Woodland salamander response to two prescribed fires in the central Appalachians

Ford, W. Mark; Rodrigue, Jane L.; Rowan, Ella L.; Castleberry, Steven B.; Schuler, Thomas M.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.022

Cited by 26 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We therefore made no further adjustment to our data (cf. Ford et al 2010) before fitting generalized linear mixed models.…”

Section: Zero-inflated Binomial Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Responses to fire are often measured using a sampling method that depends on animal activity, such as calling by frogs or birds and movement into stationary traps by terrestrial animals (e.g. Cunningham et al 1999;Driscoll 1998;Ford et al 2010;Yarnell et al 2007), including reptiles (Schlesinger 2007). However, if movement rates differ between recently burnt and long-unburnt habitat, abundance estimates based on pitfall trap captures will be confounded with movement (Anderson 2003;Driscoll and Henderson 2008;Schutz and Driscoll 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reptile responses to fire and the risk of post-disturbance sampling bias

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Altered fire regimes are a driver of biodiversity decline. To plan effective management, we need to know how species are influenced by fire and to develop theory describing fire responses. Animal responses to fire are usually measured using methods that rely on animal activity, but animal activity may vary with time since fire, potentially biasing results. Using a novel approach for detecting bias in the pit-fall trap method, we found that leaf-litter dependent reptiles were more active up to 6 weeks after fire, giving a misleading impression of abundance. This effect was not discovered when modelling detectability with zero-inflated binomial models. Two species without detection bias showed early-successional responses to time since fire, consistent with a habitat-accommodation succession model. However, a habitat specialist did not have the predicted low abundance after fire due to increased post-fire movement and non-linear recovery of a key habitat component. Interactions between fire and other processes therefore must be better understood to predict reptile responses to changing fire-regimes. We conclude that there is substantial bias when trapping reptiles after fire, with species that are otherwise hard to detect appearing to be abundant. Studies that use a survey method based on animal activity such as bird calls or animal movements, likely face a similar risk of bias when comparing recently-disturbed with control sites.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract

“…We therefore made no further adjustment to our data (cf. Ford et al 2010) before fitting generalized linear mixed models.…”

Section: Zero-inflated Binomial Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reptile responses to fire and the risk of post-disturbance sampling bias

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could be due to higher activity levels associated with decreased litter depth or cover and associated changes in microclimate, changes in prey availability, or expanded foraging areas (Homyack et al 2011). In contrast, other studies reported short‐term decreased surface activity and abundance, and increased use of cover objects after 1 (O'Donnell et al , 2016) or 2 (Ford et al ) low‐intensity dormant‐season prescribed burns in upland hardwood forest, based on diurnal plot searches or coverboard methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Heavy research focus on terrestrial salamanders as indicators of forest health (Ash , Harpole and Haas , Homyack and Haas , Ford et al , O'Donnell et al ) is partly because they are abundant, and easily captured using visual searches or coverboards (O'Donnell and Semlitsch ) compared to many other amphibian or reptile species (Moorman et al ). In contrast, drift fences with pitfall traps sample multiple, surface‐active reptile, and amphibian species, providing a broader overview of community‐level response to disturbances, and allowing for assessment of various species with different life‐history requirements, as potential indicators of forest conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐term herpetofaunal response to repeated fuel reduction treatments

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fuel reduction treatments are used to reduce wildfire risk and to restore plant communities. Yet, repeated mechanical or prescribed fire treatments may gradually change forest structure and microhabitat conditions, favoring some taxa and decreasing suitability for others. We experimentally assessed long‐term (intermittent years, 2003–2016) effects of repeated dormant‐season mechanical and prescribed fire treatments on capture rates of reptiles and amphibians in southern Appalachian upland hardwood forests. Treatments were mechanical understory removal (twice), prescribed burning (4 times; burn‐only), mechanical understory removal followed 1 year later by high‐severity prescribed burns and 3 subsequent burns (mechanical + burn), and untreated controls. Initial burns were hotter in mechanical + burn than burn‐only units, resulting in heavy tree mortality and increased canopy openness within 2 growing‐seasons post‐burn. We captured 4,606 individuals of 15 amphibian and 20 reptile species. Capture rates of American toads (Anaxyrus americanus), green frogs (Lithobates clamitans), plethodontid salamanders (Plethodon spp.), and northern red salamanders (Pseudotriton ruber) were not affected by any fuel reduction treatment. The capture rate of five‐lined skinks (Plestiodon fasciatus) was greater in mechanical + burn than burn‐only or control units, and the capture rate of eastern fence lizards (Sceloporus undulatus) was greater in mechanical + burn than control units. Juvenile eastern fence lizard captures were greater in mechanical + burn units and increased over time, indicating that high‐severity burning followed by repeated burns may improve conditions for successful recruitment. Different responses among species highlight the importance of including multiple taxa when assessing effects of forest disturbances on wildlife, and give perspective on how forest health may vary depending on target taxa. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…We did not capture many salamanders throughout our study ( n = 51). Past studies have observed minimal differences in salamander and other amphibian relative abundance among burned and unburned sites (Moseley et al , Keyser et al , Ford et al ). Treatment buffers and streamside‐management zones within each of our study sites could have offered refuge for these and other herpetofaunal species during prescribed burns (i.e., dense vegetation structure; Goldstein et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Summer herpetofaunal response to prescribed fire and herbicide in intensively managed, mid‐rotation pine stands in Mississippi

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managers of commercial forests are increasingly expected to incorporate conservation of biodiversity in forest management plans, but a paucity of information exists regarding herpetofaunal responses to mid‐rotation release practices of dormant‐season prescribed fire and selective herbicide in intensively managed pine (Pinus spp.) stands. However, these management tools have demonstrated capabilities of improving conservation value in these forests in the southeastern United States. Therefore, we investigated summer herpetofaunal responses to factorial combinations of dormant‐season prescribed fire and a commonly used herbicide (imazapyr) with a randomized complete block design of 6 mid‐rotation pine stands with 4 experimental units in Mississippi, USA, to which we applied at random 1 of 4 treatments (i.e., burn only, herbicide only, burn + herbicide, control). We captured 814 reptiles and 3,699 amphibians of 17 and 16 species, respectively, using drift‐fence arrays during May and June, 1999–2007. Herpetofaunal assemblages only differed between burn + herbicide and control plots in 2002. Species‐specific responses were limited to differences across years within treatments and greater eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) relative abundance in burned or herbicide‐treated sites soon after treatment. Furthermore, herpetofaunal associations with measured environmental variables (e.g., vegetation structure and biomass and trap‐site characteristics) did not indicate that treatment influenced fluctuations in species relative abundances. Consistent with past studies, forest managers of commercial pine forests using dormant‐season prescribed fire with or without imazapyr will most likely have minimal additional effects on herpetofaunal assemblages, but current knowledge gaps require additional research to better understand mechanisms of species abundance and persistence in these landscapes. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Woodland salamander response to two prescribed fires in the central Appalachians

Cited by 26 publications

References 42 publications

Reptile responses to fire and the risk of post-disturbance sampling bias

Reptile responses to fire and the risk of post-disturbance sampling bias

Long‐term herpetofaunal response to repeated fuel reduction treatments

Summer herpetofaunal response to prescribed fire and herbicide in intensively managed, mid‐rotation pine stands in Mississippi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About