Next Article in Journal
Comparing Observed and Projected Changes in Australian Fire Climates
Previous Article in Journal
Probabilistic Forecasting of Lightning Strikes over the Continental USA and Alaska: Model Development and Verification
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fire
Volume 7
Issue 4
10.3390/fire7040112
fire-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Using Prescribed Fire and Biosolids Applications as Grassland Management Tools: Do Wildlife Respond?

by
Brian Washburn
1,* and
Michael Begier
2
1
National Wildlife Research Center, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 43452, USA
2
USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, 4700 River Road, 2D-03A, Riverdale, MD 20737, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fire 2024, 7(4), 112; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7040112
Submission received: 30 October 2023 / Revised: 26 March 2024 / Accepted: 28 March 2024 / Published: 31 March 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Prescribed burning is a management tool commonly used in forested ecosystems in the southeastern United States, but the influence of this method on grassland vegetation and wildlife in this geographic region is unknown. During 2009–2015, we conducted a study to determine if the application of prescribed burning and/or long-term biosolid applications alter plant communities and/or wildlife use of grassland areas at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, NC. We monitored vegetation growth, measured plant community composition, and documented wildlife activity in four study plots for 3 years after the implementation of annual winter prescribed burns. Prescribed burning reduced the amount of litter, increased bare ground during spring, and altered the plant community composition relative to areas that were not burned. Overall, prescribed burning did not alter (F1,803 = 0.37, p = 0.54) bird use of the airfield grasslands, while the long-term application of biosolids resulted in higher (F1,803 = 17.61, p < 0.01) bird use. Few species-specific differences in avian use of prescribed burned and unburned grasslands were found. In contrast, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) use of areas that were burned in winter, as well as the adjacent unburned areas, was drastically reduced. Winter prescribed burning appeared to remove forage plants at the time of year deer would use them the most. Our findings suggest that prescribed burning and biosolid applications, used alone and in combination, might be viable grassland management tools for altering wildlife use of grassland areas, specifically white-tailed deer; however, similar research at additional locations should be conducted.

1. Introduction

Fire was historically a major influence shaping grassland and forested ecosystems in the eastern United States [1,2,3,4]. Prescribed fire is a tool that is widely used by resource management agencies, private landowners, and other entities to mimic previously occurring natural processes (e.g., lightning-caused wildfires; [5]). Burning alters the structure, composition, and patterns of vegetation within wildlife habitats. Consequently, the vegetation communities present within these areas provide habitats for wildlife and directly influence the composition of those wildlife communities.
Prescribed burning has been recognized as an important management tool in the maintenance and manipulation of forested ecosystems in the southeastern United States [1,2,6]. Land managers use prescribed fire in this way because there are several ecological and socio-economic benefits, including reducing the probability of catastrophic wildfires, improving habitat quality for wildlife and livestock, and altering plant communities to favor the growth of tree species valuable for timber and other forest products [4,6,7]. Much of the research regarding applications of prescribed fire to grassland ecosystems has occurred on midwestern rangelands, most notably native prairie communities [7,8,9], whereas the effects of prescribed burning on vegetation within existing cool-season and native grasslands in the eastern United States are relatively unknown.
The land application of municipal biosolids (i.e., treated and stabilized sewage sludge) provides benefits and improves the physical, chemical, and biological structure of soils [10,11]. Biosolids are commonly used to amend soils within agricultural lands [12,13], to enhance rangeland and agricultural plant production [14,15,16], in forestry applications [17,18], or in ecological restoration efforts of degraded lands [19,20]. Biosolids also act as slow-release fertilizers, recycling organic matter and providing impoverished soils with nutrients [10,14]. Although much is known about changes in soils and plant communities due to the land application of biosolids, few studies have examined how various wildlife taxa respond to either short- or long-term biosolid applications [21,22,23,24].
Wildlife responses to prescribed burning, long-term biosolid applications, or a combination of these land management tools in eastern grasslands have not been well studied, and empirical data regarding these responses are lacking. Prescribed burning and/or biosolids application within these grasslands and rangelands might alter the attractiveness of these areas to wildlife by inducing changes in the characteristics of the plant communities contained therein. Such information is essential for land use planners and wildlife managers attempting to assess the environmental impacts of prescribed burning and land application of biosolids in grassland ecosystems. This information might be particularly useful for resource managers who are tasked with managing grassland areas that are heavily influenced by anthropogenic activities (e.g., parks, nature preserves, airfields, etc.).
The objectives of our study were to compare the following: (1) plant communities, (2) bird use, and (3) white-tailed deer use of grasslands with and without the application of prescribed burning and long-term applications of biosolids.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

Our study area was Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, located in Craven County, North Carolina, USA (lat. 34°54′ N, long. 76°52′ W), adjacent to the Neuse River and approximately 80 km inland from the Atlantic Ocean. This location receives mean annual precipitation of 1300 mm yr–1, with typically 60% falling as rain during April–September [25]. Average daily temperatures at MCAS Cherry Point are 26.1 °C during summer and 8.3 °C during winter. Norfolk loamy fine sands (very strongly acidic, well drained, moderate permeability), Bragg soils altered by construction methods (extremely acidic, well drained, moderate permeability), and Rains fine sandy loams (extremely acidic, poorly drained, moderate permeability) comprise the soils in the study area [25].
The vegetation on the airfield itself was a mixture of grasses, forbs and legumes, woody plants, and vines which likely originated from post-airfield construction seeding efforts, as well as the herbaceous layer of Mesic Pine Flatwood forest communities that surrounds the airfield [26]. Tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.) S.J. Darbyshire), bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flueggé), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash), and hairy crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.) were the dominant grasses on the airfield, whereas trumpet creeper (Campsis radican (L.) Seem. ex Bureau) and goldenrod (Solidago sp. L.) were abundant forbs. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planchhe.) represented the vines commonly found in airfield grasslands.
A diversity of bird species and guilds is commonly observed on the MCAS Cherry Point airfield, including eastern meadowlarks [Sturnella magna], European starlings [Sturnus vulgaris], swallows (consisting of several species), and American robins [Turdus migratorius]. Our source for plant and animal scientific nomenclature was the USDA Integrated Taxonomic Information System [27].
An integrated wildlife damage management program is implemented at MCAS Cherry Point to reduce the risk of collisions between wildlife and military aircraft. The airfield at MCAS Cherry Point is managed in accordance with air safety regulations and typically mowed several times during the growing season.

2.2. Prescribed Burning Applications and Study Plots

Due to logistical restraints, we were limited in the number of treatment plots we were able to establish on the MCAS Cherry Point airfield. Conducting prescribed burning activities on an active military airfield requires a substantial amount of coordination to ensure the safety of pilots and aircrews, ground crewmembers, and those involved in the maintenance of the airfield. In addition, areas selected for prescribed burning must be a safe distance from fuel storage areas, aircraft movement areas, and other critical infrastructure. The long-term application of biosolids has occurred in selected portions of the MCAS Cherry Point airfield, primarily in the southern parts of the installation.
In November 2011, we established two sets of paired study plots that each contained 5.25 ha control (unburned) and 5.25 ha prescribed burn monitoring plots in the grassland areas of the MCAS Cherry Point airfield (Figure 1). The two sets of paired plots were approximately 2 km apart and were similar in distance to forested areas, runways, water bodies, and other landscape characteristics. Importantly, the size of the study plots in our study (5.25 ha) is consistent with the size of grassland areas used in other studies involving grassland birds [28,29,30,31].
Two plots were established in a northern area of the airfield grasslands that has never received any biosolids. Plant communities in these plots were dominated by tall fescue, panicum grasses (Panicum spp. L.), bahiagrass, blueberry (Vaccinium spp. L.), common greenbriar (Smilax spp. L.), and blackberry (Rubus spp. L.).
The other two plots were established in a southern area of the airfield grasslands that has annually received surface-applied lime-stabilized biosolids at a rate of 7.6 Mg per ha on a dry weight basis (using an average of 194,887 L ha−1 of water as a carrier) annually during a 27-year period (1989–2015). Plant communities in these plots were dominated by tall fescue, hairy crabgrass, bahiagrass, yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.), wild peppermint (Mentha pulegium L.), and polygonums (Polygonum spp. L.).
Prescribed burning activities were conducted during January of 2012 and February of 2013 and 2014. We conducted winter burning activities in the late afternoon and early evening when wind was low (2–16 kph), relative humidity was rising (25–60%), and air temperatures ranged from 10 to 20 °C [32].

2.3. Vegetation Measurement

We measured vegetation height each month during the 2012, 2013, and 2014 growing seasons (i.e., April–October). Using a random numbers table, we randomly selected and sampled 30 sample points in each of the four study plots each month. At each sample point, we measured vegetation height at each sample point by placing a 1 m stick vertically and recording the average height (in cm) of living vegetation surrounding the stick (i.e., within 25 cm of the stick).
We quantified plant community composition by randomly establishing and sampling 30 1 m2 herbaceous sampling plots within each study plot during the fall of 2011 (1–3 November; prior to prescribed burning), spring of 2012 (23–24 April), fall of 2012 (22–23 October), spring of 2013 (29–30 April), fall of 2013 (13–15 November), spring of 2014 (6–7 May), and fall of 2014 (28–29 October). The total vegetative canopy cover (%), bare ground (%), litter (%), and canopy cover (%) of each individual plant species were visually estimated within each herbaceous sampling plot [33]. We determined plant species richness by identifying and counting the total number of different plant species within each herbaceous sampling plot [33]. Within each individual herbaceous sampling plot, we calculated the relative percent plant community composition of four vegetation classes (i.e., grasses, forbs and legumes, vines, and woody plants) by totaling the percent cover of all plants categorized within the vegetation classes [33].

2.4. Avian Surveys

We conducted avian surveys (3 min fixed area point-counts; [34,35]) each month during January 2013–January 2015. Surveys were equally distributed among morning, mid-day, and evening time periods. Avian surveys were conducted an average of 5.6 days per month (range = 2–7) starting at randomly chosen plots and times. During each bird survey, we observed each study plot for 3 min from a fixed point within 30 m of the center of the plot. All birds observed during each bird survey were identified as individual taxonomic species. We recorded the number of birds, by species, that were observed on the ground or on a plant within the plot, flying and feeding over the plot, or flying over the plot for each activity.

2.5. White-Tailed Deer Surveys

During 2009–2014, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) use of the four study plots, as well as the entire airfield, was estimated. We conducted a total of 148 white-tailed deer surveys (average of 24.7 surveys per year) during this time period. Deer spotlight surveys began approximately 30 min after sunset. During each individual deer survey, we traveled to each of the four study plots in a pickup truck. Two observers examined each study plot for a 5 min period, aided by a 1,000,000-candle power spotlight (Larson Electronics LLC, Kemp, Texas, USA), and counted the total number of white-tailed deer observed within each plot.
In addition to the deer surveys conducted in the four study plots, we evaluated the historical and concurrent MCAS Cherry Point airfield white-tailed deer surveys (n = 148; 2.1 surveys per month) conducted during 2009–2014. Approximately 26.2 km in length, the white-tailed deer spotlight survey route encompassed all portions of the airfield.

2.6. Statistical Analyses

We determined that the vegetation data (e.g., height and plant community composition) were normally distributed. We used a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s protected LSD tests [36,37] to compare vegetation height between unburned and prescribed burned plots, as well as between biosolids-treated plots and those without biosolids for 2012, 2013, and 2014, independently. In addition, we combined the vegetation height data (across the three years) and used two-way ANOVA and Fisher’s protected LSD tests [36,37] to compare vegetation height between unburned and prescribed burned plots, as well as between biosolids-treated plots and those without biosolids.
We used a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and Fisher’s protected LSD tests to determine if plant community characteristics (i.e., total vegetative canopy cover, bare ground, litter, and plant species richness) differed between prescribed burn and biosolids treatments [36,37]. We used the appropriate pre-treatment (i.e., fall of 2011) plant community characteristics as a covariate.
Two-way ANCOVA and Fisher’s protected LSD tests were also used to determine if vegetation composition components (i.e., grass, forbs and legumes, vines, and woody plants) differed between prescribed burn and biosolids treatments [36,37]. We used the appropriate pre-treatment (i.e., fall of 2011) vegetation composition components as a covariate.
Although birds that only used the observational space as a movement corridor were recorded (e.g., those with the “pass flying” activity code), these data were removed prior to our analyses [38]. We also placed all birds observed using the control and treatment monitoring plots into foraging guilds using a standard classification [39]. We compared bird use (number of birds per 3 min survey) among the four treatments using a repeated measures ANOVA and Fisher’s protected LSD tests [32,33]. We compared the proportion of birds within foraging guilds using the four treatment plots using G-tests for goodness-of-fit tests [36].
We compared white-tailed deer use (number of deer observed per plot) among the four treatments and before and after burning implementation using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Fisher’s protected LSD tests [36,37]. In addition, we compared white-tailed deer relative abundance (total number of deer observed per airfield survey) on the MCAS Cherry Point airfield during 2009–2011 to the relative abundance of deer on the airfield during 2012–2014 using a repeated measures ANOVA and Fisher’s protected LSD tests [37]. We considered differences to be significant at p ≤ 0.05 and conducted all analyses using SAS statistical software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Data are presented as mean ± 1 standard error (SE).

3. Results

3.1. Plant Communities

During the first three growing seasons following the implementation of prescribed burning (2012, 2013, and 2014), there was a significant interaction (2011: F1,836 = 6.26, p = 0.01; 2013: F1,836 = 47.16, p < 0.01; and 2013: F1,836 = 18.97, p < 0.01) between the ‘prescribed burn’ and ‘biosolids’ factors for mean vegetation height. Also, when we combined all three sampling years (2012–2014), there was a significant interaction (F1,2516 = 39.74, p < 0.01) between the ‘prescribed burn’ and ‘biosolids’ factors for mean vegetation height. Vegetation in the unburned, non-biosolids-treated study plot was shorter (all p < 0.05 according to Fisher’s protected LSD tests) than in the other three study plots in each year, as well as when all 3 years are combined (Table 1).
We found that prescribed burning resulted in more bare ground (F1,715 = 68.02, p < 0.01), less litter (F1,715 = 65.29, p < 0.01), and more plant species richness (F1,715 = 24.76, p < 0.01) compared to unburned study plots, whereas total vegetative cover was not different (F1,715 = 0.98, p = 0.32) between burned and unburned plots (Table 2). Biosolids-treated plots had lower total vegetative canopy cover (F1,715 = 44.67, p < 0.01), more bare ground (F1,715 = 86.38, p < 0.01), and lower plant species richness (F1,715 = 13.60, p < 0.01) than the plots that did not receive biosolids; however, litter was not different (F1,715 = 1.38, p = 0.24) between the plots that received biosolids and those that did not (Table 2).
During the fall, biosolids-treated study plots had less total vegetative canopy cover and more bare ground than those that did not receive biosolids (Figure 2). Prescribed burned study plots had more bare ground and less litter than unburned study plots during spring (Figure 2).
We found a significant ‘prescribed burn’ and ‘biosolids’ interaction for grasses (F1,715 = 7.49, p < 0.01) and forbs and legumes (F1,715 = 6.15, p = 0.04). The untreated control study plot had the highest amount of grass and the lowest amount of forbs and legumes, while the prescribed burned and biosolids-treated plot had the lowest amount of grass and the highest amount of forbs and legumes (Table 3).
Prescribed burning resulted in higher amounts of vines (F1,715 = 38.85, p < 0.01) and woody plants (F1,715 = 8.91, p = 0.03) compared to unburned plots (Table 2). Biosolids-treated plots had less vines (F1,715 = 56.87, p < 0.01) than those that did not receive biosolids, whereas woody plants were not different (F1,715 = 0.0, p = 0.97).
Prescribed burning in the burn-only study plot altered the plant community within that area by increasing the amount of forbs and legumes, vines, and woody plants (Figure 3). Prescribed burning changed the composition of those plant communities by removing blueberry and increasing the amount of Virginia creeper, blackberry, mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastium brachypodum (Engelm. ex A. Gray) B.L. Rob.), and three-seeded mercury (Acalypha rhomboidea Raf).
The plant communities in the two study plots that received biosolids changed rather drastically during the study (2012–2014). The proportion of grasses (primarily tall fescue and hairy crabgrass) decreased, while the amount of forbs and legumes [mostly Carolina crane’s-bill (Geranium carolinianum L.), tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris L.), polygonums, and wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana Duchesne)] increased considerably (Figure 3). Although these changes occurred in both the prescribed burned and unburned biosolids-treated plots, the shift in plant community composition was more pronounced in the prescribed burn plot (Figure 3).

3.2. Avian Responses

We conducted 202 3 min avian point-count surveys, during which we observed a total of 4581 individual birds, representing 46 different species. A total of 340 (7.4%) of these birds were categorized as “pass flying”, a behavior suggesting that these birds were not associated with a study plot. Consequently, we removed these birds from the dataset prior to conducting further analyses.
Overall, we observed birds 4241 times that exhibited a behavior suggesting that these birds were using the study plots (e.g., on the ground in the plot). Forty-four different bird species were observed, but eastern meadowlarks (36.2% of observations), European starlings (17.8%), song sparrows (Melospiza melodia; 16.6%), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus; 4.9%) were the species most frequently observed during the study (Table 4).
We observed similar (F1,803 = 0.37, p = 0.54) total birds per 3 min survey using (i.e., on the ground or on plants) prescribed burned (5.5 ± 0.6 birds) and unburned (5.0 ± 0.6 birds) plots. We observed more (F1,803 = 17.61, p < 0.01) total birds per 3 min survey using the biosolids-treated plots (6.9 ± 0.6 birds) than using the two study plots that did not receive biosolids (3.6 ± 0.6 birds). Also, the number of birds per 3 min survey using the burn-only treatment plot was higher than bird use of the untreated (control) study plot (Table 4). The diversity of bird species using the four treatment study plots was similar. We observed a total of 28, 28, 30, and 30 individual bird species using the untreated (control), burn-only, biosolids-only, and burn and biosolids treatment plots, respectively, over the 25-month period.
Limited species-specific variation occurred in bird use of the prescribed burn and unburned study plots. Although most bird species and guilds did not appear to exhibit a preference among the four treatment study plots, a few interesting patterns were evident (Table 4). Fewer eastern meadowlarks (F3,760 = 4.43, p = 0.01) used the biosolids-only study plot compared to the other three study plots, whereas shorebirds [excluding killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)] were found almost exclusively in the biosolids-only plot. Warblers used the two plots that did not receive biosolids more (F3,760 = 3.22, p = 0.03) than the two treatment plots that had biosolids applied; however, the opposite was true (F3,760 = 6.83, p < 0.01) for European starlings (Table 3). Song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) used the biosolids-only plot the most and the untreated (control) study plot the least (F3,760 = 5.80, p < 0.01).
Overall, the comparison of foraging guilds using the unburned and prescribed burned areas was relatively similar (Figure 4). The proportions of birds within the carnivore, omnivore: ground forager, insectivorous aerial foraging, insectivorous ground gleaning birds, and “other” avian feeding guilds using the four study plots were similar (all p > 0.10). Interestingly, compared to the other three study plots, a higher (G3 = 10.3, p = 0.02) proportion of granivore: ground gleaner birds used the biosolids-only treatment plot during this study (Figure 4).

3.3. White-Tailed Deer Responses

We conducted white-tailed deer surveys (n = 71) within the study plots prior to the implementation of prescribed burning (during 2009−2011) and counted a total of 248 white-tailed deer (67 in unburned control plots and 181 in prescribed burn plots). During the white-tailed deer surveys (n = 67) conducted within the four study plots after prescribed burning activities (during 2012−2014), we counted a total of 64 white-tailed deer (20 in unburned control plots and 54 in prescribed burn plots).
The relative abundance of white-tailed deer observed in the two study plots that received prescribed burns decreased after those actions were initiated. We found a significant treatment x timing (i.e., pre vs. post) interaction (F3,456 = 9.70, p < 0.01). Compared to the 3 years prior to burning activities, white-tailed deer use of the two plots that were prescribed burning was lower, whereas deer use of the two unburned treatment plots was not different (Figure 5).
White-tailed deer use of the study plots varied among the months of the year and was highest during winter months (December through March) and lowest during fall (September and October). Prescribed burning of the study plots drastically reduced the use of the burned plots by deer during late winter as well as during summer.

4. Discussion

We acknowledge that due to logistical constraints and other factors, there are clear limitations to our study (i.e., we were only able to implement one plot of each treatment combination). Our goal was to gain some initial insights into the influence of land management tools (i.e., prescribed burning, long-term biosolid applications), and we believe we were able to achieve that with our efforts. The findings from our research effort strongly suggest that prescribed burning and land application of biosolids to grasslands in the eastern USA have the potential to influence plant communities and the wildlife species that use them. We recommend future studies be conducted with more robust designs, allowing for a more rigorous assessment of the influence of these land management tools in anthropogenically altered and natural grasslands.
Prescribed burning activities resulted in significant changes to the plant communities within grasslands on the MCAS Cherry Point airfield. Prescribed burning in winter reduced the amount of litter and increased bare ground in grasslands during the spring months. The composition of plant communities in grassland areas that were prescribed burning had increased levels of forbs and legumes, vines, and woody plants compared to unburned grasslands.
Overall, the prescribed burning of the grasslands at MCAS Cherry Point had limited influence on the avian communities that used those grasslands. A few species-specific responses to the prescribed burning of grasslands were evident. Warblers and song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) used the burn-only study plot the most, likely attracted by some aspect of the plant community in that area, possibly taller woody plants or forbs that were useful as perch sites and/or foraging substrates [40,41,42].
The land application of biosolids influenced the bird communities present in those areas in this study, a finding consistent with a previous study conducted in the grasslands at MCAS Cherry Point [21]. American robins (omnivore: ground forager), European starlings (omnivore: ground forager), and mourning doves (granivore: ground gleaner) were observed almost exclusively in the two plots that received biosolids, likely because these grasslands provided a specific foraging opportunity for these species, such as plant seeds or insects on bare ground [43,44].
Eastern meadowlarks were the most abundant bird using grasslands on the MCAS Cherry Point airfield in this study, a finding consistent with previous research [21]. Meadowlarks (omnivore: ground forager) were commonly observed using all four study plots, but they were more abundant in the prescribed burn-only and prescribed burn and bio-solids-treated plots. These plots had the tallest vegetation, and thus the birds were likely using the vegetation in these plots to meet their life-history requirements, such as nesting, singing, perches, or for foraging [45,46,47].
The prescribed burning of grasslands at MCAS Cherry Point resulted in drastic reductions in white-tailed deer use in both study plots that received winter prescribed burns, as well as the adjacent unburned study plots. This finding was unexpected, as we predicted burning would result in an initial increase in plant diversity and forages available to deer. We acknowledge that this finding could be due to the limited number of treatment plots that we were able to implement in this study; however, given the magnitude of the observed effects, we believe our results are likely indicative of biologically important changes due to the prescribed burning. We recommend that large studies in other areas (e.g., other airports) be conducted to further our understanding of this aspect of prescribed burning and wildlife response.
White-tailed deer were observed in the grasslands on the MCAS Cherry Point airfield throughout the year, but they used those grasslands more during the winter and spring months. Broad-leaved herbaceous plants [e.g., clovers (Trifolium spp. L.), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale G. H. Weber ex Wiggers)] and woody plants comprise the majority of white-tailed deer diets, with relatively small amounts of grass consumed [48,49,50]. Washburn and Seamans [51] found that decreasing forbs and legumes (via herbicide applications) reduced white-tailed deer use of cool-season grasslands during the summer months. In this study, we suspect that the winter prescribed burning activities removed available forages within the study plots concurrent with the time of year that white-tailed deer use airfield grasslands the most.

5. Conclusions

Land management activities (i.e., prescribed burning and land application of biosolids) altered plant community characteristics and wildlife use of study plots on the MCAS Cherry Point airfield. Prescribed burning influenced grasslands the most during the first few months following burning activities. Responses by birds to prescribed burning and biosolids application were species-specific and related to foraging guilds of grassland birds. White-tailed deer exhibited a strong negative response to annual prescribed burning in winter. We encourage the scientific community to conduct additional research to better understand if and how plant community and wildlife respond to prescribed burning and the land application of biosolids, alone and in combination with other grassland management tools (e.g., herbicides and plant growth regulators).
Species-specific responses by wildlife to anthropogenic activities (both potentially positive and negative depending on desired outcomes) should be considered during decision-making processes and cost–benefit analyses. We recommend land managers and planners consider the use of prescribed burning and application of biosolids in eastern grasslands (including those on civilian airports and military airfields) as viable methods for changing plant communities and decreasing the use of these areas by white-tailed deer (when that is a desired goal).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.W. and M.B.; methodology, B.W.; validation, B.W.; analysis, B.W. writing—original draft preparation, B.W.; writing—review and editing, B.W. and M.B.; project administration, B.W.; funding acquisition, B.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point provided funding (15-7439-1109-IA) for this study. This research was [in part] funded by the intramural research program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The National Wildlife Research Center Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved procedures involving birds and white-tailed deer (QA-1932).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All of the data for this study are archived at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center.

Acknowledgments

United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services employees C. Bowser, S. Ball, and J. Nevins provided field assistance for the study. We thank the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point’s Environmental Affairs Division for providing access to the airfield (study sites), prescribed burning crews, and information related to biosolids disposal at the facility. We thank B. Blackwell, T DeVault, T. Seamans, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Waldrop, T.A.; White, D.L.; Jones, S.M. Fire regimens for pine-grassland communities in the southeastern United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 1992, 47, 195–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Elliott, K.J.; Hendrick, R.L.; Major, A.E.; Vose, J.M.; Swank, W.T. Vegetation dynamics after a prescribed fire in the southern Appalachians. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 114, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Johnson, A.S.; Hale, P.E. The historical foundation of prescribed burning for wildlife: A southeastern perspective. In The Role of Fire in Nongame Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions; Ford, W.M., Russell, K.R., Moorman, C.E., Eds.; General Technical Report NE-288; USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: Newton Square, PA, USA, 2000; pp. 11–23. [Google Scholar]
  4. van Lear, D.H.; Harlow, R.F. Fire in the eastern United States: Influence on wildlife habitat. In The Role of Fire in Nongame Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions; Ford, W.M., Russell, K.R., Moorman, C.E., Eds.; General Technical Report NE-288; USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: Newton Square, PA, USA, 2000; pp. 2–10. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wood, G.W. Effects of prescribed fire on deer forage and nutrients. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1998, 16, 180–183. [Google Scholar]
  6. Main, M.B.; Richardson, L.W. Response of wildlife to prescribed fire in southwest Florida pine flatwoods. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002, 30, 213–221. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Harrell, W.C.; Engle, D.M.; Hamilton, R.G.; Davis, C.M.; Leslie, D.M. Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. Ecol. Appl. 2006, 16, 1706–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Washburn, B.E.; Barnes, T.G.; Sole, J.D. Improving northern bobwhite habitat by converting tall fescue fields to native warm-season grasses. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2000, 28, 97–104. [Google Scholar]
  9. Coppedge, B.R.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Harrell, W.C.; Engle, D.M. Avian community response to vegetation and structural features in grasslands managed with fire and grazing. Biol. Conser. 2008, 141, 1196–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lu, Q.; He, Z.L.; Stoffella, P.J. Land application of biosolids in the U.S.A.: A review. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2012, 2012, 201462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wallace, B.M.; Krzic, M.; Newman, R.F.; Forge, T.A.; Broersma, K.; Neilsen, G. Soil aggregate dynamics and plant community response after biosolids application in a semiarid grassland. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 1663–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vasseur, L.; Cloutier, C.; Ansseau, C. Effects of repeated sewage sludge application on plant community diversity and structure under agricultural field conditions on Podzolic soils in eastern Quebec. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 81, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gaskin, J.W.; Brobst, R.B.; Miller, W.P.; Tollner, E.W. Long-term biosolids application effects on metal concentrations in soil and bermudagrass forage. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Fresquez, P.R.; Francis, R.E.; Dennis, G.L. Soil and vegetation responses to sewage sludge on a degraded semiarid broom snakeweed/blue grama plant community. J. Range Manag. 1990, 43, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mata-Gonza´lez, R.; Sosebee, R.E.; Wan, C. Effect of types of biosolids and cattle manure on desert grass growth. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 59, 664–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cogger, C.G.; Bary, A.I.; Myhre, E.A.; Fortuna, A.-M. Biosolids applications to tall fescue have long-term influence on soil nitrogen, carbon, and phosphorus. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 516–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Dutch, J.; Woldstenholme, R. The effects of sewage sludge application to a heath land site prior to planting with Sitka spruce. For. Ecol. Manag. 1994, 66, 151–163. [Google Scholar]
  18. Henry, C.L.; Cole, D.W.; Harrison, R.B. Use of municipal sludge to restore and improve site productivity in forestry: The Pack Forest Sludge Research Program. For. Ecol. Manag. 1984, 66, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moreno-Penaranda, R.; Lloret, F.; Alcaniz, J.M. Effects of sewage sludge on plant community composition in restored limestone quarries. Restor. Ecol. 2004, 12, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Evanylo, G.K.; Abaye, A.O.; Dundas, C.; Zipper, C.E.; Lemus, R.; Sukkariyah, B.; Rockett, J. Herbaceous vegetation productivity, persistence, and metal uptake on a biosolids-amended mine soil. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 1811–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Washburn, B.E.; Begier, M.J. Wildlife Responses to long-term application of biosolids to grasslands in North Carolina. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 63, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gaudreault, E.S.; Lalonde, R.G.; Lawson, K.; Doyle, F.I.; Hodges, K.E. Biosolids application increases grasshopper abundance in the short term in a northern Canadian grassland. Rangel. J. 2019, 41, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ormrod, A.E.C.; Doyle, F.I.; Lawson, K.J.; Hodges, K.E. Niche partitioning of avian predators in northern grasslands amended by biosolids. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 6248–6259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Meineke, J.K.; Doyle, F.I.; Oukil, L.; Hodges, K.E. Small mammal responses to biosolids on grazed rangelands in British Columbia. Restor. Ecol. 2024, 32, e14063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Goodwin, R.A. Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
  26. Schafale, M.P.; Weakley, A.S. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation; North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation: Raleigh, NC, USA, 1990.
  27. USDA, ITIS. The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) On-Line Database. 2015. Available online: http://www.itis.usda.gov (accessed on 15 July 2020).
  28. Herkert, J.R. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecol. Appl. 1994, 4, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Walk, J.W.; Warner, R.E. Grassland management for the conservation of songbirds in the midwestern USA. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 94, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Larkin, J.L.; Barnes, T.G.; Depoy-Smith, M.; Maehr, D.S. A comparison of avian communities occupying native and exotic grasslands in Kentucky: A preliminary study. N. Am. Prairie Conf. 2001, 17, 201–205. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mooreman, C.E.; Klimstra, R.L.; Harper, C.A.; Marcus, J.F.; Sorenson, C.E. Breeding songbird use of native warm-seaosn and non-native cool-season grass forage fields. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2017, 41, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Packard, S.; Mutel, C.F. The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook for Prairies, Savannas, and Woodlands; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bonham, C.E. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ralph, C.J.; Sauer, J.R.; Droege, S. Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts; General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-149; US Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service: Albany, CA, USA, 1995.
  35. Bibby, C.J.; Burgess, N.D.; Hill, D.A.; Mustoe, S.H. Bird Census Techniques, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zar, J.H. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  37. Neter, J.; Wasserman, W.; Kutner, M.H. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3rd ed.; Irwin Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  38. Buckland, S.T.; Anderson, D.R.; Burnham, K.P.; Laake, J.L.; Borchers, D.L.; Thomas, L. Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  39. DeGraff, R.M.; Tilghman, N.G.; Anderson, S.H. Foraging guilds of North America birds. Environ. Manag. 1985, 9, 493–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Burger, L.W.; Kurzejeski, T.V.; Dailey, T.V.; Ryan, M.R. Structural characteristics of vegetation in CRP fields in northern Missouri and their suitability as bobwhite habitat. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 1990, 55, 74–83. [Google Scholar]
  41. Millenbah, K.F.; Winterstein, S.R.; Campa, H., III; Furrow, L.T.; Minnis, R.B. Effects of Conservation Reserve Program field age on avian relative abundance, diversity, and productivity. Wilson Bull. 1996, 108, 760–770. [Google Scholar]
  42. Norment, C.J.; Ardizzone, C.D.; Hartman, K. Habitat relations and breeding biology of grassland birds in New York. Stud. Avian Biol. 1999, 19, 112–121. [Google Scholar]
  43. Delisle, J.M.; Savidge, J.A. Avian use and vegetation characteristics of conservation reserve program fields. J. Wildl. Manag. 1997, 61, 318–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fisher, R.J.; Davis, S.K. From Wiens to Robel: A review of grassland-bird habitat selection. J. Wildl. Manag. 2010, 74, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bollinger, E.K. Successional changes and habitat selection in hayfield bird communities. Auk 1995, 112, 720–730. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lanyon, W.E. Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna). No. 160. In The Birds of North America Online; Poole, A., Ed.; Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2005; Available online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/160 (accessed on 20 June 2020). [CrossRef]
  47. Warren, K.A.; Anderson, J.T. Grassland songbird nest-site selection and response to mowing in West Virginia. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2005, 33, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nixon, C.M.; McClain, M.W.; Russell, K.R. Deer food habits and range characteristics in Ohio. J. Wildl. Manag. 1970, 34, 870–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Korschgen, L.J.; Porath, W.J.; Torgerson, O. Spring and summer foods of deer in the Missouri Ozarks. J. Wildl. Manag. 1980, 44, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rose, J.; Harder, J.D. Seasonal feeding habits of an enclosed high density white-tailed deer herd in northern Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 1985, 85, 184–190. [Google Scholar]
  51. Washburn, B.E.; Seamans, T.W. Wildlife responses to vegetation height management in cool-season grasslands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 60, 319–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fire 07 00112 g001
Figure 1. Schematic map of Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, NC, USA, showing the location of airfield grasslands and the location of the 4 treatment study plots.
Figure 1. Schematic map of Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, NC, USA, showing the location of airfield grasslands and the location of the 4 treatment study plots.
Fire 07 00112 g001
Fire 07 00112 g002
Figure 2. Relative percent cover of vegetation composition components [i.e., (A) total vegetative canopy cover, (B) bare ground, (C) litter, and (D) plant species richness] in four treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, USA, during spring and fall of 2012, 2013, and 2014 (after prescribed burning treatments were applied).
Figure 2. Relative percent cover of vegetation composition components [i.e., (A) total vegetative canopy cover, (B) bare ground, (C) litter, and (D) plant species richness] in four treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, USA, during spring and fall of 2012, 2013, and 2014 (after prescribed burning treatments were applied).
Fire 07 00112 g002
Fire 07 00112 g003
Figure 3. Relative percent cover of vegetation composition components [i.e., (A) grasses, (B) forbs and legumes, and (C) woody plants] in four treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, USA, during spring and fall of 2012, 2013, and 2014 (after prescribed burning treatments were applied).
Figure 3. Relative percent cover of vegetation composition components [i.e., (A) grasses, (B) forbs and legumes, and (C) woody plants] in four treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, USA, during spring and fall of 2012, 2013, and 2014 (after prescribed burning treatments were applied).
Fire 07 00112 g003
Fire 07 00112 g004
Figure 4. Proportion of birds from various foraging guilds observed using unburned and prescribed burn-Wtreated plots at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, NC, USA, January 2012 through January 2015.
Figure 4. Proportion of birds from various foraging guilds observed using unburned and prescribed burn-Wtreated plots at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, NC, USA, January 2012 through January 2015.
Fire 07 00112 g004
Fire 07 00112 g005
Figure 5. Mean number of white-tailed deer observed per survey in two unburned (one with and one without biosolids) and two prescribed burn (one with and one without biosolids) study plots located on the airfield at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, NC, during 3 years prior to (2009–2011) and during the first 3 years after an annual prescribed burning program was initiated (2012–2014).
Figure 5. Mean number of white-tailed deer observed per survey in two unburned (one with and one without biosolids) and two prescribed burn (one with and one without biosolids) study plots located on the airfield at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, NC, during 3 years prior to (2009–2011) and during the first 3 years after an annual prescribed burning program was initiated (2012–2014).
Fire 07 00112 g005
Table 1. Mean (±SE) vegetation height (cm) in four treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, during 2012, 2013, and 2014 (the first 3 growing seasons after prescribed burning treatments were applied).
Table 1. Mean (±SE) vegetation height (cm) in four treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, during 2012, 2013, and 2014 (the first 3 growing seasons after prescribed burning treatments were applied).
Untreated ControlPrescribed
Burn-Only		Biosolids
Only		Burn and Biosolids-Treated
201219.3 ± 0.8 a 128.8 ± 1.3 b27.7 ± 1.3 b29.5 ± 0.9 b
20138.6 ± 5.7 a14.8 ± 0.8 c13.4 ± 0.7 c11.0 ± 0.5 b
201417.1 ± 0.7 a29.4 ± 1.4 c23.4 ± 0.9 b26.7 ± 1.2 bc
Combined15.0 ± 0.4 a21.5 ± 0.6 b24.3 ± 0.7 c23.0 ± 0.7 bc
1 Means within the same row with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Fisher’s protected LSD tests.
Table 2. Plant community characteristics in treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, during 2012–2014. Reported as Mean (±SE).
Table 2. Plant community characteristics in treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, during 2012–2014. Reported as Mean (±SE).
CharacteristicUnburnedPrescribed
Burned 		No Biosolids Biosolids-Treated
Total vegetative cover (%)86.4 ± 0.8 a 185.4 ± 0.8 a89.6 ± 0.8 c82.2 ± 0.8 d
Bare ground (%)5.9 ± 0.7 a13.7 ± 0.7 b5.4 ± 0.7 c14.2 ± 0.7 d
Litter (%)19.3 ± 0.7 a11.6 ± 0.7 b14.9 ± 0.7 c16.0 ± 0.7 c
Number of plant species4.9 ± 0.1 a5.5 ± 0.1 b5.4 ± 0.1 c5.0 ± 0.1 d
Vines (%)5.0 ± 0.6 a10.2 ± 0.6 b10.8 ± 0.6 c4.5 ± 0.6 d
Woody plants (%)1.7 ± 0.3 a2.9 ± 0.3 b2.3 ± 0.3 c2.3 ± 0.3 c
1 Means within the same row and treatment factors (i.e., prescribed burning, biosolids application) with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Fisher’s protected LSD tests.
Table 3. Mean (±SE) grass (%) and forbs and legumes (%) in four treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, during 2012–2014.
Table 3. Mean (±SE) grass (%) and forbs and legumes (%) in four treatment study plots located in grasslands on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point airfield, Havelock, NC, during 2012–2014.
Untreated ControlPrescribed
Burn-Only		Biosolids
Only		Burn and Biosolids-Treated
Grass (%)81.6 ± 1.9 a 172.0 ± 1.9 b65.0 ± 1.9 c45.1 ± 1.9 d
Forbs and legumes (%)10.1 ± 1.7 a15.3 ± 1.7 b27.5 ± 1.7 c38.9 ± 1.7 d
1 Means within the same row with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Fisher’s protected LSD tests.
Table 4. Mean (±SE) no. of birds observed per 3 min survey of selected individual species and guilds of birds associated with or in four treatment study plots at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, NC, January 2013 through January 2015.
Table 4. Mean (±SE) no. of birds observed per 3 min survey of selected individual species and guilds of birds associated with or in four treatment study plots at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, NC, January 2013 through January 2015.
Species or GuildUntreated ControlPrescribed Burn-OnlyBiosolids-OnlyBurn and Biosolids-Treated
Eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella magna)		1.70 ± 0.24 ab 12.24 ± 0.29 a1.18 ± 0.19 b2.50 ± 0.33 a
Song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia)		0.28 ± 0.09 a1.01 ± 0.24 bc1.41 ± 0.27 c0.78 ± 0.17 ab
European starling
(Sturnus vulgaris)		0.07 ± 0.06 a0.10 ± 0.06 a1.62 ± 0.55 b1.95 ± 0.82 b
Killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus)		0.03 ± 0.02 a0.18 ± 0.06 a0.20 ± 0.07 a0.61 ± 0.32 a
Mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura)		0.02 ± 0.02 a0.01 ± 0.01 a0.52 ± 0.34 a0.14 ± 0.10 a
Horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris)		0.04 ± 0.04 a0.21 ± 0.11 a0.20 ± 0.07 a0.05 ± 0.03 a
American robin
(Turdus migratorius)		0 a0 a0.21 ± 0.12 a0.37 ± 0.28 a
Northern bobwhite
(Colinus virginianus)		0.09 ± 0.04 a0.15 ± 0.07 a0.02 ± 0.02 a0.15 ± 0.01 a
Brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater)		0.06 ± 0.04 a0.10 ± 0.07 a0.18 ± 0.17 a0.14 ± 0.11 a
Red-winged blackbird
(Agelaius phoeniceus)		0.03 ± 0.03 a0.09 ± 0.06 a0.08 ± 0.03 a0.23 ± 0.08 a
Swallows 20.12 ± 0.04 a0.16 ± 0.05 a0.08 ± 0.04 a0.17 ± 0.06 a
Crows 30.05 ± 0.04 a0.03 ± 0.02 a0.03 ± 0.02 a0.05 ± 0.03 a
Raptors 40.05 ± 0.03 a0.08 ± 0.03 a0.10 ± 0.06 a0.03 ± 0.01 a
Shorebirds 50.01 ± 0.01 a0 a0.14 ± 0.08 b0 a
Warblers 60.04 ± 0.02 ab0.11 ± 0.04 a0.01 ± 0.01 b0.01 ± 0.01 b
All Species Combined2.66 ± 0.29 a4.54 ± 0.47 b7.36 ± 0.92 c6.44 ± 1.20 c
1 Means within the same row with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Fisher’s protected LSD tests. 2 Swallows include barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), cliff swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryz serripennis), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), and purple martin (Progne subis). 3 Crows include American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and fish crow (Corvus ossifragus). 4 Raptors include American kestrel (Falco sparverius), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawk, and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). 5 Shorebirds include least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), and Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata), but not killdeer (listed separately above as a species). 6 Warblers include common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), prairie warbler (Setophaga discolor), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Washburn, B.; Begier, M. Using Prescribed Fire and Biosolids Applications as Grassland Management Tools: Do Wildlife Respond? Fire 2024, 7, 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7040112

AMA Style

Washburn B, Begier M. Using Prescribed Fire and Biosolids Applications as Grassland Management Tools: Do Wildlife Respond? Fire. 2024; 7(4):112. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7040112

Chicago/Turabian Style

Washburn, Brian, and Michael Begier. 2024. "Using Prescribed Fire and Biosolids Applications as Grassland Management Tools: Do Wildlife Respond?" Fire 7, no. 4: 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7040112

APA Style

Washburn, B., & Begier, M. (2024). Using Prescribed Fire and Biosolids Applications as Grassland Management Tools: Do Wildlife Respond? Fire, 7(4), 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7040112

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop