managers to interact more frequently regarding 

research applications and needs.

LITERATURE CITED

LeQuire, E. 2011. Knowledge exchange: a two-way street. Joint Fire 

Science Program Fire Science Digest 11. Boise, ID: National 

Interagency Fire Center: 15 p. http://www.firescience.gov/

Digest/FSdigest11.pdf. [Date accessed: 4-22-13].
Manager/Scientist Success Stories 207

Figure 1—Map of the Joint Fire Science Program regional consortia.
208 Proceedings Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

Aldrich, Serena R.........................................................97

Baldwin, Robert F. .......................................................85

Bates, Peter ................................................................191

Belair, Ethan P..............................................................60

Blankenship, Kori ......................................................127

Bowden, Michael .........................................................48

Brose, Patrick H...................................................12, 182

Buchanan, Beth..........................................141, 160, 191

Bucher, Margit ...........................................................191

Clabo, David C.............................................................42

Clark, Stacy L. .............................................................60

Clatterbuck, Wayne K. .................................................42

Coan, Michael............................................................153

Curtin, Lindsey A.......................................................141

DeWeese, Georgina G..................................................97

Dey, Daniel ....................................................................3

Downey, Daniel M.....................................................111

Drury, Stacy A............................................................139

Fisher, Sydney N........................................................111

Flatley, William T.........................................................97

Fulks, Wendy .............................................................191

Greenberg. Cathryn H..................................................81

Grissino-Mayer, Henri D. ............................................97

Guess, Greg..................................................................48

Guyette, Richard P. ....................................................109

Hagan, Donald .........................................................164

Hagen, Sarah..............................................................127

Haraldstadt, Jens Peter...............................................111

Holden, Geoff.............................................................147

Horn, Sally P. .............................................................102

Hoss, Jennifer A...........................................................97

Howard, Stephen .......................................................153

Hutchinson, Todd...................................................25, 48

Ingalsbee, Timothy ............................................168, 176

Iverson, Louis ..............................................................48

Kauffman, Gary .........................................................191

Kelly, Josh..................................................................191

Kirschman, Julia ........................................................199

Kloss, Aaron.................................................................48

Lafon, Charles W. ........................................................97

LaForest, Lisa B...........................................................97

Loeb, Susan C. .............................................................72

Long, Alan..................................................................203

Long, Robert P. ............................................................25

Marschall, Joseph M. .................................................109

Mohr, Helen H. ....................................................34, 191

O’Keefe, Joy M............................................................72

Patton, Jeannie ...........................................................127

Peters, Matthew............................................................48

Phillips, Ross J.................................................34, 81, 85

Picotte, Joshua............................................................153

Pitt, Amber L................................................................85

Rauscher, H. Michael.................................................139

Rebbeck, Joanne ....................................................25, 48

Reilly, Matthew..........................................................164

Saunders, Mike R.........................................................60

Schlarbaum, Scott E.....................................................60

Schweitzer, Callie J......................................................60

Simon, Dean M. .....................................................34, 81

Simon, Steve ......................................................179, 191

Smith, James L...........................................................127

Stambaugh, Michael C...............................................109

Stevenson, Aaron P.....................................................109

Stober, Jonathan M. ...................................................147

Stout, Susan L. ...........................................................182

Sutherland, Elaine Kennedy.........................................25

Swaty, Randy .............................................................127

Tavano, Joseph J. .........................................................85

Thomas-Van Gundy, Melissa A. ................................130

Tomcho, Joseph............................................................81

Torreano, Scott J. .........................................................60

Underwood, Christopher A. .......................................102

Waldrop, Thomas A. ..........................12, 34, 81, 85, 164

Warwick, Adam............................................................53

Yaussy, Daniel A. ...................................................25, 48

Index of Authors
How do you rate this publication?

Scan this code to submit your feedback or go to 

www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubeval

Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. 2014. Proceedings, Wildland fire in the Appalachians: discussions among 

fire managers and scientists. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-199. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 208 p.

Many challenges face fire managers and scientists in the Appalachian Mountains because of the 

region’s diverse topography and limited research supporting prescribed burning. This conference 

was designed to promote communication among managers, researchers, and other interested parties. These proceedings contain 30 papers and abstracts that describe ongoing research, successful 

technology transfer, and management tools for planning prescribed fires. Five categories of papers 

include ecology of plants and plant communities, wildlife ecology, fire history and fire effects, 

tools for forest management, and manager-scientist success stories.
b Proceedings Wildland Fire in the Appalachians: Discussions among Managers and Scientists

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.