National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Prescribed fire resource kit for grassland parks in the 

Central Grasslands, U.S.: information resources for 

prescribed fire planning 

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2008/027 
ON THE COVER 

(Drip torch used in a prescribed fire at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Republic, MO) 

Photograph by: Angela Miller, Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

ii
Prescribed fire resource kit for grassland 

parks in the Central Grasslands, U.S. 

information resources for prescribed fire 

planning 

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2008/027 

Sherry A. Leis 

Missouri State University 

National Park Service 

901 S. National Ave. 

Springfield, Missouri 65897 

 

February 2008 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado 

iii
The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and 

applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management 

of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation 

and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information 

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

and is designed and published in a professional manner. 

Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating 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. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series 

include vital signs monitoring plans; monitoring protocols; "how to" resource management 

papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of 

resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; 

fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. 

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

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S. Department of 

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

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are only 

available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Natural Resource 

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

Internet or by sending a request to the address on the back cover. 

Please cite this publication as: 

Leis, S. L. 2008. Prescribed fire resource kit for grassland parks in the Central Grasslands, U.S.: 

information resources for prescribed fire planning. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—

2008/027. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS D-72, February 2008 

 

iv
Contents 

List of Figures.................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii

Abstract................................................................................................................................1

Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................1

Introduction..........................................................................................................................2

Chapter 1: Summary reports ................................................................................................4

1.1 Fire history.........................................................................................................4

1.2 The case for heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie .................................................11

1.3 Exotic plant species control .............................................................................17

1.4 Woody plant control ........................................................................................25

Chapter 2. Annotated bibliography....................................................................................39

2.1 Web Resources.................................................................................................39

2.2 Research papers ...............................................................................................40

Chapter 3. Who do I call for help?.....................................................................................46

v
Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. Items for consideration in defining goals and objectives. Historical context most 

relevant to the park’s natural resources, management needs for species of interest, and the 

potential of each management unit are important elements for understanding the state of the 

resources and therefore planning for the future............................................................2 

Figure 2. Lightning map for 1996-2005....................................................................5 

Figure 3. Rosa multiflora (A) has fringed comb-line stipules unlike native species (B)............31 

vi
vii

Tables 

Page 

Table 1. Fire return intervals for grassland parks in the Heartland Network. Data are from 

Guyette et al. (1982, 1992, 2004, and unpublished data) unless otherwise noted .................... 7 

Table 2. Top 20 high priority invasive plants of parks in the Heartland Network (ranked by total 

percent cover, not corrected for park area (courtesy of Craig Young)................................17 

Table 3. HTLN guild categories used to classify plants.................................................25 

Table 4. Woody taxa biology, ecology, and control recommendations specifically addressed in 

this summary...................................................................................................27 
Abstract 

This prescribed fire resource kit is intended to provide information that can be used in the 

prescribed fire planning process for parks in the Central Grasslands region. Summary 

information on ignition sources, fire history, heterogeneity, exotic plant species, and woody 

control in the Central Grasslands region of the United States are highlighted as important 

information needs. Seminal research papers on these topics and an additional set of annotated 

references and websites have been added for readers to reference. Ultimately, the resources in 

this document will assist with preparation for writing measurable fire management objectives. A 

companion document includes copies of seminal papers denoted in the annotated bibliography. 

Acknowledgements 

I am grateful to C. Wienk, D. C. Cummings, D. Twidwell, J. Kolaks and M. DeBacker for 

providing helpful comments on the manuscript. Thanks also to K. Hase and A. Smith for 

feedback on the pilot version of this project. The Midwest Regional Fire Management Program 

Office of the National Park Service as well as the Missouri State University Biology Department 

also provided support for this project. 

1
Introduction 

This prescribed fire resource kit is intended to provide information that can be used in the 

prescribed fire planning process in the Central Grasslands region. Summary information on 

ignition sources, fire history, heterogeneity, exotic plant species, and woody control are 

highlighted as important information needs. Seminal research papers on these topics and an 

additional set of annotated references and websites have been added for readers to reference. 

Ultimately, the resources in this document will assist with augmenting staff fire ecology 

knowledge and preparation for writing measurable fire management objectives (Figure 1). 

Site potential 

(given the current 

conditions, what is 

this site capable 

of?)

Target 

species 

needs

Local historical range of 

variability 

(pollen, fire scars, archaeology, 

explorers and settlers accounts)

Target time period 

(based on enabling legislation, 

cultural importance, ecological 

relevance) 

Historical disturbances 

(fire return interval, grazing, 

flooding regime, climate 

change 

Invasive/exotic control 

needs

Rare and endangered 

organism needs

Current conditions 

(based on reports and 

observations)

Long-term goals

Using the information to the left, 

define openness, fuels, community 

types, and contributions of species 

or guilds to those communities. 

Essentially, put your vision for the 

unit or park into words and 

numbers using the details below.

Goals and 

objectives 

Historical 

 context 

Short-term goals

Figure 1. Items for consideration in defining goals and objectives. Historical context most 

relevant to the park’s natural resources, management needs for species of interest, and the 

potential of each management unit are important elements for understanding the state of the 

resources and therefore planning for the future. 

2
The National Park Service’s Heartland I&M Network and the Midwest Regional Fire Ecology 

program are excited to assist park staff with the various steps of planning from providing 

monitoring data to using that data together with research and staff experience to formulate 

effective and realistic strategies. Development of specific goals and objectives will feed back 

into the monitoring and fire ecology programs such that monitoring staff will be better able to 

tailor monitoring and reports to address park management needs. Reader feedback on this 

document will be used for revisions to make it more useful. 

3
Chapter 1. Summary Reports 

1.1 Fire history

Knowledge of historic fire patterns can be instructive in determining an effective schedule for 

applying fire to the landscape today (Frost 1998). Managers may wish to replicate historical fire 

patterns or simply use them as a guide when designing new plans. This essay will discuss 

ignition sources and the components of historical fire return intervals. There are several good 

review papers (cited herein) which discuss fire history. Anderson (2006) and Bragg (1995) are 

included in the resource kit as sources of fire history and Guyette et al. 2002 and 2006 are 

included for information on fire return intervals. 

Our historical understanding of fire comes from several sources. Charcoal fragments recovered 

and dated from soil profiles and sediments, fire scars on trees in an area of interest, written 

accounts from settlers and Native American histories corroborate physical evidence, and current 

lightning strikes can be tracked as an analog to the past (Frost 1998). Each of these elements has 

positive traits, but the weaknesses must be kept in mind. For example, the presence of a fire scar 

is positive evidence of a fire, but fire can occur without recording a scar (Paulsell 1957). The 

extent of inference in the data maybe limited by topography, development and other 

disturbances, as well as climate change. Soil and sediment cores may provide information from a 

different scale than the one of interest, and written historical accounts may be biased toward 

reporting of unusual or fantastic events (Earls 2006). Given these biases, it is advisable to consult 

data from multiple sources whenever possible. 

Sediment core and fire scar records show that the composition and distribution of woody plants, 

particularly trees, in the Great Plains and Central Grasslands regions have fluctuated with 

changes in climate throughout the historical record (Axelrod 1985; Cook et al. 2004; Nelson et 

al. 2006; McGuire Bogen and Hotchkiss 2007). Approximately, seven to five million years ago, 

the climate shifted from cold and wet to warmer and dryer stimulating grassland plants to expand 

while tree species declined in the Great Plains and Central Grasslands regions (Axelrod 1985). 

Grasses and trees coexisted during the Pliocene until the ice ages began in the Pleistocene. When 

the climate trended again toward cool and wet conditions 11000-8000 years ago, pollen records 

of trees increased until another warm dry trend, 5550 years ago, influenced species distributions 

and abundances towards the current distribution of grasslands we recognize today. There have 

also been climatic shifts within the last 2000 years such as the Mediaeval Climatic Anomaly, 

900-1250 AD, (warm and dry) and the Little Ice Age, 1250 to 1850 AD, (cool and wet) 

influencing the expansion and contraction of woodlands (Cook at al. 2004; Nelson et al. 2006; 

McGuire Bogen and Hotchkiss 2007). Landscapes with greater precipitation and cooler 

temperatures on the boundaries of the grassland regions continue to fluctuate in dominance 

between grassland and woodland species especially in the absence of fire and grazing. In much 

the same way, wooded composition of riparian corridors shrinks and swells with years of 

drought or ample precipitation. Savannahs and shrublands evidence the fluctuation of woodland 

to grassland transition zones (Curtis 1959; Anderson and Bowles 1999). These transition zones 

can be difficult habitats to define spatially and compositionally. 

4
Lightning frequency varies regionally in the US (Figure 2). The Southeast, Rocky Mountain, and 

Great Basin regions receive the greatest number of lightning strikes each year (NOAA 2007). 

Topography, degree of fuel fragmentation, moisture, and accumulations in these regions lead to 

proliferation of lightning fires of varying extents. Wildfires ignited by lightning also occur in the 

tallgrass prairie region, most frequently in July and August. Lightning occurring in the spring, 

however, is often accompanied by moist fuels and rain limiting a wildfire’s extent (Pyne 1984; 

Bragg 1995). Historically, summer fires had the potential to encompass large areas if conditions 

were hot and dry. As the landscape became more fragmented with agriculture and urban 

development, the extent of burned area also decreased. 

U.S. Lightning Map

Figure 2. Lightning map for 1996-2000 

(http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/lightning_map.htm, Dec. 3, 2007). 

Although the role of lightning and anthropogenic ignition sources are discussed briefly below, it 

is unnecessary to decouple anthropogenic ignition from lightning starts for the present 

discussion. The extensive history of human use of fire in North America (Bragg 1995; Frost 

1998) warrants the inclusive description of historic fire presence for planning purposes rather 

5
than decoupling “natural” (lightning) and anthropogenic sources. Great difficulty would be 

incurred to discern differences in fire effects or calculate accurate fire return intervals if one 

where to try to attribute effects to one source or another in the tallgrass prairie region. That is not 

to say that each source doesn’t have unique characteristics (Pyne 1984), but that effects on flora 

and fauna would be difficult to ascertain through background variation. 

Historic accounts from settlers provide evidence that fire occurred frequently in the tallgrass 

prairie region (Curtis 1959; Earls 2006); however, lightning ignition was minimal in the eastern 

portions (Curtis 1959; Pyne 1984). Anthropogenic ignition was a very important source of both 

intentional and wildlfires throughout the evolution of the North American tallgrass prairie (Curtis 

1959; Pyne 1984; Bragg 1995). Fire was used for a myriad of activities such as hunting, 

controlling insects, and clearing areas (Curtis 1959; Axelrod 1985; Anderson 2006). Some 

researchers describe anthropogenic use of fire as a force which actually shaped the landscape 

rather than as a response to it (Curtis 1959). 

Together, lightning fires (occurring in the summer) and Native American fire (occurring in the 

spring and fall) provide evidence that fire existed on the landscape throughout the year (Howe 

1994; Bragg 1995; Sieg 1997; Earls 2006; Pyne 1995). The effect of season of fire on plant 

composition is muddled because several other factors interact to produce the vegetation 

measured in field studies (Ewing and Engle 1988; Engle and Bidwell 2001; McCarty 2005). 

While precipitation and temperature patterns, fire intensity, time since last fire, and fuel moisture 

can be generalized by season, weather patterns are variable such that a snow and ice event can 

occur during a period that is normally warm and dry. These differences in weather patterns can 

influence phenology, an important component of predicting fire effects on plants and animals. 

The uncertainty created by variability in fire effects by season supports the notion that it is 

important to continue to provide the process of fire as a disturbance throughout the year as it has 

occurred historically. Where possible, providing a diverse set of disturbances throughout the year 

may more closely mimic historical processes and support biodiversity (Howe 1994). 

The historic relative contribution of lightning to anthropogenic ignitions varies across North 

America relative to topography, temperature, precipitation, and human population (Guyette et al. 

2006). Rougher terrain equates to heterogeneous fuels and smaller fire compartments resulting in 

limited fire extents (Frost 1998; Guyette et al. 2002). In a multivariate analysis of fire frequency 

across the US, Guyette et al. (2006) found that fires occurred more frequently in warmer parts of 

North America because of longer burn windows, greater fuel accumulations, and human 

population concentrations. 

The influence of human populations on fire return intervals is more complex than previously 

thought (Guyette et al. 2002). General wisdom was that fire suppression progressed with 

increased settlement of European immigrants. Guyette et al. (2002) identified a shift in cultural 

tolerance of fire which was dependant on changes in fuel loads and distribution. The change in 

acceptability of fire was also correlated unimodally with human population size. Fires tended to 

increase with population to a threshold density. At that threshold, fuels became fragmented and it 

became culturally unacceptable for fire to be free on the landscape. Investment in infrastructure 

and ability to harness fire in confined spaces for energy may have contributed to the cultural 

shift. McClain and Elzinga (1994) documented a similar phenomenon with historical accounts. 

They found that settlers in Illinois first began using fire to create safety zones for protection from 

6
wildlfire, but later expanded their use of fire to agricultural purposes before finally banning the 

use of fire without permit. 

Table 1. Fire return intervals for grassland parks in the Heartland Network. Data are from 

Guyette et al. (1982, 1992, 2004, and unpublished data and modeling) unless otherwise noted. 

Park Time period of 

interest 

Population 

estimation 

humans/km2

Mean fire return 

interval and 

range of 

variability (yrs) 

Comments 

Pre-mining 0.03 17.8 (8-25) 

(1700-1832) 0.30 6.8 PIPE a

Intense mining period 

(1837+) 

0.60 2.6 (1-7) Park focus period 

presettlement 0.03 13.7 (4-24) 

1860 0.14 9.3 (1-10) 

1865 0.22 7 (1-10) 

HOME b

1870 0.61 1.3 (1-10) 

Archaic (5000-1000 

BC) 

0.06 23.4 EFMO intervals 

corroborated by sediment 

cores (McGuire Bogen 

and Hotchkiss 2007) 

Mound Builders (500 

BC-1400 AD) 

0.60 3.5 (1-10) Park focus period 

Late prehistoric (500-

1650 AD) 

0.24 12.4 (3-20) 

EFMO c

Historic period (1650-

1800 AD) 

0.12 19.0 (9-29) 

1700-1800 N/A 5 (2-8) 

1831-1880 N/A 7.6 (6.9-12.5) 

WICRd

and 

GWCAe

1870+ N/A 22 (12-32) 

Dey et al. 2004 predicted 

MFI for 1710-1830 at 3.7 

and 1831-1880 at 7.6. 

presettlement N/A 9 (5-13) 

1850-1880 N/A 9.3-11.6 Based on Brown and Sieg 

1999 TAPR f

1881+ N/A 2 (1-3) Earls 2006 

HEHO g Presettlement N/A 10 (5-15) Christiansen, personal 

communication, Pyne 

1984 

1874-1890 N/A (Rare, >30) Increased agriculture a

Pipestone National Monument, MN b Homestead Monument of America, NE c Effigy Mounds National Monument, IA, d

Wilsons Creek National Monument, MO e

 George Washington Carver National Monument, MO, f Tallgrass Prairie National 

Preserve, KS g

 Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, IA 

Fire return intervals are generally reported as a range of years or as the mean return interval. The 

width of the interval depends on several things such as size of the area of interest (scale), 

7
topography, and sources for fire data. Large scale maps (Frost 1998, Guyette 2006) sometimes 

depict less frequent intervals than is currently believed to be appropriate for tallgrass prairie 

because tree ring data is difficult to acquire on a region-wide basis. Inferences must then be 

made with lower resolution. Heterogeneous landscapes (e.g., the Ozark mountain region) may 

also be difficult to summarize since portions of an area may be more fire prone than others. Tree 

ring data also may underestimate fire occurrence, especially of low intensity fires, so the more 

frequent side of the fire return interval may often be more accurate. Table 1 describes estimated 

fire return intervals for prairie parks within the Heartland Network. Several of these intervals 

were calculated using a model which included local temperature, precipitation, population 

estimates, and fire scar analysis where available. The models were run for park locations for time 

periods relevant to each park’s mission. Because these data were derived specifically for park 

localities they represent meaningful estimates. 

Understanding of sources of fire and how they interact with the landscape to create the mosaic of 

habitats within the tallgrass prairie region provides a basis for evaluating fire effects on plants, 

animals, soils, and water resources. The historical fire return intervals defined both spatially and 

temporally can serve as a starting place for designing management prescriptions. Current site 

needs together with specific management goals and objectives will determine appropriate 

prescribed fire frequency as compared to historic fire return intervals. 

Literature Cited 

(* included in the resource kit companion) 

*Anderson, R. C. 2006. Evolution and origin of the Central Grassland of North America: 

climate, fire, and mammalian grazers. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133:626-

647. 

Anderson, R. C. and M. L. Bowles. 1999. Deep-soil savannas and barrens of the midwestern 

United States. Pages 155-170 in R. C. Anderson, J. S. Fralish, and J. M. Baskin, editors. 

Savannas, barrens, and rock outcrop plant communities of North America. Cambridge 

University Press, Great Britain.

*Axelrod, D. I. 1985. Rise of the grassland biome, Central North America. The Botanical 

Review 51:163-201. 

Bragg, T. B. 1995. The physical environment of Great Plains grasslands. Pages 49-81 in A. 

Joern, and K. H. Keeler, editors. The changing prairie. Oxford University Press, New 

York. 

Brown, P. M. and C. H. Sieg. 1999. Historical variability in fire at the ponderosa pine - Northern 

Great Plains prairie ecotone, southeastern Black Hills, South Dakota. Ecoscience: 6:539-

574. 

Cook, E. R., J. Esper, and R. D. D’Arrigo. 2004. Extra-tropical northern hemisphere 

land temperature variability over the past 1000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 

23:2063-2074. 

8
Curtis, J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 

Wisconsin. 

Dey, D. C., Guyette, R. P. and M. C. Stambaugh. 2004. Fire history of a forest, savanna, and fen 

mosaic at White Ranch State Forest. Proceedings of the Upland Oak Ecology Symposium 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station 132-137.. 

*Earls, P. 2006. Prairie fire history of the tallgrass prairie National Preserve and the Flint Hills, 

Kansas. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the National Park Service, Omaha, 

Nebraska. 

Engle, D. M., and T. G. Bidwell. 2001. The response of central North American prairies to 

seasonal fire. Journal of Range Management. 54:2-10. 

Ewing, A. L., and D. M. Engle. 1988. Effects of late summer fire on tallgrass prairie 

microclimate and community composition. American.Midland.Naturalist 120:212-223. 

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

approximation. Pages 70-81 in T. L. Pruden , and L. A. Brennan, editors. Fire in 

Ecosystem Management: Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription. Tall 

Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Guyette, R. and B. Cutter. 1992. Fire history at two sites on the Mark Twain National Forest. A 

report prepared for the Mark Twain National Forest. Rolla, MO. 

Guyette, R. P. and D. C. Dey. 2004. The effects of human abundance on wildland fire, forests, 

and species abundance. Proceedings of the Upland Oak Ecology Symposium Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 128-131. 

*Guyette, R. P., D. C. Dey, M. C. Stambaugh, R. Muzika. 2006. Fire scars reveal variability and 

dynamics of eastern fire regimes. Pages 20-39 in M. B. Dickinson, editor. 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. 

Guyette, R. P. and E. A. McGinnes. 1982. Fire history of an Ozark Glade. Transactions of the 

Missouri Academy of Science 16:85-93. 

*Guyette, R. P., Muzika, R. M., and D. C. Dey. 2002. Dynamics of an anthropogenic fire regime. 

Ecosystems 5:472-486. 

Howe, H. F. 1994. Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie: assumptions and implications. 

Conservation biology 8:691-704. 

9
McCarty, K. 2005. Ecological Management. Pages 37-61 in P. Nelson. The terrestrial natural 

communities of Missouri, , Missouri Natural Areas Committee. 

*McClain, W. E. and S. L. Elzinga. 1994. The occurrence of prairie and forest fires in Illinois 

and other Midwestern states, 1679 to 1854. Erigenia 13:79-90. 

McGuire Bogen, S and S. C. Hotchkiss. 2007. Paleo-environmental investigations of a cultural 

landscape at Effigy mounds National Monument. National Park Service Great Lakes 

Northern Forest Cooperative Ecosystem Study Unit. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

Nelson, D. M., F. S. Hu, E. C. Grimm, B. B. Curry, and J. E. Slate. 2006. The influence of 

aridity and fire on Holocene prairie communities in the Eastern Prairie Peninsula. 

Ecology 87:2523-2536. 

NOAA. 2007. Lightning map of the United States. 

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/lightning_map.htm. 

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

Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 640:1-24. Columbia, MO. 

Pyne, S. J. 1984. Introduction to wildland fire: fire management in the United States. WileyInterscience, John Wiley & Sons New York. 

Pyne, S. J. 1995. World fire: the culture of fire on earth. Henry Holt and company, New York. 

Sieg C. H. 1997. The role of fire in managing for biological diversity on native rangelands of the 

Northern Great Plains. RM-GTR 298, 31-38. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 

10
1.2 The case for heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie 

Heterogeneity is defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary (2002) as “differing in structure, 

quality, etc., dissimilar, composed of unlike parts”. This generic description of the word transfers 

well to ecological applications. In grasslands, variation in soils and topography naturally create a 

degree of heterogeneity resulting in differences in vegetation structure (height and density at 

ground, mid, and canopy layers), species richness, composition, litter development, and nutrient 

cycling (Whittaker 1972; Harrison et al. 2003). Historically, grazing animals concentrated 

feeding on recently burned patches (Vinton et al. 1993; Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001) maintaining 

a mosaic of areas with different disturbance histories reflected in the plant and soil communities 

(Glenn et al. 1992). Traditionally, grassland management has sought to overcome inherent 

variability by managing for homogeneity. For example, clean burns, water distribution, fencing 

designs, mowing, herbicide usage, fertilizer application, evenly planted restorations, and grazing 

distributions designed to increase utilization have created homogenous grasslands and habitats to 

the detriment of some wildlife and plant species. 

Heterogeneity may be defined differently at different scales of interest, for example at the 1 m2

scale heterogeneity may have different implications than at the management unit or park scales 

(Collins and Smith 2006). Soil type may drive variation at large scales, while management 

actions may account for variation at more local scales. At the park scale, we can evaluate 

heterogeneity by comparing management units or patches to learn whether structure and 

composition vary within or between patches. 

Organisms have varied habitat structure requirements (Grant and Birney 1979; Grant et al. 1982; 

Knopf and Samson 1997; Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). Species need tall dense structure, open sparse 

habitats, a combination of dense and sparse structures, as well as the intervening possibilities. 

Grassland birds as a guild require heterogeneous habitat (Winter et al. 2005). Henslow’s 

sparrows, for example, are known to prefer undisturbed habitat with rank growth and dense litter 

(Herkert 2003) while upland sandpipers prefer areas with a portion of bare ground and less dense 

vegetation (Dechant et al. 2003). Birds such as quail and prairie chickens require open areas with 

short dense plants for courtship, mid-range structure for brood rearing, and dense cover for 

nesting (Bidwell et al. 2003). While prairie chickens don’t tolerate trees in their habitat, quail 

require a certain portion of shrubs or trees for winter cover (Bidwell et al. 2003, 2007). Similar 

patterns of species habitat preferences for different patch types can be found for insects (Engle et 

al. 2008) and small mammals (Schramm and Willcutts 1983; Clark et al 1989; Tanner and 

Kneipp 2007). It is possible to provide habitat needs for a variety of organisms simultaneously 

within a pasture or landscape by managing for heterogeneity (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). Providing 

a variety of areas in different stages of recovery from disturbance may provide greater species 

richness at the park or landscape scale (Connell 1978). 

When possible, it is important to think about heterogeneity and management goals in terms of the 

presence or absence of habitat types in the surrounding landscape (Knopf and Samson1997). 

Where grasslands are small and isolated, much more needs to be achieved on a piece of land. In a 

grassland context where neighbors provide one habitat type, the park or pasture could 

complement that to complete the range of variability needed for wildlife in the landscape. 

Whenever possible, the scale and extent of both management and heterogeneity should be 

defined (Parr and Andersen. 2006). For example, if creating heterogeneity with fire alone, a 

11
management goal may be to burn 65% of a 1000-acre patch but to burn only 30% of a 50-acre 

patch. These goals may result in very different burn prescriptions. 

Increased habitat variability also translates into greater heterogeneity in fuel loads across the 

landscape. Heterogeneous landscapes may also help manage wildfire severity by altering rates of 

spread and fire-line complexity (Kerby et al. 2006). Patch size affects fuel loads and the resulting 

fire intensity. A heterogeneous landscape may slow the advance of wildfires making them easier 

and safer to manage. 

There are many ways to infuse heterogeneity into an area. Simply varying disturbance patterns 

across the park or landscape within and between years will provide more variety in habitats. 

Pyric herbivory (aka patch burn grazing, focal grazing, or rotational grazing without fences) has 

been implemented at a number of research sites and private ranches to test the effects of 

variability in habitat structure within a land management unit. This grazing system draws on the 

synergy created by the interaction of fire and grazing animals (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001; 

Rogers 2007). One portion (often 1/3, but number of patches depends on the site) of a 

management unit is burned each year and livestock are released (bison and cattle have been 

tested with this system, but other native ungulates also seem to respond). Grazers move freely 

between unburned and burned areas so the only fencing required is an exterior one. The recently 

burned areas are typically the most attractive and receive intense grazing (Fuhlendorf and Engle 

2004). When a new patch is burned, the grazers move and recovery begins on the previously 

burned area. At this point three types of habitat structure are created. The cycle continues until 

all the patches have been burned and then the rotation repeats. 

Although, grazing is an excellent way to achieve this type of structural diversity (Fuhlendorf 

2006), it is not an appropriate tool for all land management units. In tallgrass prairie, it is often 

difficult to provide the element of open ground for wildlife. Development of alternatives to 

grazing may rely on creativity on the part of managers to achieve a similar effect. While burning 

alone reduces canopy cover and litter, recovery occurs very quickly perhaps even by mid-season 

especially where there is ample rainfall. Mowed areas can attract grazers in the absence of fire 

(Chris Helzer, TNC land manager, personal communication 2006), but to better simulate the 

selectivity of grazing, mowing could be done in a “messy” fashion so that portions of the patch 

remain unmowed and/or mowed at varying heights. Shade structures are also a useful tool to 

relocate grazing animals. Light discing may also be an option in some areas where invasive 

species establishment is not a concern. 

If fire is the only tool available, it is important to consider varying the season of burn as well as 

frequency of burn (Howe 1994; Sieg 1997). Historically, fire occurred throughout the growing 

season. Lightning fires were more frequent during the summer months while Native Americans 

burned from April through October (Bragg 1995). McClain and Elzinga (1994) explain that 

Native Americans in Illinois used fire almost exclusively during Indian summer in the fall. 

Spring burning was later instituted by settlers to protect their properties from fall fires. Plant 

phenology interacts with weather (and other environmental factors), fire intensity, and 

disturbance history to produce the resulting variation in stress or stimulus to the plant community 

at any given time. When season of burn is tested, studies both show positive affects on forb 

diversity (Gibson, 1989; Bragg 1995) and neutral effects (Engle and Bidwell 2001). Some early 

fire studies demonstrated a clear increase in warm season grasses and subsequent decrease in 

12
forbs after spring burns (McMurphy and Anderson 1965; Wright and Bailey 1982; Gibson 1989). 

Annual spring burning in prairies in the absence of grazing has been shown to maintain low 

levels of woody cover but at the expense of diversity (Collins 1992). Likewise, long fire return 

intervals in tallgrass prairie can result in lower species diversity (Collins and Barber 1985). 

Altering the types of fire applied may also help to infuse heterogeneity into land management 

units. Fire plans often call for ring-fire techniques, but there are many other techniques that can 

be safely employed such as strip head-fire, backing fire, and spot ignition. Using different 

techniques may shift fire intensities to different parts of the unit stimulating plant production and 

habitat variability to different parts of the management unit (Bidwell et. al 1990; Morrison 2002). 

Concerns about heterogeneity may not be a priority for each park or land unit. The size and 

landscape context of the park may make discussions of heterogeneity irrelevant. However, where 

managing for heterogeneity is an option many benefits are possible, for example managing, for 

heterogeneity can reduce invasive species, increase species richness of plants and wildlife, and 

reduce infrastructure needs (Cummings et al. 2007). 

Literature Cited 

(* included in the resource kit companion) 

Bidwell, T. G., D. M. Engle, and P. L. Claypool. 1990. Effects of spring headfires and backfires 

on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 43:209-212. 

Bidwell T., S. Fuhlendorf , S. Harmon, R. Horton, R. Manes,R. Rodgers, S. Sherrod, S. Wolfe. 

2003. Ecology and management of the Greater Prairie-Chicken in Oklahoma. Oklahoma 

State University Extension Circular E-969. 

Bidwell, T. G., R. E. Masters, M. Sams. 2007. Oklahoma Bobwhite Quail Habitat Evaluation and 

Management Guide. Department of Wildlife Conservation. Oklahoma State University, 

Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma Cooperative 

Extension Service. E-904. version 7. 

Bragg, T. B. 1995. The physical environment of Great Plains grasslands. Pages 49-81 in A. 

Joern, and K. H. Keeler, editors. The changing prairie. Oxford University Press, New 

York. 

Clark, B. K., D. W. Kaufman, E. J. Finck, and G. A. Kaufman. 1989. Small mammals in tallgrass prairie: patterns associated with grazing and burning. Prairie Naturalist 21:177-184. 

Collins, S. L. 1992. Fire frequency and community heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie vegetation. 

Ecology 73:2001-2006. 

Collins, S. L., and S. C. Barber. 1985. Effects of disturbance on diversity in mixed-grass prairie. 

Vegetation 64:87-94. 

13
*Collins, S. L., and M. D. Smith. 2006. Scale-dependent interaction of fire and grazing on 

community heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 87:2058-2067. 

Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302-1310. 

Cummings, D. C., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and D. M. Engle. 2007. Is altering grazing selectivity of 

invasive forage species with patch burning more effective than herbicide treatments? 

Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:253-260. 

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

Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Upland Sandpiper. 

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

Research Center Online. 

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

12DEC2003). 

Engle, D. M., and T. G. Bidwell. 2001. The response of central North American prairies to 

seasonal fire. Journal of Range Management. 54:2-10. 

Engle, D. M., S. D. Fuhlendorf, A. Roper, and D. M. Leslie, Jr. 2008. Invertebrate Community 

Response to a Shifting Mosaic of Habitat. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:55-

62. 

*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. and D. M. Engle. 2004. Application of fire--grazing interaction to restore a 

shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:604-614. 

*Fuhlendorf, S. D., W. C. Harrell, and D. M. Engle. 2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis for 

conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. Ecological Applications 

16:1706-1716. 

Gibson, D. J. 1989. Hulbert’s study of factors effecting botanical composition of tallgrass prairie. 

Proceedings of the eleventh North American prairie conference. Prairie pioneers: 

ecology, history, and culture. University of Nebraska Printing, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

1989:115-133. 

Glenn, S. M., S. L. Collins, and D. J. Gibson. 1992. Disturbances in tallgrass prairie: local and 

regional effects on community heterogeneity. Landscape Ecology 7:243-251. 

Grant, W. E., and E. C. Birney. 1979. Small mammal community structure in North American 

grasslands. Journal of Mammalogy 60:23-36. 

Grant, W. E., E. C. Birney, N. R. French, and D. M. Swift. 1982. Structure and productivity of 

grassland small mammal communities related to grazing-induced changes in vegetative 

cover. Journal of Mammalogy 63:248-260. 

14
Harrison, S., B. D. Inouye, and H. D. Safford. 2003. Ecological Heterogeneity in the Effects of 

Grazing and Fire on Grassland Diversity. Conservation biology 17:837-845. 

Herkert, J. R. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Henslow's Sparrow. 

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

Research Center Online. 

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

12DEC2003). 

Howe, H. F. 1994. Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie: assumptions and implications. 

Conservation biology 8:691-704. 

Kerby, J. D., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and D. M. Engle. 2006. Landscape heterogeneity and fire 

behavior: scale-dependent feedback between fire and grazing process. Landscape 

Ecology 22:511-516. 

Knopf, F. L., and F. B. Samson. 1997. Conservation of grassland vertebrates. Pages 273-289 in

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

verebrates. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

McMurphy, W.E. and K.L. Anderson 1965. Burning Flint Hills range. Journal of Range 

Management 18:265-269. 

*McClain, W. E. and S. L. Elzinga. 1994. The occurrence of prairie and forest fires in Illinois 

and other Midwestern states, 1679 to 1854. Erigenia 13:79-90. 

Morrison, D. A. 2002. Effects of fire intensity on plant species composition of sandstone 

communities in the Sydney region. Austral Ecology 27:433-441. 

Parr, C. L., and A. N. Andersen. 2006. Patch mosaic burning for biodiversity conservation: a 

critique of the pyrodiversity paradigm. Conservation biology 20:1610-1619. 

Rogers, R. 2007. New Answers to burning questions. Kansas Wildlife and Parks April:2-8. 

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

unburned tallgrass prairie. Pages 49-55 in R Brewer, editor. Eighth North American 

Prairie Conference. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, Western 

Michigan University. 

Sieg C. H. 1997. The role of fire in managing for biological diversity on native rangelands of the 

Northern Great Plains. RM-GTR 298, 31-38. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 

Tanner, C. and G. Kneipp. 2007. Effects of prescribed fire on small mammals at Spotsylvania 

Court House Battlefield. Park Science 24:1-3 Park Science 24:1-3.

Vinton, M. A., D. C. Hartnett, E. J. Finck, J. M. Briggs. 1993. Interactive effects of fire, bison 

(Bison bison) grazing and plant community composition in tallgrass prairie. American 

Midland Naturalist 129:10-18. 

15
Websters new world dictionary and thesaurus. 2002. Agnes, M. and C. Laird,editors. 2nd edition. 

Hungry minds, Inc. New York. 

Whittaker, R. H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213-251. 

Winter, M., D. H. Johnson, and J. A. Shaffer. 2005. Variability in vegetation effects on density 

and nesting success of grassland birds. Journal of wildlife management 69:185-197. 

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

Wiley & Sons, New York. 

16
1.3 Exotic plant species control 

The goal of this summary report is to provide a framework for making decisions on exotic plant 

species control relative to available resources and treatment options. In this summary report, we 

cannot cover all the possible exotic species you might have at your park, but treatment options 

for the 20 most dominant exotic species across the Heartland Network (Table 2) are discussed. 

Native, invasive, woody plants are treated in the following summary paper in this chapter of the 

toolkit. 

Table 2. Top 20 high priority invasive plants of parks in the 

Heartland Network (ranked by total percent cover, not corrected 

for park area (courtesy of Craig Young). 

Species Common Name Rank 

Alliaria petiolata garlic mustard 4 

Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry 7 

Bromus inermis smooth brome 3 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 13 

Elaeagnus umbellata autumn olive 15 

Frangula alnus glossy buckthorn 16 

Lespedeza cuneata sericea 9 

Ligustrum vulgare European privet 5 

Lolium spp fescue 17 

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle 2 

Lonicera morrowii Morrow's honeysuckle 18 

Lysimachia nummularia creeping jenny 14 

Melilotus officinalis yellow sweet clover 10 

Morus alba white mulberry 19 

Phalaris arundinacea reedcanary grass 6 

Poa compressa/pratensis bluegrass 8 

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 12 

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn 20 

Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust 11 

Rosa multiflora multiflora rose 1 

Exotic species concern every land manager globally and critical decisions about how best to use 

limited resources to control exotics and simultaneously protect native species and biodiversity 

must be made. For National Park Service Resource Managers, these decisions become part of the 

planning process for their parks. Documents such as the Resource Stewardship Strategy and Fire 

Management Plan include descriptions of the priority areas to treat and the type of treatment 

deemed most appropriate. 

When only limited resources, including time and labor, are available managers must make 

decisions on what plants to control and in which areas. Potential prevention strategies such as 

cleaning mowing and spraying equipment between treatment areas and surveillance on park and 

neighboring properties also require additional planning and implementation investments. Spot 

treatment of small newly detected infestations often requires fewer resources than treatment of 

widespread populations. Developing strategies for invasive species often involves trade-offs. 

17
There are four basic strategies for allocating resources to invasive species treatment (Smith 

2008). 

1. Tackle the most widespread invasives that are affecting native plant communities. This 

option offers the most emphasis on protecting natural communities but disturbed areas 

will have to be addressed as sources of reinfestation. However, widespread invasives are 

often beyond our ability to eradicate or control. This option may be the least efficient use 

of time and money. 

2. Work to eradicate those species that are just becoming established but have a history of 

invading native plant communities in other states or areas. This option has the advantage 

of addressing the problem early while there is hope for containing the spread saving time 

and money in the long-run. Sometimes implementation is difficult because the species 

isn’t yet perceived to be a problem. There is the chance that the species will not be as 

aggressive in your area because of different climate, soils, and/or land use than in other 

areas currently infested. 

3. Protect the best examples of natural communities from all invasive species, accepting 

that the species will become widespread on other, untreated sites. This option will 

require continued treatment at boundaries as species will reinvade from the surrounding 

landscape, but will preserve examples of functioning native ecosystems for study and 

biodiversity protection. Limiting treatment focus to good quality communities will 

minimize the number of acres for which treatment is required. 

 

4. Control those species that are most likely to compromise your ability to reach your 

management objectives on each tract. This option is a practical way to allocate resources 

based on individual area goals. On a site with rare species, control of invasives will target 

those exotics that harm the rare species. There is a risk in that we often don’t know the 

effects of invasives on particular native species.

(More information on choosing control strategies can be found at http://www.cabibioscience.ch/wwwgisp/100Toolkitfin.pdf). Once a strategy is chosen, goals and objectives for 

exotic species as a group or for individual species can be designed. These goals and objectives 

should include amounts, locations, and time period to be achieved. Developing goals and 

objectives will require knowledge of species, monitoring data, field observations, and control 

methods. Monitoring data and reports can be obtained from the Heartland Network directly or at 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/htln/innp.cfm. 

Treatment options by species

The following list of treatment recommendations was produced as a reference guide for control 

of exotic plants in the parks within the HTLN network. Links to key internet resources and books 

are imbedded within summaries for each species and are annotated at the end of the review. 

Treatment recommendations are based around fire as a management tool. Fire shaped bullets 

preceding species names indicate fire as a potential control technique. Specific descriptions for 

herbicide application can be found in the sources cited. Control effectiveness can often be 

enhanced by applying multiple stressors in a coordinated effort such as burning to stimulate 

18
germination or reduce standing dead biomass and following up with an herbicide. The burn can 

enhance the efficacy of the herbicide application in this manner (Masters and Sheley 2001). 

Herbicide treatment effectiveness can sometimes vary by region and soil type because the 

chemicals react differently to soil chemistry and plant phenology. It is important to consider that 

removing plants can create bare ground which may be susceptible to reinvasion. Methods that 

encourage native species while simultaneously eradicating invasive species may circumvent the 

creation of bare ground. Herbicide suggestions are not an endorsement of any particular 

manufacturer. Please follow manufacturer specifications when applying products. 

Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) 

Timing: Treat with fire or herbicide early before other plants begin to green up (April) or in the 

fall. It is best if temperatures are above 40° F 

Control: For small infestations, cut the stems low to the ground. Pulling also works but be 

careful not to disturb the soil as it can stimulate seed germination. Remove plants from 

the site in garbage bags and landfill. For larger populations, herbicide with 0.5-..75% 

glyphosate with surfactant (http://www.dowagro.com/ivm/invasive/invasive.htm). 

Repeated fall or spring burns can also eliminate it if burns are intense and thorough. 

Where burns are not complete, follow up with herbicides in unburned areas or non-burn 

years. http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/exotic/vegman/eleven.htm

Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry 

Timing: Unspecified, plants green up early in the spring for easy identification. 

Control: Prescribed fire has controlled this species. Cutting, pulling, and digging early in the 

spring are also effective as is triclopyr in a cut stump application (Czarapata 2005, 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/invasives/fact/barberry.htm) 

Bromus inermis (smooth brome) 

Mobility of smooth brome depends on temperature and precipitation. Cooler moister climates 

seem to struggle more with control than warm dry climates. Where smooth brome is less 

invasive, it can provide good grassland bird habitat if managed properly. 

Timing: Burn when tillers elongate (boot stage), usually early May. 

Control: If native tallgrass species make up > 20% of the plant community and tillers have 

elongated (have at least 5 leaves) but have not developed an inflorescence, burning can 

be effective. Otherwise, consider herbicide application and possibly reseeding. Mowing 

will prevent seed set. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/sbrome/burn.htm. 

One study (unpublished) found herbicide with imazapic following an April prescribed 

fire (plants were 10-15 cm tall) to be more effective than burning alone (Hendrickson 

and Jund 2005, 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=17308

7). 

19
Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle) 

Timing: Burn in late spring (May-June). Avoid early spring because it can stimulate 

reproduction. Root reserves are lowest prior to flowering (Stumpf et al. 1994). 

Control: Burn annually for the first three years. An initial increase in the population may occur 

followed by a decrease 

(http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/exoticab/efficirs.htm). Burning may be 

most effective when root reserves are lowest prior to or immediately post flowering. 

Translocation of chemicals to rhizomes will be more effective as plants are rebuilding 

root reserves post flowering increasing efficacy of treatments. Cutting and pulling can 

be effective on smaller populations if treated persistently. Descriptions of chemical and 

biological control can be found in the link above. Glyphosate, 2-4-D, and Aminopyralid 

can be used on large populations, see manufacturer specifications. 

• Elaeagnus umbellate (autumn olive) 

Timing: Unspecified 

Control: Prescribed fire listed as ineffective, see herbicide recommendations at 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/autolive.html. Czarapta (2005) 

recommends cutting and herbicide treatment with metsulfuron-methyl with surfactant. 

Miller (2003) also has detailed instructions for treatment. 

Frangula alnus (glossy buckthorn) 

Timing: Burn in early spring and fall, apply cutting treatments in dormant season 

Control: Prescribed fire annually or biannually until seedbank is exhausted (2-3 years). Cutting 

to improve fuel development may be required. Small plants can be pulled or dug; larger 

plants must be girdled or cut followed by stump treatment. Cutting and herbicide 

treatments can be done in the dormant season. See 

http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/buckthorn_gloss.htm for details. 

Lespedeza cuneata (sericea) 

Timing: Burn late June – July, herbicide timing varies with active ingredient used 

Control: Spring fire should be avoided unless followed up with herbicide in the same growing 

season. Spring fire stimulates germination and can help to exhaust the seed bank if a 

secondary treatment is used. Summer fire has not yet been shown to conclusively 

decrease sericea. Research is pending. A number of herbicides can be used; some 

herbicides should be used during different stages of the vegetative cycle. Direct foliar 

spray; 2% Garlon 4 + surfactant (Remedy Ultra ®, Pasturegard®, and Escort® are also 

feasible. Apply Remedy Ultra® and Pasuregard® June-July, Escort® in August or 

early September). Mowing 1 to three months prior to herbicide application may assist 

in control. Mowing in the bud stage will reduce root reserves. Herbicides are most 

effective on 3-year old plants. Seedlings don’t have enough leaf area to absorb adequate 

amounts of herbicide (personal communication W. Fick, Kansas State University). 

More herbicide details at 

http://www.dowagro.com/PublishedLiterature/dh_003c/0901b8038003cad3.pdf?filepat

h=ivm/pdfs/noreg/010-50165.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

20
• Ligustrum vulgare (European privet) 

Timing: Mechanical and chemical treatments in August-December 

Control: Fire not listed as effective. Herbicide and cutting treatments recommended by Miller 

(2003) and Czarapata (2005). Miller offers detailed herbicide recommendations. 

Lolium spp formerly Festuca and recently changed to Schedonorus spp. (fescue) 

Timing: Burn in April/May, prior to emergence of warm season grasses, or late fall after killing 

frosts and a subsequent warm up period. 

Control: Prescribed fire in the spring or fall alone, may retard growth. For heavier infestations 

use prescribed fire then the following year herbicide in the late fall after killing frosts 

and a warm up that will stimulate growth. Follow up with a spring fire. 

Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle) 

Timing: Burn in spring 

Control: Cut or burn vines or burn 1-2 years prior to herbicide treatment. Follow conventional 

recommendations with triclopyr or glyphosate with surfactant. Crossbow® has also 

been found to be effective. More herbicide recommendations at: 

http://www.dowagro.com/PublishedLiterature/dh_003a/0901b8038003a6f3.pdf?filepat

h=ivm/pdfs/noreg/010-50223.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

Lonicera morrowii (Morrow’s honeysuckle) 

Timing: Burn in spring 

Control: Prescribed fire can kill seedlings and topkill mature plants making stump treatments 

more feasible. Treatments should be repeated until infestation is under control. Pulling 

young plants is feasible, but avoid soil disturbance. A variety of herbicides are 

recommended in Czarapata (2005), field personnel in Missouri have used a basal bark 

treatment of Remedy Ultra® (triclopyr) with Stalker® (imazapyr) after fall leaf drop. 

Use care with imazapyr in sensitive areas as it may leach in the soil. See 

http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/honeysuckle_morrow.htm for additional suggestions on 

chemical and mechanical control. 

Lysimachia nummularia (creeping jenny/moneywort) 

Timing: Burn or spray in early spring or late fall when other plants are dormant 

Control: Controlled burns can be effective (Czarapata 2005). Pulling and herbicide may also be 

effective. Seeding with native plants can also reduce populations. 

Melilotus officinalis

Timing: Burn in April/May 

Control: Hand pulling is effective for small populations. Prescribed fire in April of year 1 and in 

May of year 2. Sequence is repeated two years later. 

21
• Morus alba

Timing: Unspecified 

Control: Fire not listed as an effective control. Herbicides triclopyr or imazapyr may be effective 

(Czarapata 2005). 

Phalaris arundinacea (reedcanary grass) 

Timing: Burn in late spring 

Control: http://www.ipaw.org/invaders/reed_canary_grass/draft_rcg_table_sm.pdf provides a 

matrix of treatment options for a variety of situations. In short, fire can be used in 

conjunction with another treatment such as herbicide. Burning in late spring to remove 

litter and standing dead biomass may improve herbicide effectiveness. If the infestation 

is mature, mowing treatments may be needed to prepare the stand for burning. This 

species responds to increased light so do not burn in the early spring (before the natives 

begin growth) or in late fall without a secondary treatment or you’ll just make it mad. 

In cases of heavy infestation, planting to an intermediate crop such as corn, can prepare 

the area for restoration. 

Poa compressa/pratensis (bluegrass/Kentucky bluegrass) 

Timing: Burn in spring, before native species green up and when Poa flowers are still sheathed. 

Fall burning may be less effective. If burning in the fall, try burning after a killing frost 

and subsequent warm up as for fescue 

Control: Burn in a rotation to encourage native species competition, but annual spring burning 

for 3 or more years may be needed to gain control (Stumpf et al. 1994). Herbicides can 

also be used on degraded sites see (Czarapta 2005) or 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/exoticab/effipoap.htm. Mowing is not an 

effective treatment, but early spring grazing in a warm season prairie may give native 

species a competitive edge (Stumpf et al. 1994). 

Rhamnus spp. (buckthorn species) 

Timing: Burn in late April or late May (when root reserves are low). 

Control: Prescribed fire will kill seedlings and shrubs if adequate fuel is present. Continue 

burning annually or biannually for 5-6 years to eradicate this group of species. For 

herbicide and cutting treatments see: 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/buckthorn.html

• Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) 

Timing: Unspecified. 

Control: Fire is minimally effective. Cutting and herbicide treatments will be most effective, 

see: http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/blocust.html

Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose) 

Timing: July (mowing), unspecified (fire). 

22
Control: Fire can be used to keep this plant under control and hamper establishment. For 

eradication of small populations pulling, grubbing, or removing individual plants may 

be effective only if all roots are removed. More extensive populations should be mowed 

or cut 3-6 times each season for 2-4 years or herbicided, see: 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/mrose.html or 

http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/exotic/vegman/seventee.htm. 

Web resources

http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/pubs/manuallist.htm#EXOTIC

Provides details for controlling a host of exotic species. May draw from Czarapata 2005 for 

information. 

http://www.ipaw.org/invaders/reed_canary_grass/draft_rcg_table_sm.pdf

An excellent resource for reedcanary grass control. 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/VMG.html

An excellent manual for treating several exotic species. 

http://invasivespecies.nbii.gov/models.html

General principles for invasive control including biological control. Links to the Illinois Natural 

History Survey management guide for species specific control. 

http://www.invasivespecies.net/

Extensive searchable database. Includes plant biology as well as control recommendations. 

http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/exotic/vegman/

Manual for controlling a host of exotic species in Missouri. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/sbrome/burn.htm

Describes a research project and model for controlling smooth brome. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/exoticab/effipoap.htm. 

Description of treatments for Poa pratensis. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/exoticab/efficirs.htm

Description of treatments for Cirsium arvense. 

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html 

Weed Control Methods Handbook:Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. Gives 

specific instructions for various herbicides and techniques. 

23
http://www.cabi-bioscience.ch/wwwgisp/100Toolkitfin.pdf

A comprehensive manual for invasive species. For help on prioritizing control efforts page down 

to page 122. 

http://www.vmanswers.com/labels.aspx?pid=33

BASF herbicide application labels and recommendations. 

http://www.dowagro.com/range/ and http://www.dowagro.com/ivm/invasive/

Dow AgroSciences herbicide application labels and recommendations for range plants and 

invasive plants respectively. 

http://www.dupont.com/cgi-bin/ag/prodsearch/start.cgi

Dupont herbicide application labels and recommendations. 

Literature Cited 

(* included in the resource kit companion) 

Czarapata, E. J. 2005. Invasive plants of the Upper Midwest: an illustrated guide to their 

identification and control. University of Wisconsin Press. 

Hendrickson, J. R., Lund, C. B. 2005. Control of smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass using 

fire and fire plus chemical in the northern Great Plains. Abstract. Presented at the 

Invasive Species Workshop on April 5-7, 2005, Bismarck, ND. 

*Masters, R. E., and R. L. Sheley. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland 

invasive plants. Journal of Range Management. 54:502-517. 

Miller, J. H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of the Southern forests: a field guide for 

identification and control. Revised. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

Smith, T. 2008. Strategies for treating invasive species. Missouri Natural Resources Conference: 

Get Ready for Change: Ensuring Resource Sustainability in an iPod® World. Lake of the 

Ozarks, Missouri. January 30-February 1, 2008. 

Stumpf, J. A., J.Stubbendieck, and C. H. Butterfield. 1994. An assessment of exotic plants at 

Scotts Bluff National Monument and Effigy Mounds National Monument. Final Report to 

Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service. 

24
1.4 Woody Control 

This essay will review ecology of woody species in the Central Grasslands region by examining 

biology and control measures for a suite of common plants. Historically, fire and 

grazing/browsing disturbances influenced by soils and climatic conditions acted to determine the 

abundance of woody plants in North America (see chapter 1.1; Axelrod 1985). Woody species 

can be both beneficial and unwanted depending on the amount, species, and context, hence 

monitoring plays a critical role in maintaining the integrity of grasslands vis-à-vis woody plant 

encroachment. Consistent mechanisms are yet to be determined that relate fire effects on woody 

plants to fuels, weather, and fire behavior, but generalizations are available that are of use in 

constructing management plans. 

First, I must define to which species “woody” refers. The Heartland Network monitoring staff 

assign species to one of 11 guilds (Table 3). Species are grouped into guilds based on similar 

features of growth habit, leaf characteristics, stem structures, root structures, and reproduction 

traits (Kindscher and Wells 1995). Native and exotic trees and shrubs are included in the woody 

plant guild. Tree species found in grasslands such as persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), eastern 

redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), hackberry (Celtis spp.), 

and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) often are intuitive to classify, but common shrubs include 

New Jersey Tea (Ceanothus spp.), buck brush/coral berry (Symphoricapos spp.), sumac (Rhus

spp.), and blackberry/dewberry (Rubus spp.). Roses (Rosa spp.) are also classified with woody 

plants, but lead plant (Amorpha canescens) is classified as a legume rather than a woody plant. 

Ability to resprout or reproduce vegetatively is also used as a classification characteristic in some 

fire ecology literature (Whelen 1995). Inquiries about the guild classification of specific species 

can be directed to HTLN staff or the USDA plants website also provides a wealth of information 

about North American plants (http://plants.usda.gov) including growth habit. 

Table 3. HTLN guild categories 

used to classify plants. 

Guild Name 

annual and biennial forbs 

cool-season grasses 

ephemeral spring forbs 

ferns 

grass-like forbs 

legumes 

spring forbs 

succulents 

summer/fall forbs 

warm-season grasses 

woody species 

Grassland managers purposefully monitor woody populations with the knowledge that 

woodlands encourage an entirely different suite of plants and animals, have different 

mechanisms for nutrient cycling, soil retention, and water usage (Risser et al. 1981; Maestas et 

al. 2003; Chapman et al. 2004; Hornecastle et al. 2005; Bresherars 2006). From a landscape 

25
perspective, soil type and precipitation are the primary abiotic factors associated with woody 

plant invasion potential (Wright and Bailey1982). The combination of precipitation and soils 

produce a potential range of possible ecosystems. Historical and observed communities are 

further determined by ecological disturbances. Current trends in land use (e.g., increased 

agriculture and exurban development), ecosystem fragmentation, and elevated atmospheric 

carbon dioxide levels favor the expansion of woody species (Bragg and Hulbert 1976; Archer et 

al. 1995; Briggs et al. 2002b) whereas, fire and grazing/browsing interact to limit the distribution 

and abundance of a variety of woody species (Curtis 1959; Anderson and Bowles 1999). Biotic 

factors that negatively affect woody species (fire and browsing) can moderate the landscape 

scale effects of climate change which favor the progression to shrublands and woodlands. For 

example, current climatic patterns promote the expansion of eastern redcedar, but the use of fire 

can deter transition to cedar thickets in the Central Grasslands region (Owensby et al. 1973). 

However, threshold conditions exist whereby ecosystem feedbacks may not be able to overcome 

the influence of climate change, (e.g., if drought conditions transition a sand prairie into a virtual 

desert, fire and browsing will not be useful tools; (Brown et al. 1997; Knapp et al. 2008). 

Numerous factors are associated with fire effects on woody plants but the degree to which these 

factors interact to influence fire effects remains unclear within the scientific literature. It is 

therefore critical to distinguish direct effects from indirect effects in order to identify consistent 

patterns of fire effects from previous research. Direct effects are defined herein to be those 

influenced by fire behavior whereas indirect effects are divided into two categories:available 

resources and status of the meristems. Importantly, fire effects on woody plants differ between 

resprouting and non-resprouting species. Fire intensity directly influences non-resprouting and 

resprouting species but a high level of fire-induced mortality has only been observed in nonresprouting species (Briggs et al. 2002a); fire has not been shown to be a successful tool in 

killing resprouting species (Trollope and Tainton 1986), although it may prevent or slow 

invasion. Resprouting species are often top-killed with fire but the recovery period and resulting 

resprouts may be influenced by fire intensity (Whelan 1995). 

Fire intensity is an often misunderstood factor influencing fire effects. Fire intensity is measured 

as heat per unit time per length of the fire front e.g., kJ/s/m (Byram 1959). Fuel loads, fuel 

moisture, fire residence time, wind speed, relative humidity, and slope all contribute to fire 

intensity. Fuel load and arrangement contribute to scorch height and completeness of injury to 

the circumference of the plant’s stem. Heterogeneous fuel loads also will likely produce more 

variable effects on the plant community than homogenous fuels. Of the factors affecting fire 

intensity, fuel load is the most often recognized. The importance of residence time as a 

component of fire intensity is under investigation and may help to better predict plant level 

effects (Twidwell personal communication 2008) 

Fire intensity, fire frequency, ignition type (headfire vs backfire), fire type (ground, surface, or 

crown, soil), and fire history directly influence how much damage may be inflicted to a woody 

plant (Bond and van Wilgen 1996; Whelan 1995). Of these fire intensity is the most important. 

The literature is unclear in defining species responses to high or low intensity fires that deliver 

the same amount of heat. Younger trees tend to be damaged at lower intensities than older ones 

and thus are more vulnerable to fire (Hare 1965; Wright et al. 1976). Ignition type can influence 

woody plant stress because head fires move more quickly and produce greater intensity than 

26
backfires (Bidwell et al. 1990; Trollope 1978). Mortality on trees encountering headfires can be 

greater than with other ignition types. 

Primary physiological attributes indirectly determining woody plant recovery post-fire are 

resource availability and status of the meristems (Bond and van Wigen 1996; Richburg et al. 

2001). Physical characteristics of woody plants such as hydration level, carbohydrate reserves, 

bark characteristics, and bud structure also determine susceptibility to injury and ability to 

recover (Bond and van Wilgen 1996; Whelan 1995). Plant phenology and therefore season are 

directly related to a plant’s vulnerability because the status of hydration and carbohydrate root 

reserves depend on physiological events like leaf out, flowering, and dormancy (Richburg et al. 

2001). Injury from fire occurs by the denaturing of proteins and other chemicals, destruction of 

cell walls, and disruption of photosynthesis or nutrient and water transport. Some injuries 

directly cause death, but others can lead to susceptibility to infection by fungus or insects , and 

loss of carbohydrate reserves can slow recovery or indirectly lead to death (Loescher 1990; 

Richburg et al. 2001). Positive responses to fire include resprouting, flowering, seed production, 

and seed germination (Whelan 1995) 

Grassland management plans often address woody plant removal, but certainly some woody 

species provide resources to grassland wildlife such as food, escape and thermal cover, and serve 

as anchors for islands of biodiversity (Hekert 2003; Hull 2003; Bell 2005; Sudkamp Wells and 

Fuhlendorf 2005). Although some grasslands naturally maintain low levels of native woody 

plants because of soil types, moisture and nutrient availability, topography, aspect, and 

disturbance history, other grasslands, transition zones for example, may experience a great deal 

of variability in woody cover over time. An alternative planning process to simply eradicating 

woody plants would include the calculation of thresholds for woody plant abundance at a 

particular location. For example, certain exotic species may have 0% tolerance. Likewise, 

Chapman et al. (2004) demonstrated that when eastern redcedar reached 25% total cover, 

abundance of grassland birds declined to nearly zero. Based on that study an acceptable 

threshold for eastern redcedar might be set at <9% cover. 

For each species below (Table 4), plant biology and ecology is briefly considered followed by 

information on control measures. A detailed account of many of the species can be found at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/index.html or 

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/silvics_v2.pdf. Herbicide suggestions are 

not an endorsement of any particular manufacturer. Please follow manufacturer specifications. 

Table 4. Woody taxa biology, ecology, and control 

recommendations specifically addressed in this summary. 

Common Name Scientific Name

Blackberry/dewberry Rubus spp.

Buckbrush/coralberry Symphoricarpos spp

Dogwood Cornus spp

Eastern redcedar Juniperous virginiana

Hardwoods

Rose Rosa spp.

Sumac Rhus spp.

27
Rubus spp. (Blackberry/dewberry) 

Biology/ecology

Many Rubus species have canes that are biennial, but their roots and rhizomes are perennial 

(DiTomaso 2002; Duncan 1935). Tips of canes that touch the ground may also develop roots. 

The clonal nature of these plants can lead to formation of large thickets in disturbed areas. 

Second year canes produce flowers and thus have different patterns of carbohydrate production 

and transportation than first year canes. First year canes transport carbohydrates from roots 

primarily in the spring or early summer when shoots are elongating whereas second year canes 

focus transport of sugars later in the season when they are producing fruits (DiTomaso 2002). 

Fruits of these plants provide nutrition and thickets provide cover. Monitor populations to 

evaluate acceptable population thresholds. 

Control

Burning and mowing reduce canopy cover in the short-term, but plants are likely to produce 

additional shoots from the root crown or rhizomes (Johnston and Woodard 1985; Reich et al. 

1990). Herbicides may be the most effective choice for control of extensive thickets, however 

little research has been done to test the effect of timing burns to carbohydrate cycles. Time all 

treatments to periods when carbohydrate transportation is maximized as discussed in the biology 

section above (DiTomaso 2002). See 

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PESTNOTES/pnwildblackberries.pdf or 

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/WG006 for specific herbicide recommendations. 

Symphoricarpos spp. (Buckbrush/coralberry) 

Biology/ecology

Symphoricarpos spp. is clonal via rhizomes and stoloniferous plants have been reported (Duncan 

1935). The various species can reproduce by seed, but often reproduce vegetatively 

(http://plants.usda.gov/, Hauser 2007; McWilliams 2000). The plants of this genus prefer areas 

with open sunlight in grasslands, canopy gaps in woodlands, and riparian areas. Symphoricarpos 

spp. are also palatable to grazing/browsing animals as well as to birds (Stubbendieck et al. 1997; 

Tyrl et al. 2002). They also provide escape and thermal cover for wildlife (Tyrl 2002). 

Control

Experiments measuring Symphoricarpos response to grazing and fire have had varied results 

(Hauser 2007). Burning can sometimes increase stem density, but it has been shown to decrease 

density as well. Aldous (1934) found that burning during the plants low point in carbohydrate 

root reserves (April 10-May 12 in Kansas) led to declines in percent cover, whereas burns at 

other times in the spring or fall resulted in increased stem density. Much like treating sumac 

(below), timing treatments to take advantage of vulnerable points in the plant’s phenology may 

lead to the greatest success. Fuel may be limiting in a large colony so a combination of mowing 

and burning may be needed to build up enough fuel to carry fire through the patch. 

Cornus spp. (Dogwoods) 

Biology/ecology

Cornus florida is found primarliy in woodland understories, but may extend into transition zones 

(McLemore 1990). Other species of Cornus can be found in grasslands, old fields, wetlands, and 

28
along riparian areas. C. florida has had high mortality from anthracnose in the eastern part of its 

range (Jenkins and White 2006). Leaves of C. florida. have high calcium content important for 

nutrient cycling, and all species provide important food sources for birds (Kurz 2004; Jenkins 

and White 2006). Cornus spp reproduce by both seed and vegetative mechanisms. C. 

drummondii has a deeper root system and is more drought tolerant than the other more shallowly 

rooted species of Cornus (McLemore 1990). Dogwoods can be an important winter source of 

food for birds, so evaluate monitoring data carefully to determine whether populations need 

control. 

Control

Dormant season burns appear to have little effect on reducing Cornus spp. (Bowles et al. 1996; 

Kuddes-Fischer and Arthur 2002; Middleton 2002). A 15-year study at Konza biological station 

using spring fires revealed that C. drummondii was kept in check by an annual fire frequency. 

Intermediate fire frequency (every four years) increased densities over both low frequency (ever 

20 years) and annual burning. Grazing by bison accelerated growth, however (Briggs et al. 

2002b). By contrast, two consecutive spring fires in a Kansas gallery forest significantly 

decreased shrub species including C. drummundii (Abrams 1988). Management of Cornus spp. 

with fire may be most effective if planned around plant phenology as described for other species 

in this summary. Single burns in most cases may not be enough to control this species. If 

resprouts occur after a fire, plan fires for successive years until management goals are reached. 

Also, consider using multiple disturbances such as applying a fire and following up with mowing 

or wicking of herbicides on foliage. 

Juniperus virginiana (Eastern redcedar) 

Biology

Juniperous virginiana is widely distributed in North America having scale-like leaves and blue 

seed cones which look like berries (Tyrl et al. 2002). Historical distribution of (J. virginiana) 

was likely confined to shallow soils and rocky outcrops by fire and to a lesser extent, grazing 

(Tyrl et al. 2002; Ownsby et al. 1973). J. virginianahas a shallow fibrous rooting structure 

allowing it to exploit areas of shallow soil such as glades, but making it vulnerable to tipping in 

high wind events Trees reach reproductive maturity within 6-7 years and pollen causes severe 

allergenic responses in many people (Midoro-Horiuti et al. 2001). As J. virginiana dominates a 

grassland, soil carbon is converted to above ground biomass (Norrris et al. 2001) and species 

diversity may decline (Hornecastle et al. 2004, 2005; Briggs et al. 2005). For more detail on the 

plant’s biology see http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/junvir/all.html. 

Control

If left unchecked, J. virginiana can exapand and proliferate into a cedar forest in 20-40 years 

(Engle and Kulbeth 1992, Briggs et al. 2002a). J. virginiana will not resprout when cut below the 

lowest limb so cutting is a good technique for fence-lines and large trees. Fire is very effective 

on small trees less than five feet tall (Engle et al. 1988). Trees over six feet tall may require 

>4000 lbs of fuel and extreme conditions such as drought for fire to kill them (Buehring et al. 

1971, Ortmann et al.1998). Herbicides have been used to kill J. virginiana (Anderson 2003), 

however, this is probably not the most economical control method (Buehring et al. 1971; 

Ortmann et al.1998; Bidwell and Weir 2007). Grazing plans should consider stocking livestock 

so that adequate fuel is retained for prescribed fires, otherwise J. virginiana may increase 

without additional mechanical control. 

29
Hardwoods e.g., Carya (hickory), Acer (maple), Quercus (oak) and others 

Biology/ecology

Many hardwood species have a prominent taproot which provides stability (red maple is an 

exception; Brown and Smith 2000). As with the shrub species described herein, many of the 

hardwood trees present in the woodland grassland interface have means of vegetative 

reproduction. Although, hickory, oak, and elm species, for example, are likely to resprout from 

root crowns and/or stumps following disturbance (Brown and Smith 2000), the probability of 

stump sprouting decreases with tree age (Weigel and Johnson 1998). Carbohydrate reserve 

storage is important to tree productivity. Carbohydrates are used to support metabolic needs prior 

to initiation of photosynthesis. Trees that flower prior to leaf out depend on stores longer than 

those that flower after leaf out. During leaf out, carbohydrate stores shift from roots to buds and 

stems. Root reserves generally are lowest immediately post flowering then gradually recover, 

peaking again at the point of leaf drop (Loescher et al. 1990). Seedlings and saplings growing in 

low light conditions often have smaller root systems and lesser root reserves leaving them more 

susceptible to disturbance (Brose et al. 2006). Species specific descriptions can be found at 

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/silvics_v2.pdf. 

Control

Stand demographics and light intensity to the ground are important factors influencing the effect 

of fire on trees and should be assessed when developing a control strategy. Young trees and 

seedlings grown in low light conditions are more susceptible to fire than those in open grown, 

high light conditions; hence a single fire may be more likely to achieve management goals in 

some situations (Brose et al. 2006). Fire can often top kill younger trees and sprouts 

subsequently stimulating production of vegetative shoots. Forest research suggests that severe 

fires that raise soil temperatures adequately can sterilize underground meristems in addition to 

damaging above ground biomass, in effect killing the plants (Brown and Smith 2000). Oak 

seedlings, however, have deeper tap roots than other more shallowly rooted species and may 

instead, benefit from the extreme heat. Conducting fires producing extreme amounts of heat may 

not always be advantageous to the rest of the community, however. Alternatively, burning over a 

few consecutive years can reduce saplings and seedlings whereas a single fire or one fire every 

few years may stimulate reproduction (Brose et al. 2006). 

Little research has been done on timing fire to take advantage of phenological deficits in 

carbohydrate reserves of trees. Timing fires to the post flowering period of target species may 

provide better control. Likewise, pairing mowing of sprouts with fire may improve control. For 

example, burning post flowering and then following up with mowing of sprouts prior to leaf drop 

should leave energy stores depleted for the dormant season. Additional treatment the following 

year may provide adequate control. Combining cutting treatments with subsequent well-timed 

burns may also increase treatment efficacy by improving the fuel base. 

Herbicide control can be applied using several methods such as cut-stump treatments, hack and 

squirt, and basal bark treatments. Species differ in their susceptibility to herbicide so knowledge 

of individual species is required. Hickory stumps sprouts were effectively killed with Garlon 

3A® (Walter et al. 2004), but red maple does not respond well to herbicide treatments, for 

example (Walters and Yawney 1990). 

30
Rosa spp. (Rose) 

Biology/ecology

Rosa setigera and R. multiflora have vertical roots and reproduce by seed or by rooting at the tips 

of branches. Rosa species have prominent lateral roots which can extend almost a meter or more 

from the plant and extend downward 10-39 cm from the surface with some tap roots extending 

more than one meter deep (Duncan 1935; Munger 2002). It is important to positively recognize 

R. multiflora from the native rose species. Stipules at the base of each petiole of R. multifora are 

fringed rather than winged in the native species (Figure 3). 

A. B. 

Figure 3. Rosa multiflora (A) has fringed comb-line stipules unlike native species (B) (A, 

http://www.ppws.vt.edu/scott/weed_id/rosmu.htm B, 

www.illinoiswildflowers.info/prairie/plantx/p...). 

Control

Rosa spp. are top killed by fire but resprout vegetatively or regenerate by seed. Control measures 

for R. multiflora are detailed in chapter 1.3 on invasive species. Native rose plants provide 

important food and cover for wildlife (Munger 2002) so careful consideration of the need for 

control of native species is warranted. 

Rhus spp. (Sumac)

Biology/ecology

Winged sumac (Rhus copallina) has lateral roots (rhizomatous) with vertical roots extending at 

each node. Roots vary in length depending on soil type but have been measured at 16.6 m long 

and 15-35 cm deep on average. Older plants are in the center of a clump with younger stems 

growing in a circular pattern around the parent stem. The rate of colony expansion was found to 

be slower on shallow dry sites, 5.4 m/ over 9 years compared to 7.5 m over 9 years on rich soil 

(Duncan 1935). Anderson et al. (1970) found that smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) was more 

abundant on limestone breaks than uplands or clay pan soils in the Flint Hills. Biology of winged 

and smooth sumac appears to be similar although phenology may be slightly different. These 

species can provide important food sources (berries and bark) to animals like deer, rabbits, and 

birds and provides song perches for some grassland birds. Ground shading in large colonies 

reduces flora species richness, but provides thermal cover for livestock and wildlife. Acceptable 

thresholds for Rhus species cover should be established because although sumac is native and an 

important component of native grasslands, it sometimes increases dominance in communities 

overtime (Collins and Adams 1983). 

31
Control

Control of Rhus species especially sumac, is dependant on timing with carbohydrate reserve 

fluctuations which are lowest immediately following flowering. Hence, winter and early spring 

mowing or burning efforts result in an increase in stem density rather than a reduction (Aldous 

1934; Adams et al. 1982). Given the clonal nature of sumac, treatments will be most effective if 

entire clones are treated at once. Shrubs were tracked in a Flint Hills, KS study using annually 

burned (burned at 3 spring dates), grazed pastures over 10 years. R. glabra and Amorpha 

canescens both increased during the study but remained less than 1% cover each. Total shrub 

cover was greatest in the early spring burned pasture, averaging 1.2%. R. glabra increased most 

in the late spring burn pastures (Anderson et al. 1970). Fire effects on poison ivy (Toxicodendron 

radicans) point to a similar pattern as other Rhus species in that control should be timed right 

after flowering, but be aware that the poison ivy smoke can cause an allergic reaction in the 

lungs if inhaled (Adams et al. 1982; Pavek 1992; Catling et al. 2002; Tyrl et al. 2002). 

Mowing was shown to be most effective when carbohydrate reserves were low, principally right 

after flowering (early June in Missouri, later in more northern climates (Aldous 1934). Applying 

a single mowing any other time of the year may increase stem density. Recommendations call for 

mowing post-flowering and again in the fall to reduce winter storage of carbohydrates. 

Following this procedure for 2-3 years is recommended (Evans 1983, 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/smsumac.html). Burns should either be applied 

immediately post-flowering or in combination with mowing. For example, burning in August 

followed by mowing to cut sprouts prior to leaf drop may be effective 

(http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/smsumac.html). 

Chemical control can also be effective. Glyphosate, picloram, 2, 4-D, and triclopyr have been 

used (Evans 1983). Herbicides should be applied foliarly during periods of translocation of 

sugars to and from the leaves, such as during leaf-out in late May-early June or possibly during 

preparation for dormancy in the fall. Wicking with Tordon 22K® and glyphosate have been 

found to be effective, observationally (Tunnell et al. 2006a; personal communication Steve 

Clubine, Missouri Department of Conservation). Wicking may be a better option than spraying 

in areas of widespread colonization and sensitive native species (Tunnell et al. 2006a). Burning 

did not increase efficacy of herbicides in a Nebraska study (Tunnell et al. 2006b) 

Web resources cited

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/index.html 

Species accounts including fire ecology 

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/silvics_v2.pdf

Description of hardwoods by species 

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/smsumac.html

Sumac control guide 

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PESTNOTES/pnwildblackberries.pdf

32
Extension guide to blackberry control 

http://plants.usda.gov

Taxonomic database includes distributions, pictures, and links 

Literature Cited 

(* included in the resource kit companion) 

Abrams, M. D. 1988. Effects of prescribed fire on woody vegetation in a gallery forest 

understory in Northeastern Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 

91:63-70. 

Adams, D. E.; R. C. Anderson; and S.L. Collins. 1982. Differential response of woody and 

herbaceous species to summer and winter burning in an Oklahoma grassland. The 

Southwestern Naturalist. 27: 55-61 

Aldous, A. E. 1934. Effect of burning on Kansas bluestem pastures. Kansas technical bulletin 

38:3-64. 

Anderson, K. L., E. F. Smith, and C. E. Owensby. 1970. Burning bluestem range. Journal of 

Range Management 23:81-92. 

Anderson, M. D. 2003. Juniperus virginiana. In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire Sciences Laboratory, producer. Fire Effects 

Information System, [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/[ 2008, 

January 7]. 

Anderson, R. C. and M. L. Bowles. 1999. Deep-soil savannas and barrens of the midwestern 

United States. Pages 155-170 in R. C. Anderson, J. S. Fralish, and J. M. Baskin, editors. 

Savannas, barrens, and rock outcrop plant communities of North America. Cambridge 

University Press, Great Britain.

Archer, S., D. Schimel, and E. H. Holland. 1995. Mechanisms of shrubland expansion: land use, 

climate or CO2. Climate Change 29:91-99. 

*Axelrod, D. I. 1985. Rise of the grassland biome, Central North America. The Botanical 

Review 51:163-201. 

Bell, L. A. 2005. Habitat use and growth and development of juvenile lesser prairie chickens in 

southeast New Mexico MS, Oklahoma State University. 

Bidwell, T. G., D. M. Engle, and P. L. Claypool. 1990. Effects of spring headfires and backfires 

on tallgrass prairie. Journal of range management 43: 209-212. 

33
Bidwell, T. G. and J. R. Weir. 2007. Eastern redcedar control and management – best 

management practices to restore Oklahoma’s ecosystems. Oklahoma Cooperative 

Extension Service NREM-2876.

Bond, W. J. and B. W. van Wilgen. 1996. Fire and Plants. Population and community biology 

series 14, Chapman and Hall, London. 

Bowles, M, J. McBride, N. Stoynoff, and K. Johnson. 1996. Temporal changes in vegetation 

composition and structure in a fire-managed prairie fen. Natural Areas Journal. 16: 275-

288. 

Bragg, T. B., and L. C. Hulbert. 1976. Woody plant invasion of unburned Kansas bluestem 

prairie. Journal of Range Management 29:19-24. 

Breshears, D. D. 2006. The grassland-forest continuum: trends in ecosystem properties for 

woody plant mosaics? Frontiers in ecology and the environment 4:96-104. 

Briggs, J. M., G. A. Hoch, and L. C. Johnson. 2002a. Assessing the rate, mechanisms and 

consequences of conversion of tallgrass prairie to Juniperus virginiana forest. Ecosystems 

5:578-586. 

Briggs, J. M., A. K. Knapp, J. M. Blair, J. L. Heisler, G. A. Hoch, M. S. Lett, and J. K. 

McCarron. 2005. An ecosystem in transition: causes and consequences of the conversion 

of mesic grassland to shrubland. BioScience 55: 243–254. 

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

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

Naturalist 147:287-294. 

Brose, P. H. T. M. Schuler, and J. S. Ward. 2006. Responses of oak and other hardwood 

regeneration to prescribed fire: what we know as of 2005. Pages 123-135 in M. B. 

Dickinson, editor. 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. http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/8405

Brown, J. K. and J. K. Smith (editors). 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. 

Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Brown, J. H., T. J. Valone, and C. G. Curtin. 1997. Reorganization of an arid ecosystem in 

response to recent climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of 

the USA 94: 9729–9733. 

Buehring, N., P. W. Santelmann, and. M. Elwell. 1971. Responses of eastern red cedar to control 

procedures. Journal of Range Management 24:378-382. 

34
Byram, G. M. 1959. Combusion of forest fuels. Pages: 61-89 in: K. P. Davis, editor. Forest fire: 

control and use. McGraw Hill, New York. 

Catling, P. M., A. Sinclair, and D. Cuddy. 2002. Plant community composition and relationships 

of disturbed and undisturbed alvar woodland. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116:571-579. 

Chapman, R. N., D. M. Engle, R. E. Masters, and D. M. Leslie Jr. 2004. Tree invasion constrains 

the influence of herbaceous structure in grassland bird habitats. Ecoscience 11:55-63. 

Collins, S. L., and D. E. Adams. 1983. Succession in grasslands: Thirty-two years of change in a 

central Oklahoma tallgrass prairie. Vegetatio 51:181-190. 

Curtis, J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 

Wisconsin. 

DiTomaso, J. M. 2002. Wild blackberries. Pest notes publication 7434. University of California, 

Agriculture and Natural Resources, IPM Education and Publications, UC Statewide IPM 

Program, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8620. 

Duncan, W. H. 1935. Root systems of woody plants of old fields of Indiana. Ecology 16:554-

566. 

Engle, D. M. and J. D. Kulbeth. 1992. The growth dynamics of crowns of eastern redcedar at 3 

locations in Oklahoma. Journal of Range Management 45:301-305. 

Engle, D. M. J. F. Stritzke, and P. L. Claypool. 1988. Effects of paraquat plus prescribed burning 

on eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana). Weed Technology 2:171-174. 

Evans, J. E. 1983. Literature review of management practices for smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), 

poison ivy (Rhus radicans) and other sumac species. Natural Areas Journal 3:16-26. 

Hare, R. C. 1965. Contribution of bark to fire resistance of southern trees. Journal of forestry 

63:248-251. 

Hauser, A. S. 2007. Symphoricarpos occidentalis. In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, producer. Fire 

Effects Information System, [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 

2008, January 4]. 

Herkert, J. R. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Henslow's Sparrow. 

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

Research Center Online. 

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

12DEC2003). 

35
Horncastle, V. J., E. C. Hellgren, P. M. Mayer, A. C. Ganguli, D. M. Engle, and D. M. Leslie Jr. 

2004. Differential Consumption of Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) by Avian 

and Mammalian Guilds: Implications for Tree Invasion. The American Midland 

Naturalist 152:255–267 

Horncastle, V. J., E. C. Hellgren, P. M. Mayer, A. C. Ganguli, D. M. Engle, and D. M. Leslie Jr. 

2005. Implications of invasion by Juniperous virginiana on small mammals in the 

Southern Great Plains. Journal of Mammalogy 86: 1144–1155. 

Hull, S. D. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Eastern Meadowlark. 

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

Research Center Online. 

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

12DEC2003). 

Johnston, M. and P. Woodard. 1985. The effect of fire severity level on postfire recovery of 

hazel and raspberry in east-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany 63:672-677. 

Jenkins, M. A. and P. S. White. 2002. Cornus Florida L. mortality and understory composition 

changes in Western Great Smokey Mountains National Park. Journal of the Torrey 

Botanical Society 129:194-206. 

Kindscher, K., and P. V. Wells. 1995. Prairie plant guilds: a multivariate analysis of prairie 

species based on ecological and morphological traits. Vegetatio 117:29-50. 

Knapp, A. K., J. M. Briggs, S. L. Collins, S.R. Archer, M. S. Bret-Harte, B. E. Ewers, D. P. 

Peters, D. R. Young, G. R. Shaver, E. Pendall, M. B. Cleary. 2008. Shrub encroachment 

in North American grasslands: shifts in growth form dominance rapidly alters control of 

ecosystem carbon inputs. Global Change Biology 14:615–623. 

Kuddes-Fischer, L. M. and M. A. Arthur. 2002. Response of Understory Vegetation and Tree 

Regeneration to a Single Prescribed Fire in Oak-Pine Forests. Natural Areas Journal 

22:43-52. 

Kurz, D. 2004. Shrubs and woody vines of Missouri. 2nd edition. Missouri Department of 

Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 

Loescher, W. H., T. McCamant, and J. D. Keller. 1990. Carbohydrate reserves, translocation, 

and storage in woody plant roots. HortScience 25:274-281. 

*Maestas, J. D., R. L. Knight, and W. C. Gilgert. 2003. Biodiversity across a rural land usegradient. Conservation biology 17:1425-1434. 

McLemore, B. F. 1990. Cornus florida L.—Flowering dogwood. Pages 278–283 in R. M. Burns 

and B. H. Honkala, editors. Silvics of North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture 

Handbook 654. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., USA. 

36
McWilliams, Jack. 2000. Symphoricarpos albus. In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, producer. Fire 

Effects Information System, [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ 

[2008, January 4]. 

Middleton, B. 2002. Winter burning and the reduction of Cornus sericea in sedge meadows in 

Southern Wisconsin. Restoration ecology 10: 732-730 

Midoro-Horiuti, T. R. M. Goldblum, E. G. Brooks. 2001. Identification of mutations in the genes 

for the pollen allergens of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) Clinical & 

Experimental Allergy 31:771–778. 

Munger, G. T. 2002. Rosa multiflora. In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, producer. Fire Effects Information 

System, [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2008, January 4]. 

Norris, M. D., J. M. Blair, L. C. Johnson, and R. B. McKane. 2001. Assessing changes in 

biomass, productivity, and C and N stores following Juniperus virginiana forest 

expansion into tallgrass prairie. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:1940-1946. 

Ortmann, J., J. Stubbendieck, R.A. Masters, G. H. Pfeiffer, and T. B. Bragg. 1998. Efficacy and 

costs of controlling eastern redcedar. Journal of Range Management 51:158-163. 

Owensby, C. E., K. R. Blan, B. J. Eaton, and O. G. Russ. 1973. Evaluation of eastern redcedar 

infestations in the Northern Kansas Flint Hills. Journal of Range Management 26:256-

286. 

Pavek, D. S. 1992. Toxicodendron radicans. In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, producer. Fire Effects 

Information System, [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2008, 

January 7]. 

Reich; P. B., M. D. Abrams; D. S. Ellsworth; E. L. Kruger; T. J. Tabone. 1990. Fire affects 

ecophysiology and community dynamics of Central Wisconsin oak forest regeneration. 

Ecology 71:2179-2190. 

*Richburg, J. A., A. C. Dibble, and W. A. Patterson, III. 2001. Woody invasive species and their 

role in altering fire regimes of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Pages 104–111 in 

K. E. M. Galley and T. P. Wilson, editors. Proceedings of the Invasive Species 

Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire 

Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and 

Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station, 

Tallahassee, FL. 

Risser, P. G., E. C. Birney, H. D. Blocker, S. W. May, W.J . Parton, J. A. Wiens. 1981. The true 

prairie ecosystem. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Pennsylvania. 

37
Suedkamp Wells, K. M. and S. D. Fuhlendorf. 2005. Comparison of Microclimate at Grassland 

Bird Nests with Different Substrates. The Prairie Naturalist 37:21-28. 

Stubbendieck, J. S. L. Hatch, and C. H. Butterfield. 1997. North American range plants. 5th

edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Trollope, W. S. W. 1978. Fire--a rangeland tool in Southern Africa. Pages 245-247 in D. N. 

Hyder, editor. Proceedings of the first international rangeland congress. Society for 

Range Management, Denver, Colorado. 

Trollope, W. S. W. and N. M. Tainton. 1986. Effect of fire intensity on the grassland bush 

components of the Eastern Cape Thornveld. Journal of the Grassland Society of South 

Africa 2:27-42. 

Tunnell, S. J., J. Stubbendieck, and S. Palazzolo. 2006a. Forb response to herbicides in a 

degraded tallgrass prairie. Natural Areas Journal 26:72-77. 

*Tunnell, S. J., J. Stubbendieck, S. Palazzolo, and R. A. Masters. 2006b. Reducing smooth 

sumac dominance in native tallgrass prairie. Great Plains Research 16:45-49. 

Tyrl, R. J., R. G. Bidwell, R. E. Masters. 2002. Field guide to Oklahoma plants. Oklahoma State 

University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. 

Walter, W. D. H. E. Garrett and L. D. Godsey. 2004. Response of eastern black walnut to 

herbicide stump treatment. D. A. Yaussy, A. Hix, D. M. Long, R. P. Goebel, P. Charles, 

editors. Proceedings 14th Central Hardwood Forest Conference; 2004 March 16 19; 

Wooster, OH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-316. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: Pp. 52-55. 

Walters, R. S. and H. W. Yawney. 1990. Acer rubrum, red maple. .In R. M. Burns and B. H. 

Honkala, editors. Silvics of North America: Vol 2, Hardwoods.. Agriculture Handbook 

654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. 

Weigel, D. R. and P. S. Johnson. 1998. Stump sprouting probabilities for Southern Indiana oaks. 

Technical brief TB-NC-7. USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 

Whelan, R. J. 1995. The ecology of fire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Great Britain. 

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

Wiley and Sons, New York. 

Wright, H. A., S. C. Bunting, and L. F. Neuenschwander. 1976. Effect of fire on honey mesquite. 

Journal of range management 29:467-471. 

38
Chapter 2. Annotated information resources 

2.1 Web fire resources

http://www.fire.org/

Fire software and publications developed by Systems for Environmental Management. 

http://fireecology.okstate.edu/index.html

Basic fire ecology and fire effects, detailed analysis of heterogeneity on rangelands (systems for 

creating and effects of). Links to more information and contacts. Pdfs of published works 

available. 

http://frames.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=213&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cache

d=true

Click on documents for research reports on fire effects, tools for fire software. Links for other 

fire related websites.

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/index.html

(FEIS) Fire Effects Information System. Lots of information from invasives, plants, animals, to 

fire regimes. Publications can be ordered for free. Here is a list of some well written synthesis 

papers downloadable from FEIS: 

RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna

RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora

RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water

RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 5. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on air

RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants

http://www.iawfonline.org/links.php

International association of wildland fire. Many links to fire related materials. 

http://www.nps.gov/fire/fire/fir_ecology.cfm

National Park Service fire information including research, monitoring handbook and links to 

other fire related materials. 

http://www.oklahomaprescribedfirecouncil.okstate.edu/Fire_Information.html

Links to related fact sheets from various sources. 

http://www.talltimbers.org/

Fire ecology conference publications, research, and information 

http://www.wfas.net/

Wildland fire assessment system includes weather information, drought maps, indices, ect. 

39
2.2 Annotated bibliography of vital fire ecology research by category 

(*text included in companion to resource kit).

Catagories (Right click on category to navigate directly to it): fire, grassland ecology, 

heterogeneity, management, restoration, and miscellaneous

Fire Photo by Angela Smith

Bond, W. J. and B. W. van Wilgen. 1996. Fire and Plants. Population and community biology 

series 14, Chapman and Hall, London. Plant physiological, evolutionary, and community 

responses to fire. 

*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. Woody plants at Konza prairie have expanded in all treatments 

(fire intervals and grazing) except for annual burning without grazing. 

Collins, S. L. and Wallace, L. L. (editors). 1990. Fire in North American tallgrass prairies. 

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Oklahoma. Chapters in this book review 

grassland ecology work done at Konza Prairie, KS. It includes the effects of fire on a 

variety of tallgrass prairie components such as plants, communities, small mammals, and 

diversity. A worthwhile investment. 

Daubenmire, R. 1968. Ecology of fire in grasslands. Advances in Ecological Research 5:209-

266. A comprehensive view of fire in grasslands including soils and plants. 

*Earls, P. 2006. Prairie fire history of the tallgrass prairie National Preserve and the Flint Hills, 

Kansas. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the National Park Service, Omaha, 

Nebraska. Review of fire in the Flint Hills through three different time periods. Provides 

references to historical accounts and information on fire origins, use, and effects. 

Engle, D. M., M. W. Palmer, J. S. Crockett, R. L. Mitchell, and R. Stevens. 2000. Influence of 

late season fire on early successional vegetation of an Oklahoma prairie. Journal of 

Vegetation Science 11:135-144. Effects of summer fire on species composition and 

richness were inconclusive. 

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

40
approximation. Pages 70-81 in T. L. Pruden, and L. A. Brennan, editors. Fire in 

ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tall 

Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Sets the stage for understanding fire 

frequency intervals by describing the effect of landscape fragmentation and seasonality. 

Ecological fire effects are influenced by abiotic and biotic factors. A fire frequency map 

is presented. 

Gibson, D. J., and L. C. Hulbert. 1987. Effects of fire, topography ,and year-to-year climatic 

variation on species composition in tallgrass prairie. Vegetatio 72:175-185. Species 

richness declines with time since burn. Topography and climate also regulate species so 

that species appear to have individual responses to fire. 

Gibson, D. J. 1988. Regeneration and fluctuation of tallgrass prairie vegetation in response to 

burning frequency. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 115:1-12. Landscape 

heterogeneity and secondarily burning explained community dynamics. 

*Guyette, R. P., Muzika, R. M. and D. C. Dey. 2002. Dynamics of an anthropogenic fire regime. 

Ecosystems 5:472-486. Discusses a human population dependent model of fire use to 

resistance to burning.

*Guyette, R. P., D. C. Dey, M. C. Stambaugh, R. Muzika. 2006. Fire scars reveal variability and 

dynamics of eastern fire regimes. Pages 20-39 in M. B. Dickinson, editor. 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. Describe a model 

to calculate fire return intervals based on precipitation, temperature, and human 

populations. 

Hartnett, D. C., K. R. Hickman, and L. E. Fischer Walter. 1996. Effects of bison grazing, fire, 

and topography on floristic diversity in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management. 

49:413-420. Species responded diversely to bison grazing and fire but species diversity 

and spatial heterogeneity increased. 

Stewart, O.C. 2002. Forgotten Fires: Native Americans and the Transient Wilderness. H. T. 

Lewis and M. K. Anderson, editors. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Pp 364. 

Whelan, R. J. 1995. The ecology of fire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Great Britain. 

Fire effects on plants, animals, and communities. 

41
Grassland ecology Photo by Sarah Douglas 

*Anderson, R. C. 2006. Evolution and origin of the Central Grassland of North America: 

climate, fire, and mammalian grazers. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133:626-

647. A classic paper on the evolution of grasslands in the Great Plains. 

*Axelrod, D. I. 1985. Rise of the grassland biome, Central North America. The Botanical 

Review 51:163-201. The evolutionary history of grasslands in North America is 

presented including the role of fire and large ungulates. 

Bragg, T. B. 1995. The physical environment of Great Plains grasslands. Pages 49-81 in A. Joern 

and K. H. Keeler, editors. The changing prairie. Oxford University Press, New York. 

Describes factors contributing to grassland dynamics such as soil, topography, climate, 

the effects of fire on a variety of organisms and management considerations. 

*Briske, D. D., S.D. Fuhlendorf, and F. E. Smeins. 2003. Vegetation dynamics on rangelands: a 

critique of the current paradigms. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:601-614. Reviews 

succession theory (equilibrium and nonequalibrium) with respect to explaining grassland 

phenomena. Current paradigms acknowledge the role of environmental stochastisity. 

Knapp, A. K., J. M. Blair, J. M. Briggs, S. L. Collins, D. C. Hartnett, and L. C. Johnson. 1999. 

The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie. Bioscience 49:39-50. 

Emphasizes the important role bison once played in North American grasslands. 

*McClain, W. E. and S. L. Elzinga. 1994. The occurrence of prairie and forest fires in Illinois 

and other Midwestern states, 1679 to 1854. Erigenia 13:79-90. Includes historical 

accounts of Native American and early settler use of fire. 

Heterogeneity

Anderson, R. H., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and D. M. Engle. 2006. Soil nitrogen availability in tallgrass 

prairie under the fire-grazing interaction. Rangeland Ecology & Management 59:625-

631. Soil nitrogen changes with movement of burn-grazed patches. 

42
Bakker, C., J. M. Blair, and A. K. Knapp. 2003. Does resource availability, resource 

heterogeneity or species turnover mediate changes in plant species richness in grazed 

grasslands? Oecologia 137:385-391. Argues that spatial heterogeneity of light and higher 

rates of species turnover were associated greater species richness in grazed areas. 

Collins, S. L. 1992. Fire frequency and community heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie vegetation. 

Ecology 73:2001-2006. Heterogeneity was lower in an annually burned prairie than 

unburned, or burned every four years. Within site heterogeneity was positively correlated 

to total richness and species diversity. Relationships differed at large scales. 

*Collins, S. L., and M. D. Smith. 2006. Scale-dependent interaction of fire and grazing on 

community heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 87:2058-2067. Corroborates 

Fuhlendorf and Engle’s findings that the fire and grazing interaction changes the 

patterns of heterogeneity in rangeland. 

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

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

are traditionally managed for homogeneity which leads to loss of biodiversity. They 

argue that management techniques, such as patch burning, that aim to produce 

heterogeneous landscapes will better support biodiversity. 

*Fuhlendorf, S. D., W. C. Harrell, and D. M. Engle. 2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis for 

conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. Ecological Applications 

16:1706-1716. Grassland bird species composition responds to heterogeneity created by 

burning and grazing. 

*Pickett, S. T. A., and M. L. Cadenasso. 1995. Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in 

ecological systems. Science 269:331-334. Describes the role of heterogeneity in 

landscape ecology. 

Rotenberry, J. T. and J. A. Wiens. 1990. Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian communities in 

North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61:1228-1250. 

*Tews, J., U. Brose, V. Grimm, K. Tielbörger, M. C. Wichmann, M. Schwager, and F. Jeltsch. 

2004. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance 

of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31:79-92. Meta analysis that found many 

studies have positive correlation between heterogeneity and species richness but the 

effect varies by spatial scale and organism.

43
Management

*Evans, J. E. 1983. Literature review of management practices for smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), 

poison ivy (Rhus radicans) and other sumac species. Natural Areas Journal 3:16-26. 

Outline of management practices for some problematic woody species in grasslands. 

*Davies, K. W., and R. L. Sheley. 2007. A conceptual framework for preventing the spatial 

dispersal of invasive plants. Weed Science 55:178-184. Describes a model and example 

for preventing dispersal of invasive plants. 

Gibson, D. J., T. R. Seastedt, and J. M. Briggs. 1993. Management practices in tallgrass prairie: 

large- and small-scale experimental effects on species composition. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 30:247-255. At the largest scale, soil type was the driver of species composition. 

At smaller scales burning, fertilizer, and mowing differed in effects on species. 

Hobbs, R. J., and L. F. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for 

conservation. Conservation biology 6:324-337. Disturbances outside the historical 

regime can contribute to invasive species proliferation. Historical patterns often are not 

applicable under current conditions so critical decisions must be made to control or 

accept species. 

*Masters, R. E., and R. L. Sheley. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland 

invasive plants. Journal of Range Management. 54:502-517. Describes types of invasive 

plant management, uses and action of herbicides, and strategies. 

*Richburg, J. A., A. C. Dibble, and W. A. Patterson, III. 2001. Woody invasive species and their 

role in altering fire regimes of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Pages 104–111 in 

K. E. M. Galley and T. P. Wilson, editors. Proceedings of the Invasive Species 

Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire 

Conference 2000. The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and 

Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station, 

Tallahassee, FL. Reviews several species biology and control measures. The authors 

emphasize appropriate timing of treatments. 

Tunnell, S. J., J. Stubbendieck, and S. Palazzolo. 2006. Forb response to herbicides in a degraded 

tallgrass prairie. Natural Areas Journal 26:72-77. Study of forb response to management 

practices for sumac in grasslands.

*Tunnell, S. J., J. Stubbendieck, S. Palazzolo, and R. A. Masters. 2006. Reducing smooth sumac 

dominance in native tallgrass prairie. Great Plains Research 16:45-49. Study of 

management practices for sumac in grasslands. 

44
Restoration Photo by Angela Smith 

Palmer, M. A., R. F. Ambrose, and N. L. Poff. 1997. Ecological theory and community 

restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5:291-300. Outlines goals for an ecological 

approach to restoration. 

Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. The SER 

International Primer on Ecological Restoration. 2004. 1-13. www.ser.org & Tuscon: 

Society for Ecological Restoration International. A good outline for guiding restoration 

efforts. Provides steps and outlines ecological reasons for conducting restorations. 

Miscellaneous Photo by Sarah Douglas

*Maestas, J. D., R. L. Knight, and W. C. Gilgert. 2003. Biodiversity across a rural land usegradient. Conservation biology 17:1425-1434. Habitat fragmentation caused by ranches 

being subdivided and developed into ranchettes lead to change in avian species 

composition and diversity. 

*Samson, F., and F. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience 44:418-

414. Builds a case for emphasis on grassland conservation. 

Tilman, D., P. B. Reich, J. Knops, D. Wedin, T. Mielke, and C. Lehman. 2001. Diversity and 

productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294:843-845. Demonstrated in 

small cultivated plots that productivity and carbon storage were greater in more diverse 

assemblages. 

45
Chapter 3. Who do I call for help? 

Because of the extensive geographic variation within the Heartland Network, it would be 

difficult to provide specific recommendations for each element you are considering treating with 

fire within a single document. Please contact Heartland staff or NPS fire specialists with specific 

questions and we will assist you with developing solutions. 

Fire ecology contacts: http://www.nps.gov/fire/fire/fir_eco_contacts.cfm

Heartland Network home page: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/htln/index.cfm

Midwest Region Fire Management Program, Regional Fire Ecologist (402) 661-1770

46
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 D-72, February 2008 

47
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Natural Resource Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM 

48