Prescribed Fire and Cattle Grazing on an Elk 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 plant 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, prairie 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 (Liatris 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 plants 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