:c flT,cJ/ '1 

NP 

PREDICTING SUCCESS 

OF PRESCRIBED FIRES 

IN PINYON-JUNIPER WOODLAND 

IN NEVADA 

Allen D. Bruner and Donald A. Klebenow 

f ,""", USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-219 

- "U~ST - INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION e

" 

.~ Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture· Ogden, Utah 84401 

This file was created by scanning the printed publication.

Errors identified by the software have been corrected;

however, some errors may remain.

PREDICTING SUCCESS 

OF PRESCRIBED FIRES 

USDA Forest Service 

Research Paper INT- 219 

April 1979 

IN PINYON-JUNIPER WOODLAND 

IN NEVADA 

Allen D. Bruner and Donald A .. Klebenow 

Cooperati ve study between the 

USDA Forest Service, 

and 

Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station 

Intermountain Forest and Range ExperIment Station 

Forest Service 

U. S. Department of Agriculture 

Ogden, Utah 84401 
THE AUTHORS 

ALLEN D. BRUNER is a Range Research Associate with the Renewable 

Natural Resources Division, Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture, University of Nevada, Reno. He received his B. S. degree 

(1961) in crop production from California Polytechnic College and 

his M. S. degree (1967) in range management from the University of 

Nevada. He has been in his present position since 1969. 

DONALD A. KLEBENOW is an Associate Professor of Wildlife with the 

Renewable Natural Resources Division, Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture, University of ·Nevada, Reno. He received his 

B. S. degree (1960) in forestry and his M. S. degree (1962) in wildlife 

management at the University of Montana; his Ph. D. degree (1968) 

in wildlife ecology was received at the University of Idaho. He was 

Assistant Professor at Texas Tech University from 1968 to 1971 and 

has been in his present position since 1971. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

We thank Paul Demeule, presently Range Conservationist on the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming; Garth Baxter, presently Hoback 

District Ranger on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming; and the 

staff of Humboldt National Forest at Ely, Nevada, who gave assistance 

and backing in our numerous burning attempts. 
~' ': :' . 

RESEARCH SUMMARY 

Prescribed burning is an inexpensive management tool which can be used 

for converting pinyon-juniper woodlands to brush-grassland communities 

that benefit wildlife and livestock grazing. One of the difficulties of prescribed 

burUing is predicting whether or not conditions are right for a successful 

burn. In this study, 30 prescribed burns were attempted out of fire season 

from fall 1974 to fall 1976. These attempts were made during varied atmospheric conditions and in several pinyon-juniper communities, but only 12 of 

the 30 attempts were successful. An analysis of the burns showed that the 

success of a burn could be predicted accurately (89 percent) by adding together 

the maximum windspeed in miles per hour, the air temperature in degrees 

Fahrenheit, and the percentage of vegetation cover (windspeed [mi/h] + air 

temperature [OF] + vegetation cover [percent] = score). If the score thus obtained was less than 110, the fire would not burn; if it was greater than 130 

it was too hazardous to light. Scores between 110 and 125 produced fires 

Which needed continual retorching, and scores between 126 ana 130 produced fires that carried by themselves and created clean burns. Fires were 

most successful in dispersed, scattered and dense pinvon-juniper stands, 

less successful in open and closed stands. The best ignition technique was to 

have two people walk perpendicular to the wind along the wIndward edge of the 

area to be burned headfiring and ignite trees using smudge pot lighters. 
........ 

CONTENTS 

INTRODU CTION . 

METHODS • 

Ignition . ... • 

Evaluation of Fire Success 

RESULTS •.....•... 

Pinyon-Juniper Communities 

Prediction of Fire Success 

CONCLUSION ..... 

PUBLICATIONS CITED. • 

Page 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

8 

10 

11 
INTRODUCTION 

Pinyon pine (Pinus monophyZla) and juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) occupy approximately 14 percent of Nevada (Blackburn and Tueller 1970). Invasion of pinyon-juniper 

possibly due to past overgrazing and fire suppression often results in the eliminatiop of 

understory vegetation. This in turn decreases forage for livestock and wildlife. Prescribed burning is an inexpensive method of converting small portions of pinyon-juniper 

vegetation to brush-grassland communities that benefit both wildlife and livestock grazing (Aro 1971). 

Most of the woodlands in Nevada have a large degree of nonuniformity due to the 

abruptly changing topography, soil depth, aspect, and elevation. This nonuniformity 

provides many natural firebreaks in most pinyon-juniper stands and makes it easy to 

delineate areas for prescribed burning. 

This report provides burning guidelines for using prescribed fire as a management 

tool in pinyon-juniper communities. The various pinyon-juniper communities have been 

segregated and recommendations are made as to which communities are most responsive to 

fire. From 1974 to 1976, 30 attempts were made to burn pinyon-juniper vegetation in 

the spring and fall. Twelve of these attempts were successful in that the fire carried 

beyond the ignition area through the vegetation leaving few if any unburned areas or 

islands. The best ignition methods were determined, and a simple method for determining 

burning success prior to ignition was developed from analyses of these burns. 

METHODS 

Burning attempts were made out of fire season at three locations: White River in 

the White Pine District and Cherry Springs in the Lamoille District of the Humboldt 

National Forest; and Blackwell Canyon in the Bridgeport District of the Toiyabe National 

Forest (fig. 1). The majority of attempts and all the successful burns were in the 

White River area. 

1 
Cherry • Spri ngs 

White 

• River 

Ignition 

Figure 1.--Areas of experimental 

burning attempts from fall 

1974 to fall 1976 . 

Three tools for igniting trees were compared--conventional drip torches, flamethrowers, and "the orchard heater lighter. The latter, also called the smudge pot lighter, was found to be the ideal tool (Bruner 1977) because its long spout gives a good 

pouring balance and provides some distance between the user and the flame. It emits a 

heavy stream of fuel which, when mixed 50-50 (50 percent gasoline and 50 percent diesel 

oil), remains burning on the bark or needles for 10 to 20 seconds. To ignite a tree, 

pour a heavy stream of burning fuel up and down the trunk from the ground up to 5 or 

6 feet. The dead needles on the ground and any shrubs under the tree should be ignited 

while backing out from under the canopy on the windward side. By directly lighting 

several trees, the ambient temperature of the area increases rapidly and understory 

plants are ignited. It is this initial torch of several trees producing a flame length 

of 20 to 30 feet that is necessary to develop a fire which will carry and create a clean 

burn (fig. 2). Heat and flame are not generated fast enough if only the shrubs are lit, 

especially those in the tree interspaces. Two safety precautions of the tool are: gasoline must be well mixed with diesel oil and the antiflashback screen must be present in 

the spout. 

Several techniques have been tried in igniting pinyon-juniper stands. The best 

method is to have two people walk perpendicular to the wind along the windward edge of 

the area to be burned (headfiring). The lead person can either leave unlit holes for 

the following person to light, or the two people can leap frog past one another. 

Either way, this has been the easiest and the most efficient way to start pinyon-juniper 

fires. 

2 
, ,",",'". 

Figure 2.--A dense pinyon-juniper community after a cZean burn. Conditions the day of 

this burn added to the simpZe score of 126. 

Evaluation of Fire Success 

The degree of success of each burn varied considerably in the 30 burning attempts 

(table 1). Objective rating of burn success is difficult in these highly volatile 

pinyon-juniper vegetation types; the consumption of fuel by the fire seems to be the 

same whether the fire carries well or whether only the immediate ignition area burns. 

For this reason, the success rating falls into three simple categories: (1) after the 

ignition area is lit, the fire carries by itself, burning the area clean, with only 

some retorching necessary; (2) the ignition area needs to be continually lit during the 

entire burn period and some unburned islands occur; (3) the fire does not carry beyond 

the ignition area. 

RESULTS 

Pinyon-Juniper Communities 

When discussing prescribed fire it is important to categorize the various pinyonjuniper communities. Blackburn and Tueller (1970) describe five general communities 

of pinyon-juniper and give a species cover percentage for each named community. By 

adding a range of percent tree cover to those named communities, the following divisions 

were made: 0-2 percent open, 2-9 percent dispersed, 9-23 percent scattered, 23-35 percent dense, and 35+ percent closed. 

3 
'; .", 

Table 1.--Summary of atmospheric conditions~ soil and plant moisture~ and burning suc- cess for 30 burning attempts in the White River, Cherry Springs~ and Blackwell 

Canyon study areas from 1974 to 1976 

Burning conditions 

Burn : :Tempera-:Re1ative: Wind: Soil : Plant : Burn : Area 

:Time 1 : ture :humidity:sEeed:moisture2 :moisture3:success 4 date Location :burned 

of Percent Mi/h Percent Percent Acres 

17 Nov 74 White River 1315 51 26 0-10 2 2 

18 Nov 74 White River 1230 53 27 8-12 3 

24 Apr 75 White River 1400 60 26 5-25 13 50 1 18 

2 May 75 White River 1445 58 20 0- 8 12 48 

3 May 75 White River 1100 56 26 0-10 12 48 ; I 9 

9 May 75 White River 1510 65 16 2- 8 12 50 1 19 

16 May 75 White River 1030 65 14 0- 5 12 49 2 3 

28 May 75 Cherry Spgs 1430 53 32 3-10 13 54 3 

29 May 75 Cherry Spgs 1300 65 20 0-10 13 54 3 

12 Jun 75 White River 1400 77 8 0-12 9 47 1 9 

17 Jun 75 Cherry Spgs 1200 54 90 0- 5 10 49 3 

24 Jun 75 Cherry Spgs 1215 67 5 10-35 8 49 3 

24 Jun 75 Cherry Spgs 1430 56 35 0- 5 8 49 3 

26 Jun 75 Cherry Spgs 1145 65 26 0- 8 8 48 3 

26 Jun 75 Cherry Spgs 1500 74 16 0- 6 8 48 3 

9 Oct 75 White River 1300 53 18 0-10 9 38 2 8 

26 Oct 75 Cherry Spgs 1100 51 40 5-20 17 35 3 

15 Nov 75 White River 1400 55 12 0- 7 3 2 3 

3 May 76 Blackwell 

Canyon 1300 78 7 0- 8 42 0 

10 May 76 White River 1720 70 17 0- 8 11 53 3 

11 May 76 White River 1630 70 23 0-10 11 53 3 

17 May 76 White River 1330 72 19 0-12 1 60 

27 May 76 White River 1515 78 17 3-15 6 3 

28 May 76 Cherry Spgs 1400 72 19 2-12 5 3 

28 May 76 Cherry Spgs 1730 65 9 5-20 5 3 

22 Jun 76 White River 1600 66 20 6-18 2 46 1 25 

23 Jun 76 White River 1500 71 12 4-15 2 46 1 45 

9 Nov 76 White River 1300 56 28 0- 8 7 49 1 6 

10 Nov 76 White River 1430 50 40 0 7 49 3 

9 Dec 76 White River 1130 36 52 2-10 11 49 3 

lTime at ignition. 

2Samp1e 0-4 inches deep. 

3Percent of green weight pinyon. 

40 = too hazardous to light; 1 = fire carried, clean burn; 2 fire needed lighting assistance; 3 = would not burn. 

Three of these five communities are unsuitable for prescribed burning. The open 

and dispersed communities (fig. 3) are excluded because of the small degree of influence the trees have on the understory vegetation of these communities. The closed 

stands (fig. 4) are excluded because of the difficulty in burning them out of fire 

season. Closed communities have few understory shrubs; consequently, hazardous conditions capable of producing a crown fire are necessary before these communities will 

burn successfully. Ten attempts to burn closed stands in this study were unsuccessful. 

One attempt (table 1, 24 June 75, 12:15) was made during hazardous conditions but still 

failed to carry the fire. Because of the hazards, closed stands should be pretreated 

by chaining, windrowing, or other means before attempting to burn them. 

Two communities remain on which burning might best be concentrated--scattered and 

dense (fig. 5). Blackburn and Tueller (1970) state that the scattered community appears 

to be the point in the invasion pattern where pinyon and juniper start to exert their 

influence and begin to dominate the understory species. This causes a sharp reduction 

in the vigor and frequency of the understory. Pinyon and juniper in dense communities 

exert even more influence, dominating the understory to an even greater extent. 

4 
Figure 3.--Open pinyonjuniper communities (top) 

and dispersed pinyonjuniper communities 

(bottom) are not recommended for burning because 

trees are too sparse to 

have much injtuence on the 

understory vegetation. 

5 
6 

Figure 4.--Closed pinyonjuniper communities are 

extremely difficult to 

burn out of fire season. 
Figure 5.--Scattered pinyonjuniper community (top) and 

dense pinyon-juniper community (bottom). Many successful burns occurred in 

these vegetation types. 

7 
, " 

Prediction of Fire Success 

There are many variable conditions at the time of each burn (table 1). Many of 

the atmospheric conditions compensate for each other; a low value of one can be offset 

by a high value of another. When maximum windspeed, air temperature, and percent vegetation cover are added together, this composite score becomes a good indicator of burning success in the scattered and dense pinyon-juniper communities (table 2). The score 

Table 2.--Composite score and burn ratings during 1974-76 burns at White River and 

Blackhlell Canyon~ Nevada 

Simple Discriminant 

Tempera- : Vegetation: score : analysis Actual 

Burn date Windspeed ture cover Score 1 : rating2 : rating 3 rating 

Mi/h of Percent 

No burn prediction (score <110) 

9 Dec 76 10 35 49 94 3 3 3 

10 Nov 76 0 50 51 101 3 3 3 

Continual retorching necessary (score 110-125) 

15 Nov 75 7 55 56 118 2 2 2 

9 Oct 75 10 53 56 119 2 2 2 

16 May 75 5 65 50 120 2 2 2 

10 May 76 8 70 43 121 2 3 3 

2 May 75 8 58 56 122 2 2 2 

3 May 75 10 56 56 122 2 - 2 2 

Clean burn prediction (score 126-130) 

9 Nov 76 8 55 63 126 1 2 1 

17 May 76 12 72 43 127 1 1 1 

27 May 76 6 78 43 127 1 2 3 

22 Jun 76 18 66 43 127 1 1 1 

17 Nov 74 10 51 66 127 1 1 1 

9 May 75 8 65 55 128 1 2 1 

23 Jun 76 15 71 43 129 1 1 1 

12 Jun 75 12 77 42 130 1 1 1 

Hazardous burning conditions (score >130) 

24 Apr 75 25 60 46 131 41 1 1 

3 May 76 8 78 48 134 0 5 5 

IScore is derived by using the following formula: maximum windspeed (mi/h) + 

temperature (OF) + percent vegetation cover = score. 

23 = no burn (score <110); 2 = continual retorching necessary (score 110-125); 

1 = clean burn, fire carries (score 126-130); 0 = too hazardous to burn (score >130). 

3From Klecka (1975). 

4This burn made one short run outside of the intended bound~ries. It was felt 

that we were very close to or into the hazardous conditions for burning. 

5The USFS Class I Fire Boss would not allow ignition this date, so no comparative 

or actual ratings were made. 

8 
is derived by simply adding maximum windspeed in miles per hour, air temperature in 

degrees Fahrenheit, and vegetation cover in percent (wind mi/h + of + percent veg. 

cover = score). If metric measurements are used the formula is 0.6 (km/h) + 1.8 (OC) 

+ percent veg. cover + 32 = score. 

Considering the three fire class ratings of 1, 2, and 3 (table 2), a score of less 

than 110 will not provide conditions necessary for burning (class 3). A score of 110 

to 125 indicates conditions prevail for a class 2 fire. A score of 125 to 130 indicates 

conditions are optimum for a class 1 or self-sustaining fire that will carry itself 

Figure 6.--A class 1 or self-sustaining fire capable of carrying through the vegetation. 

May 9~ 19?5~ burn at White River3 Nevada. 

(fig. 6). A score higher than 1~0 indicates a hazardous condition in the scattered and 

dense pinyon-juniper communities when burning should not be attempted. 

When these simple scores were compared on 17 burns (table 2), 15 of the 17 (88 percent) were correctly classified. A discriminant analysis (Klecka 1975) was used to construct a weighted score of the variables--wind, temperature, and cover--to separate the 

burns into three classes. This more sophisticated method correctly classified 82 percent 

of the burns. With more observations, these results would change; however, the simple 

score method compares very favorably with the discriminant analysis. 

This simple scoring applies to the cooler months of April, May, October, and November, or anytime when air temperatures are below 75°F and windspeeds are above 5 mi/h. 

Total vegetation cover varied from 42 to 66 percent on all successful burns (table 2). 

Forb and grass cover was minimal in all areas. 

There appears to be a narrow separation between conditions necessary for prescribed 

burning which will adequately carry a fire and those of a wildfire which develop concern 

9 
toward suppression. The score of 130 appears to be close to this separation point. Of 

those burning attempts made during the project, conditions above 131 were not tested and 

no fires became dangerous or burned excessive acreages beyond the expected limits. 

It is certain there are numerous and more complex variables involved in fire spread 

potential; however, this simple score seems to work as a general rule of thumb and it 

provides a guide for the land manager. 

CONCLUSION 

Land managers wanting to do out-of-fire-season burning are sometimes reluctant because they are not sure of the conditions needed to carry a fire. Many times, a day is 

spent in preparation and travel to the proposed burn site only to find that conditions 

are not adequate to carry a fire. A simple rule of thumb would aid in this burn or noburn decision. The managers needs to know only the sum of the maximum windspeed in 

miles per hour, the air temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, and the percent vegetative 

cover (mi/h + of + percent veg. cover = score) to predict if his fire will be successful. 

A score of less than 110 will not provide conditions necessary for burning. A 

score of 110 to 125 indicates conditions prevail for burning; however, the area will 

need to be continually reignited during the entire burn period and unburned islands 

will occur. A score of 125 to 130 is optimum. After the ignition area is lit, the 

fire will carry by itself burning the area clean, with only some reignition necessary. 

A score above 130 indicates a hazardous condition in the scattered and dense pinyonjuniper communities when burning should not be attempted. 

If the percent cover of vegetation is measured prior to burning and the desired 

wind direction is known for ignition points, the manager can predict his chances for a 

successful burn from the daily weather forecasts. 

10 
PUBLICATIONS CITED 

Aro, R. W. 

1971. Evaluation of pinyon-juniper conversion to grassland. J. Range Manage. 

24:188-197. 

Blackburn, W. H., and P. T. Tueller. 

1970. Pinyon-juniper invasion in black sagebrush communities in east-central Nevada. 

Ecology 51(5) :841-848. 

Bruner, A. D. 

1977. Smudge pot lighter--an effective tool for prescribed burning in pinyon-juniper. 

J. Range Manage. 30:399. 

Klecka, William R. 

1975. Discriminant analysis. In Norman H. Nie and others~ eds., Statistical package 

for the social sciences, 2nd-ed., p. 434-467. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

11 

*u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-0-677-019/72 

Bruner, Allen D., and Donald A. Klebenow. 

1979. Predicting success of prescribed fires in pinyon-juniper woodlands 

in Nevada. USDA For. Servo Res. Pap. INT-219, 12 p. Intermt. For. 

and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah 84401. 

Thirty prescribed burns were attempted in pinyon-juniper woodlands from 

fall 1974 to fall 1976. These attempts were made out of fire season, during 

varied atmospheric conditions, and in several pinyon-juniper communities. 

An analysis of the successful burns provided us with a method for predicting 

burning success from windspeed, air temperature, and vegetation cover. An 

igniting technique is also discussed. 

KEYWORDS: Pinyon-Juniper ecology, prescribed fire, burning technique 

Bruner, Allen D., and Donald A. Klebenow. 

1979. Predicting Sl'ccess of prescribed fires in pinyon-juniper woodlands 

in Nevada. USDA For. Servo Res. Pap. INT-2l9, 12 p. Intermt. For. 

and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah 84401. 

Thirty prescribed burns were attempted in pinyon-juniper woodlands from 

fall 1974 to fall 1976. These attempts were made out of fire season, during 

varied atmospheric conditions, and in several pinyon-juniper communities. 

An analysis of the successful burns provided us with a method for predicting 

burning success from windspeed, air temperature, and vegetation cover. An 

igniting technique is also discussed. 

KEYWORDS: Pinyon-Juniper ecology, prescribed fire, burning technique 
Headquarters for the Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station are in Ogden, Utah. 

Field programs and research work units are 

maintained in: 

Billings, Montana 

Boise, Idaho 

Bozeman, Montana (in cooperation with 

Montana State University) 

Logan, Utah (in cooperation with Utah State 

University) 

Missoula, Montana (in cooperation with 

University of Montana) 

Moscow, Idaho (in cooperation with the 

University of Idaho) 

Provo, Utah (in cooperation with Brigham 

Young University) 

Reno, Nevada (in cooperation with the 

University of Nevada)