Prescribed Fire and Cattle Grazing on an Winter Range in Montana Author(s): Craig S. Jourdonnais and Donald J. Bedunah Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 232-240 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782207 Accessed: 30-06-2015 23:20 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782207?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley and Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wildlife Society Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Wildi. Soc. Bull. 18:232-240, 1990

PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CATTLE GRAZINGON AN ELK WINTER RANGEIN MONTANA

CRAIG S. JOURDONNAIS,' School of Forestry, Universityof Montana, Missoula, MT 59812 DONALD J. BEDUNAH, School of Forestry, Universityof Montana, Missoula, MT 59812

The Sun RiverWildlife Management Area ityfor elk winteringon themanagement area, is a majorwinter range for elk (Cervuselaphus withoutreducing rough fescue production. nelsoni) in Montana.Grasslands on the man- Specifically,we comparedthe influence of sea- agementarea are a complexof species,with sonalburning and fallcattle grazing on botan- roughfescue (Festuca scabrella)the most pre- ical standingcrop and elkuse ofa roughfescue ferredforage for wintering elk (Knight1970, grasslandfor 3 seasons.Because roughfescue Jourdonnais1985). Roughfescue grasslands of is thedominant and preferredelk forage, north-centralMontana's Rocky Mountain Front we concentratedour studyon theinfluence of evolved with frequentwildfires and heavy treatmentson thisspecies. grazingby large ungulates.Arno (1980) and Wrightand Bailey(1982) estimateda firefre- STUDY AREA AND METHODS quencyof 5 to 10 yearsfor these forest margin grasslands.Historical records provide evidence Researchwas conductedon the8,100-ha Sun River WildlifeManagement Area, located 112 km westof thatgrazing by large ungulateswas a natural GreatFalls, Montana. The studyarea is representative and significantcomponent of the East Front ofthe transition zone where the Great Plains meet the grasslandsin the Sun RiverWildlife Manage- foothillsof theRocky Mountains. Our studyarea was 150 ha of a roughfescue/Idaho fescue/bluebunch mentArea (Pictonand Picton1975). wheatgrass(Agropyron spicatum) habitat type com- Livestockgrazing was excluded fromthe plex(Harvey 1980) at 1,250m elevation.Major grasses ManagementArea afterits establishmentin in the studyarea were roughfescue, Idaho fescue, bluebunchwheatgrass, junegrass (Koeleria cris- 1948. The absence of fireand the selective tata),Sandberg bluegrass (Poa sandbergii),and plains grazingpatterns of wintering elk allowed some muhly (Muhlenbergiacuspidata). Dominantforb roughfescue communities to accumulatelarge speciesincluded blazing star ( punctata), silky lupine(Lupinus sericeus), and whiteprairie aster (As- amountsof standinglitter. Knight (1970) ob- terfalcatus).Common shrubs were shrubby cinquefoil served that Sun River elk preferredfescue (Potentillafruticosa),fringed sage (Artemisiafrigida), plantsfree of old-growth;of all springgrazing commonsnowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), creeping juniper (Juniperushorizontalis), and silverberry by elk,only 2% was on Idaho fescue(Festuca (Elaeagnuscommutata). idahoensis)and 5% was on roughfescue Topographyis bench-like,sloping slightly to the ungrazed the previous winter.Litter accu- southeastwith gently rolling knobs and kettles.The soilsare mappedas Judith-Windhamstony loam (fine- mulationsbecome a managementproblem loamyand loamy-skeletal,carbonatic Typic Calcibor- whenelk move fromthe management area to olls)(Soil Survey Staff 1975). Mean annual temperature graze on privatelands thatdo not have litter is 6.4 C. Annualprecipitation averages 38-46 cm on thefoothills. Usually, one-third of theannual precip- accumulationsbecause of grazingby domestic itationoccurs during April, May, and June.Annual livestock. precipitationdeviations from 30-year norms were -9.4 Our objectivewas to removeaccumulated cm for1983, -6.6 cm for1984, +4.4 cm in 1985,and +0.10 cm in 1986,with generally below-normal pre- litterand increaseforage availability and qual- cipitationduring the winters and springsof the study.

Treatments ' Presentaddress: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife,and Parks,Montana Outdoor Bldg., Helena, Ourtreatments were designed to reduce plant dam- MT 59620. age by removingstanding litter while forage plants

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CATTLE GRAZING * Jourdonnaisand Bedunah 233

were dormant.Treatments were a springback-fire, Table 1. Fireweather and fuelmoisture data forthe springhead-fire, fall back-fire,fall head-fire,cattle fall1983 and spring1984 prescribed burns on theSun grazing,and control.Plot size forthe control and pre- RiverWildlife Management Area in Montana. scribedfire treatments was 2 ha (50 m x 400 m). The headingand backingfires were performed on 17 Oc- Climatologicalvariables Fall Spring tober1983 and 15 April1984. Firelineswere con- structedby mowing3-m wide strips around each plot Maximumtemperature (C) 10.0 15.5 and burningthese strips with a modifiedversion of the Minimumtemperature (C) 7.2 6.1 doublewet-line technique (Martin et al. 1977). Burn Maximumrelative humidity (%) 50.0 50.0 plotswere ignited with a driptorch, and fireweather Minimumrelative humidity (%) 37.0 27.0 data werecollected with a beltweather kit each 0.5 Mean windspeed (km/h) 8.8 3.2 hourduring the burning (Table 1). Fine fuelmoisture at ignition(%) 6.3 4.3 The cattle-grazingtreatment used 104 cow/calf pairs Fine fuelmoisture at completion(%) 7.4 8.7 on an adjacent104-ha pasture from 18 October1983 to22 December1983. The cattlepasture was separated fromburn and control plots by an electricfence. Forage use by cattlewas measuredby thepaired-plot weight differencemethod (Klingman et al. 1943)using 6 1.0- weight.In 1986,we also estimatedthe utilizationof m2randomly placed agronomy cages. springgrowth of rough fescue. Our study area received littleuse fromother ungulates, and we believethis procedureprovided the most accurate measure of rough Botanical Measurements fescueuse by elk. A secondestimate of forage use wasdetermined by Botanicalbiomass was measuredin late September a modifiedgrazed plant method (Cook and Stubben- ofeach year by clipping 6 0.5-M2plots/treatment. The dieck1986). The numberof roughfescue and Idaho plotswere protected from ungulate grazing by agron- fescueplants that had beengrazed was determined by omycages (1 M2) randomlyplaced during the fall of randomlyselecting 50 pointsalong a transectand then the precedinggrowing season. Vegetation was sepa- recordingif the nearest rough fescue plant and Idaho ratedby species (rough fescue, Idaho fescue, bluebunch fescueplant were grazed. In recordingthe number of wheatgrass)or plantgroup (graminoids, forbs, shrubs, plantsgrazed, no attemptwas made to estimatethe standinglitter, and down litter) during clipping. Stand- amountof use of an individualplant. Six 90-m transects inglitter was thebiomass from previous growing sea- (2 transects/replication)were randomly placed in each sonsthat had accumulatedwithin the grassclumps. treatment;the number of plants grazed is presentedas Down litterwas considered as a previousgrowing sea- a percent. sonproduction that was on thesoil surface. Numberof elk-use days/ha was estimated by count- Forbcomposition data werecollected in June1985 ingcurrent season pellet groups (Neff 1968) on 6 2-m witha modifieddouble sampling technique (Pechanec x 90-mtransects randomly located on each treatment and Pickford1937). Five 0.5-M2 sample sites were ran- (2 transects/replication).Because treatment plots were domlylocated on each treatmentplot, and 15 were relativelysmall, elk use in days/ha was used to compare used on the grazingpasture. Standing crops are ex- use ofthe study area betweenyears, not to determine pressedas kg/habased on an oven-dried(65 C) weight. treatmentdifferences within a year. We measureddensity of roughfescue and Idaho fescuein 1986to determine if treatments had changed thenumber of key forage plants. Individual plants were Experimental Design and countedwithin 15 randomlylocated 0.5-M2 plots/treat- Statistical Analysis ment.The percentageof groundsurface occupied by totalplants and litterwas estimatedwithin the same Prescribedfire treatments and thecontrol were rep- frame.Bareground was determined by subtracting plant licated3 timesin a completelyrandomized design. The coverand littercover from 100%. cattle-grazingtreatment was not replicated because of the expenseof havingreplicated pastures and cattle herds.Therefore, our measures of variance for the cat- Elk Use tle-grazingtreatment are fromsamples within the treatmentand are subjectto theproblems of pseudo- Elk use was estimatedwith 3 techniquesafter elk replication(Hurlbert 1984). Recognizing the potential hadmigrated. We usedthe paired plot weight-estimate for such problems we analyzedthe data with and with- procedure(Klingman et al. 1943)and clipped6 caged out the cattle-grazingtreatment. We foundno in- and6 noncagedsample sites on each treatment in April stanceswhere our conclusions differed when the cattle- 1985 and 1986. The differencesin weightof rough grazingtreatment was included,so we presentedour fescuebiomass produced in theprevious growing sea- resultsbased on replicatedsamples for the control and son betweencaged and noncagedsample sites were prescribedfire treatments and on pseudoreplicated expressedas percentelk utilizationbased on oven-dry samplesfor the cattle-grazing treatment.

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 234 Wildl.Soc. Bull. 18(3) 1990

Table 3. Influenceof prescribed fire and cattlegraz- ing on mean density(plants/M2) of rough fes- cue and fescue idahoen- . (Festucascabrella) Idaho (F. eo ?- - sis) and coverage(%) of litter,total living plants, and coC-)~~~~~1 0 bareground3 yearspost-treatment in 1986 on theSun RiverWildlife Management Area in Montana.

Treatment 3~~~~~~~~~C, -I ,t

124 *-> C 4 - ? ? m? ? m?t c; D Whenanalysis of variance showed treatment effects at the 0.10 level of probability,we used a Duncan's newmultiple-range test (Steel and Torrie1980) to test 0) all possiblecomparisons between means.

_ oS~~~~~~~ ?0 "IV?m

c) 00 r o o Z q mN4 0 v and seasonof burnswere similar,we present 0c~~~~~o.(5vco I ov 0 VI(. 4P ;1 v our resultsof the burntreatments as a group. C13> - ~~ ~4-4r?-t--00c C11O110 Botanical Measurements *0 rC,0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 v "0 c= 4) 1>00Ovv 00 - 0 00 p00 The cattle-grazedand prescribedfire (burn) Q() M ~ 4 treatmentsreduced rough fescue biomass, total standingcrop, and standinglitter compared with the controlin the firstgrowing season post-treatment(Table 2). By the second and thirdpost-treatment growing season, there were , = = = T = T kQ ,:YY > ss :,X s3 E@~~~~~~T 8 b? 010~~~~~~~~~~~: no differencesbetween treatments in biomass of any grassspecies, total shrubs, or totalforbs 00I .0 W (Table 2). Standingand down rough fescue 0 ) 0 00 CZ0 C litterremained greater on the controlthan on F-4.= F- E- EnEn - theburn and cattle-grazedtreatments in 1985

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CATTLE GRAZING * Jourdonnaisand Bedunah 235

and 1986; the down litterin the cattle-grazed 70 treatmentwas intermediatebetween the con- 60- 1983-84 b E 1984-85 b IDAHO FESCUE troland burntreatments. The increasein rough SO- 1W1985-86 b 1986-87 o fescuebetween 1984 and 1985 was 361% for 400 theburn treatments, 274% forthe cattle-graz- a ing treatment,and 174% forthe control. a a Densitiesof roughand Idaho fescueand to- 20- 0 tal plant cover were similarin all treatments o- Haa 3 yearspost-treatment (Table 3). The amount Z 0 loo- of bareground,however, was greateron the i ROUGH FESCUE burnscompared with the controland cattle- 0- grazing treatments3 growingseasons post- rr80- treatment. C 70P C

Althoughthere were no differencesin total :) 60- forbstanding crop between treatments, 3 forb z 50- speciesdid have differentresponses to season ofburning. White prairie aster and blazingstar 40- b had greaterbiomass on springburns compared 30- a withfall burns. Nodding onion (Allium cernu- 20- um) standingcrop was greateron fall burns thanspring burns. 0- CONTROL PRESCRIBEDFIRE CATTLEGRAZED Elk Use Fig. 1. Number(%) of roughfescue (Festuca sca- brella)and Idaho fescue(F. idahoensis)plants that Duringthe winterof 1983-1984,elk use of weregrazed during the winters of 1983-1984,1984- thestudy area averaged16 days/ha.We found 1985,1985-1986, and 1986-1987in thecontrol, pre- morerough fescue plants grazed by elk in the scribedfire, and cattle-grazedtreatments on theSun RiverWildlife Management Area in Montana.Within fall burn treatments,although actual use each yearand speciesthe barswith different letters (% weightlost) was believedminimal. By the weredifferent (P c 0.10). No differenceswere found winterof 1984-1985, elk use had increased (P > 0.10) betweentreatments in 1984-1985,1985- 1986,or 1986-1987for rough fescue. dramatically,averaging 96 days/ha,and the percentof rough fescue plants grazed averaged 95% acrosstreatments (Fig. 1). 25 April1986, the current year's standing crop Utilization(by % weightlost) of roughfes- of rough fescue averaged 484 kg/ha across cue was greateron burn and cattle-grazed treatments,and utilization(% weightlost) av- treatmentsthan on the controlin the winter eraged51% acrosstreatments (Table 4). of 1984-1985 (Fig. 2). In the winterof 1985- In thewinter-spring of 1986-1987,the per- 1986, utilizationof roughfescue was greater cent of roughfescue plants that were grazed in the burn treatmentsthan in the control. averaged 95% acrosstreatments (Fig. 1) and Idaho fescuealso receivedsignificant use by use ofspring growth was high(Table 4). Idaho elk, and the percentof Idaho fescue plants fescuehad also receivedsubstantial amounts grazedby elk was greateron burnand cattle- of grazingby elk,especially on theburn treat- grazedtreatments than on thecontrol (Fig. 1). ments(Table 4). We did not measureweight Elk use of rough fescue averaged across ofrough fescue utilized in winter-spring1986- treatmentswas 82% in 1985-1986,compared 1987, but visual observationsindicated very with68% forthe previous winter (Fig. 2.). On heavy use. Bluebunch wheatgrasswas the

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 236 Wildl.Soc. Bull. 18(3) 1990

Table 4. Influenceof prescribedfire and cattlegraz- 100 ing on the springuse (weightutilized) of roughfes- M 1984-85 cue (Festucascabrella) in 1986and the number of rough 0-2 1985-86 b fescueand Idaho fescue(F. idahoensis)plants with springgrowth grazed (%) in 1987 on the Sun River 80 ab WildlifeManagement Area in Montana. O 70 - U- M e A b Treatment 60 0 Prescribed Cattle 0 Utilization Control fire grazing Li. o 40- Roughfescue z 0 1986 (weight) 52Aa 54A 35B (Festuca abbel)drn h wne-pigo 94 1987(%) 76A 88B 45C _J 20 / Idaho fescue 1987(%) 7A 24B 12AB 10w d

aMeans in the same row followed by differentletters are differ- 0- ent(P - 0.10). CONTROL PRESCRIBEDFIRE CATTLEGRAZED Fig. 2. Utilization(% weightlost) of roughfescue (Festucascabrella) during the winter-spring of 1984- dominantremaining forage and received little 1985and 1985-1986in thecontrol, prescribed fire and use by elk,especially when seed culmswere cattle-grazedtreatments on the Sun RiverWildlife present. ManagementArea in Montana.Within each yearthe barswith different letters were different (P ? 0.10).

DISCUSSION Roughfescue had recoveredfrom the burn Botanical Measurements and cattle-grazedtreatments within 1 year. The declinein roughfescue in responseto Our findingssupport Bailey and Anderson burningwas attributed toheavy accumulations (1978), who foundthat fire reduced coverage of downlitter, which prolonged combustion of roughfescue for 1-3 growingseasons, de- nextto roughfescue stem bases. The heavy pendingon the season of the burnand stage littercreated a nearlycontinuous mat of fuel, of roughfescue growth. We believe thatre- whichallowed head and backing fires to black- coveryof thegraminoids was hastenedby the en themajority of each burn plot. Some rough unusualprecipitation pattern of 1985, which fescuebunches smoldered for 20 minutesafter resultedin recordprecipitation during August thepassage of theflaming front. In addition, and September.This resulted in significantfall thedrought of 1983-1984 may have increased growthof mostplant species, especially cool- treatmentstress. Because of the dry conditions, season bunchgrasses such as roughfescue, Ida- productionon the controls was only about 50% ho fescue,and bluebunchwheatgrass. ofthat found during an averageyear. Creepingjuniper, white prairie aster, blaz- The reductionin roughfescue biomass on ing star,and noddingonion were forbsand thecattle-grazed treatment was caused by stem shrubsthat showed significant fire effects. Most base removaland trampling.Cattle initially individualjuniper plants were not ignitedby selectedrough fescue plants that had lesslitter the fire;however, a more intensefire would and usuallyremoved all standinglitter from probablycause more damage to the juniper, such plants. Many rough fescue plants had whichcould be a concernbecause mule deer enough down litterwithin the bunch to dis- use juniperon partsof the Sun RiverWildlife courage close grazing;however, cattle were ManagementArea. White prairie aster and effectiveat removingthe majority of standing blazing starare warm-seasonperennials that litterwithout decreasing down litter. may not have been dormantduring the fall

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CATTLE GRAZING * Jourdonnais and Bedunah 237

burns.Nodding onion emergesduring early increasethe amount of water and nutrients for springand thusmay be harmedby spring burns. thegrowth of bluebunch wheatgrass and shrubs. Althoughseason of burninfluenced the stand- We attributethe increase in bareground on ing crop of 3 forb species, there were only burntreatments tothe decrease in down litter, minimaldifferences in frequencies.We do not not to a decreasein live-plantcover. More believeour treatments would have a significant baregroundon theburn treatments could re- long-termeffect on any forbspecies. sultin greatersoil loss through wind erosion. We believethat the burn treatments did not Chinookwinds of morethan 100 km/hrare detrimentallyaffect Idaho fescueor bluebunch commonalong the Rocky Mountain Front. Soil wheatgrass.The variabilityin biomassmea- depositson theleeward side of plantsin the surementswas highfor these species, and more burns,especially on thefall burns, were evi- samplesmay have been needed; but Blaisdell dent.Because of observedsoil movement in (1953), Humes (1960) and Antoset al. (1983) fallburn treatments, weadvise against burning also found no effectof fire on bluebunch roughfescue communities along the Montana wheatgrass,and Daubenmire(1975) foundno frontrange during the fall. effecton Idaho fescue. Other studies have showndeleterious effects of fireon Idaho fes- Elk Use cue (Blaisdell 1953, Countrymanand Corne- lius 1957, Humes 1960, Conrad and Poulton The minimaluse of thestudy area in the 1966, Wrightet al. 1979, Antoset al. 1983) winterof 1983-1984 was attributed tothe mild and bluebunchwheatgrass (Conrad and Poul- winterweather, combined with the fact that ton 1966,Daubenmire 1975), but the majority thespring burns had not been completed and of these studieswere associatedeither with thevegetation had not had time to respond to wildfireor withsites more xeric than our study fallburn and cattle-grazingtreatments. The area. increaseduse of thestudy area in thewinter On our site, bluebunchwheatgrass rarely of 1984-1985was a resultof thetreatments' accumulatedlarge amounts of plant litter. Ida- removalof accumulated plant litter from the ho fescue produced a fine-leavedlitter that roughfescue bunches, thereby, making cur- decomposedmore rapidlythan roughfescue rentgrowth of roughfescue more accessible litter.Severe root crown injury of Idaho fescue to theelk. Wright and Bailey(1982) stressed or bluebunchwheatgrass root crowns by burn that1 ofthe major beneficial effects of burning treatmentswas rare. For Idaho fescue, we found grasslandis to attractanimals to grassesthat no differencein densitybetween treatments are normallytoo coarse or containtoo much and we observedno severeroot crown injury litterto be palatable.Burning has been shown followingburning. Similarly, Antos et al. (1983) toincrease nutrient content of shrubs (Lay 1957, foundthat rough fescue is moreseverely dam- Asherin1973, Stransky and Halls1978); how- aged by firethan Idaho fescuefollowing pro- ever,the increase in proteincontent of grasses longedfire-free intervals on the mesicfoothill is slightand short-lived(Hilmon and Hughes regionsof Montana. 1965,Wright and Bailey1982, Jourdonnais The greaterbluebunch wheatgrass and shrub 1985)and probablynot a majorfactor in in- biomassin the cattle-grazedtreatment com- creasinguse of rough fescue for our study site. pared to the control1 growingseason post- Althoughthere were few statistical differ- treatmentwas attributedto lightcattle grazing encesin roughfescue use between the cattle- on thesespecies and heavyutilization of rough grazedand burn treatments, we observedthat fescue.The heavy utilizationof roughfescue elkinitially used plants on the burn treatments decreasedrough fescue growth, which would becauseof a lackof old litter. It wasapparent

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 238 Wildl.Soc. Bull. 18(3) 1990

that plantswith large amountsof old litter, creasedgrazing pressure and possibleoveruse whichwe definedas plantmaterial older than of thissite by elk. the previousgrowing season, were notgrazed Heavyuse ofdormant forage plants is known as oftenor as extensivelyas roughfescue plants to be less damagingthan concentrated use in withless litter. We believethe close proximity thegrowing season. On oursite, it was common of the prescribedfire and cattle-grazedtreat- to see roughfescue plants defoliated below a mentsto the controlsprobably increased elk 5-cmstubble height; on 25 April1986, use (dry use ofthe control by attractingelk to thestudy weight)of rough fescue's new growth averaged area. It was apparentthat elk initiallygrazed 51%. This amountof earlyspring use is a con- roughfescue clumps that did nothave old lit- cernbecause of possibledamage to roughfes- ter,but as foragebecame more limitingelk cue planthealth and long-termsite productiv- made significantuse of roughfescue clumps ity.Reserve carbohydrates in roughfescue are thathad substantialold litter.This was evident at low levels in April and May (Jourdonnais by the winterof 1985-1986 when the entire 1985), and frequentdefoliation would leave studyarea, whichreceived very little use be- littlereserve food forregrowth following re- foreour study,was becomingheavily utilized peateddefoliation in thespring. Lowered car- by elk. Therefore,differences in use of rough bohydratelevels result in decreasedleaf area fescuebetween the control and litterreduction replacementand thereforeless photosynthetic treatmentswere probably greater than our data area and growthrate (Walton1983). McLean suggest.For areas withlarge litteraccumula- and Wikeem (1985) also presentedevidence tions,managers could apply litterreduction of theharmful effects of springdefoliation on treatmentsto smallareas to act as a big-game roughfescue; they found that clipping rough lure.Attracting animals to the area in sufficient fescue to 5 cm weeklyfrom 15 April to 15 numberswould reduce standing litter through June,or from15 Aprilto 15 May and once in pawingand grazing. September,resulted in 25% and 27% mortality, A comparisonof winter-spring1983-1984 respectively.Therefore, the heavy springuse (initialyear of treatments)and winter-spring of roughfescue by elk, combinedwith very 1986-1987, both very mild winters,showed heavywinter grazing, will probablybe detri- muchheavier elk use in 1986-1987.Therefore, mentalto roughfescue production on ourstudy eitherthe numberof elk days was greateron area. the Sun Riverarea or elk were concentrating on the studyarea because of the removalof SUMMARY the litter,or both of these factorsmay have combinedto cause increaseduse of our study Prescribedfire and fallcattle-grazing treat- area. The low amountof roughfescue forage mentswere applied during fall 1983 and spring remainingafter the elk migrated was a concern 1984 on a roughfescue community to reduce because of the potentialneed for additional litteraccumulations and increaseelk use. Burn forage.For example,assuming that elk need and cattle-grazingtreatments reduced rough 5.5 kg of drymatter/day, the treatmentarea fescuestanding crop, the preferred winter elk had only 8.7 elk days/ha,15.0 elk days/ha, forage,during the initialgrowing season. By and 27.5 elk days/haof roughfescue forage the second growingseason, the roughfescue remainingfor the burn, cattle-grazed, and con- standingcrop was similarto the controlin all trol treatments,respectively, following the treatments.The controlcontinued to have more winterof 1985-1986.We believethe increased standingand down roughfescue littercom- use of Idaho fescue in 1986-1987 compared pared withother treatments. The cattle-graz- withother years is additionalevidence of in- ingtreatment maintained more down litter ac-

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CATTLE GRAZING * Jourdonnaisand Bedunah 239

cumulationsthan the burn treatments.Total LITERATURE CITED forb,total shrub, and graminoidstanding crops ANTOS, J.A., B. MCCUNE,AND C. BARA. 1983. The were similarfor all treatmentsin the second effectof fireon an ungrazedwestern Montana and thirdgrowing seasons after treatment. grassland.Am. Midland Nat. 110:354-364. Elk use of thestudy area was limitedto late ARNO,S. F. 1980. Forestfire history in theNorthern Rockies.J. For. 78:460-465. fall,winter, and earlyspring and was greater ASHERIN,D. A. 1973. Prescribedburning effects on in theburn and cattle-grazedtreatments com- nutrition,production, and big game use of key paredwith the control. Elk use ofrough fescue northernIdaho browse species. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ.Idaho, Moscow. 96pp. was concentratedon plantswithout heavy lit- BAILEY, A. W., AND M. L. ANDERSON. 1978. Prescribed ter. Idaho fescue received significantuse by burningof a Festuca-Stipagrassland. J. Range elk only afterrough fescue was heavilyuti- Manage.31:446-449. BLAISDELL, J. P. 1953. Ecologicaleffect of planned lized. Bluebunchwheatgrass and othernative burningof sagebrush-grassrange on the upper speciesreceived little or no use. Cattlegrazing SnakeRiver Plains. U.S. Dep. Agric.Tech. Bull. was not as effectivein reducingthe accumu- 1063.37pp. CONRAD,E. C., AND C. E. POULTON. 1966. Effectof lated plant litteras the burningtreatments; wildfireon Idaho fescueand bluebunchwheat- however,cattle grazingcreated a mosaic of grass.J. Range Manage. 19:138-141. heavyto lightlygrazed areas whilemaintain- COOK, C. W., AND J. STUBBENDIECK, EDITORS. 1986. Range research:basic problemsand techniques. ing littercover on the soil surface. Soc. forRange Manage., Denver, Colo. 317pp. Few differenceswere found in botanical bio- COUNTRYMAN,C. M., AND D. R. CORNELIUS.1957. Some massor elk use amongthe different seasons of effectsof fireon a perennialrange type. J. Range Manage.10:39-41. burnand typesof burn.However, when burn- DAUBENMIRE,R. 1975. Plantsuccession on abandoned ing is a managementoption to improveforage fields,and fire influences, ina steppearea in south- use of grasslandswith large amounts of accu- easternWashington. Northwest Sci. 49:36-48. HARVEY, S. J. 1980. The potentialand currentvege- mulatedlitter, we believe thatimplementing tationof the Sun Rivergame range.Printed in firesduring years of normalto above-normal cooperationwith Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor.Proj. precipitationis desirable. For these foothill W-130-Rand theAllan Found. Mont. Dep. Fish, Wildl.,and Parks,Wildl. Div., Helena.82pp. roughfescue grasslands, we suggesta spring HILMON,J. B., AND R. H. HUGHES. 1965. Fire and burn. The springburn should be applied as foragein the wiregrasstype. J. Range Manage. 18: soon aftersnowmelt as possiblebecause pre- 251-254. HUMES,H. R. 1960. The ecological effectof fireon scribed burningmay decrease rough fescue naturalgrassland in westernMontana. M.S. Thesis. productionfor at least3 yearsfollowing a late Univ. Montana, Missoula. 89pp. springburn (Bailey and Anderson1978). Re- HURLBERT,S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplicationand thede- signof ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. movingvegetation with a fall burn increases 54:187-211. thechances of soil erosionby windand water, JOURDONNAIS,C. S. 1985. Prescribedfire and cattle does notleave plantbiomass to holdsnow and grazing influenceson the vegetationand elk use of a rough fescue community.M.S. Thesis. Univ. providemoisture during spring melt, could in- Montana, Missoula. 100pp. crease frostdamage, and leaves no foragefor KLINGMAN, D. L., S. R. MILES,AND G. 0. MomT. 1943. theelk duringthe initial winter after burning. The cage methodfor determining consumption and yieldof pastureherbage. J. Am. Soc. Agron. Acknowledgments.-Research was sup- 35:739-746. portedby theCobb Foundation,Montana De- KNIGHT, R. 1970. The Sun Riverelk herd.Wildl. partmentof Fish,Wildlife, and Parks,and the Monogr.23. 66pp. LAY, D. W. 1957. Browsequality and theeffects of MontanaForest and ConservationExperiment prescribedburning in southern pine forests. J.For. Station.We thankB. Goodman,Manager of 55:342-347. theSun RiverWildlife Management Area, and MARTIN, R. E., S. E. COLEMAN, AND A. H. JOHNSON. 1977. Wetline technique for prescribedburning R. Wakimotoof the Universityof Montana in rangeland.U.S. Dep. Agric.For. Ser. Res. Note Schoolof Forestryfor their assistance. PNW-292. 4pp.

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 240 Wildl.Soc. Bull. 18(3) 1990

MCLEAN,A., AND S. WIKEEM. 1985. Roughfescue andprocedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill Co., New responseto seasonand intensityof defoliation.J. York,N.Y. 633pp. RangeManage. 38:100-103. STRANSKY,J. J., AND L. K. HALLS. 1978. Browsequality NEFF, D. J. 1968. The pellet-grouptechnique for big affectedby pine site preparationin east Texas. gametrend, census, and distribution:a review. J. Proc.Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Wildl.Manage. 32:597-614. Agencies30:507-512. PECHANEC, J.F., AND G. D. PICKFORD. 1937. A com- WALTON, P. 1983. Productionand managementof parisonof some methods used in determiningper- cultivatedforages. Reston Publ. Co., Reston,Va. centutilization of rangegrasses. J. Agric. Res. 54: 336pp. 753-765. WRIGHT, H. A., AND A. W. BAILEY. 1982. Fire Ecol- PICTON, H. D., AND I. E. PICTON. 1975. Saga of the ogy:United States and southern Canada. John Wi- Sun:a historyof theSun Riverelk herd.Printed ley and Sons,New York,N.Y. 499pp. in cooperationwith Fed. Aid Wildl.Restor. Proj. , L. F. NEUENSCHWANDER, AND C. M. BRITrON. W-130-Rand theAllan Found. Mont. Dep. Fish, 1979. The roleand use of firein sagebrush-grass Wildl.and Parks,Wildl. Div., Helena.54pp. and pinyon-juniperplant communities: a state-of- SOIL SURVEY STAFF. 1975. Soiltaxonomy. A basicsys- the-artreview. U.S. For. Serv.Gen. Tech. Rep. tem of soil classificationfor making and inter- INT-58.48pp. pretingsoil surveys.Agr. Handb. 436, U.S. Dep. Agric.,Soil Cons. Serv.,U.S. Gov. Print.Office, Received24 April1989. Washington,D.C. 754pp. Accepted20 February1990. STEEL, R. G. D., AND J.H. TORRIE. 1980. Principles

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:240-245, 1990

RESPONSE OF KEY FOODS OF CALIFORNIAQUAIL TO HABITAT MANIPULATIONS

KEVIN L. BLAKELY,' Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR 97331

JOHN A. CRAWFORD, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR 97331

R. SCOTT LUTZ,2 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR 97331

KEVIN M. KILBRIDE, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR 97331

Food supply was identifiedby Leopold lametteValley, Oregon,Oates (1979) found (1977) as a factorthat may limitCalifornia that quail abundance and productivitywere quail (Callipepla californica) populations. relatedto theavailability of certainkey foods, Emlen and Glading (1945) stated that quail primarilyannual forbs. numbersfluctuated with the abundance of food In mesicportions of therange of California if adequate cover was available. In the Wil- quail (fromnorthwestern California through westernOregon and Washingtonto British Co- lumbia),early seral stage grasslandsand cul- ' Presentaddress: Oregon Department of Fish and tivatedareas are preferredhabitats (Barclay Wildlife,3814 ClarkBlvd., Ontario, OR 97914. 2 Presentaddress: Department of Rangeand Wild- and Bergerud1975, Crawford 1978). Manage- life,Texas Tech University,Lubbock, TX 79409. ment of these habitatsnecessitates frequent

This content downloaded from 166.7.157.176 on Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:20:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions