\ IdHT A HON Rl SI'ONSI- TO .SUMMER BURNING
IN Till Mil..!. COUNTRY Oh Tl XAS
by
SHi I.DON MARK WIMMHR. B.S.
A THHSIS
IN
RANGE .SCIENCE
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved
Chairpei:>uu ui uic vjwuimitiee
Accepted
Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2003 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Carlton Britton for his encouragement and guidance throughout this study. His knowledge and advice about research methods proved tme many times over. I especially appreciate his concern, about not only my education, but my family as well.
I also thank Dr. David Wester for his friendship and advice through long discussions concerning the design of this study. Dr. Wester was always willing to spend time with me. and continually challenge me as a student. His love of teaching has been an excellent example.
I am grateful to Dr. Warren Ballard for his advice and thorough editing of my proposal and thesis. His work has helped me become a better vmter. I extend appreciation to Keith Blair for his work and dedication to this project. He opened his home to me during burning and data collection. Keith assisted me with plant identification and hours of field training. He is a good example of what a fire boss should be.
I am especially grateful to Brent Racher for his help in initiating the fieldwork of this study. Brent made insightful and reliable suggestions that improved data collection.
He has spent many hours on my behalf and for that I will always be grateful. I appreciate fieldwork assistance from Brian Essex, Russell Fox, Jason Hohlt, Jim Bob Reavis, Jason
Singhurst, and my wife, Carrie.
11 I am especially grateful for service provided by the fire crew of Texas Tech
University: Wade Abbott, Miguel Avila, Justin Bryan, Jennifer Davidson, Jason Eckert,
Brian Essex, Russell Fox. Jason Hohlt, Dr. Rob Mitchell, Bmce Meyer. Jim Bob Reavis,
Ricardo Soto, Clint Taylor, and Joseph Treadway. Texas Parks and Wildife provided fire crews that included: Jon Byrd. Cory Evans, Paul David Fuentes, Orlando De La Garza,
Zane McGehee, and Jeff Sparks.
1 am grateful to Mrs. Ann Jolesch and her family for providing me with financial assistance during my time here. Further, I wish to thank the Department of Range
Wildlife and Fisheries Management and Texas Tech University.
None of my work here could have been possible without the help of my family.
My wife, Carrie, has always encouraged me and helped me see things I did not always see. Her example of persistence and dedication has inspired me throughout this degree program. I am gratefiil to my parents who have supported this continuance in my education as well as their help with our daughter, Marlynn. I am personally grateful to my father who instilled an interest in nature early in my Ufe, and I dedicate this thesis to him.
m TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. LFFERATURE REVIEW 3
Historical Fire Background 3
Vegetation Fire Response 4
Grass Response to Summer Buming 4
Forb Response to Summer Buming 6
Woody Plant Response to Summer Burning 7
Ashe juniper 7
Live oak 7
Greenbriar 7
Cacti 7
m. MATERL\LS AND METHODS 9
Location 9
Climate 9
Range Site Descriptions 10
iv Field Methods 11
Vegetation Measurements 13
Fire Application 15
Statistical Analysis 16 rV. RESULTS 18
Precipitation 18
Clay Loam Range Site 21
Herbaceous Yield 21
Frequency 21
Density 25
Canopy Cover 25
Juniper Subtype 28
Herbaceous Yield 28
Frequency 28
Density 33
Live Oak Subtype 36
Herbaceous Yield 36
Frequency 36
Density 40
V. DISCUSSION 45
Vegetation Response 45
Management ImpUcations 48 REFERENCES 50
APPENDIX: FMH DATA SHEETS 54
VI ABSTRACT
Vegetation response to summer buming is of interest to private and public land
managers who may use it to manipulate vegetation. Effects of summer buming were
tested at two sites at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas, in summers
2000 and 2001, and at Hill Country Slate Natural Area, Medina County, Texas, summer
2001. Study sites are located on redland range sites at Colorado Bend State Park, and on
clay loam sites at Hill Country State Natural Area, hi each study site, twelve, 30-m
transects were installed for smdy. Six transects were burned, and six were unbumed
(control) transects. Vegetation measurements were collected prior to, and 1 and 2 years
after late-summer buming depending on site.
With few exceptions, summer buming had little effect upon vegetation response.
Exceptions mcluded significant declines in greenbriar density, Texas croton frequency,
and Texas wintergrass frequency, 1-year post-bum on clay loam sites at Hill Country
State Natural Area. Litter was reduced 1 -and 2-years post-bum on the 2000 bum site at
Colorado Bend State Park, and woodsorrel and tasajillo frequency and density declined,
1-year post-bum on 2001 bum sites (Colorado Bend State Park).
Unusual rainfall events affected the results of this study, and consequently, fiirther
smdy is required for comparison with relatively normal years. At present, however,
summer burning is not recommended for these sites, but may be an effective bmsh confrol technique on more productive sites.
vii LIST OF TABLES
4.1. Yield (kg/ha) treatment means (standard errors) for clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area. Medina County, Texas 22
4.2. Frequency (%) treatment means (untransformed) for clay loam plots burned in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area, Medina County, Texas 23
4.3. Frequency means (untransformed) for Texas wintergrass in clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area, Medina County, Texas 24
4.4. Frequency means (untransformed) for Texas croton in clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area, Medina County, Texas 24
4.5. Density treatment means (standard errors) for clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area, Medina County, Texas 26
4.6. Density (#/ha) means for greenbriar on clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area, Medina County, Texas 27
4.7. Yield (kg/ha) means for juniper plots bumed in 2000 at Colorado Bend State Park San Saba County, Texas 29
4.8. Yield (kg/ha) means for Utter in juniper plots bumed in 2000 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas 30
4.9. Yield (kg/ha) means for total herbaceous phytomass in juniper plots bumed at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas 30
4.10. Frequency (%) means (unfransformed) for juniper plots bumed in 2000 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas 31
4.11. Density (#/m^) means (standard errors) for juniper plots bumed in 2000 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas 34
4.12. Yield (kg/ha) means (standard errors) for live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas 37
VllI 4.13. Frequency (%) treatment means (untransformed) for live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas 38
4.14. Frequency means (untransformed) for woodsorrel in live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Colorado Bend State Park. San Saba County, Texas 39
4.15. Frequency means for tasajillo in live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas 41
4.16. Density (#/m^) means (standard errors) for live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas 42
4.17 Density means (#/ha) for tasajillo in live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Colorado Bend State Parte, San Saba County, Texas 44
IX LIST OF FIGURES
3.1, Vegetation transect diagram 12
4.1. Monthly average precipitation data for Tarpley, Texas, for 2000, 2001, and 2002. Line average indicates normal precipitation 19
4.2. Monthly average precipitation data for Nix Store, Lampasas County, Texas, for 2000, 2001, and 2002. Line average indicates normal precipitation 20
.•\.l. Fire monitoring handbook datasheet FMH-18 55
A.2. Fire monitoring handbook datasheet FMH-19 56
A.3. Fire monitoring handbook datasheet FMH-23 side one 57
.A4. Fire monitoring handbook datasheet FMH-23 side two 58 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Historical records of the northem Great Plains suggested that naturally caused fires occurred throughout the year, with a majority occurring during summer months
(Higgins 1986). Summarized fire records from Nebraska indicate that 66% of Ughttiing- caused fires occurred during summer (Bragg 1982). Fire records provided by Texas
Forest Service indicated that 13% of summer fires in 2000 were attributed to lightening ignition (Scott 2001).
Prescribed summer buming attempts to imitate natural fire regimes, whereas winter and early spring buming are preferred management tools that favor warm season plants over less desirable cool season plants (Ewing and Engle 1988). Buming prescriptions developed over the past 30 years can be used to safely conduct winter and early spring bums to be safely conducted on the Texas southern high plains (Wright
1974). Favorable temperature and humidity during spring and winter months allow for safer buming conditions in confrast to hot and dry conditions during summer months.
Reasons why summer buming has not been widely used include: (1) green forage present in summer might not permit a fire to carry (Bragg 1982, Ewing and Engle 1988);
(2) a lack of combustible fuel may not allow brush control to be realized (Ewing and
Engle 1988, Engle et al. 1993); and (3) research has indicated that potential for summer buming varies throughout the growing season, and is dependent on drought, rainfall events, and previous management of the site (Bragg 1982). These reasons prevent summer buming from occurring in many locations, yet quantifying summer bum
vegetation response is needed to further test these ideas for different vegetation types.
For example, bmsh control in Ashe juniper (Juniperus Ashei Buchh.)
communities is a concern for many land managers in the Hill Country of Texas. Land use
practices such as fire suppression and overgrazing facilitate bmsh encroachment by Ashe juniper. Without fire, junipers are able to establish and then exploit water and light
resources. Left undisturbed, junipers may achieve a closed canopy where desirable
grasses and shmbs are excluded (Rasmussen and Wright 1989).
Using summer buming to manage Ashe juniper communities may be an option
given an understanding of vegetation response. Engle et al. (1993) suggested that
summer burning may be used as a cost-effective brush management tool so long it does
not adversely affect herbaceous composition or yields (Engle et al. 1993). Further,
Stransky and Harlow (1981) indicated that many tree and shmb species could be
controlled, if not killed, by frequent summer buming. The objective of this study was to
quantify and test vegetation response to summer burning in the Hill Coimtry of Texas.
HiU Country State Natural Area (Bandera and Medina Counties) and Colorado Bend
State Park (San Saba County) served as two sites for testing summer burning. CHAPTER 11
LITERATURE REVIEW
Historical Fire Background
Prior to civilization, the grasslands of the United States were primarily maintained by lightening-causcd fires (Lehmann 1965, VogI 1974). South Texas rangelands were reported to be open prairie with clumps of shmbs and thickets of woody vegetation
(Hanselka 1980, Scifres 1980). Similar to the grasslands of the northem Great Plains, south Texas rangelands have been maintained by fire disturbances (Lehmann 1965). This process is perpetuated by accumulations of grassland fuels, followed by periods of drying where ignition can occur (Vogl 1974).
Ignition of prairies has historically been accompUshed by lightening and fires intentionally set by man. Indigenous people of North America were known to intentionally set fires for a variety of reasons, including insect abatement, use of fire in warfare, grassland improvement for hunting, driving game animals, and clearing land for agriculture (Hanselka 1980, Komarek 1981, Lehmann 1965, Pyne 1982). These practices were common until European man settled the area (Hanselka 1980).
As European man settled the west, fewer fires were set intentionally and fire was increasingly suppressed. During this time, another change was taking place in the form of heavy grazing. Domestic livestock were permitted to overgraze much of the southwestern United States (HanseUca 1980). Gradually, open prairies were encroached by woody species (Box and White 1969, Hanselka 1980, Scifres 1980). Combined with grazing, suppression of fire enabled woody species to establish and spread in distribution.
Overgrazing is often cited as a reason for increased bmsh density with less blame being attributed to fire suppression (Johnston 1962). At present, fire suppression plays a major role in the maintenance of woody plant species.
If Sequent summer fires helped maintain grasslands and suppress woody plant growth, perhaps buming in the summer is an option to suppress brush and enhance herbaceous growth. Summer buming, however, has not been widely used as a management tool due to loss of forage for the season of buming, dangerous weather conditions, and green or low fiiel loads that may depress bum intensity (Adams 1982,
Ewing and Engle 1988). Consequently, summer burning has received relatively Uttle research attention. What research has been conducted has occurred in tallgrass prairie
(Adams 1982, Bragg 1982, Ewing and Engle 1988, Engle et al. 1992, 1993), and in parts of Texas (Brown 1996, Dodd and Holtz 1972, Mayeux and Hamilton 1988, Stanley 1997,
Tunnel and Ansley 1995). Quantifying vegetation response to summer burning in the Hill
Country of Texas was the objective of this study.
Vegetarion Fire Response
Grass Response to Summer Buming
Reductions in production and basal area from late sunmier fiireshav e been reported as typical responses found in bunchgrasses of Oklahoma tallgrass prairie (Ewing and Engle 1988, Engle et al. 1992,1993). Rhizomatous grasses in the same sttidies showed a rapid growth response to summer buming versus bunchgrasses. Big bluestem {.indropogon gerardii Vitman>), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L), and indiangrass
(Sorghastrum nutans L.) response to late summer bums showed no significant differences between bumed and unbumed plots. When production of all perennial grasses was compared, significant reductions were observed between bumed and unbumed plots only
in the first growing season after late summer buming (Engle et al. 1993).
In south-central Oklahoma, repeated summer bums applied to mid-successional tallgrass prairie significantly favored cool season grass production 2-years post-bum.
Warm season grass production was significantly reduced 3-years post-bum. Repeated summer bums can favor cool season grasses and forbs while suppressing warm season perennial growth (Ewing and Engle 1998).
Grass production in the high plains and coastal plains of Texas differed in response to summer buming. In the Texas high plains, short grasses had significantly lower production the first year following a summer bum, but production during the second year was not different between bumed and unbumed plots (Stanley 1997). Mixed grass production was significantly reduced both 1-year and 2-years post-bum when compared to unbumed plots. Total herbaceous yield and Utter yield, was significantly lower in summer bum plots compared to confrols 1-year and 2-years post-bum (Stanley
1997).
On Matagorda Island, on the coastal plains of Texas, no significant differences in production between summer burned and unbumed plots during first and second years following burning were observed (Brown 1996). Carex spp. frequency was different in summer bum plots versus confrols 1-year post-bum. Two years foUov^dng summer buming. no difference was observed between summer bum and control plots. Litter
yields were statistically different during first and second years following buming (Brown
1996).
hi the Rio Grande Plains, Mayeux and Hamilton (1988) reported that total grass
yield and bunchgrass yield was significantly different in summer bum plots 1-and 4-years
post-bum when compared to unbumed confrols. Specifically, King ranch (KR) bluestem
(Bothriochloa Ischaemum (L.) Keng var. songarica (Fisch. & Mey.) yield was unchanged
1-to 4-years post-bum (Mayeux and Hamilton 1988).
Forb Response to Summer Burning
Variability in forb production is common in summer bum studies. CUmate
conditions following summer bums are often used to explain forb production response
(Box et al. 1967, Engle et al. 1993, Ruthven and Synatzske 2002, Stanley 1997). Further,
the growth stage of individual species during fire appUcation affects forb response
(Hansmire et al. 1988).
In other studies, summer burning on the Rio Grande Plains produced no
significant difference in forb production 1-to 4-years post-bum (Mayeux and Hamilton
1988). On Matagorda Island, Brown (1996) observed no significant change in forb production 1 and 2 years foUowing summer bums. On the Texas high plains, Stanley
(1997) observed an increase in forb production 1-year post-bum with no difference observed 2-years post-bum. Forb production following a fall bum in south Texas chaparral was significantly decreased 1-year post-bum (Box et al. 1967). Woody Plant Response to Summer Buming
Ashe juniper
Summer buming has been cited as a form of bmsh control given that herbaceous production is not severely hampered (Engle et al. 1993). Little research has been conducted on Ashe jumper, live oak, greenbriar, and cacti response to summer buming,
Ashe juniper has been shown not to be fire-adapted because of thin bark and low growing branches that allow fine ftiels to readily ignite canopies (Armsfrong 1980). Effective brush control of small (<1.8 m in height) Ashe junipers following winter buming requires
at least 1,000 kg/ha of fine fuels to ignite canopies (Wink and Wright 1973). In this
study, this standard was tested for summer burning.
Live Oak
Live oak trees are sfrong sprouters in response to fire regardless of season of bum.
The canopies can be top-killed, but resprouting from roots and bases of trees wiU usually
follow within 1 year (Davidson et al. 1988). Greenbriar also has the abiUty to v*dthstand
top-kills by resprouting firam rhizomes (Stransky and Halls 1979).
Greenbriar
Summer buming in Oklahoma indicated that greenbriar canopy cover decreased 1-
year post-bum, although not statistically significant (Adams et al. 1982). Greenbriar and
Uve oak response to summer buming was evaluated in this study. Cacti
Cacti sensitivity to summer buming remains largely untested, although it is accepted that most cacti are fire sensitive (Cable 1967, Heirman and Wright 1973,
Bunting et al. 1980). Tasajillo mortality was reported to be as high as 65%, in response to winter buming in west Texas (Bunting et al. 1980). Greater amounts of fine fuel surrounding cactus plants enhanced mortality in browrnspine prickly pear (Opuntia phaeacantha Engehn.), and delayed mortality can occur several years after buming due to increased insect and mammal predation (Bunting et al. 1980). CHAPTER lU
MATERL\LS AND METHODS
Location
Hill Country State Natural Area (Bandera and Medina Counties) is located 10 miles southwest of Bandera, Texas, on Slate Road 1077 Summer bum sites were located m clay loam range sites, on the southeastem edge of the natural area in north ccnfral
Medina County.
Colorado Bend State Park (San Saba County) is located along the Colorado River,
4 miles south of Bend, Texas, on County Road 442. Two pastures, in redland range sites, were located in the northwest comer of the park, and selected for summer bum freatment.
One pasture was classified as Uve oak (Quercus virginiana Mill.) dominant and the other as Ashe juniper dominant. Each pasture was thought to differ in response to bum treatment because of past management.
Climate
San Saba County was typified by hot summers and warm winters. Weather patterns were bimodal with heaviest precipitation occurring in late spring and early fall
(Bynum 1982). Aimual precipitation was 71.12 cm with 60% falUng in spring months.
Average daily temperatures for winter and summer were 9 ° C and 27 " C, respectively.
Average daily minimum temperature averaged 2 " C with the average daily maximum at
34° C (Bynum 1982). Greatest amounts of precipitation occurred in Medina County during May to June and September to October. The average annual precipitation was 72.29 cm of rain. On the average, there were 263 frost-free days for the year (Dittmar et al. 1977). Medina
County chmate was influenced by both continental and Gulf moisture although tropical storm activity typically affects precipitation. Average annual temperatures for the winter and summer were 20° C and 35° C, respectively. Average daily minimum temperature was 14° C with the average daily maximum being 27° C (Dittmar et al. 1977).
Range Site Descriptions
Clay loam range sites in Hill Country State Natural Area are relatively deep soils, where water permeability was moderate, and topography was flat to gentle sloping. Clay loam sites surrounding Park headquarters were historically cultivated, and not selected for treatment. Plants with a frequency of 20% or above were selected for analysis (Gauch
1982). Grasses in this site include KR bluestem and Texas wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha Trin & Rupr.). Sideoats grama (Boutleoua curtipendula (Michx.) Torr.) frequency was 10% with remaining grasses with <10% frequency. Herbaceous yields varied from 1,905 kg/ha during optimal growing conditions, to 1,134 kg/ha under poor conditions (Dittmar 1977).
Ashe juniper, greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox L.) were the dominant woody species with frequencies >20%. At Colorado Bend State Park the Redland range site was variable in its vegetation composition due to past management. Portions of the site were identified as bum units by Keith Blafr of Texas Parks and WildUfe Department, and
10 divided into juniper-dominated and live oak-dominated subtypes. Soils in the live oak dominant sites tended to be relatively deep with fewer rocky areas when compared to jumper-dominated areas of the Redland range site. Soils in the juniper subtype tended to be more shallow and less productive. As each subtype name indicates, live oak and Ashe junipers dominate woody plant composition along with prickly pear (Opuntia lindheimeri
Engehn.). Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana Scheele.), and tasajillo (Opuntia
leptocaulis DC), each having >20"''b frequency. Texas wintergrass was the primary grass
found on the redland range site with Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus L.), and cedar
sedge (Ccu^ex planostachys Kunze.). Potential herbaceous yield on Redland range sites
varied fit)m 2,268 kg/ha in favorable years to 1,134 kg/ha in unfavorable years (Bynum
1982).
Field Methods
Two treatments were appUed to each range site or subtype Ouniper or Uve oak
dominant). The treatments were either summer bum or confrol with each treatment being
repUcated six times represented by six fransects. Thus, two freatments were replicated six
times and appHed to one range site and two range subtypes making 36 fransects used as
sampling units. Each transect was randomly located within the range site/subtype.
One end of the fransect a 122-cm, t-post marked the fransect location. Three,
0.70-m re-bar stakes were driven into the ground at 0-m, 15-m, and 30-m intervals as
permanent markers of the fransect (Figure 3.1). The 0-m stake was typically placed
11 3O-met0i
Vegetation Trmiuect
Figure 3.1. Vegetation transect diagram.
12 within a few centimeters of the t-post (USDI 1992). Each fransect location was mapped
by using Global Positioning Satellite recorders for future monitoring by Texas Parks and
Wildlife Dcpaitmeni. Two photographs were taken, one at the 0-m point looking towards
the 30-m point, and one at the 30-m point looking back towards the 0-m.
Vegetation Measurements
A 30-m tape, graduated in decimeters, was fixed to the 0-m stake and attached to
the opposite end of the transect at the 30-m stake (Figure 3.1). The density of woody
species was measured by sweeping a 2-m beh on the right side of each transect. The data
sheet FMH-18 required that the 2-m belt be divided into 6, 5-m intervals for clarity in
data recording (USDI 1992). At each interval, all woody species with > 50% or greater of
thefr roots within the belt were identified and recorded. Each species observed was
recorded by age class (mature or immature), number, and described as Uve or dead (USDI
1992).
Canopy cover for each fransect was determined by using methods described by
Canfield (1941). The 30-m transect served as a vertical plane, and each woody species that intersected the plane was Usted on the "species" row on data sheet FMH-19 . Woody species found below cancjpies of a taller species were recorded next. Each canopy was measured in relation to the 30-m tape and then recorded in the "distance" row on the data sheet.
On the left side of the fransect from the 0-m point, herbaceous density was measured by using a 0.25 m^ quadrat placed at 6 pre-selected points. All species with >
13 50% of their roots within the quadrat were counted and classified as live or dead (USDI
1992).
A point-intercept method was used to record frequency data for use by Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department. A 2-m steel rod, graduated in decimeters, with a
diameter of 0.635 centimeters was used. The lip of the rod was sharpened to a
"dimension-less" point, and starting at 3 dm ftt)m the 0-m end of the fransect, the rod was
placed plumb to the ground. Each species that intercepted the rod was recorded on data
sheet FMH-23. The height at which each species touched the rod was recorded and
classified as live or dead. Substrates or species that intercepted the point of the rod were
also recorded. This was repeated every thfrd decimeter, for a total of 100 points per
transect (USDI 1992).
Pre-sampling indicated that herbaceous yield would be best estimated by cUpping
11 randomly located quadrats along the right side of the fransect (Figure 3.1). Grasses
and forbs were cUpped to a 1-cm stubble height, and remaining litter under 0.635 cm in diameter was collected from the quadrat area. Grass, forb, and litter samples were separated and placed in #16 paper sacks. Sacks were dried at 60° C to a constant weight, weighed to the nearest O.lg, and expressed as kg/ha (Bonham 1989).
Vegetation measures of density, frequency, mortality, yield, basal cover, and canopy cover were recorded prior to freatment. Subsequent monitoring data was collected from mid-June through the month of August, during peak standing crop.
Genera and specific epithets were referenced from Correll and Johnston (1979).
14 Fire Application
Summer buming treatments were applied on September 18 to 20, 2000 in the juniper subtype. Existing park service roads, frails, and natural firebreaks were used as blacklines when possible. Strip-hcadfirc techniques were used to bum blacklines on
north side of the bum unit, and a 2-m wide line was bumed out along the southern fence
fine to ignite the headfire. Vegetation transects were ignited separately within the bum
unit. When transect ignition was complete, remaining areas of the bum unit were ignited.
Average temperature was 36° C with average relative humidity at 33% with south winds
averaging 4 km/hr.
Live oak subtype transects were bumed on June 21, 2001. Similar techniques as
described above were appUed to Uve oak subtypes. Two exceptions were that north and
west perimeters were blacklined, and perimeter Unes were dozed on southern and eastern
perimeters. Average temperature was 36° C and average humidity was 29%, and
southeast winds averaged 7.7 km/hr.
Buming treatments in clay loam range sites were appUed on July 5, 2001. Clay
loam blacklines were bumed out on north and east perimeters, and roads and horse frails
were used to ignite headfires following fransect ignition. Average temperature was 36° C
with average humidity readings of 31 % with south winds averaging 3.6 km/hr.
Relative humidity, temperature, wind speed, and wind direction were observed for
all bums described above by using a typical belt weather kit. These data were observed
and recorded prior to ignition of fransects and throughout the day.
15 Following freatment of all sites, bumed and control transects were sampled 1-year post-bum. as described above in the vegetation measurements section. Juniper subtype sampling occurred 1-year and 2-years post-bum. Clay loam and live oak units were re- sampled 1-year post-bum.
Statistical Analvsis
This study was initially designed as a randomized block design (RBD) with four blocks, three treatments, and six estimates of within bum-unit variabiUty (sampling).
Adobe, clay loam, jimiper, and live oak range sites/subtypes served as blocks.
Treatments randomly assigned to bum imits were summer bum, v^dnter bum, and no bum
(control). Six transects served as estimates (samples) of within bum unit variabiUty.
Bum bans enforced in Bandera and Medina counties prevented any bum treatments from being appUed to the Adobe and Clay Loam range sites in 2000. Summer bum treatments in the juniper subtype were appUed during the last days of summer in
2000. Winter bum treatments were attempted in 2001, but fine fuels were too wet to carry a fire properly.
During 2001, summer bum freatments were appUed to the Uve oak subtype. In addition, four transects in the clay loam range site and two transects in the adobe range site received summer bum freatments. Remaining transects were not freated because of a lack of safe buming conditions and subsequent bum bans.
Since not all summer bum freatments occurred during the same year, exceptional block freatment interactions existed. Analysis was completed within each block, using
16 within bum unit variability (transects) as estimates of experimental error. Consequently, limitations in interpretation exist, and results should be limited to treated areas.
Species density, species frequency, canopy cover, and herbaceous yield were measured as response variables. Species with a frequency of >20% were selected for analysis. Frequency data was arcsin transformed prior to analysis, and means of frequency data are reported as non-transformed.
.\ssumptions of normality of experimental errors were checked by Shapiro-Wilk tests (Shapiro and WiUc 1965). Treatment means were composed using analysis of variance, and significant differences were recognized at the 5 percent level. Analysis was computed by using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) release 8.2.
17 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Precipitation
Precipitation data ftt)m Tarpley, Texas, located 11 km northwest of Hill Countty
State Nattiral Area, was used for clay loam plots (Figure 4.1). hi summer 2002, exfreme rainfall and flooding events occurred at Hill Country State Natural Area. Two transects in burned and control plots were flooded for several days. Water flow across these transects was observed as soil and plant debris accumulated around lower portions of woody plants.
Precipitation data from the Nix Store in Lampasas County, Texas, located 24 km northeast of Colorado Bend State Park, was used for Uve oak and juniper plots (Figure
4.2). Greater than normal rains in November 2000 and January, February, and March
2001 likely enhanced forb and annual plant growth. Japanese brome, rabbit's tobacco
(Evaxprolifera DC), and woodsorrel (Oxalis Dillenii Jacq.) increased frequency and density dramatically increased during late spring and early summer 2001. In spring 2002, the previous weather pattern was not observed, and likewise annual plants retumed to levels previously observed in summer 2000. Although rainfall was unusually high, flooding was not observed on juniper and live oak plots during summer 2002.
18 o o U ""I ao o la!M.ffl|.!8.jirHji»^ o o o— . u o .^ fs^m^m ••if V '••H^-'-lK'-'fr" o l^\ r^ r^ O (~t—) O im^iMmm •— CO Ci3 X m-.i-'^^t^ •^•:^^'i:z^a^.miaim,mMmiMimiiiiimMmM^ OJ H >, ,_;, (U ri o rp l 2 ca V—1 ESi^raisiis s o 3 ^ •^ CQ Tl c rai o .te.. .,-* (fl rt Q. n. (1u) (lo> VH Ul O- u. 11) ca C3 Og ve r ca !/) >^ fTl J3 o C Tl O C U s on ^ ^ ca ^ > 1) ca -1 (M tiO c o in o tL, J CO CM (M (UIO) UOIJBlldl03i 19 u 2000 CO o I 200! •,-nrv'>i'i:i%^^^.*^:M^m :dui.:::^^¥^^^: 2002 • 1 1 Average (lua) uouBjidioaJd wm^mmmEm 20 iiliii>».ri,.u*iiiHV.'im- .t^utu-.i, c_..~ \ m^mm% ^s^^isarai ^:.^.U.tti(»u.(M my a .&• > ••« u ••= 2P IS ^ c 4? ^ .O U iS o •—J o 0 (u —; u < <53 2 o e •- X C I- o ^—J CI. rt :^ •— en c ;3 ^ 25 C8 o u. •^ Clay Loam Range Site Herbaceous Yield Herbaceous production (grass, forb, total standing crop, litter, and total phytomass accumulations) response was highly variable throughout the period of this study (Table 4.1). Grass production in control plots varied from 1867 kg/ha in 2001 to 914 kg/ha in 2002. Likewise, forb production varied from 289 kg/lia in 2001 to 129 kg/ha in 2002. Such variation is expected considering rainfall events described previously. Not surpnsingly, standard errors were noticeably high, making freatment effects difficuU to detect. Consequently, none of these data were found to be statistically significant. Frequency Herbaceous frequency analysis included KR bluestem, Texas wintergrass, cedar sedge, Texas croton, and Texas snoutbean. With the exception of Texas wintergrass and Texas croton, the remaining species were not found to be statistically significant (Table 4.2). Texas wintergrass fi^quency was significantly reduced by 42% in bum plots 1-year post-buriL hi controls, frequency was 12% initially, but no frequency data for Texas wintergrass was observed 1-year post-bum (Table 4.3). Like Texas wintergrass, Texas croton frequency significantiy decreased by 42% in bum plots and by 85% m confrols (Table 4.4). Ashe juniper and greenbriar were also selected for frequency analysis on clay loam plots. Difficulties in classifying greenbriar by age class prevented analysis by age. Neither of these species were found to be statistically significant for freatment effects. 21 Table 4.1: Yield (kg/ha) treatment means (standard errors) for clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area. Medina County, Texas. Treatment Bum (Z!onfro l Category Initial Year 1 Initial Yearl Grass 1280 a" 996 a 1867 a 914a (514) (301) (514) (301) Forb 260 a 339 a 289 a 129 a (136) (108) (136) (108) Total Standing Crop 1541 a 1335 a 2156 a 1043 b (502) (357) (502) (357) Litter 4469 a 1562 b 2836 a 3125 a (1137) (827) (1137) (827) Total Phytomass 6009 a 2897 a 4992 a 4168 a (1143) (938) (1143) (938) ^' Treatment means within rows within a treatment with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 22 Table 4.2: Frequency ("o) treatment means (untransformed) for clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Countty State Natural Area, Medina County, Texas. Treatment Bum Confrol Species Initial Year 1 Initial Year 1 KR bluestem 50.0 a ^' 58.3 a 75.0 a 70.8 a (Bothriochloa Ischaemum) Cedar sedge 25.0 a 25.0 a 37.5 a 37.5 a (Caret planostachys) Texas snoutbean 29.2 a 29.2 a 29.2 a 33.3 a (Rhynchosia senna) Ashe juniper 50.0 a 20.8 b 25.0 a 25.0 a (Juniperus .4shei) Greenbriar 62.5 a 62.5 a 25.0 a 20.8 a (Smilax bona-nox) Immature Ashe juniper 50.0 a 16.7 b 16.7 a 16.7 a Mature Ashe juniper 12.5 a 4.2 a 8.3 a 8.3 a ^ Treatment means withm rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 23 Table 4.3: Frequency means (untransformed) for Texas wintergrass in clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area. Medina rmmfCountyv , T^vaTexas«. Year Treatment Initial Year 1 Treatment Means Bum 58.3 33.3 48.8 a ^ Control 12.5 0.0 6.2 b Year Means 35.4 A ^ 16.7 B Treatment means within a column, with different lowercase letters, arc significantly different (p >0.05). • Year means within a row, with different uppercase letters, are significantly different (p < 0.05). Table 4.4: Frequency means (untransformed) for Texas croton in clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natiu-al Area, Medina County, Texas. Year Treatment Initial Yearl Treatment Means Bum 72.2 45.8 62.5 a-' Control 12.5 0.0 31.2b Year Means 66.7 A ^ 27.1 B - Treatment means within a column, with different lowercase letters, are significantly different (p >0.05). ^ Year means widiin a row, with different uppercase letters, are significantly different (p < 0.05). 24 Density Species selected for frequency analysis were also used in density analysis. Where Texas wintergrass and Texas croton frequency was found to be significant (Table 4.2) no such differences were observed with respect to density data (Table 4.5). hi addition, none of the remaining herbaceous species were found to be significant with regard to density. Among woody species selected for analysis, greenbriar density was found to be significant for treatment effects. Greenbriar density was significantly reduced by 14% in bum plots with a 50% increase in confrol plots 1-year post-bum (Table 4.6). Ashe juniper density by species and age class analysis revealed no significant changes (Table 4.5). In addition to herbaceous and woody plant density, changes in annual and perennial density were analyzed with none of these data being found to be statistically significant Canopy Cover Canopy cover of woody and succulent plants was measiu-ed in all plots. Lower branches of Ashe juniper frees were commonly scorched, with few mature frees being top-killed. Smaller frees were more readily top-killed along v^ath other brush species. Live oak mottes were scorched at the base with some being fiiUy engulfed by fire, yet no significant changes in live oak canopy were found. Succulent plant response to fire was dependant on fine fuel continuity and proximity to the plant. Edges of prickly pear mottes were bumed where fuel was adequate, but central plants were rarely bumed. When canopy data was analyzed, however, no significant differences were found. 25 Table 4.5: Density treatment means (standard errors) for clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area, Medina County, Texas. Treatment Bum Confrol Species Initial 1-year hiitial I-year #/m^ KR bluestem 9.0 a ^ 10.0 a 17.3 a 12.2 a (Bothriochloa Ischaemum) (5.8) (3.8) (5.8) (3.8) Cedar sedge 4.3 a 3.5 a 3.8 a 3.7 a (Carex planostachys) (1.7) (1.8) (1.7) (1.8) Texas wintergrass 10.3 a 4.2 b 0.7 a 0.0 a (Stipa leucotricha) (3.3) (1.4) (3.3) (1.4) Texas croton 29.8 a 9.3 a 19.3 a 0.7 a (Croton texensis) (19.5) (3.1) (19.5) (3.1) Texas snoutbean 2.0 a 2.3 a 2.5 a 5.5 b (Rhynchosia senna) (0.8) (1.7) (0.8) (1.7) #/ha Ashe juniper 2208 a 542 b 667 a 292 a (Juniperus Ashei) (819.9) (234.5) (819.9) (234.5) Immature Ashe juniper 2000 a 500 b 542 a 167 a (723.9) (215.2) (723.9) (215.2) Mature Ashe juniper 208 a 42 a 125 a 125 a (125.0) (63.7) (125.0) (63.7) " Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 26 Table 4.6: Density (#/ha) means for greenbriar on clay loam plots bumed in 2001 at Hill Country State Natural Area, Medina County. Texas. Year Treatment hiitial Year 1 Treatment Means Bum 5792 5000 5396 a'^ Confrol 500 750 625 b Year Means 3146 A^ 2875 B ^' Treatment means within a column with different lowercase letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). ^ Year means within a column with different uppercase letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 27 Jimiper Subtype Herbaceous Yield Grass yield response patterns were similar in bum and control plots. Analysis indicated no significant differences found for grass, forb or total standing crop data (Table 4.7). However, significant effects for treatment, year, and freatment by year interaction were found for litter and total phytomass data. Litter accumulations were reduced 54% in bum plots and by S% in control plots I-year post-bum (Table 4.8). Litter totals in bum plots, rebounded 2-years post-bum, but did not exceed prebum levels, hi control plots. Utter accumulations continued to decline below pre bum levels by 18% 2-years post-bum. When analyzed, similar patterns were found with total phytomass data (Table 4.9). Frequency Japanese brome and Texas wintergrass were selected for grass frequency analysis with no significant changes observed (Table 4.10). Forbs selected for analysis included Texas croton, rabbit's tobacco, woodsorrel, prairie coneflower (Ratibida columnaris (Sims) D. Don), and creeping yellow sida (Sida filicaulis T.&G.). Forb frequency was not found to be significantly different for any of the above species. Woody and succulent plant frequency was measured for Ashe jumper, tasajillo, and prickly pear cactus. None of these species were found to be significantly significant for freatment effects (Table 4.10). When Ashe juniper and prickly pear frequency was analyzed by age class, no significant differences were observed. Difficulties in distinguishing mature and immature tasajiUo plants prevented analysis by age class. 28 Table 4.7: Yield (kg/ha) means (standard errors) for juniper plots bumed in 2000 at Colorado Bend State Park. San Saba County, Texas. Treatment Bum Confrol Category Initial Yearl Year 2 Initial Yearl Year 2 Grass 1121a^' 856 a 1154 a II18a 852 a 1349 a (180) (184) (146) (180) (184) (146) Forb 93 a 365 a 190 a 119a 262 b 232 a (44) (96) (96) (44) (96) (96) Total Standing Crop 1214a 1220 a 1345 a 1237 a 1114a 1581a (164) (171) (131) (164) (171) (131) Litter 6279 a 2856 b 3762 b 1159 a 1068 a 880 a (805) (572) (738) (805) (572) (738) Total Phytomass 7517 a 3969 b 5343 b 2350 a 2394 a 1988 a (789) (603) (653) (789) (603) (653) ^ Treatment means withir1 rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 29 Table 4.8: Yield (kg/ha) means for litter in juniper plots bumed in 2000 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County. Texas. Year Treatment hiitial Year 1 Year 2 Treatment Means Bum 6279 a A 2856 a B 3762 a B 4299 a ^ Confrol 1159 b A 1068 b A 880 b A 1036 b Year Means 3719 A^ 1962 B 2321 C ^ Treatment means within a column, with different lowercase letters, are significantly different (p < 0.05). ' Year means within a row. with different uppercase letters, are significantly different (p < 0.05). Table 4.9: Yield (kg/ha) means for total herbaceous phytomass on juniper plots bumed in 2000 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba, County, Texas. Year Treatment hiitial Year 1 Year 2 Treatment Means Bum 7517 a A 3969 aB 5343 aB 5610 a^' Confrol 2350 b A 2394 a A 1988 b A 2244 b Year Means 4933 A^ 3182 B 3666 B - Treatment means within a column, with different lowercase letters, are significantly different (p < 0.05). - Year means within a row, with different uppercase letters, are significantly different (p < 0.05). 30 Table 4.10: Frequency (%) means (unfransformed) for juniper plots bumed in 2000 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County. Texas. Treatment Bum Control Category hiitial Year 1 Year 2 Initial Year I Year 2 Japanese brome 13.9 a b ^' 25.0 b 2.8 a 5.6 a 47.2 b 13.9 a (Bromus japonicus) Texas wmtcrgrass 94.4 a 88.9 a 91.7 a 100 a 91.7 a 86.1a (Stipa leucotricha) Texas croton 52.8 a 61.1 a 33.3 a 55.6 a 66.7 a 44.4 a (Crolon texensis) Rabbit's tobacco 22.2 a 38.9 a No data 19.4 a 50.0 b No data (Evax prolifera) Woodsorrel 2.8 a 50.0 b 11.1a 16.7 a 47.2 b 36.1 a b (Oxalis Dillenii) Prairie coneflower 2.8 a 25.0 b 30.6 b 2.8 a 36.1b 38.9 b (Ratibida columnaris) Creeping yellow sida 47.2 a 44.4 a 52.8 a 0.0 a 41.7 b 61.1b (Sida filicaulis) Ashe juniper 33.3 b 13.9 a 22.2 ab U.l a 13.9 a 16.7 a (Juniperus Ashei) Tasajillo 30.6 a 5.6 b 22.2 a 27.8 a 33.3 a 30.6 a (Opuntia leptocaulis) Prickly pear 63.9 a 52.8 a 50.0 a 66.7 a 66.7 a 69.4 a (Opuntia lindheimeri) i' Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 31 Table 4.10 Continued Treatment Bum Confrol Category hiitial Year 1 Year 2 hiitial Year 1 Year 2 Immature Ashe ::,:a^' 8.3 b 8.3 a 5.5 a 8.3 a 8.3 a jumper Mature Ashe jumper 13.9 a 8.3 a 19.4 a 5.5 a 5.5 a 8.3 a Immature pnckly pear 36.1 a 36.1a 13.9 a 22.2 a 30.6 a 30.6 a Mature pnckly pear 52.8 a 36.1a 47.2 a 52.8 a 50.0 a 58.3 a Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p <0 .05). 32 Density Japanese brome and Texas wintergrass density reflected frends observed in fixxjuency analysis with no significant changes found for I -year and 2-year post-bum data (Table 4.11). Forb density response in juniper plots was variable with some species reflecting patterns observed in grass density. Texas croton, for instance, followed patterns of reduction similar to Texas wintergrass. Rabbit's tobacco and woodsorrel density response followed similar patterns observed in Japanese brome where the greatest density followed greater than average fall and winter precipitation. Density levels, however, generally retumed near pre-bum levels. Prairie coneflower and sida density response did not follow any previously observed partem, yet neither plant was found to be statistically different when density data was analyzed. Woody plant response in control plots was relatively stable in contrast to bum plots, although no significant differences were observed for any woody plant in juniper plots (Table 4.11). When analyzed by age class, Ashe juniper density exhibited the same patterns of response when analyzed as a single species. Confrols were relatively stable with density being unchanged in confrol plots throughout the study. Tasajillo mortaUty was thought to be severe in juniper plots. However, many tasajillo plants that were observed as dead 1-year post-bum were found to be resprouting 2-years post-bum. Annual plants generally followed Japanese brome, rabbit's tobacco, and woodsorrel response patterns; whereas perennial plants followed pattems indicated by Texas wintergrass and Texas croton. Neither annual nor perennial density was found to be statistically different. 33 Table 4.11: Density (#/m^) means (standard errors) for juniper plots bumed in 2000 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas. Treatment Bum Confrol Category Initial Yearl Year 2 Initial Yearl Year 2 • - # / m^ Japanese brome 3.0 a ^ 48.0 b 0.1 c 1.6 a 119.1 a 2.1a (Bromus japonicus) (98.4) (118.4) (98.2) (98.4) (118.4) (98.2) Texas croton 30.7 a 12.3 a 5.0 a 19.22 a 35.8 a 9.6 a (Croton texensis) (12.4) (11.7) (2.7) (12.4) (11.7) (2.7) Rabbit's tobacco 3.3 a 9.3 a No data 0.8 a 27.7 b No data (Evax prolifera) (1.7) (8.7) (1.7) (8.7) Woodsorrel 0.8 a 17.8 a 0.7 a 5.8 a 27.3 b 10.6 a b (6.5) (Oxalis Dillenii) (4.4) (8.0) (6.5) (4.4) (8.0) Praine coneflower 0.1a 3.3 a 3.8 a 0.1 a 5.9 b 3.2 b (2.0) (Ratibida columnaris) (0.1) (2.0) (2.0) (0.1) (2.0) 5.2 b Creeping yellow sida 4.0 a 3.3 a 4.8 a 0.0 a 3.1b (1.3) (1.3) (Sida filicaulis) (1.7) (1.3) (1.5) (1.7) __——«»*-* 167 a 167 a Ashe juniper 639 a 195 a 361b 139 a (163.6) (80.8) (145.7) (Juniperus Ashei) (163.6) (80.8) (145.7) 472 a 528 a 417 a TasajiUo 500 a 56 b 278 a (198.6) (188.4) (172.2) (Opuntia leptocaulis) (198.6) (188.4) (172.2) 1038 a 1306 a 1306 a Prickly ^ear 1917 a 1194 b 917b (366.6) (447.4) (230.0) (Opuntia lindheimeri) (365.6) (447.4) (230.0) - Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 34 Table 4.11 Continued Treatment Bum Confrol Category Initial Yearl Year 2 Initial Yearl Year 2 Immature Ashe juniper 445 a 83 b 111 ab 83 a Ilia ill a 1155.5) (89.9) (103.1) (155.5) (89.9) (103.1) Mature Ashe juniper 195 a Ilia 250 a 56 a 56 a 56 a (40.6) (67.6) (54.8) (40.6) (67.6) (54.8) Iininaturc pnckly pear 639 a 500 a 167 a 333 a 583 a 389 a (171.5) (202.1) (96.6) (171.5) (202.1) (96.6) Mature pnckly pear 1278 a 694 b 750 b 750 a 722 a 917 a (245.7) (291.9) (154.3) (245.7) (291.9) (154.3) ^ Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 35 Live Oak Subtype Herbaceous Yield Grass, forb, and standing crop production varied widely in all plots with greater variability observed in confrols. Grass yield in confrol plots varied from 892 kg/ha in 2001 to 1151 kg/ha in 2002. During the same period, bum plot yields varied from 992 kg^a to 1025 kg/ha. Forb response was similar with greater variability in confrol plots versus bum plots. Litter data show an expected decline in accumulations in bum plots and an increase in controls. However, in spite of these observations, no significant differences were found in production data (Table 4.12). Frequency Japanese brome, Texas wintergrass, and canyon sedge were grass and grass-Uke species selected for frequency and density analysis. Treatment means were not found to be significantly different for any of these species (Table 4.13). Sida, evolvulus (Evolvulus sericeus Sw.), and woodsorrel were selected for frequency analysis with neither sida nor evolvulus bemg found to be statistically significant. Woodsorrel fi^uency, however, was found to be significant for treattnent effects. Frequency decUned 14% in bum plots and by 50% in confrols 1-year post-bum (Table 4.14). Woody plant frequency was statistically unchanged in all bum plots for all species 1-year post-bum with the exception of tasajiUo (Table 4.14). When age class analysis was completed for Ashe juniper, prickly pear, and live oak data, no significant differences were found. TasajiUo plants were not subjected to age class analysis, but frequency was 36 Table 4.12: Yield (kg/ha) means (standard errors) for live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas. Treatment Bum Confrol Category Initial Yearl Initial Yearl Grass 992 a ^' 1025 a 892 a 1151 a (179) (162) (179) (162) Forb 103 a 95 a 81a 121 a (31) (46) (31) (46) Total Standing Crop 1095 a 1120 a 973 a 1272 b (182) (150) (182) (150) Litter 6269 a 4023 b 3917 a 6038 a (1068) (1374) (1068) (1374) Total Phytomass 7364 a 5142 a 4890 a 7310 a (1157) (1396) (1157) (1396) ^ Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 37 ^^!\tcL™7"r^ ^^ T^T'"' "''-*'"' (unfransfomied) for live oak plots bumed -001 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County. Texas. m Treatment Bum Confrol Species hiitial Yearl Initial Yearl Japanese brome 25.0 a ^ 11.1 a 63.9 a 2.8 b (Bromus Japonicus) Texas wintergrass 72.2 a 75.0 a 91.7 a 66.7 b (Stipa leucotricha) Canyon sedge 13.9 a 13.9 a 52.8 a 41.7a (Carex edwardsiana) White evolovulus 36.1a 30.6 a 41.7 a 50.0 a (Evolvulus sericeus) Creeping yellow sida 52.8 a 66.7 a 27.8 a 47.2 a (Sida filicaulis) Ashe juniper 44.4 a 22.2 b 19.4 a 16.7 a (Juniperus Ashei) Prickly pear 47.2 a 25.0 b 41.7 a 50.0 a (Opuntia lindheimeri) Live oak 41.7 a 33.3 a 30.6 a 33.3 a (Quercus virginiana) Immature Ashe juniper 25.0 a 11.1a 16.7 a U.l a Mature Ashe juniper 27.8 a 16.7 b 8.3 a 8.3 a " Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 38 Table 4:13 Continued Treatment Bum Confrol Species Initial Year I Initial Yearl Immature prickly pear 19.4 a 5.6 b 19.4 a 2.8 a Mature prickly pear 47.2 a 22.2 b 27.8 a 50.0 b Immature live oak 38.9 a 30.6 a 27.8 a 30.6 a Mature Uve oak 22.2 a 13.9 a 19.4 a 16.7 a Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). Table 4.14: Frequency means (untransformed) for woodsorrel in live oak plots bumed in 2(X)1 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas. Year Treatment Initial Yearl Treatment Means Bum 38.9 33.3 36.1 ai' Control U.l 16.7 13.9b Year Means 25.0 A ^ 25.0 A ^ Treatment means within a column, with different lowercase letters, are significantly different (p >0.05). ^ Year means within a row, with different uppercase letters, are significantly different (p < 0.05). 39 significantly decreased, wiUi no plants observed in bum plots 1-year post-bum. hi contrast, control plots frequency decreased 38% during the same period (Table 4.15). Density Japanese brome density indicated similar response pattems observed in juniper subtype plots. Density was at its greatest level in 2001, likely due to increased rainfaU during the winter of 2000-01. However, analysis revealed that this response was not significantly different for Japanese brome. Similar to frequency analysis, no grass or grass-like species selected for analysis was significantly different (Table 4.16). Forb density observations for evolvulus and woodsorrel were similar to frequency observations, although none were found statistically different. With the exception of tasajiUo density, woody and succulent plant density by age class and by species was not significantly reduced for Ashe juniper, prickly pear, and Uve oak (Table 4.16). TasajUlo reductions mirrored frequency data with tasajillo mitially being found in all plots, with no live plants being observed 1-year post-bum. In confrol plots, however, tasajillo density decreased by 8% 1-year post-bum (Table 4.17). Annual and perennial plant density was combined for analysis and was not found to be significantly different. Much Uke juniper plots, annual density response reflected Japanese brome, evolvulus and woodsorrel density response pattems. 40 Table 4.15: Frequency means for tasajillo in live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Colorado Bend State Park, San Saba County, Texas. Year Treatment Initial Year 1 Treatment Means Bum 8.3 0.0 4.2 a Control 63.9 41.7 52.8 b Year Means 36.1 A ^ 20.8 B ^ Treatment means within a column, with different lowercase letters, are significantly different (p >0.05). *' Year means within a row, with different uppercase letters, are significantly different (p < 0.05). 41 Table 4.16: Density (U/m^) means (standard errors) for live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Treatment Bum Confrol Species Initial 1-ycar Initial 1-ycar #/m^ Japanese brome 172.9 a ^ 4.6 a 142.2 a 0.6 a (Bromus japonicus) (110.0) (3.2) (110.0) (3.2) Texas wintergrass 12.7 a 16.3 a 14.8 a 10.2 a (Stipa leucotricha) (2.9) (3.4) (2.9) (3.4) Canyon sedge 0.9 a 0.9 a 4.6 a 5.1a (Carex edwardsiana) (1.1) (1.7) (1.1) (1.7) White evolovulus 14.9 a 9.1a 6.7 a 12.9 b (Evolvulus sericeus) (5.3) (4.0) (5.3) (4.0) Woodsorrel 10.0 a 2.6 a 0.4 a 1.9 a (Oxalis Dillenii) (4.0) (0.8) (4.0) (0.8) Creeping yeUow sida 5.1 a 8.0 a 3.2 a 5.3 a (Sida filicaulis) (1.1) (1.9) (1.1) (1.9) #/ha- Ashe juniper 972 a 333 b 306 a 250 a (Juniperus Ashei) (280.3) (179.4) (280.3) (179.4) Prickly pear 944 a 611b 806 a 861 a (Opuntia lindheimeri) (320.7) (285.6) (320.7) (285.6) Live oak 879 a 717 a 908 a 15167 a (Quercus virginiana) (680.6) (920.9) (680.6) (920.9) - Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 42 Table 4.16: Continued Treatment Bum Confrol Species Initial 1-year Initial 1-year Immature Ashe juniper 444a 167 b 222 a 167 a (162.0) (113.9) (162.0) (113.9) Mature Ashe jumper 528 a 167 b 83 a 83 a (146.5) (84.7) (146.5) (84.7) Immature prickly pear 222 a 56 b 389 a 56 a (178.3) (55.6) (178.3) (55.6) Mature prickly pear 722 a 556 a 417 a 806 a (202.8) (274.0) (202.8) (274.0) Immature live oak 8517 a 6944 a 8778 a 14889 a (6744.0) (9201.0) (6744.0) (9201.0) Mature Uve oak 279 a 222 a 306 a 278 a (158.4) (173.0) (158.4) (173.0) *' Treatment means within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). 43 Table 4.17: Density (# ha) means for tasajillo in live oak plots bumed in 2001 at Colorado Bend State Park. San Saba County, Texas. Year Treatment Initial Year 1 Treatment Means Bum 83 0 42 a ^' Control 1028 944 986 b Year Means 555 A ^ 472 A ^ \au means within a column with different lowercase letters are significandy different (p >0.05). ^ Treatment means within a row with different uppercase letters are significantly different (p> 0.05). 44 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Vegetation Response A 1-year post-bum decline in grass production has been reported as a typical response to summer buming (Engle et al. 1992, 1993, Ewing and Engle 1988, Mayeux and Hamilton 1988, Stanley 1997). However, Brown (1996) found that on Matagorda Island, where favorable growing conditions prevailed, production remained unchanged 1 and 2 years foUowing summer burning. Results in this sttidy were sunilar with no statistical change in grass production found. Greater than average rainfall precipitation facilitated grass and forb production following burmng. Like grass production, forb production foUowing burning depends on growing conditions prior to and after buming. In this study, forb production was not significantly changed. Results reported by Mayeux and Hamilton (1988) and Brown (1996) are similar with no change in forb production observed. Stanley (1997) and Ruthven (2002), however, found forb production to be significantly higher 1-year post-bum, and Box et al. (1967) found forb production significantly lower 1-year post-bum. Rainfall events mitigated the effects of summer burning by enhancing forb production that otherwise would have been lower under average conditions. Extensive flooding at Hill Country State Natural Area affected Texas wintergrass and Texas croton frequency m clay loam plots in summer 2002. In control plots, Texas wintergrass and croton frequency reductions were largely confined to transects where 45 flooding was most pronounced. In control plots, annual and weakly rooted perennial plants were noticeably absent, and soil and plant debris were observed to accumulate around plants like KR bluestem, greenbriar, and Ashe juniper as evidence of significant water flow. Since control plots were more affected by flooding, tiie year effect was enhanced in control plots making bum plots comparatively less affected. Woody plant response to summer buming was limited to reductions in greenbriar density on clay loam plots, and tasajillo frequency and density in live oak plots. Greenbriar fiequency was unchanged in bum plots while density was reduced 1-year post- bum. Since greenbriar has the abiUty to resprout from rhizomes following prescribed buming (Stransky and Halls 1979), summer buming produced a thinning effect. Bumed rhizomes were likely counted as individuals while cenfral plants were not effectively kiUed. Otherwise, a difference in greenbriar density may not have been observed. TasajUlo, Uke other cacti, has been reported to be highly vuhierable to fire events with the ability to resprout foUowdng prescribed burning (Cable 1967, Heirman and Wright 1973, Bunting et al. 1980). Tasajillo density and frequency decUned in most areas of the Uve oak bum unit. Where fine fiiel was not continuous, damage to tasajillo plants was Umited to scorching. Observations made m juniper plots mdicated that tasajillo plants appeared dead 1-year post-bum, but were counted as resprouts 2-years post-bum. Likewise, tasajillo plants in Uve oak plots were observed as dead 1 year foUov^dng buming; therefore, they may not have been kiUed but lUcely resprouted following monitoring. This response illusfrates the need for long term monitoring recommended by Bunting et al. (1980). 46 Ashe juniper response to summer buming was dependant on fine fuel conditions and juniper leaf moisture. Wink and Wright (1973) found that juniper plants < 1.8 m tall were effectively killed when fine fuel was at a minimum of 1,000 kg/ha during winter buming. Average yields in juniper and live oak sites were above this level at 1,372 kg/ha. ConsequenUy. small juniper mortality was thought to be higher versus larger mature juniper trees, yet no significant differences were found. Where fine fiiel was continuous, lower juniper branches were often scorched with no apparent damage to upper branches. In areas where Ashe juniper trees bumed completely, juniper leaf moisture was likely low enough to allow canopy ignition and fine fiiel quantity and continuity was sufficient to carry a fire into the canopy. Damage to prickly pear plants was dependant on the growth form of the plant and the amount and arrangement of adjacent fine fuels. Large mottes of prickly pear were scorched around the edges yet did not bum throughout due to Uttle or no fine fuel in the center of the motte. Smaller, individual plants, where fine fiiels were continuous and in direct contact with the plant, were readily kiUed. Additional plants affected by buming were Uve oak, algerita (Berberis trifoliolata Moric), and Texas persunmon. These plants were observed to be sfrong basal sprouters 1 and 2-years postbum when canopies were usually top-kiUed. 47 Management Implications Greater than average rainfall amounts affected the results of this sttidy, however the number of samples used to represent vegetation also played a role. Standard errors were exttemely high, in most instances, making mean separation difficult. The methods used in this study, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the National Parks Service, were adequate for use as a vegetation inventory technique; however, they did not prove useful in detecting changes in vegetation in response to summer buming. U is suggested that different or modified methods be used to quantify vegetation response to summer buming. For instance, marking individual plants like Ashe juniper, pnckly pear, and Uve oak would better quantify plant mortality. Increasing the width of the belt transect (if used) would enhance frequency and density data of woody and succulent plants. Also, a greater number of quadrats should be used to describe herbaceous firquency and density. Fmally, it is suggested that more fransects be installed in fewer smdy plots to optimize data coUection. This will prove beneficial in sites that are more Ukely to produce results. Beyond sampling considerations, a lack of continuous fine ftiels, relatively low herbaceous standing crop yields, variable juniper leaf moisture, and atypical weatiier conditions may have prevented vegetation response to be fiiUyexpressed . On less- productive sites such as these, summer burning is not recommended as a management tool, altiiough fiirther testing is needed to verify these results. Summer buming, as a brush confrol technique, may be more effective on relatively more productive sites, 48 during average rainfall years. Sites with herbaceous yields > 1500 kg/ha, and with continuous fine ftielswil l likely enhance bmsh control. In addition to monitoring fine fuel conditions, monitoring of juniper leaf moisture can also help mangers plan summer buming when juniper mortality potential is greatest. Ashe juniper trees arc known to be non-sprouting, and are easily killed if top-killed. In redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii Sudw.) communities, leaf moisture levels at or below 70'} o will aUow canopies to readily ignite (Mitchell and Britton 1998). Canopy ignition in relation to leaf moisture has yet to be tested, however, it is thought that a similar threshold exists for Ashe juniper plants. Monitoring juniper leaf moisture for levels around 70-80% will help managers plan for more successful summer bum treatments. 49 REFERENCES Adams. D.E.. R.C. Anderson, and S.L Collins. 1982. Differential response of woody and herbaceous species to summer and winter buming in an Oklahoma grassland. Southwestcm Nat. 27:55-61. .\rmsttx)ng. W.E., 1980. hnpact of prescribed buming on wildlife, hi: White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range buming in the Edwards Plateau of Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction TX. College Station, TX: Texas Agriculhiral Extension Service, The Texas A&M University System: 22-26. Bonham. CD. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. John Wiley and Sons, New Yoric. 338 pp. Box, T.W. and R..S. White. 1969. Fall and winter burning of south Texas bmsh ranges. Contt. 125. Welder WildUfe Foundation, Smton, TX. Pp4. Box, T.W., Powell, J. and D.L. Drawe. 1967. hifluence Of Fire On South Texas Chaparral Communities. Ecol. 48:955-961. Bragg, T.B. 1982. Seasonal variations in fiiel and fuel consumption by fires in a bluestem prairie. Ecol. 63:7-11. Brown, S.D. 1996. Fire effects on Matagorda Island vegetation. Master's thesis, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX. Bunting, S.C, H.A. Wright, and L.F. Neuenschwander. 1980. Long-term effects of Fire on Cactus in the Southem Mixed Prairie of Texas. J. Range Manage. 33:85-88. Bynum, O.W. 1982. Soil survey of San Saba County, Texas. USDA Soil Cons. Service, San Saba County, Texas. Cable, D.R. 1967. Fire effects on semidesert grasses and shmbs. J. Range Manage. 20:170-176. Canfield, R.H. 1941. AppUcation of the Une interception method in sampling range vegetation. J. Forestry. 39:388-394. Correll, D.S. and M.C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. 4* ed University ofTexas at Dallas. Dallas. 1881pp. 50 Davidson, K^U and S.P. Bratton. 1988. Vegetation response and regrowth after fire on Cumberland Island national Seashore, Georgia. Castanea. 53:47-65. Ditttnar G.W.. M.L. Deike, and D.L. Richmond. 1977. Soil survey of Medina County Texas. USDA Soil Cons. Senrice, Medina County, Texas. Dodd, J.D. and S.T. Holtz. 1972. hitegration of Buming with Mechanical Manipulation of South Texas Grassland. J. Range Manage. 25:130-136. Engle. D.M. T.G. Bidwell, and A.L Ewing. 1992. Effects of late summer fire in tallgrass praine. hi T.G. Bidwell (ed.) Range Research Highlights. Coop. Ext. Serv. Oklahoma State Univ. Circ. E-905, Stillwater, OK. Engle, D.M., J.F. Stritzke, T.E. Bidwell, and P.L. Claypool. 1993. Late-summer fire and follow-up herbicide treatments in tallgrass prairie. J. Range Manage. 46:542-547. Ewing, A.L. and D.M. Engle. 1988. Effects of late summer fire on tallgrass prairie microclimate and community composition. Amer. Midi. Nat. 120:212-223. Gauch, H.G. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University Press, New Yoric. 1982. HanseUca, C.W. 1980. The historical role of fire on south Texas rangelands. In C.W. Hanselka (ed.) Prescribed buming in the Coastal Prafrie and eastem Rio Grande plains ofTexas. Texas Agric. Exp. Serv. BuU. College Station, TX. pp.2-18 Hansmire, J.A., D.L. Drawe, D.B. Wester, and CM. Britton. 1988. Effect of winter bums on forbs and grasses of the Texas coastal prairie. Southwest. Nat. 33:333- 338. Heirman, A.A. and H.A. Wright. 1973. Fire in medium fiiels of west Texas. J. Range Manage. 26:331-335. Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium of historical fire accounts in the Northem Great Plains. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Resource Publ. 161. Washuigton, D.C Johnston, M.C. 1962. Past and present grasslands of southem Texas and northeastern Mexico. Ecol. 44: 456-466. 51 Komarek. E.V. 1981. History of prescribed fire and confrollcd buming in wildUfe management in the south. In G.W Wood (ed.) Prescribed fire and wildlife in southem forests. Proc. of a symposium, pp. 1-14. April 6-8, 1981. Myrtle Beach, Lehmann, V.W. 1965. Fire in the range of Attwater's prairie chicken. Proc. TaU Timbers Fire EcoLConf. 4:127-142. Mayeux, H.S. Jr. and W.T. Hamilton. 1988. Response of flase broomweed and associated herbaceous species to fire. J. Range Manage. 41:2-6. Mitchell, R. B. and C M. Britton. 1998. Redbeny juniper foliage moisture dynamics in the Texas Rolling Plains. Texas J. Agric. and Nat. Res. 11:23-30. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisfration (NOAA). 2000. CUmatological Data Annual Summary, Texas. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), AsheviUe, NC. 105:1-70. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2001. CUmatological Data Annual Summary, Texas. National CUmatic Data Center (NCDC), AsheviUe, NC, 106:1-74. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisfration (NOAA). 2003. CUmatological Data, Texas. January-September. National CUmatic Data Center (NCDC), AsheviUe, NC, 107:(l-9). Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. Rasmussen, G.A. and H.A. Wright. 1989. Succession of secondary shmbs on Ashe juniper communities after dozing and prescribed buming. J. Range Manage. 42:295. Ruthven, D.C. and D.R. Synatzske. 2002. Response of herbaceous vegetation to summer fire in the western south Texas plains. Texas J. of Sci. 54:195-210. Scifres, C.J. 1980. Ffre and range vegetation of the Rio Grande Plains, hi L.D. White (ed.) Prescribed range buming in the Rio Grande Plains ofTexas. Proc. of a symposium, pp. 6-11. November 7,1979. Carrizo Springs, TX. Shapfro, S.S. and M.B. WiUc. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591-611. 52 Scott, K.B. 2001. Personal communication. Forest Resource Protection Rural Fire Defense, Texas Forest Service, Luflcin, TX. Stanley. CR. 1997. Effects of summer buming on the Texas high plains vegetation. Master's thesis, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX. Stransky. J.J. and L.K. Halls. 1979. Effects of a winter fire on fruit yields of woody plants. J. of WildUfe Manage. 43:1007-1010. Stt^msky, J.J. and R.F. Harlow. 1981. Effects on fire on deer habitat in the southeast, hi G.W. Wood (ed.) Prescribed fire and wildlife in southem forests. Proc. of a symposium, pp. 135-142. April 6-8, 1981. Myrtle Beach, SC Tunnel, T.R. and R. J. Ansley. 1995. Effects of summer and winter fires on aimual broomweed and tobosagrass growth. Research HighUghts. Noxious Brush and Weed Control. Range wildlife and fisheries. Texas Tech Univ. 26:14-15. USDI. United States Department of the hiterior 1992. Westem Region Ffre Monitoring Handbook. San Francisco, CA. Vogl, R. 1974. Effect of fire on grasslands, p. 139-194. hi: T. Kozlowski and C Ahlgren (eds.). fire and ecosystems. Academic Press, New York. Wink, R.L. and H.A. Wright. 1973. Effects of fire on an Ashe juniper community. J. Range Manage. 26:326-329. Wright, H.A. 1974. Range Bummg. J. Range Manage. 27:5-6. Wright, HA. 1974. Effect of fire on southem mixed prafrie grasses. J. Range Manage. 27:417-419. 53 APPENDDC FMH DATA SHEETS 54 FNffi-lS BELT TRANSECT, n ATA SHEET rOR BRUSH [DENSITY Page of Plot ID ;_ B / c (circle one) Dato Bum Unit^ Rocorders, Burn Status: PRE Post AO _ yrl yr2 yrb yrio yr20 (circle one) Transect Aiimuth: T r, i M .T J'-, Tr«nsectiransecc: Q4-Qu^-g1i • Q3-Q2 • 0P-50P (circle one) r^tii h^L*?^ ?!! J^!"''\r^'"'^" ^*" tr.n.«ct, count .U Indlvldu.l. h.vinq i 50% or It. root.d b... In th. b.lt. Th. option*! Int.rv.l fUld (INT) c*n b- u..d to .ubdlvld. th. b-lt Into .ubunlt. to tacUlt.t. .p«cl.. count.. R.cord ACB ood. (.•• b«io«) . Belt Width Sld« of the Transect Monitored(facing TOP) INT SPP ACE NUM LIVE INT SPP ACE HUM LIVE INT SPP NUM LIVE Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y M Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y M Y N Y N Y N Y N Y M Y H Y N Y N Y N ' Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y U Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N AGE codes: S Seedling/inmature R Resprout M Mature/adult JMH-18 Figure A.l. Fire monitoring handbook datasheet FMH-18. 55 FMH-19 uiaiBACEOus i)h:NsnY OATA SHEET Pago of Plot ID B / C (circle one) Oate___2 /_ Burn Unit Recorders • Burn Status: PRE Post mo yrl yt2 yrS yrliTT^o (circle one) rraao size »' Sid. Of the Transect Monitored (facing 30P)_ FSM SPP NUM LIVE FRM SPP NUM LIVE FRM , SPP NUM LIVS!_ Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N. Y Y , Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y "If" Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y if Y Y Y N Y Y Y N- Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y" "N Y Y Y N. Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N DISTA.VICE I 1 1 1 t . 1 1 . - . DISTANCE SPECSJ DCTANCE i 1 1 1 1 SPECES atSTANCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 sPEca^ Figure A.2. Fire monitoring handbook datasheet FMH-19. 56 ^"^lH•:J 3o METER TRANSECT DATA SHI':ET Plat ro B / C (clrclft one) Date / i Bun Unit ^ : Recorder!! Burn Status: PRE Post mo _ yrl yr2 yr5 yrlO yr20 (circle one) Transect Azimuth: "PT^enolog ica i Stage: om Photo t: Time 30m Photo #: Time ^•ns mm Kllm_ ASA Roll ID Tape, PNT a HUT,m SPP; Specios or Substrate Codes (tallest to lowest) 1 0.3 2 O.S 3 0. 9 4 I.: 5 1. 5 6 1. A 7 Z . 1 8 :. 4 9 2 . T 10 3 . 0 11 3 . 3 12 3 . 6 13 3 . 9 14 4 . 2 15 4 . 5 IS •> . S > "• 5 . 1 IS 5 . 4 19 5 . - 20 5 . 3 21 6. 3 22 6. 6 23 S. 9 24 7 . 2 25 7 . 5 26 7 . 3 27 3. 1 28 3. 4 29 8 . 7 30 9 . 0 31 9.3 32 9.5 33 9.9 34 10.2 35 10. 5 36 10.3 37 11. 1 33 11. 4 39 •11.7 40 12.0 41 12.3 42 12.6 43 12.9 44 13 .2 45 13.5 46 13.8 47 14 . 1 48 14.4 49 14 . 7 page 1 of 2; FMH-23 Figure A3. Fire monitoring handbook datasheet FMH-23 side one. 57 Tape, PNT a HGTHGT.,, mm SPP; Species or Substrate Codes (tallest to lowest) SO 15.0 51 15.3 Sa 15.6 53 IS.9 54 16.3 55 16.5 56 X6.8 57 17.1 58 17.4 59 17.7 60 18.0 61 18.3 62 18.6 63 18.9 64 19.2 6.5 19.5 66 19.8 67 20.1 - 68 20.4 69 20.7 70 21.0 71 21.3 72 21.6 73 21.9 74 22.2 75 22.5 76 22.8 77 23.1 78 23.4 79 23.7 80 24.0 81 24.3 82 24.6 83 24.9 84 25.2 85 25.5 86 25.8 87 26.1 88 26.4 89 26.7 90 27.0 91 27.3 92 27.6 93 27.9 94 28.2 95 28.5 96 -28.8 97 29.1 98 29.4 99 29.7 100 30.0 Species observed withxn 5m of either side of the transect but not intercepted: , ; 7MH-23; page 2 of 2 Figure A.4. Fire monitoring handbook datasheet FMH-23 side two 58 PERMISSION TO COPY In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that ciny copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further written permission and that any user may be Uable for copyright infringement. Agree (Permission is granted.) v^—•^•"•rfcfcri ^rwi* g^ jr^ri^-M-^rf^f Student Signat^ Date Dis^pyp (Permission is not granted.) Student Signature D^te