This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: in favor of fall burns, microbes and megafauna

There seems to be considerable evidence that native Americans did burn
forests and prairies in the fall, however, burning in the fall reduces the
potential of winter cover for a host of species which live in grasslands and
prevents the retention of snow which in many cases is important for the
filling of prairie potholes.  

We have been burning in early spring for the past 20 plus years and find
that fire only enhances what you have planted.  If your planting contains
good diversity, it is enhanced, if it contains few forbs and lots of grass,
the grass is favored.  It appears to me that there could be a slight shift
toward warm season grasses from very late spring burns, but very little
effect from early spring burns.  We have plantings that have been burned for
10 consecutive years and the forbs are not only holding their own, but each
specimen is increasing in size.  What is missing in most reconstructions or
restorations is diversity and a really good matrix of species which give the
community dynamic properties.

Carl Kurtz

Central Iowa

----------
>From: Frank Hassler <FIshMan473@mac.com>
>To: prairie@mallorn.com
>Subject: in favor of fall burns, microbes and megafauna
>Date: Fri, Jan 1, 1904, 12:43 AM
>

>I admit that I am a relative amateur at this, but it is my opinion that
>since prairie fires naturally occurred in late summer and fall, and
>therefore the native plants are adapted best to burning at this time,
>this is when we should burn.  Regardless of the short term effects, we
>need to reconstruct as best as possible the pre-settlement conditions. 
>Fall burns may not have as dramatic a negative effect on brome or
>whatever other eurasian weeds, but over the long term I would think that
>the positive effects on the native flora and fauna would give the
>prairie the advantage.  I think burning any other time then fall or late
>summer is gardening, not restoration.
>
>It is however apparent that aggressive burning favors native grasses
>over forbs.  What was it that naturally balanced this out, giving us the
>abundance and diversity of forbs we believe existed in pre-settlement
>prairies?  So many restorations are grass dominated, this often has to
>do with the ratio grass to forb seeds planted, but it seems apparent
>that in most cases, something is missing.  Could it be that microbes or
>megafauna are the missing ingredient?  We know that most soils we try to
>restore prairies in has become relatively sterile due to intensive
>agriculture, are soil microorganisms the missing ingredient to forb
>success?  Or is it the conspicuously missing large animals?  Did bison
>and elk graze the prairie into a level playing field?  Did turkeys,
>prairie chickens, passenger pigeons, other grassland birds and rodents
>also act in ways favoring forbs?  What exactly are we missing?
>
>regards,
>Frank "FishMan" Hassler
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>"...many business leaders and U.S. oil companies fear the 
>costs of stopping the earth from heating up could have 
>equally damaging effects on economic growth and jobs."
>-- ABCNews.com
>
>GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!  (greedy bastards)
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
>message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index