Use prescribed burning on coastal habitats

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be ineffective or harmful
Number of studies: 3
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

20%
Certainty

40%
Harms

30%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Study locations

Key messages

Of three studies captured, one replicated, controlled, paired sites study from the USA found that there was a fall in breeding seaside sparrow numbers on a burned site in the year it was burned. The next year, numbers were higher than on an unburned site. A controlled study in Argentina found that tall-grass specialist species were lost from burned areas in the year of burning, but that some habitats recovered by the following year.
A replicated controlled study from the USA found no differences in nest predation rates between burned and unburned areas for two years after burning.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, controlled paired sites trial in 1996-1998 on a salt marsh in Rockefeller State Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana, USA (Gabrey & Afton 2000), found that seaside sparrow Ammodramus maritimus numbers were lower on four burned plots than on unburned controls in the breeding season after the burn (0-3 males/survey for burned areas vs. 7-12 for unburned). However, numbers were higher on burned plots the following year (16 males/survey vs. 8). Sparrow numbers were similar across plots in 1996, before burning, which occurred in 9-18 January 1997. Territorial male sparrows were recorded in April-July in 1996-1998 in each 250 x 250 m plot.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Gabrey S.W. & Afton A.D. (2000) Effects of winter marsh burning on abundance and nesting activity of Louisiana seaside sparrows in the Gulf Coast Chenier Plain. The Wilson Bulletin, 112, 365-372.
A controlled study on salt marsh at Mar Chiquita Biosphere Reserve, Chaco, Argentina (Isacch et al. 2004), found that during 12 months after prescribed burns, specialist grassland birds reliant on taller grassland were absent, whilst common widespread species remained. A 200 ha spring burn in September 1995 encompassed Spartina spp. marsh and Juncus spp. marsh and although Juncus marsh recovered pre-burn vegetation structure within a year, Spartina marsh had not recovered to its original condition (the vegetation was still short). The bird community and relative abundances of bird species using Juncus marsh a year after burning were similar to that in unburned areas, but bay-capped wren-spinetail Spartonoica maluroides was present within burned areas at lower abundance than unburned habitat.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Isacch J.P., Holz S., Ricci L. & Martinez M.M. (2004) Post-fire vegetation change and bird use of a salt marsh in coastal Argentina. Wetlands, 24, 235-243.
A replicated, controlled study on Spartina marshland at Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and Fishing Bay Wildlife Management Area, Maryland, USA (Almario et al. 2009), found no significant difference in overall predation rates of seaside sparrow nests between three plots burned in January-March 2002-2003 and three plots last burned in 1994 (37-41% of 130 nests in burned areas predated vs. 27-43% of 112 in unburned areas). In 2002, but not 2003, predation rates in the incubation period were higher for burned areas (35% of 51 nests) than unburned areas (13% of 45).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Almario B.S., Marra P.P., Gates J.E. & Mitchell L. (2009) Effects of prescribed fire on depredation rates of natural and artificial seaside sparrow nests. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology (formerly The Wilson Bulletin), 121, 770-777.

Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use prescribed burning on coastal habitats Action Link	Likely to be ineffective or harmful	3	Synopsis Link
Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	2	Synopsis Link
Mow or cut reedbeds Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link