Effects of Fire on Wildlife

Fire can have both positive and negative effects on wildlife. The specific effects depend upon the frequency, intensity, severity, and season of burning, as well as the particular species habitat requirements (Harlow and Van Lear 1981, Harlow and Van Lear 1987, Lyon and others 1978, Wood 1981). Prescribed fire is used to improve habitat for certain wildlife species on some National Forests in the southern Appalachians. However, fire may degrade habitat for other species. Van Lear and Waldrop (1988) warn that "to effectively use prescribed fire to benefit wildlife requires an understanding of the habitat requirements of each species."

Fire effects on wildlife are mainly indirect through changes in food and cover. Fires can increase the amount of forest edges and browse material, thereby improving conditions for deer and other wildlife. Quail and turkey favor food species and semi-open or open conditions that can be created and maintained by fire. Some wildlife species depend on habitat maintained by fire at frequent intervals. For example, the endangered red cockaded woodpecker inhabits longleaf pine woodlands that extend into the mountains of northern Alabama and Georgia. Cavity trees of the red cockaded woodpecker can be ignited due to the copious amounts of dried resin that stretch from the nest cavity toward the ground. To prevent this, Wade and Lundsford (1988) suggest prescribing fire with short flame lengths and raking fuel from around cavity trees.

Prescribed burns to improve wildlife habitat are normally conducted in the winter to avoid the spring nesting season (Mobley and others 1978). Deer and turkey are favored by burns at about 3- to 5-year intervals; appropriate burning frequencies for other species are not well known. Although burning for wildlife-habitat improvement is normally associated with pine management, low-intensity burns in hardwood or mixed pine-hardwood stands also increase sprouting of advanced regeneration and stimulate production of herbaceous forage. More intense burns can be beneficial where they increase the abundance of legumes and other herbaceous and perennial plants preferred by many wildlife species (Van Lear and Waldrop 1988).

Deleterious effects of prescribed fire on wildlife can include destruction of nesting sites and possible killing of birds, reptiles, or mammals trapped in the fire. Remarkably, however, most studies of prescribed burns report small effects on wildlife populations. For example, Ford (1999) reported that populations of small mammals and herpetofauna did not differ between burned and control areas in an oak-pine forest in Wine Spring Creek, NC; they suggested that concern for the effects of prescribed fire on small mammals and herpetofauna in the southern Appalachians seems unwarranted. Kirkland and others (1996) investigated the impact of fire on wildlife in an oak-dominated forest in southern Pennsylvania and found that significantly more amphibians were captured in the burned forest. In contrast, however, shrews, rodents, and total small mammals were significantly less abundant in burned than in unburned forest, but only for the first 3 months (Kirkland and others 1996).

Precautions can be taken to minimize deleterious effects of prescribed fires on wildlife. For example, prescribed fires should be planned for seasons when nests are not in use. Also, prescribed burns should be planned to provide ample escape routes for wildlife. The ill-advised practice of lighting all sides of a burn area (ring firing) is a primary cause of animal entrapment (Wade and Lundsford 1988).

Prescribed fire can have adverse effects on fish habitat, by removing sources of shade and increasing water temperatures. Wade and Lundsford (1988) recommend excluding riparian (streamside) vegetation from prescribed burns and using buffer zones to protect high-quality plant and animal habitat and water quality.