National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fire Effects on Wildlife in Tallgrass Prairie 

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2010/193 
ON THE COVER 

Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) observed immediately following a prescribed fire at Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield in 2000. Photograph by: Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Program. 
Fire Effects on Wildlife in Tallgrass Prairie 

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2010/193 

Maria Gaetani 

Missouri State University 

Biology Department 

901 S National Avenue 

Springfield, MO, 65897 

Kayla Cook 

1066 Amity Road 

Niangua, MO 65713 

Sherry Leis 

Missouri State University 

Biology Department 

901 S National Avenue 

Springfield, MO, 65897 

May 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado 
The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management 

applicability. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly 

involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of 

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from Heartland I&M Network

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/htln/fire.cfm) and the Natural Resource Publications 

Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Gaetani, M. S., K. Cook, and S. A. Leis. 2010. Fire effects on wildlife in tallgrass prairie. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2010/193. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 920/102093, May 2010 

ii 
Contents 

Page 

Figures............................................................................................................................................ iv

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iv

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... v

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Grassland Birds ............................................................................................................................... 2

Escape Mechanisms ................................................................................................................. 2

Effects on Feeding ................................................................................................................... 3

Effects on Breeding and Nesting ............................................................................................. 3

Mammals......................................................................................................................................... 4

Small Mammals ....................................................................................................................... 5

Escape Mechanisms ............................................................................................................ 5

Effects on Feeding ............................................................................................................... 5

Response to Change in Habitat Structure ........................................................................... 5

Bats ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Effects on Feeding .......................................................................................................... 6

Large Mammals ....................................................................................................................... 6

Escape Mechanisms ............................................................................................................ 6

Response to Change in Habitat........................................................................................... 7

Reptiles and Amphibians ................................................................................................................ 7

Escape Mechanisms ................................................................................................................. 7

Effects on Feeding ................................................................................................................... 8

Response to Change in Habitat ................................................................................................ 8

Effects on Mating .................................................................................................................... 9

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 12

iii 
Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) observed at Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield during field work in 2007. Photo by Heartland Inventory and Monitoring 

Program. .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Red bat (Lasiurus borealis) roosting at Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in 

August 2009, picture courtesy of Darin McCullough. .................................................................... 6

Figure 3. Plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix) basking at Tallgrass Prairie National 

Preserve in 2003. Photo by Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Program. .................................. 9

Tables 

Table 1. Habitat preference in relation to time since burn for Midwestern birds. .......................... 2

iv
Abstract 

In the tallgrass prairie region of North America, grasslands are often burned on a rotational 

schedule to prevent the encroachment of woody species and maintain the vigor of plant 

communities. Although prescribed fire practitioners often consider the effects of fire on plant 

communities, the effects of fire on wildlife are also important. Practitioners as well as park 

visitors inquire about the effects of fire on birds, deer, and other animals of interest. Many 

wildlife species focus on vegetation structure in choosing suitable habitats, and fire can 

temporarily alter that structure. Wildlife species have varying habitat needs, and therefore, a 

variety of responses to fire. To accommodate the variety of habitat needs for wildlife within 

grassland, fire can be implemented heterogeneously. For example, varying the time of year a 

burn occurs, and burning only portions of the habitat in a single year can help sustain 

populations. Monitoring programs aimed at quantifying populations and acceptable levels of 

mortality for species of interest may also help fire programs adapt to help wildlife populations 

thrive. This document provides information about the ability of birds, mammals, and 

herpetofauna to escape or survive fire. We also describe how fire induced changes to habitat can 

affect groups of animals and a suite of individual species. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank David Peitz of the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network 

for providing support throughout the document’s progress. As well as Gary Sullivan of Wilson’s 

Creek National Battlefield for suggesting this document be developed. Ryan Green developed 

an annotated bibliography for this project. 

v 
Introduction 

Fire is well documented as an important ecological process in grassland communities including 

those in the eastern oak woodland-tallgrass prairie transition zone (Wright 1978, Axelrod 1985, 

Ladd 1991). Tallgrass prairie requires fire on a relatively frequent basis of every 1 – 5 years 

depending on location (Frost 1998) to prevent the encroachment of woody species and maintain 

the integrity of plant communities (Aldous 1934, Briggs et al. 2002). Although prescribe fire 

practitioners often consider the effects of fire on plant communities when writing prescriptions, 

the effects of fire on wildlife are often overlooked. 

Natural resources managers, fire practitioners, as well as park visitors often inquire about the 

effects of fire on birds, deer, and other animals of interest. Images like Smokey Bear and Bambi 

move people emotionally, and suggest that fire presents a great danger to wildlife (Jacobson et 

al. 2001). In reality the degree of danger depends on many things such as burn pattern, ignition 

type, fuel loads, weather conditions, rate of spread, and biology of the species of interest (Wright 

and Bailey 1982, Chapter 4; Smith 2000). Prescribed fires generally present reduced risk over 

wildfires in that they are typically implemented under moderate to mild conditions. Prescriptions 

for cool or moderate intensity fires include slow wind speeds, cool air temperatures, and often 

moderate to high relative humidity and fuel moistures. By contrast, wildfires can occur under 

more dangerous conditions such as high winds and very dry fuels. Furthermore, prescribed fires 

target specific areas for specific objectives, while wild fire burned uncontrolled over potentially 

large areas. 

This document was developed in response to National Park Service Natural Resource Managers 

frequent requests for information they can use to improve both fire management and 

communication with park visitors. We summarized existing literature on the ability of birds, 

mammals, and herpetofauna to escape and survive fire, effects on foraging behavior, and species 

abilities to reproduce following fire. We also discuss how fire induced changes to habitat can 

affect groups of animals and a suite of individual species. 

Figure 1. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) observed at Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield during field work in 2007. Photo by Heartland Inventory and 

Monitoring Program. 

1 
Grassland Birds 

The effects of fire on grassland birds, whether it be prescribed or wild, are different for every 

species. Johnson (1997) defined three response groups to fire in mixed grass prairie: burn 

positive species which require the openness of areas immediately post-burn, burn negative 

species that avoid burned areas and prefer a woody plant component, and finally those that prefer 

habitats in recovery from burning with little or no woody vegetation. Variation in the frequency, 

timing, and size of fires help create these habitats in proximity to one another. 

In recent years, the land management paradigm has begun to shift towards creating more 

heterogeneity in landscapes to better meet the needs of a variety of birds in one space, as well as 

meeting the needs of species that require a variety of habitat structures throughout their life 

cycles (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001, Reinking 2005, Churchwell et al. 2008). The strategy of 

creating a shifting mosaic pattern of succession is healthy for the grassland ecosystem and can be 

beneficial for most grassland bird species. For example, patch burn grazing was demonstrated to 

be an effective method for maintaining a variety of vegetation structures across the study area in 

Oklahoma (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). The increase in heterogeneity of vegetation structure allows 

for greater species diversity within a managed area (Table 1). 

Table 1. Habitat preference in relation to time since burn for Midwestern birds. 

Species Habitat preference Relation to burn Source 

*Greater prairie-chicken

(Tympanuchus cupido). 

Heterogeneous 

grassland Frequent rotational Svedarsky et al. 2003, McKee et al. 1998 

*Dickcissel (Spiza americana) Tall dense grass > 3 years since burn Zimmerman 1988 

*Henslow’s sparrow 

(Ammodramus henslowii) Tall standing grasses > 3 years since burn Reinking 2005 

Northern flicker (Colaptes 

auratus) Snag hollows Moderate intensity Bange et al. 2008 

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides

villosus Snag hollows Moderate intensity Bange et al. 2008 

Northern saw-whet owl 

(Aegolius acadicus) Snag hollows Moderate intensity Bange et. al. 2008 

Field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) Tall dense grass, 

woody edges Infrequent burns Best 1979, Dechant et al. 2003b 

Northern bobwhite (Colinus 

virginianus) 

Heterogeneous 

grassland with woody 

edges 

Frequent rotational Roseberry and Sudkamp 1998 

*Grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum)

Short vegetation and 

shallow litter Frequent rotational Delisle and Savidge 1997, Madden et al. 1999 

*indicates grassland obligate species 

Escape Mechanisms 

The ability of grassland birds to escape fires is dependent upon their maturity. Adult birds 

capable of flight have the ability to escape most fires, but little research has been conducted to 

2 
understand what triggers an escape response or how long an individual takes to be alerted. 

Immature birds whose wings have not fully developed are at a greater risk of direct mortality 

from fire. The young of birds nested in the canopy of trees or shrubs have an advantage over 

chicks in ground nests, because the elevation buffers them from lower intensity surface fires 

(Lyon et al. 2000). 

Effects on Feeding 

Grassland birds feed on a wide variety of foods. Fire may combust some seeds, however, may 

also remove materials, such as heavy litter, making seeds more accessible immediately following 

the burn (Best 1979). The same is true for insectivorous birds. Despite invertebrate mortality 

immediately after a fire, remaining insects are more easily found because of the decrease in 

foliage cover (Best 1979). Grasshopper Sparrows, an insectivorous species, in a study in Kansas 

preferred moderately grazed and annually burned tallgrass prairies, possibly because prey was 

more available (Klute 1994, Klute et al. 1997, Dechant et al. 2003a). Fire also benefits orders of 

birds beyond galliformes and passerines by creating feeding opportunities for birds of prey and 

scavengers as small birds and mammals are attracted to burned areas immediately post-burn 

(Lyon et al. 2000). 

Effects on Breeding and Nesting 

Mating success is an inseparable part of nesting success i.e., if birds cannot mate successfully 

than no chicks will be produced. Many species have specific habitat requirements for successful 

mating. Like with other aspects of avian life histories, certain species have positive responses to 

burning in terms of breeding and nesting while others have negative responses. 

Consider the Greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) and Northern bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus). The Greater prairie-chicken requires different habitat structures for 

mating, nesting, and brood rearing (Svedarsky et al. 2003, Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). Male prairiechickens put on displays requiring a high degree of visibility for success in attracting mates 

(Svedarsky et al. 2003). Early spring burns can effectively clear standing vegetation and litter, 

thereby increasing visibility. Once a female prairie-chicken has successfully mated, ideal nesting 

habitat includes less than 25% litter cover and greater than 25% grass cover (McKee et al. 1998). 

Usually females begin nesting in late April, and therefore, must find areas with cover from the 

previous growing season (Svedarsky et al. 2003). Once the female prairie-chicken has 

successfully hatched a brood, the habitat required once again changes as the chicks move to areas 

that have been disturbed but still have overhead cover. These areas in recovery from disturbance 

allow for greater ease of movement and access to food sources than undisturbed habitats like 

those preferred for nesting (Svedarsky et al. 2003). These varying habitat types can be found 

simultaneously in areas managed for heterogeneity such as with patch burn grazing (Fuhlendorf 

et al. 2006). 

Northern bobwhites are similar to greater-prairie chickens in that they require structurally 

heterogeneous habitats. Quail also favor woody edges as part of their habitat (Roseberry and 

Sudkamp 1998). Controlled burning has been used as a successful management method for 

maintaining bobwhite habitat when burns are patchy and take place at 1 – 2 year intervals 

(Landers and Mueller 1989, Brennan 1991). 

3 
For other species, fire may have short-term negative effects on breeding. Both male and female 

Dickcissel (Spiza americana) require tall, standing dead plants for successful reproduction. Male 

Dickcissels perch on tall plants to sing and females build their nests in the tall grasses and forbs 

(Zimmerman 1971). Robel et al. (1998) observed a decline in reproduction of Dickcissels postburn possibly because of loss of appropriate habitat structure. However, the number of nests one 

year following the burn was not significantly reduced. Other prairie species such as Henslow’s 

sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) also require tall standing dead plants for males to perch on for 

breeding purposes. A study in Illinois grasslands found that the density of Henslow’s sparrows 

was significantly reduced in the summer following a spring burn because of removal of standing 

dead materials (Herkert 1994). While fire immediately reduces the presence of the Henslow’s 

sparrows, fire exclusion negatively affects the birds’ habitat by allowing encroachment of woody 

vegetation (Zimmerman 1988). 

Birds that nest in snags have a small advantage over ground nesting birds when fire sweeps 

through their habitat because of the proximity to heat and flame. However, snags are more 

susceptible to burning than live trees. Birds such as Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Hairy 

woodpecker (Picoides villosus), and Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), which utilize 

snags as their nesting site, may be negatively impacted by prescribed fires. Bange (2008) found 

that impacts could be mitigated by focusing management activities on maintaining the 

availability of large live trees and snags of favored tree species. 

Unlike nests inside snags and live trees, ground nests are subject to fire at any intensity, and the 

season of burn sometimes determines nest success for ground nesting birds. Depending on life 

history and habitat needs, the effect on nesting varies from species to species. Species that nest 

later in the year, such as field sparrow have a neutral response to spring prescribed fire since 

nesting occurs after spring burns are completed (Best 1979). If fire sweeps through an area after 

a ground nesting bird has established a nest and laid a clutch, the clutch’s survival depends on 

the completeness of the burn. Unburned patches and areas with bare ground may protect nests 

(Kruse and Piehl 1986). In cases of complete burns, the clutch is destroyed (Kruse and Piehl 

1986, Svedarsky et al. 1986, Lyon et al. 2000). Some species, such as Greater prairie-chicken, 

will re-nest if the first nest is destroyed early enough in the season. However, other species such 

as Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) are not likely to re-nest (Robbins and Myers 1992, 

Reinking 2005). 

Mammals 

The effect of fire, whether prescribed or wildfire, on mammals depends on numerous factors 

such as fire intensity and size, completeness, season, and frequency of burns. The categorization 

of mammals by body size is helpful when discussing fire effects. Within the context of this 

section, deer are considered large mammals while rodents like mice, voles, and shrews are 

treated as small mammals. In both size categories, the post-burn change in habitat structure 

affects local mammal populations. 

4 
Small Mammals 

Escape Mechanisms 

When an area burns, small mammals have a number of escape mechanisms. Many small 

mammals such as Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), White footed mouse (P. leucopus), 

Plains pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens), Northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina 

brevicauda), Masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), Least shrew (Cryptotis parva) and Thirteen-lined 

ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) retreat to underground burrows (Erwin and 

Stasiak 1979). Some small mammals without a tendency to burrow or create underground nests, 

such as rabbits, attempt to flee from the flames above ground. In a study conducted by Erwin and 

Stasiak (1979), many fleeing mammals were observed to be successful in escaping fire. 

However, Other animals, however, such as immature rabbits were not. Small mammals that build 

above ground nests such as Western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) experienced the 

highest mortality, with young pups in burned nests accounting for most of the mortalities in the 

Erwin and Stasiak (1979) study. 

Effects on Feeding 

Post-burn changes in habitat structure affect accessibility to food. The removal of litter allows 

granivores (seed predators) access to accumulations of previously fallen and buried seeds 

(Wright and Bailey 1982, Kaufman et al. 1988). In addition to removing litter to expose seeds, 

fire can remove standing dead materiel, making previously suspended seeds available (McGee 

1982b). Deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) have been shown to adjust their diets following a 

burn to take advantage of the post-burn availability of seeds (McGee 1982a). Species such as 

Western harvest mouse experience a delayed benefit from the increased availability of seeds 

because they also require standing vegetation as cover before inhabiting an area (Cook 1959). 

Response to Change in Habitat Structure 

Small mammals, especially rodent populations in prairies, exhibit varied responses to changes in 

habitat structure resulting from the frequency and seasonality of fire (Schramm and Willcutts 

1983) Wildfires in prairies most likely occurred in the spring to autumn months historically 

(Bragg 1982). In a study conducted by Kaufman et al. (1988) at the Konza Prairie Research 

Natural Area, the Deer mouse selected recently burned areas with a high proportion of exposed 

soils, lush vegetation, and little or no litter. Deer mouse, which prefer a minimal litter layer and 

open vegetation, have a strong positive response the season directly following a fire (Kaufman et 

al. 1988, McMillan et al. 1995). The attraction to the burned area is likely a result of litter 

removal, rather than the increased level of plant productivity (Kaufman et al. 1988). In the same 

study, Western harvest mouse populations decreased immediately following the fire. Western 

harvest mouse negative response immediately following a fall burn continued into the 

subsequent spring because of sustained removal of the litter layer (McMillan et al. 1995). 

Bats 

While the body size of bats places them in the small mammal category, they have the unique 

advantage of flight as an escape mechanism. However, like other small mammals, the time of 

year a burn occurs and habitat selection are important factors in the effects of fire on each bat 

species. 

5 
Fires can both create snags and destroy them, therefore, simultaneously creating and destroying 

roosting habitat. Recent studies are inconclusive about whether burning is a beneficial forest 

management tool for bat habitat (Boyles and Aubrey 2006, Dickinson et al. 2009). Further 

investigation is needed (Dickinson et al. 2009). For bats that roost in caves, there are negative 

impacts associated with smoke intrusion, and smoke toxicity can negatively impact bats. 

(Dickinson et al. 2009). 

Beyond the creation or destruction of bat 

habitat, burning also directly affects the 

Red bat (Lasiurus borealis) and other 

species of bats that utilize trees and leaf 

litter (Saugey et al. 1998). The negative 

risk posed to the Red bats is elevated 

during the winter months when bats enter 

torpor and have reduced escape capabilities 

(Layne 2009). If the bats are able to 

passively reanimate themselves, they are 

better able to escape a fire. This 

reanimation from torpor occurs above 

certain temperatures, usually brought about 

by increasing temperatures during daylight 

hours (Layne 2009). When not in torpor, 

bats have been observed to fly and find 

new unburned roosts nearby (Dickinson et 

al. 2009). Managers should take into 

account the diurnal temperature 

requirements of bats when planning for burn 

events in known bat habitat. 

Figure 2. Red bat (Lasiurus borealis) roosting at 

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in August 2009, 

picture courtesy of Darin McCullough.

Effects on Feeding: Fires can also temporarily limit the available forage for bats immediately 

post-burn. In a study by Dickinson et al. (2009) involving Northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis), fewer flying insects were observed within the burned area the night immediately 

following a burn causing bats to forage outside of their normal home range. This change in 

behavior lasted for 6 – 7 days. 

Large Mammals 

Escape Mechanisms 

A number of studies have noted fire-caused death of large mammals ranging from deer to bears 

(Lyon et al. 2000). However, recorded deaths of large mammals are generally infrequent and do 

not significantly alter populations (French and French 1996). This is generally attributed to the 

ability of large mammals to move away from most flames, and therefore, remove themselves 

from danger during a burn (Singer and Schullery 1989). Incidences of mortality are generally 

associated with large fires with severe fire behavior (Lyon et al. 2000). The ability of large 

mammals to escape fire is reinforced by abundant anecdotal accounts describing large mammals 

such as deer, elk, bison and bear walking out of the paths of oncoming flames. 

6 
Response to Change in Habitat 

As mammals’ body size increase, their habitat and life history needs also change. As a result, 

large mammals have somewhat different interactions with fire affected landscapes than small 

mammals. Appropriate use of fire can create suitable habitat for large mammals, such as Whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), which feed on understory vegetation stimulated by fire 

(Deperno et al. 2002). Like small mammals, the time of year that a burn takes place influences a 

deer’s response since changes in vegetation structure, nutrient content, and forage availability are 

all influenced by the time of year a burn takes place (Stransky and Harlow 1981). After a winter 

burn, protein increases in forages, fruit production decreases, and fire-tolerant vegetation persists 

for up to three years post-burn (Stransky and Harlow 1981). After a summer burn, woody 

vegetation diminishes promoting herbaceous growth and enhancing forage nutrients (Stransky 

and Harlow 1981). This type of response in vegetation occurs with infrequent burns and differs 

from the response to frequent burns (Stransky and Harlow 1981). Vegetation responds to 

frequent burns by favoring more fire tolerant species, and reducing the presence of woody plants 

at the burn site (Stransky and Harlow 1981). 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Research done on the effects of fire on herpetofauna is limited, especially for the Great Plains 

and tallgrass prairies. Material herein covers multiple ecosystems to provide a more complete 

overview. Existing research shows that fire can have a range of effects on herpetofauna 

depending on factors such as fire regime, fire return interval, time-since-burn, season of burn, 

and completeness of burn. 

Escape Mechanisms 

Reptiles and amphibians were found to have different escape mechanisms in four different 

studies (Smith et al. 2001, Moseley et al. 2003, Durbian 2006, Greenberg and Waldrop 2008). In 

studies on snakes it was found that some species use underground retreats post-burn. For 

example, two massasauga snakes were found in crayfish burrows after a prescribed burn on a 

wildlife refuge in Missouri (Durbian 2006). After a prescribed fire in the Peloncillo Mountains of 

southern Arizona and New Mexico, snakes moved less frequently post-burn and used 

underground shelters. Reduced mobility and preference for underground shelter post-burn may 

result from increased exposure to predators and higher ground surface temperatures (Smith et al. 

2001). Amphibians also make use of above ground deposits of fine debris as a source of refuge. 

In a study in the southern Appalachians, duff and woody debris amounts after prescribed fire 

provided sufficient cover and dampness for the protection of some salamander species 

(Greenberg and Waldrop 2008). Burrowing underground may help amphibians survive when the 

leaf litter is removed, as well (Moseley et al. 2003). 

Individuals that unsuccessfully find refuge during a burn may be injured or die. Babbit and 

Babbitt (1951) collected 60 box turtles from excavated burrows in Dade County Florida after a 

spring fire. Ten of the turtles were dead and several others showed signs of scaring from 

previous burns. Of 12 Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus adamanteus) found in this 

same study, only two were still alive. When reptile and amphibian mortalities occur, they are 

challenging to document thoroughly (Pilliod et al. 2003). Many things can happen to an 

individual during or after a fire. The body of an individual could be completely consumed by the 

7 
fire, the animal could find refuge underground before dying, or it could seek refuge in moving 

water before dying and then be washed downstream (Pilliod et al. 2003). Predators may consume 

or remove bodies from the burn site. Failure to find bodies however, does not necessarily signify 

mortality as individuals may have escaped or left the area for non fire related reasons (Pilliod et 

al. 2003). 

An amphibian’s response to fire can be connected to the time of year the burn takes place. 

During summer, usually the driest time of year, most amphibians are underground or near water 

sources. When fire is introduced to the area, the amphibians are already positioned to escape its 

effects. Amphibians in the temperate zone are most active on the ground surface in the spring 

and fall, and prescribed fires applied during these times can lead to direct mortality. Fire can also 

impede migration to, or dispersal from breeding sites. Late-summer and fall burns increase the 

risk of direct mortality for amphibians that are migrating to water or preparing to overwinter 

under leaf litter (Pilliod et al. 2003). 

Effects on Feeding 

There is a lack of research on the effects of wildland fire on the feeding habits of reptiles and 

amphibians. However, it has been noted that tallgrass prairie herpetofauna are usually generalist 

feeders. Therefore they can find other food sources when their preferred prey is not available 

(Wilgers and Horne 2006). 

Response to Change in Habitat 

In fire adapted ecosystems, both fire suppression and too frequent fire can pose threats to 

amphibian habitat (Schurbon and Fauth 2004). Amphibians that are most likely to be affected by 

fire are those that have a very narrow habitat niche. Conversely, amphibians that can tolerate a 

variety of habitats (generalists) are least likely to be affected (Pilliod et al. 2003). Habitat 

fragmentation resulting from fire could act as an impenetrable barrier to amphibians (Dodd and 

Smith 2003). Because of their unique physiology which requires moisture to survive, amphibians 

face a significant risk in crossing dry, fragmented habitats (Dodd and Smith 2003). The amount 

of coarse woody debris in an area, which may otherwise decompose slowly and provide habitat 

for amphibians and reptiles, can be reduced by a single burn event (Dodd and Smith 2003, 

Pilliod et al. 2003). In addition to reducing coarse materials, fire may also reduce the amount of 

accumulated leaf litter. The loss of litter may cause amphibians to lose migration paths and be 

placed at greater risk of predation and desiccation (Schurbon and Fauth 2003). While fire may 

have negative short term effect on certain amphibian species, it can help maintain general habitat 

types for species living in glade and long-leaf pine communities (Brisson et al. 2003, Schurbon 

and Fauth 2004) . 

In a study conducted in the Flint Hills of Kansas, reptile species were found to respond 

differently to time since burn: Great Plains skink (Eumeces obsoletus) preferred annual burns, 

Little brown skink (Scincella lateralis) preferred burns every four years, and Ringneck snake 

(Diadophis punctatus) preferred unburned habitat (Wilgers and Horne 2006). The preferences 

reflect the kind of habitat each species prefer and the post-burn successional stage at which that 

habitat occurs. If an area is subjected to long-term fire suppression, then species which depend 

on habitats created by frequent burning can suffer. This is the case for the glade dependant 

Collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) living in southern Missouri. When glades are not regularly 

8 
burned, they become less open, degrading the habitat quality for Collard lizard. As a result, the 

lizards genetic fitness is reduced and population numbers remain low (Sexton et al. 1992, 

Brisson et al. 2003). 

The impact of fire size, frequency, and timing on herpetofauna habitat is an important 

consideration for the health of their populations. Wilgers and Horne (2006) found that the best 

way to encourage diversity in the tallgrass prairie was to create small scale habitats through 

mosaic burning. Burning smaller patches of land leaves areas with vegetation and litter cover for 

the species that need it to survive (Fogell 2004). 

Fire intensity has a varied effect on reptile species across ecosystem types. In an established 

sand-pine scrub forest, habitat changes following a high intensity prescribed burn were found to 

favor a few species of open-scrub reptiles: Six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), 

Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi), and Mole skink (Eumeces egregious) (Greenberg et al. 

1994). A study conducted in an Appalachian hardwood forest also found that intense tree-kill 

following a very severe burn had a positive influence on the lizard abundance (Greenberg 2008). 

Moseley et al. (2003) explained that reduction in ground cover could lead to more 

thermoregulation opportunities positively affecting lizards. 

Effects on Mating 

Information about the effects of fire on reptile and amphibian breeding is sparse. Successful 

mating often depends on the availability of specific habitat. Practitioners, therefore, should 

consider the effects of fire on vegetation surrounding standing water where amphibians breed. 

Figure 3. Plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix) basking at Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in 2003. 

Photo by Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Program.

9 
10 

For example, amphibians that prefer open-canopy pools might utilize pools that were previously 

closed off from direct sunlight, but where vegetation was removed by fire (Renken 2006). 

While there has been some debate amongst researchers within certain ecosystems about the best 

way to reintroduce fire as a management tool, many researchers agree that returning fire is 

advantageous for reptiles and amphibians when appropriately carried out. A set of guidelines 

issued by the Midwest Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation may be found at 

http://mwparc.org/products/fire/plain/. 
Discussion 

Fire management plans for National Parks in the tallgrass prairie region often state a need for 

research on the effects of fire on wildlife within their borders (NPS 2007, NPS 2009). Visitors 

often inquire as to whether or not harm will come to wildlife during a prescribed burn. 

Anticipating negative effects of fire on wildlife can be an emotional issue for many people. 

However, effects of fire on wildlife can be positive, and park visitors may not have knowledge of 

this. 

The effects of fire on wildlife can be separated into two categories: direct effects on the animals 

and indirect effects on animals through altered habitats. Many animals have evolved escape 

mechanisms, however, some, such as herpetofauna, are at greater risk especially at certain times 

of year (e.g., pre- and post-hibernation). Fire prescriptions can be designed to mitigate direct 

mortality by burning at times of the year when target animals are less vulnerable or avoiding 

critical habitats (MWPARC. 2009). Shifts in wildlife species composition are often temporary, 

with recovery corresponding to that of the vegetation. Species richness does not necessarily 

change as the result of a fire, but numbers of individuals within a species or the community 

composition may, as animals have varying preferences for bare ground, dense cover, or certain 

plant statures that are changed by fire (Schramm and Willcutts 1983). Some short-term collateral 

mortality is often accepted in order to maintain habitat and populations over the long-term. Using 

an adaptive approach, acceptable levels of mortality could be defined pre-burn and monitoring 

conducted. Based on the results of monitoring, aspects of a fire prescription such as seasonality, 

intensity, and fire extent can then be modified to benefit a species or group of species. 

Many wildlife species focus on vegetation structure in choosing suitable habitats (Smith 2000). 

Therefore, species have a variety of responses to fire resulting from its influence on habitat 

structure. To accommodate the variety of habitat needs for wildlife within grassland, fire can be 

implemented heterogeneously (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006, Marx et al. 2008). For example, varying 

the time of year burns occur and burning only portions of the habitat in a single year can help 

sustain populations (NRCS 2008). Natural resource professionals should identify species present 

and whether any of those require special attention in planning efforts. Plans can then be written 

to minimize mortality or adjust habitat disturbances. Monitoring programs aimed at quantifying 

populations and acceptable levels of mortality for species of interest may also help fire programs 

adapt to help wildlife populations thrive. 

11 
Literature Cited 

Aldous, A. E. 1934. Effect of burning on Kansas bluestem pastures. Kansas Technical Bulletin 

38:2-65. 

Axelrod, D. I. 1985. Rise of the grassland biome, central North America. The Botanical Review 

51:163-201. 

Babbit, L. H. and C. H. Babbit. 1951. A herpetological study of burned-over areas in Dade 

County, Florida. Copeia 1951:79. 

Bange, K. E., K. L. Purcell, and J. T. Rotenberry. 2008. Prescribed fire, snag population 

dynamics, and avian nest site selection. Forest Ecology and Management 255:99-105. 

Best, L. B. 1979. Effects of fire on a Field Sparrow population. American Midland Naturalist 

101:434-442. 

Boyles, J. G. and D. P. Aubrey. 2006. Managing forests with prescribed fire: Implications for a 

cavity-dwelling bat species. Forest Ecology and Management 222:108-115. 

Bragg, T. B. 1982. Seasonal variations in fuel and fuel consumption by fires in a bluestem 

prairie. Ecology 63:7-11. 

Brennan, L. A. 1991. How can we reverse the Northern Bobwhite population decline. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 19:544-555. 

Briggs, J. M., A. K. Knapp, and B. L. Brock. 2002. Expansion of woody plants in tallgrass 

prairie: a fifteen-year study of fire and fire-grazing interactions. American Midland 

Naturalist 147:287-294. 

Brisson, J. A., J. L. Strasburg, and A. R. Templeton. 2003. Impact of fire management on the 

ecology of collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) populations living on the Ozark Plateau. 

Animal Conservation 6:247-254. 

Churchwell, R., C. A. Davis, S. D. Fuhlendorf, and D. M. Engle. 2008. Effects of Patch-Burn 

Management on Dickcissel nest success in a tallgrass prairie. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 72:1596-1604. 

Cook, S. F., Jr. 1959. The effects of fire on a population of small rodents. Ecology 40:102-108. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and 

B. R. Euliss. 2003a.Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Grasshopper 

Sparrow.Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grsp/grsp.htm (Version 

12AUG2004). 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, B. D. Parkin, and B. 

R. Euliss. 2003b.Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Lark 

Sparrow.Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/lasp/lasp.htm 

(Version12DEC2003). 

12 
Delisle, J. M. and J. A. Savidge. 1997. Avian use and vegetation characteristics of Conservation 

Reserve Program fields. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61:318-325. 

Deperno, C. S., J. A. Jenks, S. L. Griffin, L. A. Rice, and K. F. Higgins. 2002. White-tailed deer 

habitats in the central Black Hills. Journal of Range Management 55:242-252. 

Dickinson, M. B., M. J. Lacki, and D. R. Cox. 2009. Fire and the endangered Indiana Bat. Pages 

51-75 in Hutchinson, T. F. (editor). Proceedings of the 3rd fire in eastern oak forests 

conference; 2008 May 20-22; Carbondale, IL. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-46. Newtown 

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

Dodd, K. C. and L. L. Smith. 2003. Habitat destruction and alteration: historical trends and 

future prospects for amphibians. in R. D. Semlitsch, editor. Amphibian Conservation. 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 

Durbian, F. E. 2006. Effects of mowing and summer burning on the Massasuga (Sistrurus 

catenatus). American Midland Naturalist 155:329-334. 

Erwin, W. J. and R. H. Stasiak. 1979. Vertebrate mortality during the burning of a reestablished 

prairie in Nebraska. American Midland Naturalist 101:247. 

Fogell, D. D. 2004. A herpetofaunal inventory of Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve. Heartland 

Network Inventory and Monitoring Program, Republic, MO. 

French, M. G. and S. P. French. 1996. Large mammal mortality in the 1988 Yellowstone fires. in 

2nd Biennial conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. International 

Association of Wildland Fire, Yellowstone National Park, WY, 113-115 

Frost C. C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: a first 

approximation. Pages 70-81 in Pruden, T. L. and Brennan, L. A., (editors). Tall Timbers 

Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Fuhlendorf, S. D. and D. M. Engle. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem 

management based on evolutionary grazing patterns. BioScience 51:625-632. 

Fuhlendorf, S. D., W. C. Harrell, D. M. Engle, R. G. Hamilton, C. A. Davis, and D. M. Leslie Jr. 

2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire 

and grazing. Ecological Applications 16:1706-1716. 

Greenberg, C. H., D. G. Neary, and L. D. Harris. 1994. Effect of high-intensity wildfire and 

silvicultural treatments on reptile communities in sand-pine scrub. Conservation Biology 

8:1047-1057. 

Greenberg, C. H. and T. A. Waldrop. 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. 

Herkert, J. R. 1994. Status and habitat selection of the Henslow's Sparrow in Illinois. The Wilson 

Bulletin 106:35-45. 

Jacobson, S. K., M. C. Monroe, and S. Marynowski. 2001. Fire at the Wildland Interface: the 

influence of experience and mass media on public knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral 

intentions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:929-937. 

13 
Johnson, D. H. 1997. Effects of fire on bird populations in mixed-grass prairie. Pages 181 - 206 

in F. L. Knopf and F. B. Samson, editors. Ecology and Conservation of Great Plains 

Vertebrates, Springer, NY. 

Kaufman, G. A., D. W. Kaufman, and E. J. Finck. 1988. Influence of fire and topography on 

habitat selection by Peromyscus maniculatus and Reithrodontomys megalotis in ungrazed 

tallgrass prairie. Journal of Mammalogy 69:342-352. 

Klute, D. S. 1994. Avian community structure, reproductive success, vegetative structure, and 

food availability in burned Conservation Reserve Program fields and grazed pastures in 

northeastern Kansas. M.S. thesis. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. 

Klute, D. S., R. J. Robel, and K. E. Kemp. 1997. Will conversion of Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) lands to pasture be detrimental for grassland birds in Kansas? American 

Midland Naturalist 137:206-212. 

Kruse, A. D., and J. L. Piehl. 1986. The impact of prescribed burning on ground-nesting birds. 

Pages 153-156 in Clambey, G. K. and R. H. Pemble (editors). The prairie: past, present 

and future: Proceedings, 9th North American prairie conference; 1984 July 29 - August 1, 

Moorhead, MN. Fargo, ND:Tri-College University Center for Environmental Studies. 

Ladd D. 1991. Reexamination of the role of fire in Missouri oak woodlands. Pages 67-80 in 

Proceedings of the Oak Woods Management Workshop Eastern Illinois University, 

Charleston, Illinois. 

Landers, J. L. and B. S. Mueller. 1989. Bobwhite Quail management: a habitat approach. Second 

edition. Quail Unlimited and Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Layne, J. T. 2009. Eastern Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis) response to fire stimulus during torpor. 

Master's Thesis. Missouri State University, Springfield, MO. 

Lyon, J., Huff, M., Telfer, E., Schreiner, D., and Kapler Smith, J. 2000. Wildland fire in 

ecosystems. Effects of fire on fauna. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42. US 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation, Fort 

Collins, CO. 

Madden, E. M., A. J. Hansen, and R. K. Murphy. 1999. Influences of prescribed fire history on 

habitat and abundance of passerine birds in northern mixed-grass prairie. Canadian FieldNaturalist 113:627-640. 

Marx, D. E., S. J. Hejl, and G. Herring. 2008. Wintering grassland bird habitat selection 

following summer prescribed fire in a Texas Gulf Coast tallgrass prairie. Fire Ecology 

4:46-62. 

McGee, J. M. 1982. Small mammal populations in an unburned and early fire successional 

sagebrush community. Journal of Range Management 35:177-180. 

McKee, G., M. R. Ryan, and L. M. Mechlin. 1998. Predicting Greater Prairie-Chicken nest 

success from vegetation and landscape characteristics. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management 62:314-321. 

14 
McMillan, B. R., D. E. Brillhart, G. A. Kaufman, and D. W. Kaufman. 1995. Short-term 

responses of small mammals to autumn fire in tallgrass prairie. The Prairie Naturalist 

27:159-166. 

Moseley, K. R., S. B. Castleberry, and S. H. Schweitzer. 2003. Effects of prescribed fire on 

herpetofauna in bottomland hardwood forests. Southeastern Naturalist 2:475-486. 

MWPARC. 2009. Prescribed Fire Use and Important Management Considerations for 

Amphibians and Reptiles within the Midwest. http://www.mwparc.org/. 

NPS. 2007. Fire Management plan for Herbert Hoover National Historic site. West Branch, 

Iowa. 

NPS. 2009. Fire Management plan for Homestead National Monument of America 

Beatrice, Nebraska. 

NRCS. 2008. Prescribed burning for wildlife. Job sheet JS-BIOL-15. Missouri. 

Pilliod, D. S., R. B. Bury, E. J. Hyde, C. A. Pearl, and P. S. Corn. 2003. Fire and amphibians in 

North America. Forest Ecology and Management 178:163-181. 

Reinking, D. L. 2005. Fire regimes and avian responses in the central tallgrass prairie. Studies in 

Avian Biology 30:116-126. 

Renken, R. B. 2006. Does fire affect amphibians and reptiles in eastern U.S. oak forests? in Fire 

in eastern oak forests: delivering science to land managers. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Columbus, OH, 158-166 

Robbins, L. E. and R. L. Myers. 1992. Seasonal effects of pre- scribed burning in Florida: a 

review. Tall Timbers Research, Tallahassee, FL. 

Robel, R. J., J. P. Hughes, S. D. Hull, K. E. Kemp, and D. S. Klute. 1998. Spring burning: 

resulting avian abundance and nesting in Kansas CRP. Range Management 51:132-138. 

Roseberry, J. L. and S. Sudkamp. 1998. Assessing the suitability of landscapes for Northern 

Bobwhite. Wildlife Management 62:895-902. 

Saugey, D. A., R. L. Vaughn, B. G. Crump, and G. A. Heidt. 1998. Notes on the natural history 

of Lasiurus borealis in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 52:92-98 

Schramm P. and B. J. Willcutts. 1983. Habitat selection of small mammals in burned and 

unburned tallgrass prairie. Pages 49-55 in Brewer, R. (editor), Proceedings of the Eight 

North American Prairie Conference. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, 

Michigan, Western Michigan University. 

Schurbon, J. M. and J. E. Fauth. 2003. Effects of prescribed burning on amphibian diversity in a 

southeastern U.S. National Forest. Conservation Biology 17:1338-1349. 

Schurbon, J. M. and J. E. Fauth. 2004. Fire as friend and foe of amphibians: a reply. 

Conservation Biology 18:1156-1159. 

Sexton, O. J., R. M. Andrews, and J. E. Bramble. 1992. Size and growth rate characteristics of a 

peripheral population of Crotaphytus collaris (Sauria: Crotaphytidae). Copeia 1992:968-

980. 

15 
16 

Singer, F. J. and P. Schullery. 1989. Yellowstone wildlife: populations in process. Western 

Wildlands 15:18-22. 

Smith, J. K. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-42-vol.1, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 

Smith, L. J., A. T. Holycross, C. W. Painter, and M. E. Douglas. 2001. Montane rattlesnakes and 

prescribed fire. Southwestern Naturalist 46:54-61. 

Stransky, J. J. and R. F. Harlow. 1981. Effects of fire on deer habitat in the Southeast. Pages 135-

142 in G. W. Wood, editor. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. The Belle 

W. Baruch Forest Science Institute of Clemson University, Myrtle Beach, SC. 

Svedarsky, W. D., J. E. Toepfer, R. L. Westemeier, and R. J. Robel. 2003. Effects of 

management practices on grassland birds: Greater Prairie-Chicken. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Svedarsky, W. D., T. J. Wolfe, M. A. Kohring, and L. B. Hanson. 1986. Fire management of 

prairies in the prairie-forest transition of Minnesota. Pages 103-107 in Koonce, A. L., 

(editor) Prescribed Burning in the Midwest: state-of-the-art: proceedings of a symposium. 

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, 3-6 March. 

Wilgers, D. J. and E. A. Horne. 2006. Effects of different burn regimes on tallgrass prairie 

herpetofaunal species diversity and community composition in the Flint Hills, Kansas. 

Journal of Herpetology 41:73-84. 

Wright, H. A. 1978. Use of fire to manage grasslands of the Great Plains: central and southern 

Great Plains. in the first international rangeland congress. Society for Range 

Management, Denver, Colorado, August 14, 1978: 

Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology, United States and southern Canada. John 

Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 

Zimmerman, J. L. 1971. The territory and its density-dependent effect in Spiza americana. Auk 

88:591-612. 

Zimmerman, J. L. 1988. Breeding season habitat selection by the Henslow's Sparrow 

(Ammodramus henslowii) in Kansas. The Wilson Bulletin 100:17-24. 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities. 

NPS 920/102093, May 2010 
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM