United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

General Technical 

Report NRS-134

Northern 

Research Station July 2014

Hazardous Fuels Management in Mixed Red Pine 

and Eastern White Pine Forest in the Northern 

Lake States: A Synthesis of Knowledge
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD., SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

July 2014 Fax: 740-368-0152

Manuscript received for publication January 2014

Cover Photo

Mixed-pine forest harvested using variable retention at Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Michigan. Photo by 

Priscilla Nyamai, used with permission.

Eric Toman is an associate professor at The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural, and 

Environmental Sciences, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.

David M. Hix is an associate professor at The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural, and 

Environmental Sciences, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.

P. Charles Goebel is a professor at The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental 

Sciences, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Wooster, OH.

Stanley D. Gehrt is an associate professor at The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural, and 

Environmental Sciences, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.

Robyn S. Wilson is an associate professor at The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural, and 

Environmental Sciences, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.

Jennifer A. Sherry is a Ph.D. candidate at Charles Sturt University, School of Environmental Sciences, Albury, 

New South Wales, Australia.

Alexander Silvis is a Ph.D. student at Virginia Tech University, College of Natural Resources and Environment, 

Blacksburg, VA.

Priscilla Nyamai is a Ph.D. candidate at The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural, and 

Environmental Sciences, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Wooster, OH.

Roger A. Williams is an associate professor at The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural, and 

Environmental Sciences, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.

Sarah McCaffrey is a research forester with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Evanston, IL.

Authors

Abstract

Fuels reduction decisions are made within a larger context of resource management characterized by multiple 

objectives including ecosystem restoration, wildlife management, commodity production (from timber to 

nontraditional forest products), and provision of recreation opportunities and amenity values. Implementation of fuels 

treatments is strongly influenced by their perceived influence on and compatibility with overarching management 

objectives. In some cases these objectives may be complementary while in others they may involve difficult tradeoffs. 

Such tradeoffs are only further complicated by institutional mandates, limited availability of information, and complex 

ownership patterns. Like natural resource managers across the United States, those in the northern Lake States 

must balance these competing demands as they seek to build their management programs. However, there is limited 

information available to support these management decisions in the mixed red (Pinus resinosa Ait.) and eastern 

white pine (P. strobus L.) forests of the northern Lake States. 

This report informs fuels management decisions in the northern Lake States by synthesizing existing knowledge 

from the fields of silviculture, forest ecology, wildlife ecology, forest economics, public acceptance, and decision 

science. We provide an overview of forests and fire regimes in the northern Lake States followed by a description of 

different fuels treatment techniques and their expected outcomes. We then include a discussion of comprehensive 

management principles to consider in developing fire and fuels management programs for the region. 
Hazardous Fuels Management in 

Mixed Red Pine and Eastern White Pine 

Forest in the Northern Lake States: 

A Synthesis of Knowledge

Eric Toman, David M. Hix, P. Charles Goebel, Stanley D. Gehrt,

Robyn S. Wilson, Jennifer A. Sherry, Alexander Silvis, 

Priscilla Nyamai, Roger A. Williams, and Sarah McCaffrey
CONTENTS

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Comprehensive Management Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Characteristics of Wildfire in the Northern Lake States . . . . . . . . 13

Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major

Taxonomic Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Overview 1

OVERVIEW

Purpose of this Guide

Fire and fuels management is an inherently complex endeavor. The purpose of 

this guide is to provide a synthesis of the available literature to help inform the 

fuels management decisions of managers within the northern Lake States region. 

The forests of the northern Lake States occur within the Laurentian Mixed Forest 

Province (McNab et al. 2007) (Fig. 1). This region is dominated by a variety 

of ecosystem types that are characterized as fire-dependent including jack pine 

(Pinus banksiana Lamb.) forest ecosystem types; mixed-pine forest ecosystem 

types dominated by red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) and eastern white pine (Pinus 

strobus L.); mixed-pine and oak (Quercus spp. L.) forest ecosystem types; and 

peatland forest ecosystem types dominated by black spruce (Picea mariana

(Mill.) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb.), tamarack (Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch), 

and other woody plant species. 

This report focuses on mixed red and eastern white pine dominated forests. This 

general classification includes the following forest types: 

• Michigan Natural Features Inventory: dry northern forests and dry-mesic 

northern forests

• Minnesota DNR: northern dry-sand pine woodlands, northern poor dry-mesic 

mixed woodlands, northern dry-mesic mixed woodlands

• Wisconsin DNR: northern dry forest and northern dry-mesic forest 

This report incorporates the knowledge and experience of scientists from a 

variety of backgrounds (silviculture, ecology, wildlife biology, behavioral 

science, and decisionmaking), resource managers, and fire practitioners who 

work in the northern Lake States. This is part of a larger effort, supported by 

the Joint Fire Science Program, to develop a more robust relationship between 

scientists and practitioners within the region to address current forest and fire 

management challenges. It is our goal that these efforts will support managers in 

their efforts to accomplish their objectives within the current complex decisionmaking environment.

This first section of this report provides an overview of ecological conditions in 

the Lake States region. The next section provides a summary of key principles 

to consider in developing fuels management programs. Drawing on a broad 

range of scientific research, we discuss integrating ecological principles into 

fire and fuels decisions, considerations in building public acceptance, and 

effects of treatments on wildlife habitat. The next section describes the different 
2 Overview

Fire Management Context

Wildfire issues in the United States are generally perceived to be primarily 

important in western or southern states. However, recent fires have resulted in 

significant impacts within the study region. Between January 2002 and March 

2011, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin experienced a combined 35,773 

wildfires that burned 669,167 acres (NIFC 2011). Minnesota in particular has 

experienced substantial fire activity in recent years. In 2011, the Pagami Creek 

Fire burned more than 90,000 acres on the Superior National Forest resulting in 

the evacuation of both recreation users from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

and residents of nearby properties. In 2006, Minnesota also experienced the 

Cavity Lake Fire (31,830 acres) and the Ham Lake Fire that burned more than 

75,000 acres and destroyed more than 130 structures. The Cottonville Fire in 

Wisconsin in 2005 burned 3,400 acres and destroyed 30 residences. In Michigan, 

recent large fires include the Meridian Boundary Fire, Hughes Lake Fire, Sleeper 

Lake and Stonington Fires. 

Figure 1.—Northern Lake States region.

types of fuels treatments that can be used to reduce hazardous fuels. For each 

treatment, relevant scientific findings are presented on how the treatment: 

1) reduces wildfire hazard, 2) affects wildlife habitat, 3) contributes to ecological 

restoration, and 4) is viewed by the public. We conclude with some summary 

comments and an appendix discussing research on the influence of fire on major 

wildlife taxonomic groups.
Overview 3

Several federal agencies manage lands within the region; the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) Fish and 

Wildlife Service have the largest ownership while the DOI National Park Service, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Defense manage smaller, but 

still significant, lands within the region. State agencies in Michigan, Wisconsin, 

and Minnesota also manage extensive areas dominated by fire-dependent 

forests. Tribal nations and nongovernmental organizations such as The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) and other land trusts also manage fire-dependent forests 

within the study region. The remaining forests are in private ownership and 

managed according to the objectives of the property owner. 

The complexity of these land ownership patterns complicates fire management. 

Public lands in the region are generally highly fragmented and Federal or Stateowned parcels are intermixed with private property and rural neighborhoods. 

Thus, agency fuels-management activities are virtually assured of taking place 

in the public eye, creating challenges in understanding how the fire management 

problem is understood, what values are most at risk, and levels of citizen support 

for fuels treatments. In addition, such conditions mean that wildfires do not have 

to be very large or travel very far before directly impacting human developments. 

A recent review found that nearly all forests in the region are located within 

25 km of densely populated communities (Radeloff et al. 2005). Moreover, 

in the Lake States region, humans are the primary cause of fires through both 

intentional and unintentional ignitions (Cardille and Ventura 2001). 

Fire and fuels managers in the northern Lake States region must balance 

numerous competing demands as they seek to achieve multiple objectives 

including hazardous fuels reduction, ecosystem restoration, wildlife management, 

commodity production, and provision of recreational opportunities (Wilson et 

al. 2009). In some cases these objectives may be complementary (e.g., fuels 

treatments may provide improved habitat conditions) while in others they may 

involve difficult tradeoffs (e.g., the public may prefer thinning treatments over 

prescribed fire due to perceived risks to private property) (Toman et al. 2011). 

Compared with other regions of the United States, fire and fuels management 

programs within the northern Lake States are in an early stage of development. 

For example, some National Forests within the region hired their first fuels 

planning personnel in the early 2000s. This is not to say the region lacks fire 

and fuels capacity as for several decades there have been individuals and 

organizations with substantial experience and knowledge regarding fire; however, 

the networks to share information between these individuals, to develop and 

test new information, and to plan and implement large-scale fuels management 

programs are less well developed than in other regions of the United States.
4 Overview

Background 

Current ecological systems in the northern Lake States forests are the product of 

centuries of human and natural disturbances. Studies illustrate several differences 

between the pre-Euro-American landscape and current forest structure, diversity, 

complexity, and fire regime with cascading effects evident through the region’s 

ecosystems, including on habitat patterns for wildlife, nutrient cycles, water 

flows, forest composition and structure, and terrestrial and aquatic species 

diversity (Drobyshev 2008a, Foley et al. 2005, Schulte et al. 2007). Early 

accounts by explorers and settlers, timber mill documentation, and original land 

surveys have been used to document the importance of mature and old growth 

forests in the eastern United States (Williams 1989). The pre-European settlement 

forest of the northern Lake States was dominated by red pine, but also included 

eastern white pine and jack pine (Whitney 1986) (Fig. 2). These fire-dependent 

ecosystems historically experienced frequent (once in 25-35 years) low-intensity 

fires, and less frequent large fires (once in 100 to 160 years) (Drobyshev 2008b, 

Frelich and Lorimer 1991, Gilmore and Palik 2006, Whitney 1986). Fire-adapted 

species such as red pine rely on both large and small fire events to control 

competing understory vegetation, expose mineral seedbeds, and open the canopy 

to promote seedling establishment (Ahlgren 1976, Gilmore and Palik 2006, Vogl 

1970). Resident wildlife also relies on certain habitat conditions provided by 

fire-regulated forests. Fire promotes habitat diversity and maintains long-term 

stability in the system, thereby benefiting animals like the white-tailed deer and 

bobcat (Heinselman 1973). 

In just over a century, human intervention greatly altered both forest structure and 

fire regimes in the northern Lake States. During the late 19th and 20th centuries, 

extensive and often wasteful logging was conducted throughout the region’s 

deciduous forests (Williams 1989). Forest land was converted to agricultural land 

in many cases, although farming attempts were generally unsuccessful (Gough 

1997) . In many pine lands, slash fires and catastrophic wildfires followed the 

harvesting and eventually lead to a push for fire suppression policies in the 1900s 

(Cleland et al. 2004, Schulte et al. 2007, Stearns 1997). When forests regenerated, 

a new forest structure emerged: red pine and eastern white pine stands decreased 

with the lack of natural fires, while the abundance and distribution of jack pine, 

fire-sensitive hardwoods, and other broadleaf deciduous species increased 

(Cleland et al. 2004, Drobyshev et al. 2008a,b). Where there once was variability 

in tree size and age distributions, the contemporary forests have become 

homogenized (Frelich 1995, Frelich and Lorimer 1991). The overall loss of 

compositional diversity, structural complexity, and age variability in northern 

Lake State forests has been accompanied by a shift in fire regimes (Frelich 1995, 
Overview 5

Frelich and Lorimer 1991, Schulte et al. 2007). Average fire activity among all 

landscape ecosystem types has decreased dramatically, due at least in part to 

active fire suppression within the region (Drobyshev 2008a, Heinsleman 1973, 

Whitney 1986). However, as has been seen throughout the country, these changes 

have increased the potential for catastrophic fires in the future (Drobyshev et 

al. 2008a,b, Woodall et al. 2005). Current conditions within the region suggest 

there may be an increasing risk of major wildfires (Cardille and Ventura 2001, 

Haight et al. 2004). Many stands are vulnerable to wildfires as a result of insect 

outbreaks, major windstorms, or high stand densities (Hansen and Brand 2006, 

Miles et al. 2004, Perry 2006).

Figure 2.—Old-growth mixed-pine forest ecosystem in the eastern Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan. Photo by Charles Goebel, used with permission.
6 Overview

Fuels Treatments

Managers across the region are currently using a variety of fuels-treatment 

techniques to accomplish their objectives. Their primary techniques include 

thinning, mechanical, and fire treatments (including both prescribed fire and, 

in limited cases, wildland fire managed for resource objectives). Chemical 

treatments and livestock grazing have been used as well, but are not as common 

across agencies. Incorporating fire into forest management can be a practical 

method since fire was formerly a naturally occurring process that helped maintain 

open forest conditions and lower loads of hazardous forest fuels (Drobyshev et al. 

2008b, Neumann and Dickmann 2001). Although naturally ignited wildfires and 

prescribed fires are generally recognized as useful tools, they often have a high 

risk associated with their implementation (Yoder 2008). Managers indicate they 

are limited in their ability to use fire by a lack of information about fire within 

the region’s ecological systems, concerns about potential negative impacts to 

timber values, wildlife habitat, and private property (Corace et al. 2008, Palik 

and Zasada 2003, Wilson et al. 2009). In one of our included states, Michigan, 

an historical fire has also influenced the use of prescribed fire. In 1980, a USFS 

prescribed burn escaped and became the Mack Lake Fire that eventually burned 

24,000 acres and 44 structures and resulted in one fatality. Although this fire 

occurred over three decades ago, it has had a long-term influence on manager 

decisions (Myer 2012) as well as citizen acceptance of the use of prescribed fires 

in lower Michigan (Winter et al. 2002). 

Thinning and mechanical treatments may be used to emulate the effects of 

fires on ecosystems and reduce some of these risks and limitations (although 

they also have their own risks and limitations). Using two or more treatments 

together on the same stand may serve to reduce some of these associated risks 

and limitations. Ultimately, while there are several treatment options, developing 

effective fuels treatment plans will depend on a manager’s ability to select the 

best treatment(s) for a specific stand, in the context of the landscape, under the 

given social conditions.
Comprehensive Management Principles 7

Fire and fuels management are conducted within the broader context of natural 

resource management. While fuels-treatment decisions are often driven primarily 

by the objective of decreasing the likelihood of destructive wildfires, in many 

cases managers may also consider other objectives. In a study of managers within 

the region, Wilson et al. (2009) found that this range of objectives included 

restoration of ecosystem integrity, incorporation of public desires and building 

acceptance, and promotion of wildlife habitat. In this section, we describe 

connections between these three related objectives and the success of fuels 

management programs. 

Integrating Ecological Knowledge into Fuels 

Treatment Programs

While the science of fuel treatments is not as advanced for the northern Lake 

States as in other regions of the United States, the available and growing 

information on current ecological conditions, existing deviations from the natural 

range of variability, as well as the likely outcomes of fuels treatments can provide 

a solid foundation to develop fuels treatment programs. Such an approach 

views fuels treatments within the larger context of ecological management 

and recognizes that these treatments can contribute to other goals. Moreover, 

fuels treatments have a greater likelihood of success when informed by the 

history of past practices that have contributed to ecological degradation and 

changes in current conditions. Indeed, Covington (2000) argues that developing 

fuels programs without this context is akin to “treating a symptom and not the 

disease.” Ecological restoration provides a mechanism with which to treat the 

disease by focusing on restoring important ecosystem structures and functions 

that are often regulated by fire. To adequately restore an ecosystem, one must 

have an extensive understanding of the processes and interactions among 

components that shape the ecosystem. Fuel reduction treatments will offer greater 

ecological benefits when driven by ecological restoration principles and applied 

within a formal adaptive management context (Covington 2000). Moreover, 

fuel reduction treatments will be more effective when tailored to the ecological 

context for the particular stand that requires treatment rather than taking a 

“one-size-fits-all” approach (Agee and Skinner 2005, Brown et al. 2003). When 

viewed this way, fuel reduction treatments become a tool for an adaptive process 

that restores and enhances ecosystem structure and function. 

COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
8 Comprehensive Management Principles

Building Public Acceptance

Several recent federal initiatives (e.g., the National Fire Plan, Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act, and National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy) 

have focused on fire and fuels management. Two main themes run through these 

initiatives. First, they emphasize the use of fuel treatments to proactively manage 

vegetative conditions and reduce the risk of fire. Second, they recognize the 

wildland fire problem is extensive and solutions will require an unprecedented 

degree of collaboration with a broad array of stakeholders. In response, these 

policies encourage, and in some cases require, local partnerships to identify and 

accomplish fuel management objectives. Thus, resource professionals require an 

understanding of citizen awareness and acceptance of the fire risk and the tools 

available to help mitigate those risks. Given these conditions, fuel treatment 

programs require a supportive constituency to be successful.

A substantial body of research indicates that public acceptance of fuels treatments 

is generally strong across the United States (e.g., McCaffrey and Olsen 2012, 

Toman et al. 2013). While most research has been completed in the western 

United States, those studies completed in the Lake States suggests that while 

residents generally accept treatments, they appear more skeptical about the ability 

of managers to effectively implement treatments (e.g., Shindler et al. 2009, 

Vogt et al. 2005, Winter and Fried 2000, Winter et al. 2002). This appears to be 

particularly true for prescribed fire; in one study, 70 percent of participants from 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin expressed moderate or great concern about 

the possibility of an escaped prescribed fire (Shindler et al. 2009). 

Findings across this research suggest acceptance is influenced by: 1) awareness 

of the rationale behind fuel treatment activities; 2) trust in agencies and 

confidence in local managers to effectively implement treatments (as the 

treatments themselves carry their own risks and uncertainties); 3) the degree 

to which citizens have an opportunity to participate in fire planning; 4) citizen 

beliefs about the outcomes likely to result from treatments; and 5) public 

confidence that forest managers provide credible information regarding their 

fire and fuel management activities (e.g., Ascher 2010, Brunson and Shindler 

2004, Loomis et al. 2001, Shindler and Toman 2003, Toman et al. 2011, Winter 

et al. 2002).

These findings emphasize the importance of working with local communities to 

build understanding of the fuels problem and expected outcomes of treatment 

use. Substantial research indicates that offering meaningful opportunities to 
Comprehensive Management Principles 9

participate in the planning process can increase understanding of treatment goals 

and objectives and build stronger trust between managers and local residents 

(see Shindler et al. 2002 for a review). In longitudinal research within the 

study region (comparing citizen responses in 2002 and 2008), trust in agency 

managers to effectively implement a treatment was the strongest predictor of 

its acceptance (Bennett 2010). However, over the study period, participants in 

the region expressed growing frustration with a lack of opportunities for citizen 

involvement in agency decision-making processes. While opportunities for 

citizen involvement do exist in each location as part of the agency planning 

process, responses here and elsewhere illustrate that citizens want an expanded 

role beyond what is typically available through standard scoping meetings. 

Successful efforts elsewhere have provided opportunities for face-to-face 

interactions between citizens and agency personnel including demonstration sites 

and field trips to treatment areas (Toman et al. 2006, Toman et al. 2008). 

While engaging the public can seem like a daunting task, one possible approach 

is to engage local citizen groups such as watershed councils, friends and 

sportsman groups, and homeowner associations that are greatly concerned about 

forest conditions and usually have a stake in the outcomes. Working with these 

already established groups will provide access to local communication networks 

and can increase the effectiveness of agency outreach efforts. 

Management of Wildlife Habitat

As managers develop strategies to reduce fire risk, they also must consider the 

potential effects different treatments may have on resident wildlife species. These 

species may be of interest because they are federally or state listed as threatened 

or endangered (e.g., Karner blue butterfly), they may be geographically restricted 

to the area (e.g., elk in some locations in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan), 

they may be game species with high recreation value (e.g., black bear), or they 

may be highly valued by the local community as nongame species (e.g., certain 

avian species such as Kirtland’s warbler). It is important to recognize that fuelsmanagement projects can also alter wildlife habitat. Fuels treatment decisions 

can be more effective when managers consider the outcomes of treatments for 

wildlife within the treated area.

While the literature review completed for this report is not definitive due to 

limited prior research in mixed pine forests of the northern Lake States region, 

we believe it provides an accurate representation of the current understanding of 
10 Comprehensive Management Principles

wildlife response to fuels treatments. By drawing on research from other regions, 

we identified expected response patterns. Some generalizations from this body of 

literature include: 

• Direct mortality resulting from fuel reduction treatments on wildlife, such 

as burning from fire, trampling from equipment or people, or exposure to 

chemicals, is relatively minimal. The greater impact on wildlife is mostly 

indirect through the resulting habitat alteration. However, most information 

that comes from direct mortality is limited to anecdotal observations (Pilliod 

et al. 2006). 

• Timing of fuel treatments will affect the extent of direct and indirect negative 

impacts on wildlife. For example, treatments implemented during the nesting 

season may inhibit reproduction and create a negative short-term response 

within species that might otherwise benefit from the treatment. 

• Wildlife response to fuel treatments will usually reflect their natural history. 

Specifically, if a species is identified with early successional habitats, then 

they likely will respond positively (either numerically and/or functionally) 

to management that creates this habitat, regardless of the method that is 

used. Thus, over time fuel reduction treatments will likely produce habitat 

for wildlife that favor moderate to high disturbances, less complex structure, 

and a mosaic of disturbed and undisturbed forest to meet life history 

needs. Conversely, those species that favor large, dense patches of trees, 

heavy canopy cover, and more complex structure may lose habitat through 

fuel treatments.

• Some fuel treatments are likely to reduce snags, future snags, and downed 

wood that serve important forest ecosystem functions, and are important 

habitat features for many wildlife species. The retention of snags and some 

downed wood will likely reduce the negative effects of fuels treatment on 

wildlife species that depend on structurally diverse forests. 

The expected outcomes of treatments on major wildlife groups are summarized 

below (additional information on taxonomic groups is available in the Appendix). 

Large mammals: Fuels treatment will generally produce greater foraging habitat 

for large mammals in the mixed-pine forests of the Lake States, but mosaics of 

treated and untreated areas are most beneficial. Soft mast that is produced from 

enhanced herbaceous cover following fuels treatment is favored by black bears 

(Schwartz and Franzmann 1991), and the improved browse vegetation following 

treatment often benefits ungulates such as white-tailed deer (Jones et al. 2009, 
Comprehensive Management Principles 11

Meek et al. 2008, Mixon et al. 2009). However, both species likely benefit from 

a mosaic of treated and untreated forest, with the untreated areas used for cover 

and alternate food. Bears will also use downed wood for foraging and winter 

dens. Deer are more likely to use treated areas if untreated areas are nearby.

Small to medium mammals: The small mammal community (e.g., shrews, 

rodents, hares and rabbits) in most forests is diverse; consequently, the short-term 

and long-term response to treatments is varied across species. Generalists usually 

experience a positive short-term response to treatment, and habitat specialists 

usually experience an initial negative response that shifts to positive over time. 

Species associated with closed canopies, such as northern flying squirrels, may 

be negatively affected by thinning (Meyer et al. 2007, Zwolak and Foresman 

2007). As with larger mammals, small mammals and hares benefit from a 

patchwork of treated and untreated areas, and with the retention of coarse woody 

debris (Converse et al. 2006, Martell 1984, Zwolak and Foresman 2007). Little 

information is available for small-medium mammalian predators for any region. 

Bats represent an important element of forest ecosystems. There is relatively 

little information on bat response to fuel treatments in the northern Lake States 

region, but general patterns emerge from other forest systems. They are likely 

to benefit from reduced structure at the secondary level, and a mosaic of treated 

and untreated areas (Loeb and Waldrop 2007). Fuel treatments may negatively 

impact bats through the loss of snags, as some bat species rely on these structures 

for summer roosting and reproduction. Conversely, prescribed fire may improve 

roosting habitat around remaining snags and create new potential roosts (Johnson 

et al. 2009, Lacki et al. 2009). 

Avian species: Avian responses to fuel treatments have been highly variable 

among studies, often depending on the life history of species in question (e.g., 

ground or cavity nester) and the type, timing, and application of fuel treatments 

(see review in Saab and Powell 2005). General patterns that have been reported 

include: aerial, ground, and bark insectivores favor treated habitats; foliage 

gleaners favor untreated habitats; species with closed nests benefit from burn 

treatments more so than species with open-cup nests; and ground-nesters and 

canopy nesters favor burned habitat more so than shrub nesters. However, timing 

of the treatments is important, especially with regard to the nesting season. For 

example, ground nesters are negatively impacted by fuel treatments during the 

nesting season.

Cavity nesters (e.g., woodpeckers) can be negatively impacted by fuel treatments 

that remove snags and large-diameter trees. Treatments that can retain snags may 

benefit these species, although it is important to consider that simply maintaining 
12 Comprehensive Management Principles

a minimum number of snags may be insufficient because of the temporary nature 

of snags and the length of time required to replace them (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

Creation of snags by wildfires, when allowed to burn to meet fuel management 

objectives (i.e., fire use) can be especially important for some species, such as the 

black-backed woodpecker.

Raptor responses have not been studied, but it is likely that the responses of 

these species to fire are related to the availability of small mammalian prey. Fuel 

treatments may enhance foraging habitat for raptors by opening the understory, 

making prey more available. However, some raptors prefer closed canopies with 

a mixed understory. Additionally, fuel treatments that remove nesting structures 

may negatively impact some raptors. 

Reptiles and Amphibians: There is relatively little information on the 

herpetofaunal response to fuel treatments in the northern Lakes States, or for 

more northern latitudes in general. Information from other regions indicates 

that reptiles likely benefit from warmer surface temperatures and enhanced prey 

availability resulting from fuel treatments, whereas most amphibians may have a 

negative or neutral response. Some studies have reported an immediate negative 

response to fire, likely due to direct mortality, but this was quickly reversed and 

a net positive response was observed thereafter. As with some small mammals, 

snakes and lizards benefit from retained coarse woody debris. 

Amphibians that occur in upland forest habitats may experience direct mortality 

from fuel treatments and exhibit short-term negative responses. Many amphibians 

require cool, moist substrates or forest floors, and vegetative structure is 

beneficial for cover. Some toads may exhibit a positive response to prescribed 

burns and other treatments (Greenberg and Waldrop 2008, Kirkland et al. 1996). 
Characteristics of Wildfire in the Northern Lake States 13

Fire and Fuels Issues in the Northern Lake States

Many natural and human activities have contributed to changes observed in the 

mixed-pine forests of the northern Lake States. Extensive turn-of-the-century 

logging followed by high severity stand-replacing fires significantly changed the 

ecological properties of the forest ecosystems (Cleland et al. 2004, Drobyshev 

et al. 2008a, Karamanski 1989). This era was followed by a prolonged period of 

fire suppression that modified the fire regimes from historical norms of frequent, 

low-severity surface fires. As a result, structural characteristics and species 

compositions of many forests have been altered well outside the historical 

natural range of variability (Schulte et al. 2007, Swain 1980, Whitney 1987). 

Lack of natural disturbances such as fire, which played an integral role in the 

regeneration of historically dominant species including red and eastern white 

CHARACTERISTICS OF WILDFIRE IN 

THE NORTHERN LAKE STATES 

Figure 3.—Former mixed-pine forest now dominated by high fuel loadings of jack pine and 

fire-sensitive hardwoods. Photo by Charles Goebel, used with permission.
14 Characteristics of Wildfire in the Northern Lake States

pine has resulted in a decline in the regeneration of these species (Ahlgren 1976, 

Cleland et al. 2004). Accompanying the decline in red and eastern white pine 

regeneration has been a gradual shift in species composition toward increasing 

abundance of shorter-lived pine species such as jack pine as well as fire-sensitive 

hardwood species such as red maple (Acer rubrum L.) (Friedman and Reich 

2005, Sturtevant et al. 2009). An even greater consequence of the altered stand 

structures and species compositions has been increased accumulation of fuel 

loadings in these forest ecosystems. Currently, these forests consist of high 

densities of small trees, extensive ladder fuels and much greater fuel loads, on 

average, than the historical levels (Fig. 3) (Woodall et al. 2005). Due to these 

fuel levels, a critical concern to land managers is the potentially increased 

vulnerability of these ecosystems to intense stand-replacing crown fires (Cardille 

and Ventura 2001, Corace et al. 2009, Crow and Perera 2004).

To ensure clarity, we include definitions of several of the most commonly 

used terms (see sidebar) in discussions of fire characteristics and behavior in 

ecological systems (following Dickmann and Cleland [2002]).

Characteristics and Behavior of Fires in the Northern 

Lake States

Fire regimes: Fire regimes refer to all those 

characteristics of fire, including fire intensity, 

frequency, season, size, and extent, that result in 

particular fire effects in a given biogeographical region 

(Graham et al. 2004). A number of approaches have 

been used to characterize historical fire regimes. 

Dendrochonology, which involves dating fire scars, is 

one technique that is commonly used (Drobyshev et al. 

2008b, McEwan et al. 2007). The characteristics of fire 

regimes obtained from using these techniques are 

usually accurate and are often consistent with the 

understanding of stand development patterns in the 

areas of study. However, several factors affect fire 

regimes, including frequency and seasonality of 

ignition, flammability of living and dead plant material, 

vegetative structure including fuel ladders and tree 

spacing, landscape patterns and spatial heterogeneity, and weather conditions 

(Sousa 1984). Another important component of the fire regime is the frequency 

with which fire returns to an ecosystem; this temporal measure is influenced by 

ecological conditions and anthropogenic interventions within the specific area 

(Dickmann and Cleland 2002). 

Key terms (following Dickmann and Cleland 

[2002] and others as noted)

Crown fire-Fire that advances from top to 

top (or crown to crown) of trees or shrubs 

more or less independently of a surface fire. 

Fire intensity-A general term referring to the 

heat energy released in a fire.

Fire return interval-Time in years between 

two successive fires in a designated area.

Fire occurrence (Fire frequency)-Number 

of fires per unit time in a specified area; 

the reciprocal of mean fire interval. (In this 

report, fire occurrence and fire frequency 

are used to refer generally to the temporal 

aspect of fire regimes.)
Characteristics of Wildfire in the Northern Lake States 15

Before Euro-American settlement, fire regimes 

of the mixed-pine forest ecosystems in the region 

were complex and heterogeneous, depending on 

local interactions between climate, physiography, 

soils, vegetation, and human factors (Cleland et al. 

2004, Heinselman 1973). Many mixed-pine forest 

ecosystems in the northern Lake States experienced 

relatively frequent low-severity and non-standreplacing surface fires that burned at intervals of 3 to 

40 years (Dickmann and Cleland 2002, Drobyshev 

et al. 2008b), while others experienced more severe 

stand-replacing fires. In a fire-history (1707-2006) 

study of red pine-dominated forests at the Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge in the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan, Drobyshev and colleagues (2008b) found 

that while large fires (>1100 ha) had occurred in this 

area, small fires (<100 ha) dominated the fire regime. 

These fires, which originated from lightning and 

recurrent ignitions by indigenous people, left the basic 

structure of the overstory unaltered or created small 

gaps and maintained a relatively open understory. 

However, many fire-history studies have found 

relatively high variability in fire return intervals across 

different historical time periods, land-use patterns, and 

landform types. With the emphasis on complete fire 

suppression, there has been a general decrease in fire 

frequency in this region.

Occurrence: Despite some regional constraints on 

the occurrence of wildfires, certain ‘‘hotspots’’ in the 

general area of the northern Lake States experienced 

frequent burning prior to Euro-American settlement, 

as well as large wildfires following settlement (Cleland 

et al. 2004, Scheller et al. 2008). These hotspots are 

mostly associated with the drier glacial landforms, 

such as sandy outwash plains, where coniferous and 

other flammable vegetation are found (Cleland et 

al. 2004, Drobyshev et al. 2008a). Cardille and Ventura (2001) provide very 

useful information on the occurrence of contemporary wildfire in a Lake States 

fire database that puts together extensive fire information from one Federal and 

three State agencies. Several other studies have also documented changes in fire 

Fire rotation (Fire cycle)-Length of time 

necessary for an area equal to the entire 

area of interest (i.e., the study area) to burn 

(syn. fire cycle). Size of the area of interest 

must be clearly specified. This definition 

does not imply that the entire area will burn 

during a cycle; some sites may burn several 

times and others not at all. Fire cycles 

are usually determined by calculating the 

average stand age of a forest whose age 

distribution fits a negative exponential or a 

Weibull function (Van Wagner 1978). 

Fire severity- Degree of impact of a fire 

on soils, vegetation and other ecosystem 

components (USFS 2003)

Fuel- Combustible forest materials 

(USFS 2003)

Ground fire-Fire that burns the organic 

matter in the soil or organic horizons that 

supports glowing combustion without flame; 

e.g., litter and duff, punky wood, tree roots, 

peat, or muck. This term often is mistakenly 

used to refer to a surface fire, although some 

surface fires can become ground fires. 

Mean fire interval-Arithmetic average of 

all fire intervals determined, in years, in a 

designated area during a specified time 

period; size of the area and the time period 

must be specified. 

Stand-replacing fire-Fire that kills all or 

most living overstory trees in a forest and 

initiates establishment of regeneration. This 

type of fire can be a ground, surface, or 

crown fire, but it is usually a combination of 

two or more types. 

Surface fire-Fire that burns only surface 

fuels such as litter, other loose debris on 

the soil surface, and small vegetation. All 

wildland fires except those that smolder in 

snags or punky trees struck by lightning 

begin as surface fires. 
16 Characteristics of Wildfire in the Northern Lake States

regimes in this region pre- and post-European settlement (Cleland et al. 2004, 

Drobyshev et al. 2008a,b). For example, while Drobyshev et al. (2008b) found 

seasonal fire distributions to be moderately prevalent around the late season, in 

a study on fire occurrence between the period of 1985 and 1995, Cardille and 

Ventura (2001) found that the average annual number of fires was 1,683, with 

more than 70 percent of these occurring in the months of April and May. They 

also found that forests dominated by eastern white pine, red pine, and jack pine 

were more likely than other forest types to have had at least one fire during the 

study period as well as larger fires compared with the other forest types.

Causes: Prior to Euro-American settlement, fires in northern Lake States mixedpine ecosystems originated from both natural (lightning) and anthropogenic 

(Native Americans) sources (Loope and Anderton 1998). Fires from both origins 

played a large role in forest dynamics during this period, driving succession and 

hindering the development of fire-intolerant species (Loope and Anderton 1998, 

Whitney 1986). With Euro-American settlement, there was extensive timber 

harvesting often followed by intense slash fires and clearing for agriculture. 

Some studies have investigated the role of environmental and social factors 

in influencing current wildfire occurrence in forest ecosystems in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan (Cardille et al. 2001, Cardille and Ventura 2001). 

Results indicate that more than 80 percent of fires between 1985 and 1995 were 

of human origin. More than a third of the fires were from debris burning (burning 

of material from land clearing, dumps, and trash), while nearly 30 percent were 

intentionally ignited. These studies suggest that fire potential within this region 

is influenced by both natural conditions and human settlement and resulting 

activities. The high levels of flammable fuels in forest systems, accumulation 

of litter on the forest floor, and the vertical structure of fuels leading to “fuel 

ladders,” contribute to concerns about the potential for intense fires in these 

ecosystems (Cleland et al. 2004).

Fuel loadings: The presence and spatial distribution of fuels in any given forest 

ecosystem affect fire behavior (Graham et al. 2004). Characteristics of fuels, 

including composition, moisture content, amount, and structure affect how fires 

will burn and the resulting impact on the environment (Agee 2002, Albini and 

Reinhardt 1995). Common categories of fuels include:

Ground fuels: Roots of trees, woody material integrated into the soil surface, 

and organic soil horizons (duff) make up what is referred to as ground fuels 

(Sandberg et al. 2001). Deep layers of continuous ground fuels are common 

in forests that have not experienced fire for a long time (Graham et al. 2004). 

Given that the organic material in the soil layers usually does not burn 

intensely, ground fires can smolder for many days or weeks, particularly 
Characteristics of Wildfire in the Northern Lake States 17

if the initial moisture contents are high (Frandsen 1991, Hungerford et al. 

1991). As such, ground fires are very likely to damage soils and roots of trees 

(Marshall et al. 2008, Ryan and Noste 1983, Ryan and Reinhardt 1988).

Surface fuels: Surface fuels are composed of litter, grasses, shrubs, and all 

woody material that is lying on, or in contact with the ground (Sandberg et 

al. 2001). Along with weather conditions, surface fuel characteristics such 

as surface fuel bulk density, size-class distribution, depth, and continuity 

influence the intensity and the spread of fire in a given forest ecosystem 

type (Graham et al. 2004). Surface fires typically consume vegetation in the 

understory while the overstory tree crowns usually do not burn, except for 

under unusually dry and windy conditions (Marshall et al. 2008) or when 

surface fuel loadings are substantially high, for example due to slash left on 

the site following harvesting and thinning operations.

Ladder and crown fuels: Crown fuels refer to all fuel materials that are 

suspended above the ground on trees and other vegetation (Graham et al. 

2004). In addition to live and dead tree branches, the shrubs and small 

tree layers form “ladder fuels” which create continuity from the surface 

fuels to canopy fuels, allowing fires to reach canopies and become crown 

fires. Crown fires are intense and move fast, often resulting in large burned 

areas (USFS 2003). Continuity and density of the canopy trees, and 

wind conditions contribute to the rate at which fire moves and spreads in 

the canopy. 
18 Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects

In this section, we describe the most commonly used techniques (prescribed fire, 

wildfire use, thinning, combined treatments) for fuels management in mixed 

pine forests of the northern Lake States and discuss their potential effects on key 

objectives (reduction of wildfire hazard, provision of wildlife habitat, ecological 

restoration, and incorporate public desires) for each method.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning can be an effective technique to achieve several management 

objectives in mixed-pine stands, including reducing fuel loadings. In the region, 

the type of prescribed burning most frequently used in the region is surface fire. 

Backing fires are often recommended to consume organic matter accumulations 

(fuel loads) and limit the risk of future severe fires. 

Prescribed burning may prevent the establishment of certain woody plant species 

and can be used to selectively kill the aboveground portions of certain species 

and individuals in the smaller size classes (Rouse 1988). The severity of a surface 

fire determines the resulting damage to ecosystem components; therefore, lowto moderate-intensity burning is recommended. Although prescribed fire can 

damage trees, mature red pine are resistant to fire injury because of their thick 

bark (Hauser 2008, Starker 1934), apparently more so than eastern white pine 

(Starker 1934, Van Wagner 1970).

Prescribed burning may scorch the bark and lower branches of some trees. In 

Ontario, Canada, Van Wagner (1972) found that as the intensity of prescribed 

burning increased, the scorch heights also increased in a mature red and eastern 

white pine stand. Using headfires, if the flame lengths did not exceed 4 feet in 

height, the crowns were left untouched; however, where the flames were up 

to 8 feet, all the foliage was scorched as high as 50 feet above ground. In both 

cases, the wind speed was light and the duff moisture content was less than 40 

percent. Methven (1971) reported a similar relationship but with less scorching 

due to the larger diameter trees in their study. In a 47-year-old red pine plantation 

in Minnesota that experienced a wildfire, Sucoff and Allison (1968) found that 

mortality was closely related to percentage of needles killed; 40 percent of trees 

with more than 95 percent needles killed experienced mortality.

There are several silvicultural uses of prescribed burning in mixed-pine forests. 

Perhaps the most important is a reduction in hazardous fuels. Burning breaks up 

the “fuel ladder” consisting of needles and leaves draped in the lower branches 

FUELS TREATMENT TECHNIQUES 

AND EFFECTS 
Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects 19

of shrubs and trees, though in mixed-pine stands this type of situation is not 

common (Van Wagner 1970). Periodic, moderate intensity fire may be used to 

control understory development when managing for red pine and eastern white 

pine (McRae et al. 1994). 

Under specific conditions of weather and fuel moisture, summer burns in mature 

stands are prescribed in the years prior to harvesting to eliminate shrubs and 

reduce duff layers (Ek et al. 2006). Prescribed fires can also be used as site 

preparation treatments to help regenerate conifers by preparing the seedbed 

(Alexander et al. 1979, Duchesne and Hawkes 2000). Along with the use of 

machines to scarify the seedbed, mineral soil is exposed in patches, which is 

necessary for the germination of light-seeded species such as red pine (Zasada 

et al. 2004). This practice of soil scarification provides the correct conditions for 

natural regeneration of red pine (Ek at al. 2006). To prepare the seedbed, remove 

aboveground portions of competing vegetation. McRae et al. (1994) suggests 

that flame lengths should not exceed 3 feet to prevent crown scorching mature 

red pines. 

Dickmann (1993) reviewed the fire ecology of red pine forests and discussed 

potential opportunities to use fire treatments to achieve management objectives. 

Dickmann concludes that low intensity burns are unlikely to negatively impact 

overstory tree growth, soil structure, nutrients, water quality, or water movement. 

However, higher intensity fires may result in increased crown scorch and 

nutrient loss. Additional research indicates that while young red pine stands are 

susceptible to fire injury, prescribed fire can be used effectively in the larger 

poletimber- and sawtimber-sized stands to control understory development and 

reduce the risk of wildfires (Benzie and McCumber 1983).

Reduction of wildfire hazard: In their seminal paper, Agee and Skinner (2005) 

presented the basic principles of forest fuels reduction treatments. When restoring 

the resilience of fire-dependent forests, they stressed that prescribed fire is 

effective at reducing surface fuels by consuming some of the biomass. The 

potential flame length is shorter, and fire in these stands will be easier to control 

(Agee and Skinner 2005). On the other hand, depending upon fire intensity, 

more fuels will be created as understory shrubs and small trees are killed (Brown 

2009). It is also possible that a surface fire of moderate intensity will scorch the 

lower branches of trees resulting in an increase in the height to the base of live 

tree crowns, as the hot gases rise above the flames (Van Wagner 1970).

In a mixed-pine stand the thickness of the organic matter accumulation can 

be reduced using prescribed burning (Gilmore and Palik 2006). In pole- and 

sawtimber-size stands, the trees are less susceptible to fire injury (Benzie and 
20 Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects

McCumber 1983) and periodic prescribed burning can control build-up of fine 

fuels and help reduce the risk of wildfire (Benzie 1977). Summer burns can 

consume the forest floor and expose mineral soil in patches (Alban 1977). As the 

weather conditions and the moisture contents vary, the fire will likewise produce 

different results. In an Ontario, Canada study, Van Wagner (1963) found that only 

when the duff moisture content was less than 40 percent and the fire danger rating 

was at least “high” was the entire duff layer removed and mineral soil exposed. 

In another study in the Ottawa River Valley of Canada, Van Wagner (1972) used 

prescribed fire on a red and eastern white pine stand growing on sandy loam 

till soil. With more intense prescribed fire, the mineral soil was exposed on up 

to half of the study area. In eastern Upper Michigan, Drobyshev et al. (2008a) 

found duff depth and fine fuel loadings were lower in stands with a history of 

periodic burning.

Prescribed burning does have the effect of reducing the shrub vegetation layer 

in mature mixed-pine stands (Gilmore & Palik 2006, Rudolf 1990, Van Wagner 

1970). Summer burns in Minnesota proved more effective than spring burns 

in both killing the aboveground parts of shrubs (e.g., beaked hazel [Corylus 

cornuta Marsh.] and reducing resprouting (Alban 1977). Buckman (1964) 

concluded that a single summer or fall burn of at least moderate intensity when 

the humus was dry would eliminate beaked hazel, as was possible using multiple 

burns. In Ontario, the beaked hazel in the understory of an 80 year-old mixedpine stand was practically eliminated on two sites after two consecutive annual 

burns (Van Wagner 1963). In general, Duchesne and Hawkes (2000) stated that 

two successive burns might be required to eradicate understory competition, 

particularly beaked hazel, and expose bare mineral soil. Gilmore and Palik (2006) 

recommend summer burns conducted over several growing seasons to control 

dense shrub competition and expose mineral soil.

Provision of wildlife habitat: Limited research has been done on the effects of 

prescribed fire on wildlife in mixed-pine forests. Accordingly, it was frequently 

necessary to draw from the published literature on southwestern and southeastern 

conifer forests to gain insight into possible treatment effects on wildlife in 

the mixed-pine forest ecosystems. For the purposes of this guide, we use the 

traditional meaning of wildlife to include terrestrial and avian vertebrate species, 

excluding fish and invertebrates. A description of the methods used to complete 

the literature review and a description of fire effects on specific taxonomic groups 

is presented in the Appendix.

Prescribed fire generally occurs at lower temperatures than wildfires and 

subsequently creates a less diverse habitat mosaic. However, increases in 

herbaceous growth following prescribed fire can benefit a number of game 

species, specifically white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and elk 
Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects 21

(Cervus canadensis) (Jones et al. 2009, Meek et al. 2008, Mixon et al. 2009). 

Generally, prescribed fire intensity is low enough that changes in habitat occur 

only in the short-term, such that most species of mammals experience no 

significant lasting effects from prescribed fire (Kalcounis et al. 2008, Matthews et 

al. 2009, Simon et al. 2002). Game species such as white-tailed deer, elk, moose 

(Alces alces), black bear (Ursus americanus) and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

exhibit positive responses to prescribed fire in the short term, and little evidence 

suggests any negative long term effects (Jones et al. 2009, Main and Richardson 

2002, Mixon et al. 2009, Schwartz and Franzmann 1991, Van Dyke and 

Darragh 2007).

Ecological restoration: There is broad agreement that some form of restoration 

is needed for many forest ecosystems (Brown et al. 2004), and that many 

of the structural components of a fire-resilient forest provide the basis of 

forest ecosystem restoration plans (Agee and Skinner 2005). One principle of 

managing for a fire-resilient forest as highlighted by Agee and Skinner (2005) 

is to maintain large trees as they are typically the most fire-resistant. Large 

trees also have the highest bases to their crowns, thus reducing ladder fuels. A 

key point in utilizing some form of prescribed fire as a fuels treatment is that it 

represents a reintroduction of a natural process that is a critical component in 

driving ecosystem dynamics, especially in low-severity and mixed-severity firedependent forest ecosystem types (Brown et al. 2004, DellaSala et al. 2003). 

While prescribed burning has been applied widely as a restoration practice across 

fire-dependent forests of the western United States, its application in mixedpine forest ecosystems of the northern Lake States has been limited. Despite 

this lack of direct information from the region, we can surmise some potential 

advantages and disadvantages of using prescribed burning to treat fuels within 

a restoration framework. In terms of advantages, the application of prescribed 

burning improves a variety of ecosystem conditions that favor the establishment 

of important species, especially red pine and eastern white pine. When applied in 

this fashion, several prescribed burns may be necessary depending on the amount 

of understory competition. The initial burn is often utilized to reduce fuels and 

it is usually recommended that this initial burn be conducted when fuels are still 

green in the early spring to reduce crown scorch and bole damage. Sometimes a 

second summer burn, conducted shortly after the initial burn, can be an effective 

restoration method, especially during years with good cone and seed production. 

However, there must be surface fuels on site to help carry these summer burns. 

Prescribed burning conducted in the spring can also reduce the susceptibility of 

red pine to red pine cone beetles as they overwinter on the forest floor (Miller 

1978). Prescribed burning may also be more economical than other treatment 

methods, even for small stands (McRae 1979), and may enhance understory 

species richness and diversity (Webster 2008).
22 Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects

There are also potential issues with the application of prescribed burning within 

an ecological restoration context. When applied too broadly as a restoration 

treatment, prescribed burning has the potential to homogenize the landscape 

and can damage important wildlife habitat (Tiedemann et al. 2000). Prescribed 

burning implemented to reduce fuel loadings can also kill large trees that are 

intended to be retained as seed trees or to provide structure in the treated or 

restored stand (Agee 2003). Consequently, the use of prescribed burning as a 

fuel reduction treatment within an ecological restoration context is often most 

successful when linked with thinning treatments that reduce ladder fuels (Brown 

et al. 2004). 

Incorporate public desires: Substantial research across the United States 

demonstrates that citizens with higher fire-related knowledge are more supportive 

of fuels management activities such as prescribed fire and thinning programs 

(see summaries in McCaffrey and Olsen 2012, Toman et al. 2013). Moreover, 

public understanding and acceptance of fuel treatments has steadily increased 

over time. Early studies found that citizens generally overestimated the negative 

impacts of fire; not surprisingly, a majority preferred complete fire suppression 

(Stankey 1976). However, as awareness has increased regarding the role of fire 

in the landscape, acceptance of management use of fire has also grown (Toman 

et al. 2013). Several studies over the past decade have found acceptance for some 

use of both prescribed fire and thinning to reduce fuel loads near 80 percent (e.g., 

Absher and Vaske 2006, Lim et al. 2009, McCaffrey 2006, McCaffrey et al. 

2008, Toman et al. 2011, Vogt et al. 2007). While much of this research has been 

completed in other regions of the United States, a recent study suggests similar 

results in the Lake States (Shindler et al. 2009). 

Despite the growing acceptance of prescribed fires, the public still has some 

reservations with its use. Residents have indicated concerns with the potential for 

an escaped prescribed burn, increased prevalence of smoke, increased erosion, 

reduced water quality, and negative impacts on wildlife habitat (Blanchard and 

Ryan 2007, McCaffrey 2006, Shindler and Toman 2003, Winter et al. 2002). 

These concerns appear particularly strong in the northern Lake States where 

70 percent of participants indicated a moderate or great concern with prescribed 

fires getting out of control (Shindler et al. 2009). Other concerns were also 

prevalent as more than 40 percent expressed concerns for increased soil erosion, 

loss of fish and wildlife habitat, damage to private property, increased levels of 

smoke, reduced scenic quality, and economic loss of useable timber. Concerns 

were significantly greater among residents of Michigan with some results 

suggesting this may be associated with the lasting influence of the Mack Lake 

Fire (an escaped prescribed fire in Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula) (Winter 

et al. 2002). 
Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects 23

While such concerns may seem to argue against the use of prescribed fire, it 

is also important to note that the public also recognizes potential beneficial 

outcomes from prescribed fires. Findings from Michigan found at least half of 

the study participants agreed that prescribed fires were very likely to improve 

forest conditions, restore forests to more natural conditions, result in less smoke 

over time, and save money (Winter et al. 2006). These results paint a somewhat 

nuanced picture regarding the use of fire within the region with residents 

recognizing that prescribed fires could result in positive outcomes while also 

indicating the treatments themselves carry some risk of negative impacts. 

Having said that, even with such concerns a strong majority of residents living 

near forested areas within the region have expressed support for some use of 

prescribed fire; 38 percent agreed it was a legitimate tool that should be used 

anywhere, while another 44 percent indicated it should be used in carefully 

selected areas (Shindler et al. 2009). These results suggest a cautious support for 

prescribed fire use within the region that can provide a foundation for success. In 

the final section of this document, we discuss key points to consider for efforts to 

build continued acceptance of fuels programs. 

Wildland Fire Managed for Resource Objectives

In certain situations, naturally ignited fires may be managed to accomplish 

resource objectives. The term for this practice can differ based on agency and 

region, but for the purposes of this guide we refer to it as “wildland fire,” or 

“wildland fire managed for resource objectives.” This treatment is most likely 

to be used in remote areas where potential of damage to private property is low. 

Given the patterns of property ownership within the Lake States region, there are 

limited locations where this treatment is likely to be used. 

Reduction of wildfire hazard: The current use of wildland fire in mixed-pine 

stands to reduce fuels seems to be very limited or nonexistent and its effects have 

not been documented within the region. In other areas, the use of wildland fire 

results in variable fire behavior and mixed effects (Hunter et al. 2007). 

Provision of wildlife habitat: Limited research has examined the effects of 

wildland fires managed to achieve resource benefits within the study region. 

In this section we draw on a larger body of literature examining the effects of 

wildfire on wildlife. Response of wildlife to wildfire tends to be more varied 

than response to prescribed fire. This is largely due to the variable effects of 

wildfire on wildlife habitat. Specifically, wildfire tends to burn more intensely 

and creates more substantial, longer-lasting habitat changes than prescribed fire. 

This is neither inherently good nor bad from a wildlife community standpoint. 

Rather, it is best thought of as a community modifier, creating dynamic long- term 
24 Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects

shifts in species composition as habitat structure changes following high 

intensity alteration. See Appendix for a description of fire effects on specific 

taxonomic groups.

Of the large taxonomic groups reviewed, birds had the widest range in responses 

to wildfire. Generally, we conclude that wildfire will change avian community 

composition in both the short and long term. However, community composition 

in wildfire areas should revert to prefire composition as habitat returns to 

prefire conditions (Haney et al. 2008, Hobson and Schieck 1999). Changes in 

community composition are largely driven by cavity-nesting and bark-foraging 

species, such as the black-backed woodpecker (Apfelbaum and Haney 1981, 

Hutto 1995, Nappi and Drapeau 2009). Increases in these species tend to be 

relatively short-lived, with spikes in abundance in the first 3 years following 

wildfire and decreasing thereafter (Murphy and Lehnhausen 1998, Nappi and 

Drapeau 2009). Beyond cavity-nesting and bark-foraging species, reductions in 

habitat closure tend to benefit open-foraging species (Bock et al. 1978, Bock and 

Bock 1983). Ground-nesting species may be expected to decline immediately 

following wildfire as suitable cover decreases.

Mammalian responses to wildfire are also varied, but generally appear to be 

neutral or positive in the short term. However, it is important to note that there 

are few long-term studies on mammal species following wildfire, and thus the 

ultimate outcome is unknown for most species (Fisher and Wilkinson 2005). 

If avian communities are an indicator, mammalian communities likely revert to 

prefire composition in the long term.

As previously noted, virtually no research has been conducted on herpetofauna 

in the mixed-pine forests, leaving the responses of reptiles and amphibians 

to wildfire virtually unknown. However, if responses to prescribed fire are 

extrapolated, we predict that reptiles will benefit from increased thermal 

opportunities while amphibians will suffer from loss of cover and moisture 

retaining refugia (Greenberg and Waldrop 2008, Jones et al. 2000).

Ecological restoration: As mentioned previously, the fire regimes of the 

mixed-pine forest ecosystems in the northern Lake States are complex and 

heterogeneous, depending on local interactions between climate, physiography, 

soils, vegetation, and human factors (Cleland et al. 2004, Heinselman 1973). 

According to Hanies et al. (1975) and Lorimer and Gough (1988), the fire season 

spans from April to October, with peak incidence before leaf-out in the spring 

or in the autumn. While a restoration-based approach to fuels treatment should 

attempt to emulate the heterogeneity associated with the natural fire regime, 

this may not be a realistic practice in the current landscape. Due to effective fire 
Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects 25

control that began in the early 20th century and continues today, the number and 

size of fires have declined dramatically (Keane et al. 2008). Consequently, an 

increase in fire occurrence that could serve as the foundation of a wildland fire 

approach is not expected due to an increase in the abundance of shade-tolerant 

species in the understory and shifts towards a less fire-prone state (Frelich and 

Reich 1995, Nowacki and Abrams 2008). Furthermore, the fragmentation of 

the current landscape will make it difficult to implement adequate wildland 

fire policies to effectively restore ecosystem conditions, including reducing 

fuel levels.

Incorporate public desires: Limited research has examined public perceptions 

of the application of wildland fire to achieve resource objectives. Those studies 

completed to date were all conducted outside the Lake States region. One study 

of National Forest visitors in California, Colorado, and Washington found 

most did not support this practice even when with minimal projected impacts 

(including low risk of private property damage, no impact on air quality) and a 

quick forest recovery (Kneeshaw et al. 2004). It is likely that this treatment will 

raise similar, but potentially stronger, concerns as the use of prescribed fire. In 

particular, citizens are likely to be concerned about the potential for these fires 

to burn out of control leading to damage to both private property and natural 

systems. Having said that, as with prescribed fire use, these concerns do not 

necessarily mean citizens will not support this practice. Rather, they point to 

the importance of building awareness of the rationale behind such treatments, 

expected outcomes, and developing strong relationships with local residents. 

Indeed, recent findings from two case studies in California and Wyoming found 

that community members expressed a range of preferences for management of 

recent fires from full suppression to fire use (Steelman and McCaffrey 2011). 

Moreover, in the one location where agencies had worked before the fire to 

explain why wildland fire use was an appropriate approach participating members 

of the public understood the value of this approach and were more accepting of 

its use. These findings suggest that citizen understanding and acceptance of the 

use of wildland fire to achieve resource benefits may be malleable over time.

Thinning

Thinning is a silvicultural tool that can be used to optimize tree or stand growth, 

reduce crown fuels, and manage for biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics 

(Gilmore et al. 2005). Thinning is an intermediate treatment aimed primarily at 

controlling the diameter growth of trees by reducing the stand density. While 

thinning techniques have been traditionally used to increase the commercial 

value of managed stands, they can also be used to achieve fuels reduction 

objectives. By modifying the stand density and arrangement of remaining trees, 

thinning treatments can influence fire spread, behavior, and intensity. There 
26 Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects

are many methods of thinning, with most approaches based on the crown class 

positions of the trees and (or) the spatial pattern of the remaining trees. The three 

most common types of thinnings in mixed pine forests (Buckman et al. 2006) are 

as follows:

1. Low thinning (or thinning from below), in which trees are removed from 

the lower crown classes, resulting in acceleration of the natural mortality of 

these individuals. 

2. Crown thinning (or thinning from above) is a much different approach. Trees 

of the upper crown classes are harvested to favor the development of the 

most promising codominant and dominant trees. This approach provides the 

potential for increased economic return as the removed trees are typically 

larger and potentially more valuable than those removed in low thinning. It 

also results in a stratified residual stand with an upper stratum of the favored 

dominants and codominants above a lower stratum of overtopped trees.

3. Mechanical thinning is more common in plantations or dense stands. 

In many cases, the thinning approach may be based on some geometric 

pattern or spacing of the residual trees. Sometimes these simple thinning 

approaches are known as ‘mechanical’ thinning, given that they are applied 

in routine, straightforward ways. Two commonly used types of mechanical 

thinning include ‘strip’ and ‘row’ thinning. Strip thinning is typically used in 

extremely dense, young stands using a machine (e.g., bulldozer) to destroy 

trees in narrow lanes. While a drastic approach, strip thinning reduces 

stagnation in the stand and permits other later thinnings by creating access 

lanes within the stand. Row thinning is often conducted in plantations of 

pine species. Depending on the desired level of removal and the age of the 

plantation, a set pattern will be established and whole rows of planted trees 

will be harvested (e.g., every second or third row). 

As a main component of the planned silvicultural system for a given forest 

stand, there is often a predetermined sequence and schedule of thinning methods. 

A recently developed handbook for red pine stands provides a general guide 

for management actions based on the condition of the stand or management 

objectives (Gilmore and Palik 2006). Buckman et al. (2006) recently summarized 

many of the growth and yield studies for red pine in the Lake States. To keep 

future options open, they state that most managers will plant at initial densities 

of 600 to 1,200 trees per acre (approximately 6- to 8-ft spacing), and reduce 

the density following thinning to 110 to 140 ft2

/acre. Crown thinning of red 

pine stands at low- or medium-levels of stand density results in greater growth 

compared to low thinning methods (Buckman et al. 2006); however, at higher 

residual stand densities (greater than 120 ft2

/acre) there were no apparent 

differences in several long-term research studies. 
Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects 27

Reduction of wildfire hazard: Removing trees with low bases of live crowns 

(or low, dead branches), typical of overtopped crown class trees, will reduce 

ladder fuels and wildfire hazard. If unmerchantable small trees are also removed 

manually or with equipment, the effect will be to increase the canopy base 

height which can reduce the potential for crown fires and canopy damage due 

to scorch (Agee and Skinner 2005). In the low thinning method, the removal 

of trees in the lower crown classes decreases the stand density and increases 

the spacing between trees resulting in reduced likelihood of a crown fire. The 

larger, relatively more fire-resistant trees will remain following thinning. In 

contrast, during crown thinning the emphasis is placed on releasing the crowns of 

dominant and codominant trees, and the smaller overtopped and intolerant crown 

class trees are not harvested. While such approaches may reduce canopy density, 

the focus on trees in the upper canopy will not influence the risk of a crown fire 

in the lower canopy. Row and strip approaches break up the continuity of fuels; 

however, smaller trees with the potential to serve as ladder fuels will remain in 

untreated areas within the residual stand after thinning. While research examining 

the effectiveness of thinning approaches to reduce fire risks in red and white pine 

forests is limited, it is likely that low thinning will provide greater reduction of 

risk that the other approaches as has been found in other forest types (Agee and 

Skinner 2005). 

Variable-retention harvesting has also been evaluated in the Lake States as a 

method for regenerating multi-cohort, mixed-species red pine forests (Palik 

and Zasada 2003). In variable-retention harvests, the overstory trees are left 

either with uniform spacing (dispersed retention) or in an aggregated pattern. 

It has been hypothesized that the pattern of overstory retention will have a 

significant effect on the distribution of fuels (Gilmore and Palik 2006, Palik and 

Zasada 2003).

In addition to influences on the forest canopy, resiliency to fire may also be 

influenced by the particular techniques used to remove the biomass from the 

treated stand. Conventional harvesting approaches often emphasize removal of 

the main tree stem while the tree tops and branches are left behind on the forest 

floor. Given enough time, this material would eventually decay and contribute to 

increased fuels on the forest floor particularly as it dries (Agee and Skinner 2005, 

Duvall and Grigal 1999). In addition, this slash can create a travel hazard for both 

recreational uses and equipment movement and provide an obstacle to planting 

or to natural regeneration. Managers may want to prioritize slash removal from 

some treated areas based on management objectives (e.g., where regeneration is a 

priority) or along roads and trails where impacts to travel and risks of fire starts, 

including arson, may be greatest. 
28 Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects

Methods to address slash include modifying its structure and composition onsite or removing it from the stand. Lopping and scattering the slash by hand or 

mechanical means is one approach to modify the fuels left on-site by severing 

branches and tops of a certain minimum size to better consolidate the material on 

the forest floor (within 2 to 4 feet) and distributed it throughout the stand. Fire 

may also be used to treat slash remaining on site following a thinning or other 

mechanical treatment. Broadcast burning, where fire is intentionally started and 

burns woody debris as it lies on the ground throughout a stand, may be used in 

clearcut areas. This approach may also be used in thinned stands when fuel loads 

are low enough, the stand structure is appropriate (e.g., adequate spacing between 

remaining trees, absence of ladder fuels), and the remaining forest species are 

fire resistant. Managers may also spot burn piles of slash made by machines 

or by hand following harvesting activity. In most cases, pile burns require less 

personnel and equipment than broadcast burns. As for the timing for such burns, 

conifer slash may be burned very soon after harvesting, while the slash of 

hardwood species needs several weeks to cure (Ek et al. 2006).

Slash may also be removed from the stand following treatment. In some cases, 

the slash may be disposed of at a landing where it may be chipped for removal 

in trailer trucks for utilization elsewhere. For example, if markets allow, the 

resulting chips may be used for bioenergy production. In cases where utilization 

is economically unfeasible, the chips may be burned on-site after the logging is 

completed in order to clear the landings. While reducing fuels within a stand, 

removing the logging slash in addition to the main stems of harvested trees 

(e.g., whole tree harvesting) could also result in negative impacts. The small 

logs resulting from thinning may serve increase the amount of coarse woody 

debris, providing valuable wildlife habitat and return nutrients to forest floors in 

mixed-pine stands (Duvall and Grigal 1999). Work elsewhere suggests whole tree 

harvesting may negatively impact the long-term productivity of forest stands as 

nutrients are removed from the system (Walmsley et al. 2009). 

Provision of wildlife habitat: Thinning of red pine in Michigan resulted in 

strong positive responses in ungulates (deer, elk), likely due to increased forage 

resources and hiding cover (Bender et al. 1997). Other research has identified 

mixed results in response of small mammal species to thinning treatments 

(Bender et al 1997, Converse et al. 2006). Wildlife responses to thinning may 

decline 4 to 5 years post-thinning as the canopy closes; thus, periodic thinning 

may be necessary if continued wildlife use is a management priority (Bender 

et al. 1997). 
Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects 29

An advantage of thinning over burning may be the ability to selectively retain 

snags or coarse woody debris that benefit certain wildlife species (Ucitel et al. 

2003). For example, black bears appear to benefit from habitat shifts to early 

successional stages that provide forage and cover during the active season, but 

that benefit can be maximized by also retaining hollow logs which are used for 

denning during winter (Pilliod et al. 2006). Likewise, targeted retention of snags 

will benefit some bats and cavity-nesting birds.

Ecological restoration: The use of thinning as a tool for fuels reduction 

within an ecological restoration framework is an acceptable practice that can 

help restore stand structure (Agee and Skinner 2005). As many mixed-pine 

forest ecosystems of the region developed in response to mixed-severity fires, 

thinning practices such as low thinning (or thinning from below) can emulate 

the outcomes of low- to moderate-severity fires (Gilmore and Palik 2006). 

When viewed in this manner, thinning can help develop a fire-resilient stand 

typical of those of the pre-Euro-American landscape through reducing live fuels 

in the understory and subcanopy, and enhancing stand structure to be more 

similar to that of old-growth or reference ecosystems. In particular, to increase 

ecological diversity, thinning projects can be planned to 1) emulate gap dynamic 

processes and strive for a variety in gap size and shape in a manner similar to the 

heterogeneous nature of stand structure following low- to moderate-severity fires, 

and 2) stress the retention of biological legacies to maintain and enrich stand 

structural complexity (Gilmore and Palik 2006).

Currently there is little information on specific approaches to thinning mixedpine forest ecosystems to help reduce fuel loadings in the northern Lake States 

and the consequences of these activities. Recent investigations that utilize 

variable-retention harvests to reduce fuels but also develop multi-cohort, mixedspecies forests may provide guidance on how thinning should most effectively be 

applied (e.g., uniform or in an aggregate pattern) to restore forest structures and 

processes that will help reduce fuel loadings naturally (Gilmore and Palik 2006, 

Palik and Zasada 2003).

Incorporate public desires: Similar to prescribed fire, public acceptance of 

thinning has been studied in multiple locations across the United States. These 

studies have found high levels of acceptance of thinning in most locations. 

Compared with prescribed fire, most locations had a higher proportion of 

residents offer full rather than more qualified acceptance for the use of thinning 

(see reviews in McCaffrey and Olsen 2012, Toman et al. 2013). Also, as noted 
30 Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects

previously, some studies have found thinning treatments were preferred over 

prescribed fire near WUI communities (Bright and Newman 2006, Brunson 

and Shindler 2004, Ryan et al. 2006). Specific to the study region, Shindler et 

al. (2009) also found strong support for the use of thinning to reduce fuels in 

the Lake States. Fifty-nine percent gave agency managers full discretion to use 

thinning to reduce fuels wherever they see fit while another 28 percent indicated 

thinning should be used in carefully selected areas. Another study found that 

55 percent of Michigan participants approved of the use of mechanical treatments 

(Winter et al. 2006). Regarding potential outcomes of thinning treatments, twothirds of Michigan residents indicated thinning would very likely provide for the 

extraction of wood products while just over half indicated such treatments would 

save money by reducing the cost of fighting future wildfires (53 percent) and 

have a negative impact on scenery (53 percent) (Winter et al. 2006). Fewer felt 

these treatments were very likely to improve wildlife conditions (44 percent) or 

restore forests to a more natural condition (37 percent).

Other Mechanical and Combination Techniques 

Besides tree removal, other mechanical approaches or combined mechanical and 

fire approaches may be used to reduce fuels (particularly surface or ladder fuels). 

Heavy equipment may be used to reduce fuel loads, alter fuel composition, and 

allow access for replanting a treated stand (Guries 2002). Machines may be used 

to uproot and chop apart small trees and understory vegetation; the resulting 

material may then be crushed and incorporated into the soil. Roller chopping 

involves using large drums filled with water and fitted with blades that are 

pulled by a bulldozer may also be used to break up slash. Specialized bulldozer 

blades (e.g., root rakes or KG blades) may be also used to break off and uproot 

remaining vegetation. Dragging anchor chains with a bulldozer across the stand 

is a mechanical treatment that has been used for the purposes of scarifying the 

soil and breaking up the continuity of fuels (Brown 2009). Harvesting machinery 

or tractors may be fitted with specialized blades to masticate slash and, in some 

cases, understory vegetation including shrubs and small trees. The treated 

material remains on-site in pieces of varying sizes depending on the type of 

equipment used. The use of these mechanized site preparation techniques may 

be expensive, and care must be taken to minimize negative effects on the upper 

soil horizons and forest floor. In addition, some understory shrubs and trees may 

resprout after being treated through mechanical means and treatments will likely 

need to be repeated at 2- or 3-year intervals in red pine stands (Ek et al. 2006).

Reduction of wildfire hazard: Limited research has examined the effectiveness 

of these alternative approaches on fuel hazard reduction in the Lake States. 

Removal of slash will reduce the fuels available to carry a fire. Other treatments, 
Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects 31

such as lopping and scattering or roller chopping will break the remaining slash 

into smaller pieces and increase decomposition rates. If a fire does occur, these 

alternative treatments may also alter the resulting fire behavior by removing 

ladder fuels and, thus, leading to a surface fire instead of a crown fire. 

However, in some cases, these alternative treatments may actually contribute to 

increased fuel loads. A key finding from a study of eastern white pine stands in 

northeastern Wisconsin found that surface fuels increased after broad-spectrum 

herbicide application in August followed one month later by a mechanical 

treatment consisting of dragging anchor chains (by a bulldozer) (Brown 2009). 

In this case, a moderate to high density of hardwood saplings were killed by 

the treatment and became 10- and 100-hr fuels. Such findings emphasize the 

importance of tailoring the selected fuels reduction approach to the specific 

conditions of the stand being treated. 

Provision of wildlife habitat: As with the previous sections, limited research 

has examined the effects of alternative mechanical treatments on wildlife in 

mixed-pine forests. Thus, it was necessary to draw from the published literature 

from other regions. Short-term effects of mechanical removal to wildlife would 

involve species that may be directly impacted by trampling and disturbance of 

coarse woody debris (which serve as refuge and source of food). In general, 

these are considered minimal for all vertebrate groups when compared to indirect 

effects of changes in habitat structure and composition (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

One study of combined fuel treatments in deciduous Appalachian forests 

describes responses of small mammals. Treatments included prescribed burning, 

mechanical felling of shrubs and small trees, and a combination of burning and 

mechanical felling treatments. Comparisons of wildlife abundance between 

treatments yielded no short-term (1 to 2 years) differences in abundance or use 

patterns for the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), a generalist species, 

despite differences in surface structure (Greenberg et al. 2006). There was also 

little short-term difference in herpetofaunal response to mechanical or combined 

burn-mechanical treatments, although there was a trend toward increasing 

abundance (Greenberg and Waldrop 2008).

Ecological restoration: From an ecological restoration perspective, the most 

effective restoration plans are those that focus on practices that emulate natural 

disturbances. Thinning followed by prescribed fire has been effectively used as 

a fuels reduction and restoration treatment in fire-dependent forest ecosystems 

of the western United States (Brown et al. 2004), as well as the northern Lake 

States. Often for the restoration of red pine, prescribed fire is used in concert with 

the shelterwood or seed-tree regeneration method, and one or two prescribed fires 

may be needed depending on the amount of understory competition.
32 Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects

Other combined techniques have been less successful as restoration treatments. 

For example, in mesic white pine stands in Wisconsin, Webster (2008) found that 

stands treated mechanically and with herbicides were less diverse and had higher 

densities of woody seedlings than stands treated with prescribed fire only, with 

red maple composing over 75 percent of this regeneration. Additional research 

on combining mechanical and other techniques is needed in order to understand 

the role these practices may have on reducing fuels and restoring important 

ecosystem processes.

Incorporate public desires: In general, public acceptance for a combined 

approach is likely to be based on acceptance of the specific treatments employed. 

Many of the alternative mechanical methods discussed here are not likely to 

be familiar to the public. While limited data is available, citizens are likely to 

have concerns with impacts from the use of heavy equipment to treat forested 

stands. Research has found high levels of support for a combined thinning and 

prescribed fire approach in Minnesota (Vining and Merrick 2008) as well as 

beyond the Lake States region (Blanchard and Ryan 2007, Kent et al. 2003). 

Other Fuels Treatment Technique —

Chemical Treatment and Livestock Grazing

Herbicides may be used to control unwanted (or undesirable) vegetation, e.g., 

ferns, herbs, grasses, sedges, and woody plants (trees, shrubs, and vines). Human 

safety is the foremost concern in all use of these chemicals, which must be 

correctly applied by properly trained personnel following the directions on the 

label. The applicator may need to be certified or licensed in some states. The 

formulation of herbicide, i.e., its solubility in water or in oil, will depend upon 

the target plant species and the method of application to be used. A number of 

chemicals are labeled for use in mixed-pine stands in the Lake States. Broadcast 

methods are used to cover large treatment areas quickly and effectively. The 

spraying may be either from the air or ground-based. Soil application of a 

water-soluble herbicide that is taken up by the root systems may also be used. 

In some cases, plants may be treated individually with herbicide through stem 

injection, basal spraying, or stump surface treatments. The effectiveness of 

herbicides can be increased when used following cutting of unwanted vegetation 

to prevent resprouting. 

Domestic animals such as cattle or goats may also be used to reduce certain 

types of fuels in mixed-pine stands. For instance, Benzie and McCumber (1983) 

reported that trials in Minnesota used cattle to control the growth of vegetation, 

as well as prepare planting sites. Grazing can lead to mixed results as the grazing 
Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects 33

animals will selectively target preferred vegetation. Moreover, it is important to 

not graze during spring bud break, as new, green shoots of conifers may be edible 

and browsed by domestic animals. Grazing can also result in some trampling 

damage and soil compaction.

Reduction of wildfire hazard: Herbicides may be used to control competing 

vegetation, which will indirectly reduce fuel loadings. Where feasible, although 

relatively high in cost, their use will result in greater selectivity among species 

and much less resprouting. 

The use of domestic animals as a fuels treatment technique seems to be a viable 

approach in theory; however, to it has received limited attention within the 

region. Research from other regions found grazing animals could have mixed 

effects, increasing fine fuels and potential for fire frequency in some cases 

(Borman 2005), while decreasing fine fuels and defoliating flammable shrubs 

and deciduous trees in others (Bachelet et al. 2000). The specific results were 

influenced by the ecological system and available vegetation, the grazing species, 

and the intensity of grazing (see summary in Hunter et al. 2007). These results 

emphasize the importance of conducting additional trials within the region if 

grazing is considered for fuels reduction efforts.

Provision of wildlife habitat: Little information is available on comparative 

effects of chemical fuel treatments relative to other types or controls for wildlife. 

Possible direct negative effects for wildlife through exposure to chemicals are 

generally considered to be temporary (Guynn et al. 2004). Alteration to stand 

structure and composition from chemical treatments are more long term and 

generate mixed responses from wildlife species (Guynn et al. 2004), similar to 

mechanical treatments. Evidence from other pine ecosystems suggests that forest 

floor small mammals exhibited no difference in abundance between traditionally 

thinned and chemically treated treatments while medium and large herbivores 

(lagomorphs and ungulates) exhibited both positive and negative responses to 

chemical treatments and suggested chemical treatments could be managed to 

benefit each of these species groups if an aggregated pattern of crop trees was 

maintained following treatment (Sullivan et al. 2002).

Ecological restoration: While the use of herbicides is a commonly accepted 

practice in ecological restoration, they are most commonly used to control 

nonnative and invasive species. When compared with other practices that 

are available to help control competition (i.e., prescribed burning), the use 

of herbicides represents a more active intervention with limited reliance on 

natural processes. In most cases, unless direct human intervention is necessary 

to reintroduce and maintain natural processes, managers prefer a more passive 
34 Fuels Treatment Techniques and Effects

restoration approach to remove activities causing restoration and allow natural 

processes to return. However, in some cases, current forest structure will need 

to be modified before natural processes can again be effective at restoring 

conditions. The use of herbicides, grazing, or other alternative practices may 

provide a means to modify these systems to a condition where a more natural fire 

regime is possible. 

Incorporate public desires: Limited research examines the acceptance of 

grazing or herbicide treatments; the few studies that have been completed 

were conducted outside of the region. Existing studies on grazing suggest 

it is a generally acceptable practice with large majorities accepting at least some 

amount of grazing to reduce fuel levels (Brunson 2008, Brunson and Shindler 

2004, McCaffrey 2008). Acceptance is much lower for herbicide use and large 

proportions of respondents consider it unacceptable (Bowker et al. 2008, 

Brunson 2008, McCaffrey 2008, Monroe et al. 2006, Toman et al. 2011). A 

telephone survey found that only 24 percent of the general public in the 

northeastern United States agree that land managers should use chemical 

treatment to control ground vegetation as part of a wildfire management 

program (Bowker et al. 2008).
Conclusions 35

CONCLUSIONS

Today’s hazardous fuels reduction programs are completed within the broader 

context of resource management. While a primary goal is to manage stand 

conditions and reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic wildfire, managers 

must also balance other objectives including promotion of wildlife habitat 

and diversity, restoration and protection of ecosystem integrity, protection of 

public safety, provision of forest products, protection of private property, and 

consideration of public desires. Developed by a team of scientists with expertise 

in these topic areas and in cooperation with managers from across the region, this 

report provides a summary and synthesis of the currently available literature to 

inform fuels management decisions within mixed-pine forest ecosystems of the 

northern Lake States. 

Fire and fuels management personnel within the region have had substantial 

success developing fuels management programs to date and this report is one 

component of ongoing efforts to support further success in the future. Many of 

these efforts are coordinated through the Lake States Fire Science Consortium – 

a network of fire managers and scientists in the fire dependent ecosystems in the 

Lake States Region. Please see the Consortium website for additional information 

about products and activities within the region (http://lakestatesfiresci.net/).
36 Literature Cited

Absher, J.D.; Vaske, J.J. 2006. An analysis of homeowner and agency wildland 

fire mitigation strategies. In: Peden, J.G.; Schuster, R.M., eds. Proceedings 

of the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NE-341. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Research Station: 231-236.

Agee, J.K. 2002. The fallacy of passive management: Managing for firesafe 

forest reserves. Conservation Biology in Practice. 3:18-25.

Agee, J.K. 2003. Monitoring postfire tree mortality in mixed-conifer forests 

of Crater Lake, Oregon. Natural Areas Journal. 23:114-120.

Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction 

treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211: 83-96.

Ahlgren, C.E. 1976. Regeneration of red pine and white pine following 

wildfire and logging in northeastern Minnesota. Journal of Forestry. 

74:135-140.

Alban, D.H. 1977. Influence on soil properties of prescribed burning under 

mature red pine. Res. Pap. NC-139. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.

Albini, F.A.; Reinhardt E.D. 1995. Modeling the ignition and burning rate 

of large woody natural fuels. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 

5(2):81- 92.

Alexander, M.E.; Mason, J.A.; Stocks, B.J. 1979. Two and a half centuries 

of recorded forest fire history. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario: Environment 

Canada, Forestry Service, Great Lakes Forest Research Centre. 2 p.

Apfelbaum, S.; Haney A. 1981. Bird populations before and after wildfire in a 

Great Lakes pine forest. The Condor. 83:347-354.

Artman, V.L.; Downhower, J.F. 2003. Wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)

nesting ecology in relation to prescribed burning of mixed-oak forest in 

Ohio. The Auk. 120:874-882.

Arvai, J.; Gregory, R.; Ohlson, D.; Blackwell, B.; Gray, R. 2006. Letdowns, 

wake-up calls, and constructed preferences: People’s responses to fuel 

and wildfire Risks. Journal of Forestry. 104(9):173-181. 

LITERATURE CITED
Literature Cited 37

Ascher, T. 2010. Factors influencing support for prescribed burning and 

mechanical thinning among wildland-urban interface residents in the 

lake Tahoe basin. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. M.S. thesis. 

Bachelet, D.; Lenihan, J.M.; Daly, C.; Neilson, R.P. 2000. Interactions between 

fire, grazing and climate change at Wind Cave National Park, SD.

Ecological Modeling. 134:229-244.

Ballard, W.B.; Krausman, P.R.; Boe, S.; Cunningham, S.; Whitlaw, H.A. 

2000. Short-term response of Gray Wolves, Canis lupus, to wildfire in 

northwestern Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 114:241-247.

Bender, L.C.; Minnis D.L.; Haufler, J.B. 1997. Wildlife responses to thinning 

red pine. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 14:141-146. 

Bennett, J. 2010. Longitudinal analysis of public response to wildland fire and 

fuel management: Examining citizen responses and fire management 

decisions from 2002 – 2008. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. 149 p. 

M.S. thesis.

Benzie, J.W. 1977. Manager’s handbook for red pine in the north-central 

states. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-33. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 22 p.

Benzie, J.W.; McCumber, J.E. 1983. Red pine. In: Burns, R.M., eds. Silvicultural 

systems for the major forest types of the United States. Agric. Hndbk. 445. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 89-91.

Blake, J.G. 1982. Influence of fire and logging on nonbreeding bird 

communities of ponderosa pine forests. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 46:404-415.

Blanchard, B.; Ryan, R.L. 2007. Managing the wildland-urban interface in 

the northeast: Perceptions of fire risk and hazard reduction strategies.

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(3):203-208.

Bock, C.E.; Bock J.H. 1983. Responses of birds and deer mice to prescribed 

burning in ponderosa pine. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 

47:836- 840.

Bock, C.E.; Raphael M.; Bock J.H. 1978. Changing avian community 

structure during early post-fire succession in the Sierra Nevada. The 

Wilson Bulletin. 90:119-123.

Borman, M.R. 2005. Forest stand dynamics and livestock grazing in historical 

context. Conservation Biology. 19:1659-1662.
38 Literature Cited

Bowker, J.M.; Lim, S.H.; Cordell, H.K.; Green, G.T.; Rideout-Hanzak, S.; 

Johnson, C.Y. 2008. Wildland fire, risk, and recovery: Results of a 

national survey with regional and racial perspectives. Journal of Forestry. 

106:268- 276.

Bright, A.D.; Newman, P. 2006. How forest context influences the 

acceptability of prescribed burning and mechanical thinning. In: 

McCaffrey, S.M., ed. The public and wildland fire management: Social 

science findings for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. Newton Square, PA: 

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

47-52.

Brown, J.K.; Reinhardt, E.D.; Kramer, K.A. 2003. Coarse woody debris: 

managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-105. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p. 

Brown, M. 2009. Low-intensity fire in eastern white pine: A supporting role 

in understory diversity. Joint Fire Science Program, Fire Science Brief. 52: 

6. Available at http://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/00-2-35_FSBrief52.

pdf (Accessed August 25, 2011).

Brown, R.T.; Agee, J.K.; Franklin, J.F. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: 

principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology. 18:903-912.

Brunson, M. 2008. Gauging the acceptability of fuels management: A matter 

of trust. Western Rural Development Center Rural Connections. 1(3): 2-4.

Brunson, M.W.; Shindler, B.A. 2004. Geographic variation in social 

acceptability of wildland fuels management in the western United States.

Society & Natural Resources. 17(8):661-678.

Buckman, R.E. 1964. Effects of prescribed burning on hazel in Minnesota.

Ecology. 45:626-629.

Buckman, R.E.; Bishaw, B.; Hanson, T.J.; Benford, F.A. 2006. Growth and yield 

of red pine in the Lake States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-271. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 

114 p.

Cardille, J.A.; Ventura, S. J. 2001. Occurrence of wildfire in the northern 

Great Lakes Region: effects of land cover and land ownership assessed 

at multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10:145-154.

Cardille, J.A.; Ventura, S. J.; Turner, M.G. 2001. Environmental and social 

factors influencing wildfires in the upper Midwest, United States.

Ecological Applications. 11(1):111-127.
Literature Cited 39

Cleland, D.T.; Crow, T.R.; Saunders, S.C.; Dickmann, D.I.; Maclean, 

A.L.; Jordan, J.K.; Watson, R.L.; Sloan, A.M.; Brosofske, K.D. 2004. 

Characterizing historical and modern fire regimes in Michigan (USA): 

A landscape ecosystem approach. Landscape Ecology. 19:311-325.

Cleland, D. 2009. The Great Lakes landscape: understanding historic and 

modern fire. Joint Fire Science Program, Fire Science Brief. 33:2-5.

Converse, S.J.; White, G.C.; Farris, K.L.; Zack, S. 2006. Small mammals and 

forest fuel reduction: national-scale responses to fire and fire surrogates.

Ecological Applications. 16:1717-1729.

Corace, R.G.; Goebel, P.C.; Seefelt, N.E. 2008. Innovative forest management: 

Seney National Wildlife Refuge and Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife 

Management Area. Forest Wisdom. 9:4, 10.

Covert-Bratland, K.A.; Block, W.M.; Theimer, T.C. 2006. Hairy woodpecker 

winter ecology in ponderosa pine forests representing different ages since 

wildfire. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 70:1379-1392.

Covington, W.W. 2000. Helping western forests heal. Nature. 408:135-136.

Crow, T.R.; Perera, A.H. 2004. Emulating natural landscape disturbance in 

forest management-an introduction. Landscape Ecology. 19:231-233.

Cunningham, S.C.; Ballard, W. 2004. Effects of wildfire on black bear 

demographics in central Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32:928-937.

Cunningham, S.C.; Ballard, W.B.; Monroe, L.M.; Rabe, M.J.; Bristow, K.D. 

2003. Black bear habitat use in burned and unburned areas, central 

Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 31:786-792.

Cunningham, S.C.; Kirkendall, L.; Ballard, W. 2006. Gray fox and coyote 

abundance and diet responses after a wildfire in central Arizona. Western 

North American Naturalist. 66:169-180.

Dees, C.S.; Clark, J.D.; Van Manen, F.T. 2001. Florida panther habitat use in 

response to prescribed fire. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65:141-147.

DellaSala, D.A.; Martin, R.; Spival, T.; Schulke, B.; Bird, M.; Criley, C.; 

VanDaalen, J.; Krelick, R., Brown; Aplet, G. 2003. A citizen’s call for 

ecological forest restoration: forest restoration principles and criteria.

Ecological Restoration. 21:14-23.

Dickmann, D.I. 1993. Management of red pine for multiple benefits using 

prescribed fire. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 10:53-62.
40 Literature Cited

Dickmann, D.I.; Cleland D.T. 2002. Fire return intervals and fire cycles 

for historic fire regimes in the Great Lakes region: a synthesis of the 

literature. Unpublished manuscript.

Drobyshev, I.; Goebel P.C.; Hix, D.M.; Corace, R.G.; Semko-Duncan, M.E. 

2008a. Interactions among forest composition, structure, fuel loadings 

and fire history: A case study of red pine-dominated forests of Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Michigan. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 256:1723-1733.

Drobyshev, I.; Goebel P.C.; Hix, D.M.; Corace, R.G.; Semko-Duncan, M.E. 

2008b. Pre- and post-European settlement fire history of red pine 

dominated forest ecosystems of Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Upper 

Michigan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38:2497-2514.

Duchesne, L.C.; Hawkes, B.C. 2000. Fire in northern ecosystems. In: Brown, 

J.K.; Smith; Kapler, J, eds. 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. 35-51.

Durbian, F.E. 2006. Effects of mowing and summer-burning on the 

Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus). American Midland Naturalist. 

155:329- 334.

Duvall, M.D.; Grigal, D.F. 1999. Effects of timber harvesting on coarse woody 

debris in red pine forests across the Great Lakes states, U.S.A. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 29:1926-1934.

Ek, A.R.; Katovich, S.A.; Kilgore, M.A.; Palik, B.J. 2006. Red pine 

management guide. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. Available at http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fmg/nfmg/rp/docs/

rp_all.pdf (Accessed Sep. 9, 2011).

Ellison, L.N. 1975. Density of Alaskan spruce grouse before and after fire.

The Journal of Wildlife Management. 468-471.

Fischer, R.A.; Wakkinen, W.L.; Reese, K.P.; Connelly, J.W. 1997. Effects of 

prescribed fire on movements of female sage grouse from breeding to 

summer ranges. The Wilson Bulletin. 109:82-91.

Fisher, J.T.; Wilkinson, L. 2005. The response of mammals to forest fire and 

timber harvest in the North American boreal forest. Mammal Review. 

35:51-81.
Literature Cited 41

Foley, J.A.; DeFries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; 

Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K.; Helkowski, J.H.; 

Holloway, T.; Howard, E.H.; Kucharik, C.J.; Monfreda, C.; Patz, J.A.; 

Prentice, I.C.; Ramankutty, N.; Snyder, P.K. 2005. Global consequences of 

land use. Science. 309:570-574.

Fox, J.F. 1978. Forest fires and the snowshoe hare-Canada lynx cycle.

Oecologia. 31: 349-374.

Frandsen, W.H. 1991. Burning rate of smoldering peat. Northwest Science. 

65:166-172

Frelich, L.E. 1995. Old forest in the Lake States today and before European 

settlement. Natural Areas. 15:157-167.

Frelich, L.E.; Lorimer, C.G. 1991. Natural disturbance regimes in hemlockhardwood forests of the Upper Great Lakes region. Ecological 

Monographs. 61:145-164.

Frelich, L.E.; Reich, P. 1995. Neighborhood effects, disturbance, and 

succession in forests of the western Great Lakes region. Ecoscience. 

2: 148-158.

Friedman, S.K.; Reich, P.B. 2005. Regional legacies of logging: departure 

from presettlement forest conditions in northern Minnesota. Ecological 

Applications. 15: 726-744. 

Geluso, K.N.; Bragg, T.B. 1986. Fire-avoidance behavior of meadow voles 

(Microtus pennsylvanicus). American Midland Naturalist. 116: 202-205.

Gilmore, D.W.; O’Brien, T.C.; Hoganson, H.M. 2005. Thinning red pine 

plantations and the Langsaeter hypothesis: A northern Minnesota case 

study. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 22: 19-26.

Gilmore, D.W.; Palik, B.J. 2006. A revised managers handbook for red pine 

in the North Central Region. General Technical Report NC-264. St. Paul, 

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research 

Station. 55 p.

Gough, R.J. 1997. Farming the cutover: a social history of Northern 

Wisconsin, 1900–1940. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 295 p.

Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B. 2004. Science basis for changing 

forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p.
42 Literature Cited

Greenberg, C.H.; Miller, S.; Waldrop, T.A. 2007. Short-term response of 

shrews to prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction in a Southern 

Appalachian upland hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

243: 231-236

Greenberg, C.H.; Otis, D.L.; Waldrop, T.A. 2006. Response of white-footed 

mice (Peromyscus leucopus) to fire and fire surrogate fuel reduction 

treatments in a southern Appalachian hardwood forest. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 234:355-362. 

Greenberg, C.H.; Waldrop, T.A. 2008. Short-term response of reptiles and 

amphibians to prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction in a 

southern Appalachian upland hardwood forest. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 255: 2883-2893.

Guries, R.P. 2002. Pinus resinosa. In: Pines of silvicultural importance. New 

York, NY: CABI Publishing: 379-391. 

Guynn, D.C., Jr.; Guynn, S.T.; Wigley, T.B.; Miller, D.A. 2004. Herbicides and 

forest biodiversity – what do we know and where do we go from here?

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32:1085-1092.

Haight R.G.; Cleland D.T.; Hammer R.B.; Radeloff V.C.; Rupp T.S. 2004. 

Assessing fire risk in the wildland–urban interface. Journal of Forestry. 

102(7), 41-48.

Haney, A.; Apfelbaum, S.; Burrins, J.M. 2008. Thirty years of post-fire 

succession in a southern boreal forest bird community. American Midland 

Naturalist. 159: 421-433.

Hansen, M.; Brand, G. 2006. Michigan’s forest resources in 2004. Resource 

Bulletin NC-255. St Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Research Station. 43 p.

Hauser, A.S. 2008. Pinus resinosa. In: Fire effects information system. Ft. 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

plants/tree/pinres/all.html. (Accessed: September 9, 2011).

Heinselman, M.L. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area, Minnesota. Quaternary Research. 3:329-382.

Hobson, K.A.; Schieck, J. 1999. Changes in bird communities in boreal 

mixedwood forest: harvest and wildfire effects over 30 years. Ecological 

Applications. 9: 849-863.
Literature Cited 43

Hood, G.A.; Bayley, S.E.; Olson, W. 2007. Effects of prescribed fire on habitat 

of beaver (Castor canadensis) in Elk Island National Park, Canada.

Forest Ecology and Management. 239: 200-209.

Hungerford, R.D.; Harrington, M.G.; Frandsen, W.H.; Ryan, K.C.; Niehoff, 

G.J. 1991. Influence of fire on factors that affect site productivity. In: 

Harvey, A. E.; Neuenschwander, F. L., comps. Proceedings-Management and 

productivity of western-montane forest soils. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 32-50 p.

Hunter, M.E.; Shepperd, W.D.; Lentile, J.E.; Lundquist, J.E.; Andreu, M.G.; 

Butler, J.L.; Smith, F.W. 2007. A comprehensive guide to fuels treatment 

practices for ponderosa pine in the Black Hills, Colorado Front Range, 

and Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-198. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 93 p.

Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following standreplacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests.

Conservation Biology. 9: 1041-1058.

Irwin, L.L. 1975. Deer-moose relationships on a burn in northeastern 

Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management. 39: 653-662.

Johnson, J.B.; Edwards, J.W.; Ford, W.M.; Gates, J.E. 2009. Roost tree selection 

by northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies following 

prescribed fire in a central Appalachian mountains hardwood forest.

Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 233-242.

Jones, B.; Fox, S.F.; Leslie, D.M.; Jr., Engle, D.M.; Lochmiller, R.L. 2000. 

Herpetofaunal responses to brush management with herbicide and fire. 

Journal of Range Management. 53: 154-158.

Jones, D.D.; Conner, L.M.; Storey, T.H.; Warren, R.J. 2004. Prescribed fire 

and raccoon use of longleaf pine forests: implications for managing nest 

predation. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32: 1255-1259.

Jones, P.D.; Mixon, M.R.; Demarais, S. 2009. Habitat quality following midrotation treatment in conservation reserve program pines. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 73: 1166-1173.

Kalcounis, M.C.; Hobson, K.A.; Brigham, R.M.; Hecker, K.R. 2008. Bat activity 

in the boreal forest: Importance of stand type and vertical strata. Journal 

of Mammalogy. 80: 673-682.

Karamanski, T. 1989. Deep woods frontier: a history of logging in northern 

Michigan. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. 305 p.
44 Literature Cited

Keane, R.E.; Agee, J.K.; Fule, P.; Keeley, J.E.; Key, C.; Kitchen, S.G.; Miller, 

R.; Schulte, L.A. 2008. Ecological effects of large fires on US landscapes: 

benefit or catastrophe? International Journal of Wildland Fire. 17:696-712.

Kent, B.; Gebert, K.; McCaffrey, S.; Martin, W.; Calkin, D.; Schuster, E.; Martin, 

I.; Bender, H.W.; Alward, G.; Kumagai, Y.; Cohn, P.; Carroll, M.S.; Williams, 

D.; Ekarius, C. 2003. Social and economic issues of the Hayman Fire. 

In: Graham, R.T., ed. Hayman fire case study. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-114. 

Odgen, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station: 315-395.

Keith, L.B.; Surrendi, D.C. 1971. Effects of fire on a snowshoe hare 

population. Journal of Wildlife Management. 35: 16-26.

King, S.L.; Stribling, H.L.; Speake, D. 1991. Cottontail rabbit initial responses 

to prescribed burning and cover enhancement. Journal of the Alabama 

Academy of Science. 62: 178-188.

Kirkland, G.L., Jr.; Snoody, H.W.; Amsler, T.L. 1996. Impact of fire on small 

mammals and amphibians in a central Appalachian deciduous forest. 

American Midland Naturalist. 135: 253-260.

Kneeshaw, K.; Vaske, J.J.; Bright, A.D.; Absher, J.D., 2004. Situational 

influences of acceptable wildland fire management actions. Society & 

Natural Resources. 17(6): 477-489.

Koivula, M.J.; Schmiegelow, F.K.A. 2007. Boreal woodpecker assemblages 

in recently burned forested landscapes in Alberta, Canada: effects of 

post-fire harvesting and burn severity. Forest Ecology and Management. 

242: 606- 618.

Koprowski, J.L.; Leonard, K.M.; Zugmeyer, C.A.; Jolley; J.L. 2006. Direct 

effects of fire on endangered Mount Graham red squirrels. The 

Southwestern Naturalist. 51: 59-63.

Kotliar, N.B.; Kennedy, P.L.; Ferree; K. 2007. Avifaunal responses to fire in 

southwestern montane forests along a burn severity gradient. Ecological 

Applications. 17: 491-507.

Kreisel, K.J.; Stein, S.J. 1999. Bird use of burned and unburned coniferous 

forests during winter. The Wilson Bulletin. 111: 243-250.

Lacki, M.J.; Cox, D.R.; Dodd, L.E.; Dickinson, M.D. 2009. Response of 

northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis) to prescribed fires in eastern 

Kentucky forests. Journal of Mammalogy. 90: 1165-1175.
Literature Cited 45

Lang, J.D.; Powell, A.; Krementz, D.G.; Conroy, M.J. 2002. Wood thrush 

movements and habitat use: effects of forest management for redcockaded woodpeckers. The Auk. 119: 109-124.

Lim, S.H.; Bowker, J.M.; Johnson, C.Y.; Cordell, H.K. 2009. Perspectives on 

prescribed fire in the South: Does ethnicity matter? Southern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 33(1): 17-24.

Loeb, S.C.; Waldrop, T.A. 2007. Bat activity in relation to fire and fire 

surrogate treatments in southern pine stands. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 255: 3185-3192.

Long, R.A.; Rachlow, J.L.; Kie, J.G. 2008. Effects of season and scale on 

response of elk and mule deer to habitat manipulation. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 72: 1133-1142.

Long, R.A.; Rachlow, J.L.; Kie, J.G. 2009. Sex-specific responses of North 

American elk to habitat manipulation. Journal of Mammalogy. 

90: 423- 432.

Loomis, J.B.; Bair, L.S.; Gonzalez-Caban, A. 2001. Prescribed fire and public 

support: Knowledge gained, attitudes changed in Florida. Journal of 

Forestry. 99(11): 18-22.

Loope, W.L.; Anderton, J.B., 1998. Human vs. lightning ignition of 

presettlement surface fires in coastal pine forests of the upper Great 

Lakes. American Midland Naturalist. 140: 206-218. 

Lorimer C.G.; Gough, W.R. 1988. Frequency of drought and severe 

fire weather in north-eastern Wisconsin. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 26: 203- 219.

Magoun, A.J. 1997. Selection of post-fire seres by lynx and showshoe hares in 

the Alaskan taiga. Northwestern Naturalist. 78: 77-86.

Main, M.B.; Richardson, L.W. 2002. Response of wildlife to prescribed fire in 

southwest Florida pine flatwoods. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30:213-221.

Marshall, J.D.; Blair J.M.; Peters, D.P.C.; Okin, G.; Rango, A.; Williams, M. 

2008. Predicting and understanding ecosystem responses to climate 

change at continental scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

6:273-280.

Martell, A.M. 1984. Changes in small mammal communities after fire in 

northcentral Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 98:223-226.
46 Literature Cited

Martin, S.L.; Theimer, T. C.; Fulé, P.Z. 2005. Ponderosa pine restoration 

and turkey roost site use in northern Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

33:859- 864.

Matthews, C.E.; Moorman, C.E.; Greenberg, C.H.; Waldrop, T.A. 2008. 

Response of reptiles and amphibians to repeated fuel reduction 

treatments. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74:1301-1310.

Matthews, C.E.; Moorman, C.E.; Greenberg, C.H.; Waldrop, T.A. 2009. 

Response of soricid populations to repeated fire and fuel reduction in 

the southern Appalachian mountains. Forest Ecology and Management. 

257:1939-1944.

McCaffrey, S. 2006. Prescribed fire: What influences public approval? In: 

Dickinson, M.B., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering science to land 

managers.Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 192-198.

McCaffrey, S. 2008. The homeowner view of thinning methods for fire 

hazard reduction: More positive than many think. In: Narog, M.G., 

ed. Proceedings U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002 Fire Conference: 

Managing fire and fuels in the remaining wildlands and open spaces of the 

Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-189. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 15-22.

McCaffrey, S.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Stephens, S.L. 2008. Different interest 

group views of fuels treatments: Survey results from fire and fire 

surrogate treatments in a Sierran mixed conifer forest, California, USA. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 17(2):224-233.

McCaffrey, S.M.;Olsen, C.S. 2012. Research perspectives on the public 

and fire management: a synthesis of current social science on eight 

essential questions. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-104. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 40 p.

McEwan, R.W.; Hutchinson, T.F.; Ford, R.D.; McCarthy B.C. 2007. 

An experimental evaluation of fire history reconstruction using 

dendrochronology in white oak (Quercus alba). Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 37:806-816.

McLeod, R.F.; Gates, E.J. 1998. Response of herpetofaunal communities to 

forest cutting and burning at Chesapeake Farms, Maryland. American 

Midland Naturalist. 139:164-177.
Literature Cited 47

McNab, W.H.; Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A.; Keys, J.E.; Nowacki, G.J.; 

Carpenter, C.A. 2007. Description of ecological subregions: sections of the 

conterminous United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-76B. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p.

McRae, D.J. 1979. Prescribed burning in jack pine logging slash: A review. 

Report 0-X-289. Sault Ste. Marie, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, 

Department of the Environment, Great Lakes Research Centre.

McRae, D.J.; Lynham T.J.; French. R.J. 1994. Understory prescribed burning 

in red pine and white pine. Forestry Chronicle. 70:395-401.

Meek, M.G.; Cooper, S.M.; Owens, K.M.; Cooper, R.M.; Wappel, A.L. 

2008. White -tailed deer distribution in response to patch burning on 

rangeland. Journal of Arid Environments. 72:2026-2033.

Methven, I.R. 1971. Prescribed fire, crown scorch and mortality: field and 

laboratory studies on red and white pine. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian 

Forestry Service, Department of the Environment.

Meyer, M.D.; Kelt, D.A.; North, M.P. 2007. Microhabitat associations of the 

northern flying squirrels in burned and thinned forest stands of the 

Sierra Nevada. American Midland Naturalist. 157:202-211.

Michael, E.; Thornburgh, P.I. 1971. Immediate effects of hardwood removal 

and prescribed burning on bird populations. The Southwest Naturalist. 

15: 359- 370. 

Miles, P.D.; Brand G.J.; Mielke, M.E. 2004. Minnesota’s forest resources in 

2003. Resour. Bull. NC-246. U.S. St. Paul, MN: Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 

Miller, W.E. 1978. Use of prescribed burning in seed production areas to 

control red pine cone beetle. Environmental Entomologist. 7:698-702.

Mixon, M.R.; Demarais, S.; Jones, P.D.; Rude, B.J. 2009. Deer forage response 

to herbicide and fire in mid-rotation pine plantations. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 73:663-688.

Monroe, M.C.; Pennisi, L.; McCaffrey, S.; Mileti, D. 2006. Social science 

to improve fuels management: A synthesis of research relevant to 

communicating with homeowners about fuels management. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NC-257. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

North Central Research Station.

Moseley, K.R.; Castleberry, S.B.; Schweitzer, S.H. 2010. Effects of prescribed 

fire on herpetofauna in bottomland hardwood forest. Southeastern 

Naturalist. 2:475-486.
48 Literature Cited

Murphy, E.C.; Lehnhausen, W.A. 1998. Density and foraging ecology of 

woodpeckers following a stand-replacement fire. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 62:1359-1372.

Myer, G. 2012. Characterizing the decision process of land managers when 

managing for endangered species of fire dependent ecosystems: the case 

of the kirtland’s warbler (Septophaga kirtlandii Baird). Columbus, OH: 

Ohio State University. 84 p. M.S. thesis.

Nappi, A.; Drapeau, P. 2009. Reproductive success of the black-backed 

woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) in burned boreal forests: Are burns 

source habitats? Biological Conservation. 142:1381-1391.

National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). 2010. Wildland fire statistics. Boise, 

ID: National InteragencyFire Center. Available at www.nifc.gov/fire_info/

fire_stats.htm. (Accessed: Jan. 20, 2011).

Neumann, D.D.; Dickmann, D.I. 2001. Surface burning in a mature stand of 

Pinus resinosa and Pinus strobus in Michigan: Effects on understory 

vegetation. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10:91-101.

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

forests in the eastern United States. Bioscience. 58:123-138.

Palik, B.J.; Zasada, J.C. 2003. An ecological context for regenerating multicohort, mixed-species red pine forests. Res. Note NC-382. St. Paul, 

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

Experiment Station. 8 p.

Paragi, T.F.; Johnson, D.D.; Katnik, D.D.; Magoun, A.J. 1996. Marten selection 

of postfire seres in the Alaskan taiga. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 

74:2222- 2237.

Passavoy, David M.; Fulé, Peter Z. 2006. Snag and woody debris dynamics 

following severe wildfires in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests.

Forest Ecology and Management. 223:237-246.

Peek, J.M. 1974. Initial response of moose to a forest fire in northeastern 

Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist. 91:435-438.

Perry, C.H. 2006. Wisconsin’s forest resources in 2004. Resour. Bull. NC-261. 

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

Research Station. 34 p.

Perry, R.W.; Rudolph, C.D.; Thill, R.E. 2009. Reptile and amphibian responses 

to restoration of fire-maintained woodlands. Restoration Ecology. 

17:917- 927.
Literature Cited 49

Pilliod, D.S.; Bull, E.L.; Hayes, J.L.; Wales, B.C. 2006. Wildlife and 

invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry coniferous 

forests of the western United States: a synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS173. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p.

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I. 2005. Rual and suburban 

sprawl in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest 

fragmentation. Conservation Biology. 19:793-805.

Rempel, R.S.; Rogers, A.R.; Gluck, M.J. 1997. Timber-management and 

natural-disturbance effects on moose habitat: Landscape evaluation.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 61:517-524.

Rouse, C. 1988. Fire effects in northeastern forests: red pine. Gen. Tech. 

Report NC-129. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 9 p. 

Rudolf, P.O. 1990. Pinus resinosa Ait. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H.,tech. 

coords. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Hndbk. 654. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 442-455.

Russell, R.E.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Buckland, S.T.; Saab, V.A. 2008. Short-term 

responses of red squirrels to prescribed burning in the interior pacific 

northwest, USA. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74:12-17.

Ryan, K.C.; N.V. Noste. 1983. Evaluating prescribed fires. In: Lotan, J.E; 

Kilgore, B.M.; Fischer, W.C.; Mutch, R.W., tech. coords. In: Symposium 

and workshop of wilderness fire. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182. Ogden, UT. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 

230-238.

Ryan, K.C.; E.D. Reinhardt. 1988. Predicting postfire mortality of seven 

western conifers. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18:1291-1297.

Ryan, R.L.; Wamsley, M.B. 2006. Perceptions of wildfire threat and mitigation 

measures by residents of fire-prone communities in the Northeast: 

survey results and wildland fire management implications. In: McCaffrey, 

S.M., ed. The public and wildland fire management: social science findings 

for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 11-17.
50 Literature Cited

Ryan, R.L.; Wamsley, M.B.; Blanchard, B.P. 2006. Perceptions of wildfire 

threat and mitigation measures by residents of fire-prone communities 

in the Northeast: survey results and wildland fire management 

implications. In: McCaffrey, S.M., ed. The public and wildland fire 

management: social science findings for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTRNRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station: 11-17.

Saab, V.A.; Powell, H.D.W. 2005. Fire and avian ecology in North America: 

Process influencing pattern. In: Saab, V.; Powell, H., eds. Fire and avian 

ecology in North America. Studies in Avian Biology. 30: 1-13.

Sansberg, D.V.; Ottmar, R.D.; Cushon, G.H. 2001. Characterizing fuels in the 

21st century. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10:381-387. 

Scharbon, J.M.; Fauth, J.E. 2003. Effects of prescribed burning on amphibian 

diversity in a southeastern U.S. National forest. Conservation Biology. 

17:1338-1349.

Scheller, R.M.; Tuyl, V.; Clark, K.; Hayden, N.G.; Hom, J; Mladenoff, D.J. 

2008. Simulation of forest change in the New Jersey Pine Barrens under 

current and pre-colonial conditions. Forest Ecology and Management. 

255:1489- 1500.

Schulte, L.A.; Mladenoff, D.J.; Crow, T.R.; Merrick, L.C.; Cleland, D.T. 2007. 

Homogenization of northern U.S. Great Lakes forest due to land use. 

Landscape Ecology. 22:1089-1103.

Schulte, L.A.; Niemi, G.J. 1998. Bird communities of early-successional 

burned and logged forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 

62:1418- 1429.

Schwartz, C.C.; Franzmann, A.W. 1991. Interrelationship of black bears to 

moose and forest succession in the northern coniferous forest. Wildlife 

Monographs. 113:3-58.

Shindler, B.; Brunson, M.; Stankey, G.H. 2002. Social acceptability of forest 

conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

Shindler, B.; Toman, E. 2003. Fire reduction strategies in forest communities: 

A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Forestry. 101(6):8-15. 
Literature Cited 51

Shindler, B.A.; Toman, E.; McCaffrey , S.M. 2009. Public perspective of fire, 

fuels, and the Forest Service in the Great Lakes region: A survey of 

citizen-agency communication and trust. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 18:157-164.

Simon, N.P.P.; Stratton, C.B.; Forbes, G.J.; Schwab, F.E. 2002. Similarity 

of small mammal abundance in post-fire and clearcut forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 165:163-172.

Smucker, K.M.; Hutto, R.L.; Steele, B.M. 2005. Changes in bird abundance 

after wildfire: importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological 

Applications. 15:1535-1549.

Sousa, W.P. 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 15:353-391.

Stankey, G.H. 1976. Wilderness fire policy: An investigation of visitor 

knowledge and beliefs. Res. Pap. INT-180. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 32 p.

Starker, T.J. 1934. Fire resistance in the forest. Journal of Forestry. 32:462-467.

Stearns, F.W. 1997. History of the Lake States forests: natural and human 

impacts. In: Vasievich, J.; Webster, M.; Henry, H., eds. Lake States regional 

forest resources assessment: technical papers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-189. St. 

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

Forest Experiment Station: 8-29.

Steelman, T.; McCaffrey, S. 2011. What is limiting more flexible fire 

management - public or agency pressure? Journal of Forestry. 

109(8):454- 461. 

Stratman, M.R.; Pelton, M.R. 2007. Spatial response of American black bears 

to prescribed fire in northwest Florida. Ursus. 18:62-71.

Sturtevant, B.R.; Miranda, B.R.; Yang, J.; He, H.S.; Gustafson, E.J.; Scheller, 

R.M. 2009. Studying fire mitigation strategies in multi-ownership 

landscapes: balancing the management of fire-dependent ecosystems and 

fire risk. Ecosystems. 12:445-461.

Sucoff, E.I.; Allison, J.H. 1968. Fire defoliation and survival in a 47-year old 

red pine plantation. Minnesota Forestry Research Note 187. St. Paul, MN: 

University of Minnesota, School of Forestry. 2 p. 

Sullivan, T.P.; Lautenschlager, R.A.; Wagner, R.G. 1999. Clearcutting and 

burning of northern spruce-fir forests: implications for small mammal 

communities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 36:327-344.
52 Literature Cited

Sullivan, T.P.; Sullivan, D.S.; Lindgren, P.M.F.; Boateng, J.O. 2002. Influence of 

conventional and chemical thinning on stand structure and diversity of 

plant and mammal communities in young lodgepole pine forest. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 170:173-187.

Sunquist, M.E. 1967. Effects of fire on raccoon behavior. Journal of 

Mammalogy. 48:673-674.

Swain, A.M. 1980. Landscape patterns and forest history in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota: a pollen study from Hug Lake. Ecology. 

61(4):747- 754.

Tiedemann, A.; Klemmedson, J.; Bull, E. 2000. Solution of forest health 

problems with prescribed fire: are forest productivity and wildlife at 

risk? Forest Ecology and Management. 127:1-18.

Toman, E.; Shindler, B.; Absher, J.; McCaffrey, S. 2008. Postfire 

communications: the influence of site visits on local support. Journal of 

Forestry. 106(1):25-30.

Toman, E.; Shindler, B.; Brunson, M. 2006. Fire and fuel management 

communication strategies: citizen evaluations of agency outreach 

activities. Society & Natural Resources. 19(4):321-336.

Toman, E.; Stidham, M.; Shindler, B.; McCaffrey, S. 2011. Reducing fuels in 

the wildland urban interface: community perceptions of agency fuels 

treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20(3):340-349.

Toman, E.; Stidham, M.; Shindler, B.; McCaffrey, S. 2013. Social science at the 

wildland-urban interface: a compendium of research results. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-111. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 75 p.

Ucitel, D.; Christian, D.P.; Graham, J.M. 2003. Vole use of coarse woody debris 

and implications for habitat and fuel management. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 67:65-72.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2003. Influence of forest structure on wildfire 

behavior and the severity of its effects: an overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-42-Volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p.

Van Dyke, F.; Darragh, J.A. 2007. Response of elk to changes in plant 

production and nutrition following prescribed burning. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 71:23-29.
Literature Cited 53

Van Wagner, C.E. 1963. Prescribed burning experiments: red and white pine.

Publ. No. 1020. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Forestry, Forestry Research 

Branch. 27 p.

Van Wagner, C.E. 1970. Fire and red pine. In: Fire ecology in the northern 

U.S. and Canada: proceedings of the tenth annual tall timbers fire ecology 

conference; 1970 April 20-21; Fredericton, NB. Tallahassee, FL: Tall 

Timbers Research Station: 211-219.

Van Wagner, C.E. 1972. Duff consumption by fire in eastern pine stands. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2:34-39.

Van Wagner, C.E. 1978. Age-class distribution and the forest fire cycle.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 8:220-227

Vierling, K.; Lentile, L. 2006. Red-headed woodpecker nest-site selection and 

reproduction in mixed ponderosa pine and aspen woodland following 

fire. The Condor. 108:957-962.

Vining, J.; Merrick, M.S. 2008. The influence of proximity to a national forest 

on emotions and fire-management decisions. Environmental Management. 

41(2):155-167.

Vogl, R.J. 1970. Fire and the northern Wisconsin pine barrens. In: Fire 

ecology in the northern U.S. and Canada: proceedings of the tenth annual 

tall timbers fire ecology conference; 1970 April 20-21; Fredericton, NB. 

Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 175-209. 

Vogt, C.; Winter, G.; Fried, J.S. 2005. Predicting homeowners’ approval of 

fuel management at the wildland-urban interface using the theory of 

reasoned action. Society & Natural Resources. 18(4):337-354.

Vogt, C.; Winter, G.; McCaffrey, S. 2007. Community views of fuels 

management: are national forest local recreation users more supportive?

In: Burns, R.; Robinson, K., eds. Proceedings of the 2006 northeast 

recreation research symposium: proceedings of the symposium; 2006 April 

9-11; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-14. Newton Square, PA: 

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

546- 550.

Walmsley, J.D.; Jones, D.L.; Reynolds, B.; Price M.H.; Healey, J.R. 2009. Whole 

tree harvesting can reduce second rotation forest productivity. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 257(3):1104-1111.
54 Literature Cited

Webster, B.J. 2008. Response of the understory to low intensity prescribed 

burning or mechanical and herbicide treatment in a northern mesic 

eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) forest in the Menominee Nation, 

Wisconsin. Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin. M.S. thesis.

Whitney, G.G. 1986. Relation of Michigan’s presettlement forests to substrate 

and disturbance history. Ecology. 67:1548-1559.

Whitney, G.G. 1987. An ecological history of the Great Lakes forest of 

Michigan. Journal of Ecology. 75:667-684.

Williams M. 1989. Americans and their forests: a historical geography.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 599 p.

Wilson, R.S; Hix, D.M.; Goebel, P.C.; Corace, R.G., III 2009. Identifying land 

manager objectives and alternatives for mixed-pine forest ecosystem 

management and restoration in eastern Upper Michigan. Ecological 

Restoration. 27:4.

Winter, G.; Fried, J.S. 2000. Homeowner perspectives on fire hazard, 

responsibility, and management strategies at the wildland-urban 

interface. Society & Natural Resources. 13(1):33-49.

Winter, G.J.; Vogt, C.; Fried, J.S. 2002. Fuel treatments at the wildland-urban 

interface: common concerns in diverse regions. Journal of Forestry. 

100(1):15-21.

Winter, G.; Vogt, C.; McCaffrey, S. 2006. Residents warming up to fuels 

management: homeowners’ acceptance of wildfire and fuels management 

in the wildland-urban interface. In: McCaffrey, S.M., ed. The public and 

wildland fire management: social science findings for managers. Gen. Tech. 

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

Service, Northern Research Station: 19-32.

Woodall, C.W.; Charney, J.J.; Liknes, G.C.; Potter, B.E. 2005. What is the fire 

danger now? Linking fuel inventories with atmospheric data. Journal of 

Forestry. 103:293-298.
Literature Cited 55

Yoder, J. 2008. Liability, regulation, and endogenous risk: the incidence and 

severity of escaped prescribed fires in the United States. Journal of Law & 

Economics. 51:294-325.

Zasada, J.C.; Palik, B.J.; Crow, T.R.; Gilmore, D.W. 2004. Applications for 

silvicultural systems in the northern Great Lakes Region of the United 

Sates. In: Perera, A.H.; Buse, L.J.; Weber, M.G., eds. Emulating natural 

forest landscape disturbances: concepts and applications. New York, NY: 

Columbia University Press: 230-242.

Zwolak, R.; Foresman, K.R. 2007. Effects of a stand-replacing fire on smallmammal communities in montane forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 

85:815-822.
56 Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major Taxonomic Groups

We conducted a literature review for all faunal species mentioned in this report 

using the research databases JSTOR and EJC. We used simple restriction terms 

to reduce superfluous results. Specifically, advanced search options were used to 

remove journals not related to the biological sciences. Individual species were 

searched for using Boolean commands in the following format:

“common name” AND fire# 

“common name” AND burn*

as well as

“scientific name” AND fire#

“scientific name” AND burn*

This resulted in four unique searches per species. Because the vast majority 

of bird species searched returned no relevant results, further searches were 

conducted using:

“boreal forest” AND fire# AND birds AND community

“boreal forest” AND burn* AND birds AND community

“laurentian mixed pine” AND fire# AND birds AND community

“laurentian mixed pine” AND burn* AND birds AND community

“boreal forest” AND fire# AND avian AND community

“boreal forest” AND burn* AND avian AND community

“laurentian mixed pine” AND fire# AND avian AND community

“laurentian mixed pine” AND burn* AND avian AND community

Results included here were limited based on relevance to the topic as well as the 

region and/or habitat type.

General Findings

We limited our review of wildlife response to fire to a traditional grouping 

of terrestrial vertebrates, including mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. 

Despite the limited published information specific to the Laurentian mixed-pine 

ecosystem, our meta-analysis revealed an overall trend across geographic regions 

and across taxa for positive responses to prescribed fire and fire use for some 

species. Notably, large game mammals such as the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginanus) and elk (Cervus elaphus) benefit from grassy understory conditions 

created by fire. Avian species also benefit from fire based fuels reduction, as 

species diversity tends to increase following fire use, with specific increases 

in cavity nesting species and woodpeckers. However, so little is known on the 

APPENDIX: SPECIES RESPONSE TO FIRE 

BY MAJOR TAXONOMIC GROUPS 
Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major Taxonomic Groups 57

effects of prescribed fire and fire use on amphibians and reptiles within the 

Laurentian mixed-pine ecosystem that only limited conclusions can be drawn 

on their responses. Table 1 presents wildlife response to fire based on published 

literature by major taxonomic group. When articles describe response of multiple 

species or contain multiple species tables, such as response between seasons, 

each table was considered separately and thus may be represented more than 

once in Table 1.

Mammals

Chiroptera: Little research has been conducted on the effects of fire on bats; 

none has been done on bats in the Laurentian mixed-pine forests. Loeb and 

Waldrop (2007) provide the only current study analyzing the effects of recent 

fire on bat activity within pine stands. Their research indicates that bat activity 

is lower in thinned and burned stands than in thinned-only stands, and that there 

is only a marginal increase in activity in burned stands over control stands. 

Some evidence suggests that structural changes caused by wildfire may be 

beneficial for bats when there is a reduction in canopy structure and changes tree 

species composition (Kalcounis et al. 2008). Studies on the northern bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis) by Lacki et al. (2009) and Johnson et al. (2009) in deciduous 

forests have found no significant change in roosting habits or sizes of home 

ranges or core areas. However, these studies did find some changes in preference 

for roost sites with higher percentages of fire-killed stems and trees with 

greater percentage bark coverage. Generally, bats are highly sensitive to canopy 

clutter and individual species vary in clutter tolerance. Managers interested in 

specific species should consult the primary literature for information on specific 

habitat requirements. Additionally, individual species have different roosting 

requirements, and managers responsible for maintaining tree roosting bat species 

should consider the effect that burn intensity will have on snag availability and 

Table 1.— Wildlife response to fire (article counts by type of fire)

Total article counts 

(all types of fire) Fire use Prescribed fire

Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative

Mammals 27 19 15 12 11 8 15 13 7

Birds* 21 12 6 10 2 8 7 10 2

Herpetofauna 5 5 5 - - - 4 5 4

Total 53 36 26 22 13 16 26 28 13

*Responses for birds are a mix of individual responses and community responses, including diversity changes.
58 Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major Taxonomic Groups

take precautions to preserve known roost trees with areas scheduled for burns, as 

well as other suitable snags. In the absence of more studies on the effects of fire 

on chiropterans, land managers interested in managing for bats should consult 

literature on the relationship between forest structure, roost site availability, 

and bats. 

Canidae: Few studies have been published on the effects of fire on canids; 

none have been published on canids in the Great Lakes region. No information 

on the effects of fire on foxes in this region were found in the literature. 

Within chaparral in Arizona, fire was found to have a negative impact on 

coyote immediately after the fire, but there was no significant change in use 

(Cunningham et al. 2006). In the sub-arctic taiga in Alaska, fire was found 

to have negative effects on wolves immediately after fire, but wolves’ use of 

burned areas after 3 years was similar to that from before fire (Ballard et al 

2000). Decreased use of burned habitat by wolves is likely due to decreased prey 

abundance (Ballard et al. 2000).

Felidae: Few studies have been published on the effects of fire on felids; none 

have been published on felids in the Great Lakes region. No published studies 

on the effects of fire on bobcats were found in the primary literature. In southern 

pine forests in Florida, recently burned areas (<1 year since burn) experienced 

16.7 percent higher use by pumas than older burns (2 to 4 years since fire) 

(Dees et al. 2001). In contrast, lynx have been found to use middle-aged burns 

almost exclusively over recent or historic burns (Magoun 1997). Preferential 

use of middle-aged burns by lynx is attributed to snowshoe hare abundance, and 

managers interested in using fire in areas with lynx populations are encouraged to 

read the information on lagomorphs (Fox 1978).

Ursidae: Only a handful of studies on the effects of fire on black bears have 

been published in the primary literature. Schwartz and Franzmann (1991) 

provide the only study in the boreal forest, finding that black bears using recent 

wildfire burns exhibited greater weight and survival rates than those using older 

burns. However, other studies in southern pine forests and chaparral have found 

decreased fecundity and use of recently burned areas (Stratman and Pelton 

2007, Cunningham and Ballard 2004, Cunningham et al. 2003). Within burned 

areas, Stratman and Pelton (2007) found that bears concentrated use in areas 

that were burned 3 years previously, and Cunningham et al. (2003) found that 

black bears exhibited increased use of unburned islands within burned areas, 

although bear use of burned areas increased each year after fire. Within burned 

areas, Cunningham and Ballard (2004) found a shift in sex ratio in bears >1 year 

old from a preburn ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 males to females, along with decreased 

reproductive rates and fecundity among females. In contrast, Schwartz and 
Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major Taxonomic Groups 59

Franzmann (1991) found a higher ratio of females to males in both recent and 

middle-aged burns, as well as an increased number in yearlings in the recent 

burn due to higher fecundity rates and survival. The most important factors 

in determining whether fire will have a positive or negative impact on black 

bears appear to be changes in food and cover availability, specifically in the 

availability of hard mast vs. soft mast and ungulate prey (Stratman and Pelton 

2007, Cunningham et al. 2003, Schwartz and Franzmann 1991). In general, 

managers interested in treating areas with black bear populations with fire should 

consider the effects that fire will have on local food resources; it seems unlikely 

that prescribed fires in the boreal forest will reduce suitable cover enough for 

black bears to avoid burned areas. Managers interested in the effects of fire on 

black bears are strongly encouraged to read the monograph by Schwartz and 

Franzmann (1991), which contains a large quantity of relevant information.

Procyonidae: Little published information is available on the effects of fire 

on raccoons, but it appears that raccoons avoid burned areas; in longleaf pine 

forests, Jones et al. (2004) found raccoons were 62 percent more likely to use 

unburned stands. However, in an oak savanna in Minnesota, Sunquist (1967) 

found no alteration in raccoon behavior 4 days after fire. 

Mustelidae: Information on mustelid response to fire is limited; no published 

studies could be found for individual species other than the American marten. 

Marten, it appears, may be negatively affected by fire (Paragi et al 1996). In 

particular, juvenile males have been found at higher densities in 6 to 9 year 

old burns than in surrounding mature forest, suggesting that these areas may 

act as population “sinks” (Paragi et al. 1996). However, when wildfire creates 

a diversity of habitats, fire may be beneficial to martens over time thorough 

increased cover and food types.

Lagomorpha: Little has been published regarding the effects of fire on 

lagomorphs. The effects of fire appear to be time dependent for snowshoe hare 

(Keith and Surrendi 1971, Magoun 1997). Negative responses by snowshoe hare 

appear to be limited to the first year after fire, as Keith and Surrendi (1971) found 

that snowshoe hares reoccupied burned areas in the year following wildfire. 

Similarly, (Magoun 1997) found that snowshoe hares used middle-aged burned 

areas more extensively than other burn ages. Conversely, King et al. (1991) found 

increases in cottontail abundance in the first 2 years following prescribed fire. 

Changes in use of burned areas by lagomorphs appear to be strongly influenced 

by cover availability and browse availability and type (Keith and Surrendi 1971, 

King et al. 1991, Magoun 1997). In boreal regions, managers concerned with 

snowshoe hare populations should pay particular attention to the availability of 

willow and aspen browse (Magoun 1997).
60 Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major Taxonomic Groups

Castoridae: Only one published study on the relationship between fire and 

beaver could be found in the primary literature. From this single article, it 

appears that fire negatively impacts beaver, as the number of active beaver 

lodges and colonies on Elk Island National Park decreased following fire (Hood 

et al. 2007). Decreases in the number of active lodges and colonies appear to be 

related to decreased food availability due to increase herbivory by cervids (Hood 

et al. 2007).

Cervidae: A more substantial body of information is available for cervids, 

including some on cervids within the Great Lakes region. Strong evidence from 

these research articles suggests that fire is beneficial for all cervids in the Great 

Lakes region. In the boreal forest, white-tailed deer have been found to change 

their temporal use patterns of burned stands, increasing their use of burned 

aspen stands (Irwin 1975). Heavier use of burned aspen stands corresponds to 

the greatest output of biomass of available forest types post-fire, although use of 

coniferous stands increased in early spring and late fall (Irwin 1975). Similarly, 

in southern pine forests in Mississippi, recently burned areas were found to have 

improved foraging habitat with forb biomass approximately three times higher 

than unburned control plots (Jones et al. 2009, Mixon et al. 2009). However, in a 

rangeland habitat use of burned areas decreased after a spike in use 1 to 2 months 

post-fire (Meek et al. 2008). Use or avoidance of burned areas by white-tailed 

deer is strongly related to browse availability (Irwin 1975, Meek et al. 2008, 

Jones et al. 2009, Mixon et al. 2009).

Elk also respond favorably to fire, and have been found to increase foraging 

activity in burned areas in the 1 to 2 years following a burn (Van Dyke and 

Darragh 2007). Despite increased use of burned areas, Long et al. (2008) found 

that this preferential selection was strongest in spring, although elk exhibited 

no selection within home ranges. However, Long et al. (2009) found that males 

avoid all burned stands in spring, while burned stands were avoided or used 

in proportion to availability by both sexes. Increased use of burned areas is 

attributed to increased quantity and possibly increased quality of forage (Van 

Dyke and Darragh 2007, Long et al. 2009).

As with white-tailed deer and elk, moose also exhibit positive responses to 

burned areas. Peek (1974) found rapid migration of moose into burned areas 

while Rempel et al. (1997) found higher moose density in burned areas, 

particularly at edges. Irwin (1975) observed a change in temporal use of burned 

stands, with burned aspen stands receiving the most use, corresponding with 

increased biomass.
Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major Taxonomic Groups 61

Scuiridae: Information on scuirids and their response to fire is extremely limited. 

Fire appears to negatively impact flying squirrels, likely due to decreases in food 

resources, although detection ability may be a factor (Meyer et al. 2007, Zwolak 

and Foresman 2007). Red squirrels have not been found to exhibit any strong 

response to fire, although the endangered subspecies Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

grahamensis was observed to have a high (35 percent) direct mortality rate 

in a group of radio-collared individuals (Koprowski et al. 2006, Russell et al. 

2008). Least chipmunks have been observed to increase in population size in fall 

following a burn (Martell 1984), although as a group chipmunks have not been 

found to exhibit any strong response to fire (Zwolak and Foresman 2007).

Micromammals (Soricidae, Muridae): Micromammals vary widely in their 

response to fire, however, due to the large number of species within this 

group, family information has been briefly summarized according to general 

large trends.

Soricidae: Shrews do not appear to exhibit any negative response to fire, 

although based on cover preferences abundances of different species may be 

expected to change with time (Greenberg et al. 2007).

Muridae: Southern red-backed voles respond negatively to reductions in 

slash and cover caused by fire (Martel 1984, Simon et al. 2002, Sullivan et 

al. 1999, Zwolak and Foresman 2007). Meadow voles, in contrast, respond 

either positively to fire (Sullivan et al. 1999), or to exhibit no strong response 

(Geluso and Bragg 1986, Simon et al. 2002). Deer mice response to fire is well 

documented across a wide variety of different habitats, and in most habitat types 

(as represented by the National Fire and Fire Surrogate project) have been found 

to generally respond positively to fire (Converse et al. 2006). Indeed, deer mice 

have been found to be the most abundant small mammal in recently burned 

areas, accounting for as much as 64.7 percent of all rodents captured (Zwolak 

and Foresman 2007). So positive is the response of deer mice to fire that one 

study found population levels to expand 2 to 25 times that of preburn levels 

(Martell 1984).

Birds: The selection of birds included in this review is based largely on the list of 

birds provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at http://www.

dnr.state.mn.us/animap/index.html. From this initial list, grassland birds were 

removed as well as birds that did not include in their home range the Laurentian 

mixed-pine ecosystem. 
62 Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major Taxonomic Groups

Avian communities: It is apparent that fire, whether prescribed or naturally 

ignited, can have some significant immediate effects on avian community 

structure (Apfelbaum and Haney 1981, Haney et al. 2008, Smucker et al. 2005). 

Although there have been few long-term studies on the effects of fire on birds, 

post-fire bird communities change significantly with time since burn (Bock et 

al. 1978, Hobson and Schieck 1999, Haney et al. 2008). Several of the studies 

reviewed found that post-fire avian communities exhibited an increase in species 

richness and abundance (Michael and Thornburgh 1971, Schulte and Niemi 

1998, Smucker et al. 2005, Haney et al. 2008). Almost all found that the species 

composition shifted following fire; changes in community composition have been 

related in most cases to changes in habitat structure and food availability (Bock et 

al. 1978, Apfelbaum and Haney 1981, Blake 1982, Bock and Bock. 1983, Hutto 

1995, Kreisel and Stein 1999, Smucker et al. 2005, Kotliar et al. 2007, Haney 

et al. 2008). Generally, fire reduces habitat closure, and an increase in openforaging species occurs post-fire (Bock et al. 1978, Bock and Bock 1983). When 

fire severity is high and a large number of standing dead trees are created, bark 

foraging species also increase in number immediately post fire (Apfelbaum and 

Haney 1981, Hutto 1995, Hobson and Schieck 1999). Long-term studies indicate 

that species composition begins to resemble prefire communities as vegetation 

approaches prefire levels, however, species diversity may be higher than prefire 

levels (Hobson and Schieck 1999, Haney et al. 2008). 

Woodpeckers: Woodpeckers, particularly those of the genus Picoides, respond 

rapidly to fire, colonizing burned areas in the year immediately following high 

intensity wildfires (Apfelbaum and Haney 1981, Hutto 1995, Koivula and 

Schmiegelow 2007, Haney et al. 2008). Densities of black-backed woodpeckers 

(Picoides arcticus) have been found to be higher than nearby unburned habitats, 

with densities exceeding 0.2 individuals /ha (Murphy and Lehnhausen 1998). 

Several studies have found that several species of woodpecker, including the 

black-backed woodpecker, hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), and red-headed 

woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) select nest sites close to unburned 

habitats (Covert-Bratland et al. 2006, Vierling and Lentile 2006, Nappi and 

Drapeau 2009). Furthermore, nesting success of black-backed woodpeckers is 

higher in these areas (Nappi and Drapeau 2009). Densities of black-backed and 

three-toed woodpeckers in burned habitats peaks the year immediately postfire, and decrease significantly 2 and 3 years post-fire (Murphy and Lehnhausen 

1998, Nappi and Drapeau 2009). Hairy woodpeckers exhibit a similar pattern, 

with home ranges increasing with time since burn, and high-severity burn areas 

decreasing in importance between 3 and 6 years post-fire. In contrast to the 

improved nesting success of the Picoides woodpeckers, red-headed woodpecker 

has been found to have lower nest success in burned areas than that reported in 

unburned habitats (Vierling and Lentile 2006). This result should be interpreted 
Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major Taxonomic Groups 63

cautiously however, as the study that found lower nesting success did not 

measure nesting success in unburned habitat, but compared the nesting success 

rate of their study to other studies. In general, woodpeckers respond favorably 

to wildfires that create an abundance of snags. However, it is unlikely that low 

intensity prescribed fires that do not create high densities of snags will illicit 

a response.

Grouse: Only two articles were found concerning grouse and fire; one for 

the spruce grouse (Falcipennis canadensis) and one for the sage grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus). High severity wildfire reduced spruce grouse 

densities from 97 birds/km2

 prefire to 40/km2 post-fire (Elliston 1975). 

Furthermore, concentrations of spruce grouse were found in unburned habitat 

adjacent to burned habitat, and individuals banded in the burn area prior to fire 

were harvested by hunters up to 10 km from the study area (Elliston 1975). In 

contrast, sage grouse did not exhibit any response to prescribed fire (Fischer 

et al 1997).

Wood thrush: Only two articles were located that focused solely on the effects 

of fire on the wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina). Low-intensity prescribed fires 

appear to have no significant positive or negative impact on this species (Lang et 

al. 2002, Artman and Downhower 2003). However, nesting locations in burned 

areas were in areas with greater canopy cover and higher moisture levels (Artman 

and Downhower 2003). Emigration from burned habitats may be expected to be 

lower than emigration from unburned habitats, with juveniles dispersing from 

burned habitat selecting densely covered hardwood habitats (Lang et al. 2002).

Wild turkey: Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) appear to have a positive 

response to fire both in the short and long term. In the first few months after fire, 

turkey exhibit a preference for burned habitats (Main and Richardson 2002). 

Similarly, increased use of burned habitat by turkeys has been found in the years 

post-fire (Miller and Conner 2007). Merriam’s wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo 

merriami) exhibits no significant response to fire by roost site abundance or 

number of new roosts (Martin et al. 2005).

Herpetofauna: The effects of fire on herpetofauna in the Great Lakes region is 

largely unexplored; no specific studies were found that focus on this area. The 

bulk of the information on the effects of fire on herpetofauna comes from the 

southeastern and northwestern United States. The focus on these areas represents 

an unfortunate gap in the information available to forest managers in the 

Laurentian mixed-pine ecosystem trying to preserve herpetofaunal assemblages. 

To provide some relevant information on the effects of fire on herpetofauna, 

studies that include at least two species present in the Great Lakes region have 
64 Appendix: Species Response to Fire by Major Taxonomic Groups

been reviewed with the relevant species noted. In almost all cases these studies 

focus on species abundance, richness and evenness, rather than on individual 

species. The notable exception to this case is a study on the massasauga 

rattlesnake (Sistrus catenatus), by Durbian (2006), which found a deceased 

individual after a grassland fire; pre-fire mowing in preparation for the prescribed 

burn resulted in a mortality rate of 43 percent. However, due to the low sample 

size, the effects of fire in this case are unclear, beyond the author’s suggestion 

to avoid mowing and burning while massasauga rattlesnake are active. Because 

no other articles focused on individual species, only select other species noted in 

other studies on herpetofaunal assemblages will be noted individually.

The bulk of the studies reviewed gave similar information on the effects of fire 

on herpetofauna, primarily, that fire had negative or no significant impacts on 

amphibians, and positive or no significant impacts on reptiles (McLeod and 

Edwards 1998, Jones et al. 2000, Greenberg and Waldrop 2008, Matthews et al. 

2008, Perry et al. 2009, Moseley et al. 2010). More specifically, several studies 

have found that fire negatively affects several species of salamanders (Scharbon 

and Fauth 2003, Matthews et al. 2008). American toads (Bufo americanus) 

diverge notably from the negative or neutral trend in responses of amphibians, as 

Kirkland et al. (1996) and Greenberg and Waldrop (2008) both found increases 

in their abundance after fire; in the case of Kirkland et al. (1996) American toads 

accounted for 70.8 percent of all amphibian captures post-fire.

Explanations for the response of herpetofauna to fire, although covering a variety 

of measurable variables, are largely related to micro-site changes in cover and 

moisture. Amphibians likely exhibit negative responses to fire when micro-site 

characteristics after fire are more xeric than pre-fire conditions (Matthews et al. 

2008). In contrast, reductions in canopy cover create basking opportunities for 

reptiles, which are more tolerant of xeric conditions (Matthews et al. 2008).
Printed on Recycled Paper

Toman, Eric; Hix, David M.; Goebel, P. Charles; Gehrt, Stanley D.; Wilson, Robyn S.; 

Sherry, Jennifer A.; Silvis, Alexander; Nyamai, Priscilla; Williams, Roger A.; McCaffrey, 

Sarah. 2014. Hazardous fuels management in mixed red pine and eastern white 

pine forest in the northern Lake States: A synthesis of knowledge. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-134. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 64 p.

Fuels reduction decisions are made within a larger context of resource management 

characterized by multiple objectives including ecosystem restoration, wildlife management, 

commodity production (from timber to nontraditional forest products), and provision of 

recreation opportunities and amenity values. Implementation of fuels treatments is strongly 

influenced by their perceived influence on and compatibility with overarching management 

objectives. In some cases these objectives may be complementary while in others they 

may involve difficult tradeoffs. Such tradeoffs are only further complicated by institutional 

mandates, limited availability of information, and complex ownership patterns. Like natural 

resource managers across the United States, those in the northern Lake States must 

balance these competing demands as they seek to build their management programs. 

However, there is limited information available to support these management decisions 

in the mixed red (Pinus resinosa Ait.) and eastern white pine (P. strobus L.) forests of the 

northern Lake States. 

This report informs fuels management decisions in the northern Lake States by 

synthesizing existing knowledge from the fields of silviculture, forest ecology, wildlife 

ecology, forest economics, public acceptance, and decision science. We provide an 

overview of forests and fire regimes in the northern Lake States followed by a description 

of different fuels treatment techniques and their expected outcomes. We then include a 

discussion of comprehensive management principles to consider in developing fire and 

fuels management programs for the region. 

KEY WORDS: Great Lakes mixed conifer, fuels reduction, prescribed fire, forest thinning

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Northern Research Station

www.nrs.fs.fed.us